Yes, we can only base our current knowledge on what we know today.
Please.....All we really know for certain is that we are here. Where ever here is. your joking right? We only have a cursory understanding of our own planet let alone the creation/origin of the entire universe.
Originally posted by MyUncle Please.....All we really know for certain is that we are here. Where ever here is. your joking right? We only have a cursory understanding of our own planet let alone the creation/origin of the entire universe.
Um, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? I fully support the opinion that we don't know how we got here. Read my statement again - it's kind of hard to argue against.
Evolution, on the other hand, is one of the most well-supported theories that exists today. We know more about evolution than we do about gravity (we're still not entirely sure on why objects with larger mass attract other objects or how it works).
__________________
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death"
I just think you're sounding awfully condescending considering how little we actually KNOW beyond doubt! In the larger scheme of things we are still just scratching at the surface. Most of our so called knowledge of this planet is still based upon theories we can neither prove nor disprove. none of us are justified in being too arrogant just yet.
No one here owe's anyone any response..... and a lack of a timely response should not be taken as proof of your point or as an opportunity for shameless derogatory comments of a contrary view point. This might be considered "grand standing"!
All I really want to convey is for you to be careful not to be misunderstood. It is very easy for people in forums like this to come across as rash and self absorbed without intending to.
Originally posted by MyUncle I just think you're sounding awfully condescending considering how little we actually KNOW beyond doubt! In the larger scheme of things we are still just scratching at the surface. Most of our so called knowledge of this planet is still based upon theories we can neither prove nor disprove. none of us are justified in being too arrogant just yet.
The theories of how the Earth and universe were created cannot be tested - but the age of the Earth and evolution have very strong evidence. Evolution is not just a guess. I think you keep trying to lump abiogenesis and the creation of the universe into my argument - I certainly don't claim that anyone knows how those started. What I'd like to point out is that we're not just guessing how animals evolved - we have a theory that is backed by mountains of evidence.
Quote:
Originally posted by MyUncle No one here owe's anyone any response..... and a lack of a timely response should not be taken as proof of your point or as an opportunity for shameless derogatory comments of a contrary view point. This might be considered "grand standing"!
I've seen this tactic too many times to think that Null just "didn't have enough time". I call 'em as I see 'em. If he was truly interested in learning about evolution, he would've stuck around to ask more questions.
Quote:
Originally posted by MyUncle All I really want to convey is for you to be careful not to be misunderstood. It is very easy for people in forums like this to come across as rash and self absorbed without intending to.
Agreed - and I don't mean to be condescending about the age of the Earth and evolution. I was condescending towards Null, but that was only after I figured I'd lost him for good.
__________________
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death"
The theories of how the Earth and universe were created cannot be tested - but the age of the Earth and evolution have very strong evidence
But much of this STRONG evidence is based upon LAWS like the laws of gravity that, as you stated, we do not fully understand yet. It is entirely plausible that as we gain further understanding that much of this STRONG evidence will lose it's strength.
Quote:
I've seen this tactic too many times to think that Null just "didn't have enough time". I call 'em as I see 'em. If he was truly interested in learning about evolution, he would've stuck around to ask more questions.
This is fine with me, but do not try to act surprised when what you see as a tactic turns out to be something altogether different. Personally I was without broadband over the holidays as my cable modem died. It was replaced by the cable co/ this wed. afternoon. I had barely visited or commented here because it was temporarily inconvenient to do so. I have also had periods of time where I really wanted to monitor a particular thread here but was unable due to other more pressing responsabilies like my 4 children and stuff going on for them. Sports, school awards, teacher conferences, dinner with my wife, there are a multitude of things that take presedence over monitoring these forums. I hardly see any of these a good reason to be demeaned. But that's just my humble opinion.
Originally posted by MyUncle But much of this STRONG evidence is based upon LAWS like the laws of gravity that, as you stated, we do not fully understand yet. It is entirely plausible that as we gain further understanding that much of this STRONG evidence will lose it's strength.
And that's why I said that we can only base what we know on what we know. Sure, everything could be a grand illusion by some puppet master ... but that doesn't help us explain any thing. Should we just give up the pursuit of knowledge because everything we think we know might be wrong?
__________________
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death"
Originally posted by MyUncle No, we just shouldn't impune others who we do not feel are as knowledgeable as ourselves or at least not be so cocky about it.
I really wasn't trying to be cocky. My original intent was to answer any questions or misconceptions Null had about evolution.
Null just came storming in trying to punch holes into evolution when he really knew nothing about it. It appeared to me that he wasn't really interested in knowing - just finding loopholes.
Now, I know what you're thinking - that's probably what you think I'm doing with the Bible. I tried to read the Bible with an open mind and you know what happened? I was met with the same admonishment that originally turned me away from Christianity ... that I had interpreted wrongly.
At any rate - I don't want to turn this into another religious thread. Just wanted to beat you to the punch before you called me hypocritical.
__________________
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death"
1. Science and the people that follow it are seeking truths base on facts which were created by man.
2. Religion and those who practice believe that the truth is in books written by men on their account of events.
3. Those of us in the middle, laugh at the fact that it all seems trivial. I am sure you both have a name for us.
My point:
Scientists use theories that are an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Religions (all of them) are a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
To me, they are strangely familiar. A belief in something based on that which we have limited information about.
Both Science and Religion both base all of there beliefs in something that have one thing in common, Man. Man has created science, and man created the bible. Both are fallible.
I feel enlightened after reading this post, because I get to look in on both sides of the conversation, take in what it is I think is trying to be said, and ponder what is truly being said.
I hope you all find the answers you are looking for. I am sure they are out there!!
Do a search for the "Relativity of Wrong" - I think it does a good job of showing the difference between what science says is "right" and what religion says is "right". The key that makes science better is that theories can adapt to new facts.
1) Science looks at the facts and comes to a conclusion
2) Religion take a conclusion and tries to manipulate the facts to agree
__________________
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death"
Scientists use theories that are an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Properly speaking, science is based on conclusions arrived at by analysis of evidence. It is mostly inductive, but it is neither assumption nor conjecture, neither of which require facts.
The salient point of science is practicality; does something work? If so, use it. Hence, science looks for methods and ideas that tend to better explain the universe.
I really didn't expect this debate to show up on Aximsite. But anyway, here's a wonderful resource, highly recommended for both parties: Index to Creationist Claims.
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Uber Member
