The Missing Link

[truethat]

I agree with what you say to some degree but notice you use the tactic of "extreme" argument to try to make your point. Oh and toss in a few rolling eyes again. That was sweet!

To suggest for example that carbon based life forms might have MORE or LESS carbon in them in the past based on the cosmic rays which, again, we have no way of knowing were as we estimate them to be. Once again A LEAP OF FAITH. We need to BELIEVE without PROOF that these estimates are correct otherwise the entire process is questionable. So we proceed ahead accepting as FACT something we have no way of proving. This is how carbon dating is done. Just one example.

But go on about the whole world and everything we know it to be yadda yadda yadda. Because of course it is easy to parrot my words as if I am saying that instead of addressing what I am actually saying.

And yes they did need to hold a press conference for Steven Hawkins, not because he was wrong and finally admitting it, but because as I stated, the entire science community is held hostage by the accepted views. It is difficult to get funding to challange the accepted theories. In his case it wouldn't be because it became a huge bet. But there are plenty of scientists who learn to tow the line and cow tow to what the older scientists WANT them to prove.

Edited November 1, 2006 by truethat

[Shaftsbury]

They can't find the transitional forms. So now instead of saying MAYBE we are WRONG. They suggest that the forms experience HUGE JUMPS. This all smacks of them WANTING the theory to be true and trying to find a way to prove it.

From Here

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/a...le/0_0_0/evo_51

In your opinion how many transitional fossils do you need to validate the theory? 1? 10? 100? 1,000,000?

My point is that you don't have to find ALL the transitional fossils to show that animals can evolve over time, you only need to find ONE instance.

I could paste a list of dozens of transitional fossils if you like, but I don't think it's worth my time trying to show you something that you are not interested in learning about.

[Stellar]

Honestly Truethat, you need to educate yourself.

This whole "Missing link" buisness is full of bs.

Look at this, if two fossils are found and are said to be related... you want a transitional fossil. A transitional fossil is found, and then you want transitional fossils between that newly found fossil, and the other two... the process goes on and on and on and you expect to see a transitional fossil for every god damn day.

[the Shadamaun]

Truethat, what do you suggest we do, then? I mean humanity as a whole, what do we do?

What would make you happy?

Do we give up on anything that we cant prove beyond a shadow of a doubt? Do we stop claiming to have a bridge until it has been driven over? How do we learn new things unless we build off of what has come before us? And how do we learn without making mistakes?

I doubt that even you have been absolutely right about everything in your life. Surely, even you have lived as though you knew something to be true, only to eventually find out that maybe you didnt have all of the information. It doesnt make you any less intelligent. The same goes with science. We expand our knowledge off of what has been found before us, and what we can find now.

But if that is unacceptable, if that simple argument holds no merrit for you, then I ask again:

What would make you happy? What do we do?

[truethat]

Honestly Truethat, you need to educate yourself.

This whole "Missing link" buisness is full of bs.

Look at this, if two fossils are found and are said to be related... you want a transitional fossil. A transitional fossil is found, and then you want transitional fossils between that newly found fossil, and the other two... the process goes on and on and on and you expect to see a transitional fossil for every god damn day.

Again a typical response. Extremism. You see? Requesting proof is akin to asking for a transitional fossil for "every god damn day!"

Rather than just a transitional fossil.

And your argument is (as I have stated many times) VEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRY similar to a Religious Fanatics argument.

Ok God gave you a miracle and you want another one....and the process goes on and on until you expect to see a miracle for every god damn day?

No I don't want a transitional fossil? I want Scientists to admit that they might be wrong in this theory, and to stop insisting that it is a fact and teaching it to kids as if it is a fact.

The fervent and irrational responses on here, which have RARELY ever addressed the facts but rather posited that I am a FREAK for requesting proof (see my title I DOUBT. No theory of mine was presented) and personal attacks. Insinuations that I am stupid and uneducated and have no idea what I am talking about. Insinuatons that I want to "rule out EVERYTHING that we know to be true in the natural world" statements that I will never be satisfied until I get a fossil every god damn day. When I said NEITHER of those things.

What I see are shrieking hysterics, ignoring facts that I have posted, wild accusations.

Yep smells like Religion to me.

What do I want Shad?

Well I have said it over and over again. I want the science community to stop forcing this on kids without CLEARLY making it known that its just a theory. Something aquatus seems to think they shouldn't have to do.

I want it to stop being taught as a fact in science class because it is a way of brainwashing kids to think it is a FACT when it is a theory.

Only teach natural selection and those forms of evolution which we can prove are true. Kids can go on to higher forms of evolution once they hit college. But it should ALWAYS be made clear that it is just a theory. If you read the article I posted and go to the website, you will see that it is taught as a fact and there's even a part on how to deal with the idiots who dare to question it.

And additionally what I want is for the science community to get off their damn high horse in the way the treat people who DARE TO DOUBT their precious theory.

Edited November 1, 2006 by truethat

[the Shadamaun]

Again a typical response. Extremism. You see? Requesting proof is akin to asking for a transitional fossil for "every god damn day!"

Rather than just a transitional fossil.

But they have found transitional fossils, and that is not enough to quell your doubt. What do you require as proof, "rather than just a transitional fossil"?

And your argument is (as I have stated many times) VEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRY similar to a Religious Fanatics argument.

Ok God gave you a miracle and you want another one....and the process goes on and on until you expect to see a miracle for every god damn day?

No I don't want a transitional fossil? I want Scientists to admit that they might be wrong in this theory, and to stop insisting that it is a fact and teaching it to kids as if it is a fact.

Scientists aren't teaching this to kids. Its the fundamentalists, or the ID-ists or the people undecided who are assuming that the teachers are missing the finer points of the term "theory", and relaying it as straight fact.

There fervent and irrational responses on here, which have RARELY ever addressed the facts but rather posited that I am a FREAK for requesting proof (see my title I DOUBT. No theory of mine was presented) and personal attacks. Insinuations that I am stupid and uneducated and have no idea what I am talking about. Insinuatons that I want to "rule out EVERYTHING that we know to be true in the natural world" statements that I will never be satisfied until I get a fossil every god damn day. When I said NEITHER of those things.

If you just wanted to state the opinion that you doubt evolution, and didnt want to debate it or have the statement proved one way or the other, you could have left it as that. But you have asked for proof. You asked people to prove you wrong, as opposed to trying to prove yourself right, but you asked for proof. Why ask for proof unles you are attempting to prove an idea, a theory if you will, that science is wrong about evolution? Theories need proof; opinions dont.

Yep smells like Religion to me.

Wait, are you trying to prove that evolution is not a fact and that science is wrong, or that science is like religion?

What do I want Shad?

Well I have said it over and over again. I want the science community to stop forcing this on kids without CLEARLY making it known that its just a theory. Something aquatus seems to think they shouldn't have to do.

Again, its the teachers, not the scientists

I want it to stop being taught as a fact in science class because it is a way of brainwashing kids to think it is a FACT when it is a theory.

It is implied in the word "theory" that it is not a fact; otherwise it would be called a fact.

Only teach natural selection and those forms of evolution which we can prove are true. Kids can go on to higher forms of evolution once they hit college. But it should ALWAYS be made clear that it is just a theory. If you read the article I posted and go to the website, you will see that it is taught as a fact and there's even a part on how to deal with the idiots who dare to question it.

Why get so up in arms about evolution, something as you are right in claiming that we cant prove? Why not also get up in arms when your kids are taught that Columbus "discovered" america, when there were already people here? Dont get so mad at science, when the teachers are the ones relaying the message.

And additionally what I want is for the science community to get off their damn high horse in the way the treat people who DARE TO DOUBT their precious theory.

They put countless manhours into the study and research of these theories. It is only natural to be defensive if someone who has not put forth more research than reading a few articles suddenly assumed the postion that all of their hard work was full of baloney. If the theory can be disproved, its open to anyone with the knowledge to do it.

What I see are shrieking hysterics, ignoring facts that I have posted, wild accusations.

Note: I stayed away from emoticons, or all caps lock or extended word spellings in this post so as not to employ shrieking hysterics in my attempt to address the specifics you posted, or the wild accusations.

Edited November 1, 2006 by the Shadamaun

[Shaftsbury]

OK I'm about ready to give this up, one minute he says there is no evidence of transitional forms, then I offer to show him some, then he changes his mind and says "No I don't want a transitional fossil?" (not sure why he put a question mark in there, I'm assuming he wanted an exclaimation).

[truethat]

I suggest that because you can only argue your points with Creationists and religious people that you don't understand what I am saying. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

I DOUBT evolution. In that doubt I want it to be proven if it is going to be presented as a fact. Which it IS many times in the science community. Did you look at the website I referenced which is funded by the National Science Foundation?

All I see is a lot of avoidance. Its not the "scientists job" to make sure their findings and theories are acurately taught to students.

Really? Then why do they get involved in the discussion at all? They come out full force when Creationists want their DOUBTS voiced. Creationists in the beginning were concerned that macroevolution was being presented as fact to their kids in science class and QUESTIONING or CRITIQUING macroevolution was not allowed if the person questioning it was religious.

And your argument if the theory can be DISPROVED then it is up to anyone to do it is EXACTLY the same argument religious people make about God to an Atheist. They will say "Prove he doesn't exist"

When someone puts forth a theory it is THEIR responsibility to offer proof. If someone doubts the theory you don't tell that person that they are a fool for not believing and need to PROVE it isn't true. You tell the person with the theory that they need to prove it IS true.

What an absolutely ridiculous argument. But sadly a typical science one in the subject.

[truethat]

Perhaps this will make it clearer:

Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter — and listen to the silence.

http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexpla...micro_macro.htm

As you can see it assumes that only "Creationists" would doubt this theory.

So I'll answer his question. What's the difference? Well "time" basically. Its all conjecture to suggest what happened millions of years ago.

Basically you have no way of proving how life began or evolved on the planet.

This theory will ALWAYS be a theory because it can not be proved. For all we know "aliens" could have dropped us a million years ago and we began evolving from there, God could have made us and we began evolving from there, we were single cell organisms and a specific type of meteor crashed on the planet and mutated us and so we began evolving, we just plain evolved, a quirk in the mating system allowing the mating of all different kinds of life in the beginning and we are the result of this......

I mean you don't KNOW. And you WON'T KNOW. It is all just a theory.

You say that it is understood that a theory means that its not a fact but that just goes to show how little you know of what the words "Scientific theory" means.

Again notice the argument is directed at Creationists as if Creationists are the only ones who doubt the theory.

Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven."

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.

It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves. (they say this but don't point out that they are just INTERPRETING the facts the way that supports their theory)

Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.

Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs. 1

Peer review btw is not, as people seem to suggest an objective review. If you don't say what they want you to say it will not get published.

Edited November 1, 2006 by truethat

[truethat]

In your opinion how many transitional fossils do you need to validate the theory? 1? 10? 100? 1,000,000?

My point is that you don't have to find ALL the transitional fossils to show that animals can evolve over time, you only need to find ONE instance.

I could paste a list of dozens of transitional fossils if you like, but I don't think it's worth my time trying to show you something that you are not interested in learning about.

You can show an animal evolves. As I have stated repeatedly, that explains how an animal evolves. Not a common ancestor between apes and humans.

[the Shadamaun]

I suggest that because you can only argue your points with Creationists and religious people that you don't understand what I am saying. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

I DOUBT evolution. In that doubt I want it to be proven if it is going to be presented as a fact.

Ok, you

DOUBT

evolution. What, in your mind, will be the irrefutable proof that will allow it to be taught to children?

Which it IS many times in the science community. Did you look at the website I referenced which is funded by the National Science Foundation?

When was the last time the "science community" agreed on anything? You have stated time and again that there are studies that refute evolution as a viable theory. Who is doing these studies? Scientists, who are members of the "science community".

All I see is a lot of avoidance. Its not the "scientists job" to make sure their findings and theories are acurately taught to students.

Really? Then why do they get involved in the discussion at all?

They get involved in the discussion because it is a discussion about what they are studying. Its not the "scientists job" to come to the schools and teach the children.

They come out full force when Creationists want their DOUBTS voiced. Creationists in the beginning were concerned that macroevolution was being presented as fact to their kids in science class and QUESTIONING or CRITIQUING macroevolution was not allowed if the person questioning it was religious.

If the creationists can present any other information that can stand up against the research and data that the scientists have accumulated other than the Bible, then maybe their doubts would be viewed more seriously.

And your argument if the theory can be DISPROVED then it is up to anyone to do it is EXACTLY the same argument religious people make about God to an Atheist. They will say "Prove he doesn't exist"

When someone puts forth a theory it is THEIR responsibility to offer proof. If someone doubts the theory you don't tell that person that they are a fool for not believing and need to PROVE it isn't true. You tell the person with the theory that they need to prove it IS true.

What an absolutely ridiculous argument. But sadly a typical science one in the subject.

When did I ever use the word "fool", or tell you to "prove it isnt true"?

What I said was

If the theory can be disproved, its open to anyone with the knowledge to do it.

The same knowledge and information is available to people who believe the theory as to those who do not. If anyone wants to disprove it, or come up with a new theory, they are free to do so. Part of proving a theory is attempting to disprove it to see if it holds up. If the only argument you have against the theory is that you dont think it is sound enough, but you have nothing to add toward proving or disproving it, what are you really doing? Not much besides voicing an opinion.

[the Shadamaun]

This theory will ALWAYS be a theory because it can not be proved. For all we know "aliens" could have dropped us a million years ago and we began evolving from there, God could have made us and we began evolving from there, we were single cell organisms and a specific type of meteor crashed on the planet and mutated us and so we began evolving, we just plain evolved, a quirk in the mating system allowing the mating of all different kinds of life in the beginning and we are the result of this......

I mean you don't KNOW. And you WON'T KNOW. It is all just a theory.

You say that it is understood that a theory means that its not a fact but that just goes to show how little you know of what the words "Scientific theory" means.

Again notice the argument is directed at Creationists as if Creationists are the only ones who doubt the theory.

That bit about aliens and god and meteors is what I meant earlier about disregarding all of the knowledge we have acquired up to this point. If you base your theory on the observable rules of nature, and how things work now then you can postulate an educated theory. If you completly disregard science, you could say that god or an alien or a mutant from a meteor started life on earth. And notice, I added aliens and meteors for the "non-creationists" who also doubt the theory.

You can show an animal evolves. As I have stated repeatedly, that explains how an animal evolves. Not a common ancestor between apes and humans.

I may be mistaken, but you dont seem to refute that animals evolve. And part of evolution, as you have also not refuted, is natural selection. The penguin is related to the eagle, by way of the archeopterix (or perhaps a closer relative; im not claiming to be a paleontologist, but it was the first primitive bird i could think of). The hippo and the whale are related (by way of some prehistoric beastie i cant remember the name of). Natural selection played a role in the formation and evolution of those very different, yet related species. Are you claiming that humans are not animals, that wouldnt follow the same paths as all of the other animals?

[Shaftsbury]

You can show an animal evolves. As I have stated repeatedly, that explains how an animal evolves. Not a common ancestor between apes and humans.

So if I understand you correctly you believe that transitional fossils show the evolution of animals, but that humans should be concidered seperately under the "Theory of Evolution". ?

[the Shadamaun]

I think thats what hes saying; that humans arent animals, so we dont evolve

[Shaftsbury]

I really don't have a problem with that website he mentioned, here is a quote from one of their pages:

The three domains

This tree, like all phylogenetic trees, is a hypothesis about the relationships among organisms. It illustrates the idea that all of life is related and can be divided into three major clades, often referred to as the three domains: Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryota. We can zoom in on particular branches of the tree to explore the phylogeny of particular lineages, such as Animalia (outlined in red). And then we can zoom in even further to examine some of the major lineages within Vertebrata. Just click the button below.

The tree is supported by many lines of evidence, but it is probably not flawless. Scientists constantly reevaluate hypotheses and compare them to new evidence. As scientists gather even more data, they may revise these particular hypotheses, rearranging some of the branches on the tree. For example, evidence discovered in the last 50 years suggests that birds are dinosaurs, which required adjustment to several "vertebrate twigs."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/a...le/0_0_0/evo_04

Seems like they are letting people know that the infomation is by no means certain.

Dang Typo's !

Edited November 1, 2006 by Shaftsbury

[truethat]

If the theory can be disproved, its open to anyone with the knowledge to do it.

This is what you said.

And now I am saying humans are not animals. Hmmm

And again the extremism. Don't you see a pattern yet. When you can't argue the point make wild extreme accusations of what the other person is trying to say. When you can't argue the point, exaggerate the other person's point so that its not arguable and then suggest that its the other person who stated it.

This is the third time in this conversation that this has been done.

If you would understand me correctly you would see that I am stating, which I have stated repeatedly, that evolution is the "best thing we can come up with so far" in the question of human existance. And so instead of saying that, scientists have insisted that it is a fact.

You all have made the argument that this isn't true but it is true, you just don't want to see the reality of how it is presented to students.

The reason this issue is a hot button issue is because, like religion it tries to explain our origins to some degree. And like religious people, once you think you have the answer if someone questions it you get mad.

All this CRAP about scientists getting angry because they have spent years on this theory, yadda yadda is a bunch of baloney. Scientists have spent years of work on many theories and have been doubted and questioned since the dawn of science. So why is this theory any different?

Why? Well because as I said, this theory is actually evolving into an alternative religious belief, one based on leaps of faith, and belief without proof. And like Religious fanatics the scientists are blinded by their devotion to their "answer."

Edited November 1, 2006 by truethat

[aquatus1]

And now I am saying humans are not animals. Hmmm

And again the extremism. Don't you see a pattern yet. When you can't argue the point make wild extreme accusations of what the other person is trying to say. When you can't argue the point, exaggerate the other person's point so that its not arguable and then suggest that its the other person who stated it.

This is the third time in this conversation that this has been done.

Truethat, has it occurred to you that if the three people still on this thread, and the two others who just gave it up as a bad job, could not understand what it is that you are trying to say, then maybe it is not the fault of all the people who couldn't understand, but of the one person trying to make a point?

[Seraphina]

When you can't argue the point make wild extreme accusations of what the other person is trying to say.

Isn't that what you've been doing? O.o

I've rather forsaken this thread lately, because it's pretty obvious by this point that you have only the most basic layman's grasp on the various theories of evolution (i.e. you know the theory exist, but almost nothing of how it is supposed to operate, or what evidence exists for it), but have dismissed just about every peice of evidence offered to you as 'lies'.

You've even gone so far as to suggest that scientists simply make things up as they go along (yes, yes you're right. We made up the half life or carbon isotopes for example. You caught us).

Honestly, the reason nobody gives a damn what you have to say anymore is because you don't appear to give a damn what anyone else has to say. You asked for evidence, it was given, and you ignored it. You then did a copy paste of some random article (Oh my god! He found an article that disagrees with evolution! Quick! Someone grab a million that do! Because that article is seriously outnumbered )...you don't actually seem to have any thoughts of your own, you just post someone else's.

You want to disprove evolution? Then fine...come to us with a theory that's better. Evolution has withstood the test of time, and will continue to do so, because people far more knowledable on the subject have come along before you trying to disprove it...to date, nobody has. You're free to doubt it, you're free to ignore it, and you're free to live in your "I'm an athiest! Honest!" bubble if you like...but you're certainly not free to accuse us of lying.

Hell, what right to you even have to accuse us of anything? Even if evolution is wrong (which I very much doubt), at least science is trying to answer the questions about where we came from. I'd be very interested to know what theory you have as an alternative...clearly, someone who invests to much time in bashing scientists must have his own explanation to offer in evidence.

I'm not sure you will mind you...you seem to steadfastly avoid the subject.

[truethat]

Again an extreme exaggeration. What evidence that you have shown have I referred to as LIES? In fact I don't remember saying that at all. I said they are THEORIES. I never said lies.

And its funny how you all feel the need to tell me OFF one last time, put in my place and remind me how stupid I am or how I have no grasp whatsoever on evolution.

At the same time never once have you addressed ANY of my doubts.

Ex. The fact that scientists are making a guess when they estimate the amount of carbon in the original life form when they are doing the carbon dating.

Ignored

The fact that the National Science Foundation basically encourages macroevolution (there's not a real difference although you all keep insisting there is) to be taught as a FACT.

Ignored

The fact that there are problems with the theory of evolution that the science community shoves under the carpet such as missing fossil evidence and the dinosaur bones with soft tissue.

Ignored.

You know for all your screaming at me I haven't seen very much proof at all.

Go on. Ignore me. The title of this thread isn't "Oh please come debate with me!"

You know when I have had enough of debating with someone and feel the need to stop, I just stop. I don't post another huge long post whining about it.

And yet again the utter stupidity of science is shown (yes I said stupid) my bad, but I'm sorry it is utterly stupid to continue suggesting that because I doubt the theory I want to DISPROVE EVOLUTION. Its not my job to disprove their theory. Its the scientists job to PROVE IT.

Its very telling actually and shows how you can't comprehend someone saying "I DOUBT IT"

Kinda like the Christian Fanatics doncha think?

Once more with vigor

I DOUBT the theory of evolution. I think there are problems with it and I think that part of the problem is that scientists think that all they have figured out is all they need to know to find the answer. I really imagine that in a thousand years they will look back on this theory much like the theory of the sun revolving around the earth.

Edited November 1, 2006 by truethat

[the Shadamaun]

When did I ever use the word "fool", or tell you to "prove it isnt true"?

What I said was The same knowledge and information is available to people who believe the theory as to those who do not. If anyone wants to disprove it, or come up with a new theory, they are free to do so. Part of proving a theory is attempting to disprove it to see if it holds up. If the only argument you have against the theory is that you dont think it is sound enough, but you have nothing to add toward proving or disproving it, what are you really doing? Not much besides voicing an opinion.

That, for the record, is what I said, and how I explained what it meant when you misenterpreted it earlier.

If you would understand me correctly you would see that I am stating, which I have stated repeatedly, that evolution is the "best thing we can come up with so far" in the question of human existance. And so instead of saying that, scientists have insisted that it is a fact.

Lets not get extreme, now. SOME scientists have insisted this is fact. I know its up to me to prove that not every scientist believes that, are you willing to accept that there may be one scientist out there that doesnt say Evolution is definately a fact? And if there is one, that there may be more? If there is more than one scientist that doesnt believe that Evolution is a cold, hard fact, then certainly it isnt the entire scientific community who insists it is a fact.

You all have made the argument that this isn't true but it is true, you just don't want to see the reality of how it is presented to students.

I see the reality of how it is presented to students. But it is presented to the students by the teachers, not the scientists. And it isnt even every teacher who teaches it as fact, though again, I realize it is up to me to find one teacher that doesnt fit this oversimplification.

The reason this issue is a hot button issue is because, like religion it tries to explain our origins to some degree. And like religious people, once you think you have the answer if someone questions it you get mad.

I am not mad. I am trying to understand why you are so mad that this is going on. Like you said, it is the best theory we have, and it seems to fit the knowledge that we know today.

All this CRAP about scientists getting angry because they have spent years on this theory, yadda yadda is a bunch of baloney. Scientists have spent years of work on many theories and have been doubted and questioned since the dawn of science. So why is this theory any different?

Its not any different. Any of those theories from the dawn of time have had to stand up against both the people who have the knowledge and understanding to debate it intelligently, and the people who chose to shoot it down because it doesnt satisfy their own questions. And, like I already said before, many theories have been shot down as not being realistic or scientifically accurate.

Why? Well because as I said, this theory is actually evolving into an alternative religious belief, one based on leaps of faith, and belief without proof. And like Religious fanatics the scientists are blinded by their devotion to their "answer."

Now that is pretty extreme. It is safe to assume that from that statement, you are using the phrases "evolving into an alternative religious belief" and "religious fanatics" to be less than glowing terminology.

As for belief without proof, I agree that theology does require belief without proof. Or, more accurately, they require faith as proof. But science requires more than faith. Science requires proof. And that proof is what they used to come up with

evolution is the "best thing we can come up with so far" in the question of human existance.

Short of time travel (which is the only way we can physically witness either evolution actually happening, or god himself making everything), there is no way we will be able to positively, definitively say that we know for sure. But we can only go by what we know, and use that to arrive at the "best thing we can come up with"

[truethat]

Truethat, has it occurred to you that if the three people still on this thread, and the two others who just gave it up as a bad job, could not understand what it is that you are trying to say, then maybe it is not the fault of all the people who couldn't understand, but of the one person trying to make a point?

Hmmm has it occurred to the scientists that if there are that many people who doubt the theory of evolution, then perhaps it is not the fault of all the peopple who couldn't understand but of the scientists trying to prove their theory.

Btw. I have gotten numerous pms of people who agree with me but don't feel like getting sliced and diced by moderators who are nasty and then take a day off and tell everyone ELSE to take a chill pill.

[truethat]

Lets not get extreme, now. SOME scientists have insisted this is fact. I know its up to me to prove that not every scientist believes that, are you willing to accept that there may be one scientist out there that doesnt say Evolution is definately a fact? And if there is one, that there may be more? If there is more than one scientist that doesnt believe that Evolution is a cold, hard fact, then certainly it isnt the entire scientific community who insists it is a fact.

Yes of course I agree with this. But these scientists are marginalized in the science community. So much for peer review.

I see the reality of how it is presented to students. But it is presented to the students by the teachers, not the scientists. And it isnt even every teacher who teaches it as fact, though again, I realize it is up to me to find one teacher that doesnt fit this oversimplification.

The reason I concern scientists with the way it is taught is because THEY concerned themselves with the way it was taught. When doubters wanted to present criticism of this theory in the class, they were rebuked and the science community came out full forced and pushed this into an all or nothing deal with Creationists on the one end and Science on the other. No voice is given to the regular person who just doubts it.

Short of time travel (which is the only way we can physically witness either evolution actually happening, or god himself making everything), there is no way we will be able to positively, definitively say that we know for sure. But we can only go by what we know, and use that to arrive at the "best thing we can come up with"

I'm sorry, but that's exactly my problem with it. And it would be one thing if all the data lined up, if in every effort to prove it, it was done, then perhaps I would not mind it being taught that way. But the evidence doesn't completely support it. In fact some evidence raises a lot of doubts. And yet, its ignored.

Best thing we can come up with for this ERA to me, is the same as God theories of the past.

If you want me to believe your theory you need to prove it. And by ME I don't mean "me" but anyone.

Edited November 1, 2006 by truethat

[Seraphina]

Btw. I have gotten numerous pms of people who agree with me but don't feel like getting sliced and diced by moderators who are nasty and then take a day off and tell everyone ELSE to take a chill pill.

Huh? O.o So now you're grouping scientists AND moderators as part of the evolution pushing conspiracy?

[the Shadamaun]

I'm sorry, but that's exactly my problem with it. And it would be one thing if all the data lined up, if in every effort to prove it, it was done, then perhaps I would not mind it being taught that way. But the evidence doesn't completely support it. In fact some evidence raises a lot of doubts. And yet, its ignored.

Best thing we can come up with for this ERA to me, is the same as God theories of the past.

If you want me to believe your theory you need to prove it. And by ME I don't mean "me" but anyone.

Ok. Nothing short of absolute proof is acceptable. I understand your point.

Well, I cant give you absolute proof. I dont think anyone can. But until we have something better to go on, its the best we have. If you dont like it, you are free to come up with something better. Or, in leu of that, to simply disbelieve.

I am now free to persue other debates with other people on other topics.

Shadamaun OUT

[aquatus1]

Hmmm has it occurred to the scientists that if there are that many people who doubt the theory of evolution, then perhaps it is not the fault of all the peopple who couldn't understand but of the scientists trying to prove their theory.

Nice avoid.

And, as has been said to you so many times, but which you religiously refuse to accept, scientists are only required to prove things to other scientists. Teachers are the one responsible for teaching people who don't understand.

Btw. I have gotten numerous pms of people who agree with me but don't feel like getting sliced and diced by moderators who are nasty and then take a day off and tell everyone ELSE to take a chill pill.

Yes, of course you have.

Well, since I have apparently become part of this conspiracy theory you have created, there is little more for me to contribute. You can continue arguing your non-existant point to your heart's content.