There is a lot of evidence out there, so every theory (whether true or false) will have something to support it, or it wouldn't even be theory. This is something we really must keep in mind when accepting scattered evidence and assuming that all the other evidence goes along with it. This is sometimes, in fact, usually, not true.
It's very important to debate, especially about Evolution, because the two sides are constantly procuring new information either to support their own theory, or disprove his opponent's. Neither side should be allowed to ignore evidence because it's convenient. Creationists and Evolutionists are both guilty of this. Evolutionists need to stop dismissing valid claims, and Creationists need to stop ignoring the hard questions. If it's the truth, what have you got to be afraid of?
Museums like to draw attention to the fossils that could be interpreted as a transitional stage. Museums also like to ignore and not inform its visitors of the greater mass of contradictory evidence and the fact that no transitional fossils haev been found for many major animal groups appearing in teh Cambrian explosion.
One museum in San Franciso has an exhibit called the "Hard Fact Wall". They went so far as to actually put out imaginary common ancestors, thus leading the pubilc to believe the ancestors had actually been found.
When this is pointed out to people, they are astonished and appalled that the museum would do such a thing. The thing is, the museum staff aren't maliciously lying to the visitors, they're just trying too hard to "help" the public come to what they see as the right conclusion.
Think about Piltdown man. Everyone was shocked when the monkey-human skull was procured. It was very convincing, compelling evidence, and cold hard fact.
Until it was proven to be a hoax.
Don't be so impressed at all the "evidence" or take things at face value. What you see in museums, read in textbooks, and hear from some scientists took a lot of biased interpreting to get to. Be careful.
Ask yourself: "Does fossil evidence as a whole tend to confirm Darwin's theory?"
Look closely. Don't just Google "evolution fossils" or go to a museum, see some convincing-looking skeletons and decide it must be true. Really look, deep, deep, deeper. Tear apart the evidence, find the truth. I'm not necessarily trying to tell you that Evolution is false, I'm just saying, a little healthy skepticisim never hurt anyone.
Especially with all the selective use of evidence going around.
Until next time,
P.S. Don't forget about Follower Say...coming up on September 26! The more people the better! So far there are three people participating. Let's take this event to a whole 'nother level, y'all! To "sign up", just leave a comment or email me at livinglovinglaughinglearning@gmail.com. Thanks!
Yes, there have been instances of false fossils, however the Piltdown man happened almost 100 years ago. It's like with global warming. The myth is that only a few scientists agree with it. The truth is almost no scientists disagree with the theory of global warming. There is very little evidence to the contrary of glabal warming. And people always same "There was a medival warming period! This is just like tht and nothing more!" Yes, there was a medival warming period, but it was pathetic compared to what's going on now. When you look at it on a graph, it is incredible when you see the difference between that and what's going on now. This is getting a little off track, but I think what's also important to mention is this whole post you knocked evolution, but didn't say anything about creationists. Interesting.
ReplyDeleteI actually did a whole post on Global Warming! I can't remember if you were following at the time...maybe you've already read it. If you haven't, maybe you'd like to?
ReplyDeleteI did mention Creationists. Right here: "Neither side should be allowed to ignore evidence because it's convenient. Creationists and Evolutionists are both guilty of this. Evolutionists need to stop dismissing valid claims, and Creationists need to stop ignoring the hard questions."
I have read it, but didn't comment on it because it was a bit old when I read it. Now it's a much older post, so I just read an not comment. What I meant about creationists was that you didn't explore that fact about creationists any more than that first sentence. About global warming, it's more than just a few ice sheets melting. Ice is melting that was been frozen since the ice age. That's what's so big. But I guess that really doesn't mean much to you because you don't believe in evolution. And our carbon footprint has not shrunk, it gets bigger and bigger as time goes on.
ReplyDeleteAnd then they will refreeze, just like always.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence is screaming at people to stop getting their panties all in a wad, but people would rather freak out than see the truth apparently. I just don't get it.
But they haven't refrozen, they've been frozen for millions of years! this is not a natural phase! It is something we're ignoring because changin it is hard to do. Almost do scientists agree with your theories contrary to what you believe. They is more evidnece than you think you se, but if all you do is listen to Glen Beck and read conservative sources for your research, then you're only going to find what you want, not what's true.
ReplyDeleteThat's true, but honestly how many non-liberal/unbiased resources do *you* read?
ReplyDeleteActually, many. I prefer getting information from other sources and hearing the opinions of people who don't agree with me. Take this blog for instance. The best way to defaet your enemy is to know what they think and know they're views. I've also looking at government sources about global warming, and have quite a passion for it. This sounds mean, but I may have researched it a little more than you have.
ReplyDeleteVery true, logic is almost empty without evidence. And you're also spot on with the fact that there at least seems to be evidence for both the "true" and the "false" theories. There is more to research than Googling.
ReplyDeleteBut that's ONE of the reasons why I think theories like Evolution are valid, because the paleontologists, the biologists, are the ones that do the REAL research. You may be correct that appeal to authority is unhealthy for society, but all logic tells us that scientists have the hand in scientific discovery and theory. USUALLY,hey're fully educated, they're intellectually advanced, and they're tested to see if they're right for their job. Even if you do the best research at libraries, online, and maybe even elsewhere, I would prefer to trust the scientists.
But great post! I hope to be there on September 26. It sounds like a really cool idea.
Alex: Maybe you have done more research. I'm not saying I'm an expert, I'm mostly just here to open peoples' eyes to possibilities and knew ways of thinking.
ReplyDeleteChristopher: Very true, that scientists have more resources at their fingertips to help them, and they are much more the experts in their areas than we are. I like to trust science as well, I'm just saying that we need to be careful not to jump to too many conclusions.
Thank you very much! And I hope to "see" you on the 26th. Will you email me at livinglovinglaughinglearning@gmail.com so I'll have your email address on that account? That way I'll know where to send your permission thing when it's time for you to post. Thanks again!
I've changed my mind about the September 26th thing. It actually sounds like something I'd like to do. I am open to new ways of thinking, but in this case, global warming is no longer a thoeyr, it's a fact. That's what many people don't realize. It's been proven, the debate is over for the most part. Plus, what is so bad about wanting to clean up our planet?
ReplyDeleteSounds like a good topic for you to post on? I'll count you in. Thanks very much!
ReplyDeleteTypical Liberal, pretending there is no debate.
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the biggest reasons the Republican party (with a few exceptions) is so weak (and IMHO), little better than the Democrats. They let the liberals set the argument, and then argue within those parameters.
I don’t suppose you ever consider if your “information” on Global Warming is just maybe…
BLATENTLY FALSE?
I have never EVER met a liberal who claimed to view only liberal sources, ya’ll all think you are so open-minded just for being willing to read a lot of conservative books, or watch Fox news, but really, is that any better?
If you look at equal amounts of two biased viewpoints and then pick the one you think is right, ALL YOUR INFORMATION IS STILL BIASED. Rather, if you want to bother talking about something, you should study it yourself (to a reasonable degree) and form your OWN opinion.
I too have looked at graphs of global warming, in fact, most of the information I have on global warming comes from An Inconvenient Truth, since that is pretty much the standard of the only explanation most liberals will accept. And, assuming that most of the information in that book isn’t outright lies (Which I believe it is) I still see a very obvious explanation for Global Warming.
An observed global phenomenon mentioned in many science textbooks is that the earth goes through hot and cold spells, usually about seven years long.
All this fuss about global warming started about (Gasp) seven years ago, when temps started rising, but now REAL scientists (not political figureheads) report that global temps are going down.
So, even using sources obviously biased in your favor, there is still an explanation that doesn’t include the term “carbon footprint.”
And furthermore, the melting ice CANNOT have been frozen for millions of years, because it has only EXISTED for ten thousand years at the most!
I am not letting you set the argument.
I don't believe in creationism, and it's impossible that the earth has existed for only ten thousand years. Sorry, if you can't accpet simple thruths like that, there's really no point in arguing with you. And real scienists do believe in global warming. Only political figureheads don't believe in it. Maybe you got them confused?
ReplyDelete"If you can't argue within the paramaters I set then there is no point in argueing with you"
ReplyDeleteExactly!
That's not what I said. Things like evolution are not paramaters, they are simple facts for me and most people. If you can't accept things like that, what's the point in arguing with you?
ReplyDeleteI am seeing a few things here that seem to be derailing any progress on this subject.
ReplyDelete1. Don't turn an analogy/example into the new subject. This post was not about the theory of global warming...so why is it the main topic?
2. Don't throw oil on the fire. Political parties or ideological identities were not a part of this post. We can be Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives, all are welcome to discuss the FACTS and EVIDENCE.
3. This particular discussion is not about opinions, make statements you can backup and present your sources so we can verify them. It is not that we don't trust you....BUT, saying things like "Anyone with a brain knows..." or "Almost all scientist agree" really have no meaning.
Kendra I realize I am not your Moderator, this is just too good of a discussion to waste. I hope you will set me straight if these ideas are contrary to your hopes for this discussion.
I think one of the biggest problems I have with Evolution theories is the layers. You have one theory built on the other so deep it is difficult to know where to start.
ReplyDeleteThe only fact that Creationists and Evolutionists seem to have in common is that we are here. On both sides of this debate there are thing we CAN'T prove. I can't PROVE that there is a God, it is a matter of faith. An evolutionist can't PROVE there was a Big Bang, but they seem to deny the faith they call science. It is not intellectually honest to form your point of view based on an unprovable theory and call it fact. Facts are observable truths that we can demonstrate. Theories are ideas that we believe, in the absence of observable facts, to POSSIBLY true. Theories are point at which we strive to fin observable facts that prove our theory to be correct, or provide us with information to help us derive alternate theories. Theories are the beginning, once proven, they become laws.
A good example of this is the laws of thermodynamics. This relates to the theory of evolution in that the evolution theory requires chaos to become order (or at least less chaotic) over time with no guiding force. Simply speaking the theory of evolution requires a miracle, but one that just happens out of nowhere. So, since, without acknowledging God’s creation, we can’t account for how something came from nothing all by itself (even over billions of years), scientist accept there is no way to prove this theory. Of course, nobody gets a government grant for their university for saying “We can’t prove the theory of evolution”, so they build a second theory ASSUMING the first one is true. This doesn’t bother me so much as long as everyone admits they are moving on based on an assumption. The problem is, people forget that the first theory has not been proved and accept it as scientific FACT.
The truth is, the factuality of any scientific proof that confirms our theories is only one revelation away from being shown to be false. It is not a possibility that the very foundations of what science believes to be true will be shaken and often undone, it is a certainty. The more we learn the more we realize how wrong we are. This is why it is essential that we not refuse to question even the most established scientific “fact” if there is evidence that it may be incorrect. The unwillingness of the “scientific community” to question the many layers of theory related to evolution is the biggest problem in all of this (talk about an inconvenient truth). There are too many reputations, egos, and government grants on the line to allow certain evolutionary theory cornerstones to even be questioned, let alone viewing the evidence that they may not be strong enough to support the many theoretical structures built on them.
Most of those defending the merits of the theory of evolution seem to me to be doing it out of fear. It is as if they are saying, “We can’t even question these ideas because we have to much built on them. If we are wrong, the whole world will change and we can’t handle that.” I know, as Kendra mentioned in the initial post, there are plenty of Creationists doing the same thing, and that is a shame. The way I see it, the difference between somebody trying to build a world without God creating it and those trying to discover the signature of the creator in all things ought to be confidence. Creationists need to understand that we will make mistakes when we strive to understand God’s creation, it is just more than we can really grasp. Knowing this, we ought to be very willing to acknowledge our missteps and enjoy God’s redirection. After all, if we are seeking the truth, what is better than realizing our misunderstanding of it? My God is not afraid of my misunderstanding and mistakes.
All that to say, nothing can be off limits and unquestionable, for any of us.
Ok then, lets question.
ReplyDeleteYou say the earth simply cannot have existed for only ten thousand years, how do you know? Where you there when it began? Have you been recording things for the past five thousand years, picking up where a five thousand year old scribe left off?
What is your proof that that melting ice is millions of years old, and not a few thousand?
There is no sure fire way to prove that the earth was here for millions of years. However, there is a lot of evidence and theories to support that it does. I consider the fact that the earth has been year for millions of years a solid fact. But that's just me. There is still no evidence (excluding the bible) to shown that the earth has been here only a few thousand years. It is true that almot every scientists agrees with this, but not all. And it is completely relevant.
ReplyDeleteAlex, can you share what some of the evidence is? I understand that you feel comfortable with the theories, but what evidence do you have for us to consider? For something to go from opinion or theory to “Solid Fact” there must be something solid it is based on.
ReplyDeleteAs for youth earth theories and evidence, there is actually supporting evidence that has actually been observed and documented in true scientific fashion. Before I get into the evidence I fully disclose that the source of my point of view starts with my faith in God as the creator of all things (the God of the bible). However, evidence is available that supports the creation of the world as described in Genesis. If evidence supporting Creationist theories are show to be false, this does not change my faith, it only reveals a failure in understanding some aspect of God’s actual creation. Based on this to “open my eyes” to the evolutionist ideas I must be convinced God does not exist (or I do not know who He is).
On the age of the earth specifically, there is a fundamental issue with old earth theories. Without being there at the beginning to observe and document, evolution theories rely on carbon dating to confirm the age of the earth. The only problem is that we only know what we know about radioisotopes from less than a century of observation. That is similar to observing a melting ice cube for 1 second after it is removed from the freezer, measuring the rate of melting (decay) and believing that you can tell the age of a puddle of water. Is there some evidence on carbon dating you have that can confirm it is accurate for billions of years?
I don't see the point in arguing with you. All you do is quote verses in your defense. There is no absolute way to prove evolution, but there is a lot of evidence, and much more scientific evidence than there is for creationism. I used to be a creationist, until I took a step back and looked around. If you can't try doing that, than there's no point in arguing with you.
ReplyDeleteIt's okay, Alex, we don't see the point in arguing with you, either. All you do is say that evolution is fact. There is no absolute way to prove creation, but there is a lot of evidence and it's much more scientific than you would like to see or admit. I was on my way to accepting Evolution, but then I listened in class and did some research on my own. If *you* tried that and came to this conclusion, there is no point in arguing with you either.
ReplyDeleteAlex, I am not throwing verses at you, I am just asking you to share some of the evidence that has you some convince...anything...you pick some bit of data and tell us what it is.
ReplyDeleteSo far your argument in support of evolution is based exclusively on quoting yourself. It just seems kind of weak and defensive. From what I have read all of your posts end with you saying somebody is not worth talking to unless they acknowledge that your point of view is correct for no other reason than you say so.
Either you have a reason for what you think, or you believe in evolution as your faith. Faith requires no evidence, no proof, it is a choice (just like homosexuality).
Indeed, if you believe that we are all decieved as you have said, then please show us how, don't just tell us over and over that we are.
ReplyDelete