Posted Sep 03, 2008 at 11:12AM by Isaac C.
Listed in:
Science
Tags:
podcast,
Popular Mechanics,
Mythbusters,
Adam Savage
Ó
|
 This
whole debate about Evolution versus Creationism is a very touchy
subject. Religion and Science usually don't see eye to eye on this.
Some have even criticized Science as if it's a religion in itself,
wanting to answer all of life's "ultimate truths." It can't do that.Adam Savage of the Mythbusters clarifies on a few things about what Science is. In a podcast interview with Popular Mechanics, Adam expressed how this issue about evolution "bugs the hell" out of him. He was asked what the fundamental problem was when it came to supporting sciences in schools, and if he saw it as a huge issue. I'd summarize Adam's reply for you, but I wouldn't be able to give it the justice it deserves, so here's the whole quote: What I do see as a huge issue is a very anti-science vibe. Like I said, the newspapers talking about evolution versus creationism is very much an attack on science as a type of religion—believing that the scientific method is some type of religious belief. And it's not! That kind of attack absolutely is damaging science exploration across the whole country. I do think that's a significant problem. And until we can get our head out of the sand and realize that science isn't about truth—it's why this debate about the "theory of evolution" bugs the hell out of me. What scientists mean by theory is very different than what people think.
No scientist will ever even tell you that he'll guarantee the sun will come up tomorrow because that's not a scientific statement. He can say it'll come up because the evidence supports it and he can say he's 99.99999% sure that it's going to come up, but something could always happen. And that willingness to have your mind changed - which is basically what that is - that willingness to change, to see something different based on the evidence, that's deeply scientific, and it's deeply creative, and I don't think enough people realize how creative science is as a field. You can listen to the whole podcast by following the source link below. Related Articles:
|
|
|
[Via Popular Mechanics]
Permalink |
Email this |
Linking Blogs
| Digg It!
Bookmark / Find this article on: |
|
22 Comments
|
 |
by Advertising - |
|
 
|
|
by Gino D. (QJ. NET Staff) - 2008-09-03 |
|
|
» I'm with Adam on this...
Could you imagine how far along scientific discovery would have gotten by now if the church - whatever church - weren't breathing down their necks since the middle ages?
I understand the efforts that organized religions must take to spread religion, but attacking science and to see it as a competing religion is quite disappointing.
To a degree, the same could be said of how religion seems intent to attack other forms of media - movies, tv, video games, books, art - on religious grounds.
It's all apples and oranges, comparing one field to another. You simply can't transpose the same system from one field to the next. Methods are different, and in Adam's example, the scientific method can't be seen as some sort of religious schema.
Could you imagine how far along scientific discovery would have gotten by now if the church - whatever church - weren't breathing down their necks since the middle ages?
I understand the efforts that organized religions must take to spread religion, but attacking science and to see it as a competing religion is quite disappointing.
To a degree, the same could be said of how religion seems intent to attack other forms of media - movies, tv, video games, books, art - on religious grounds.
It's all apples and oranges, comparing one field to another. You simply can't transpose the same system from one field to the next. Methods are different, and in Adam's example, the scientific method can't be seen as some sort of religious schema.
|
Re: Koru-Kun - 2008-09-05 |
|
|
» OMG you uninformed fool for popular thought
Research your history before you write! Ask any credible, honest historian. It was the Catholic Church that SAVED science, written scientific texts, and literature from the barbarians and illiterate savages of that time and brought them through the middle ages. It's preconceived anti-scientific bias such as evolution and "popular opinion" that's TRULY burdening and steering legitimate scientific discovery from being traversed.
I cannot stress this enough, research the middle ages and you see how things really were. Don't just make idiotic claims that you happened to hear or read at a glance and take for granted as a truth.
Adam answered this question very sensitively not to dismay either side of the issue. He simply states that this IS an issue and explains the science cannot tell you what truth is 100%. Science is there for observation and testing, not for omnidirectional guidance.
Research your history before you write! Ask any credible, honest historian. It was the Catholic Church that SAVED science, written scientific texts, and literature from the barbarians and illiterate savages of that time and brought them through the middle ages. It's preconceived anti-scientific bias such as evolution and "popular opinion" that's TRULY burdening and steering legitimate scientific discovery from being traversed.
I cannot stress this enough, research the middle ages and you see how things really were. Don't just make idiotic claims that you happened to hear or read at a glance and take for granted as a truth.
Adam answered this question very sensitively not to dismay either side of the issue. He simply states that this IS an issue and explains the science cannot tell you what truth is 100%. Science is there for observation and testing, not for omnidirectional guidance.
|
by nnjacowboy - 2008-09-03 |
|
|
» I too agree with Adam but...
...it goes both ways. A lot of people on the evolution side of the debate expect religion to produce the same kind of evidence they expect from science. It isn't the job of religion to "prove" things to people or even to produce theories. Religion asks people to have faith in something. Basically, pitting science vs. religion in any debate is a futile effort in my opinion. Personally, I believe in God and I believe he is way smarter than us. If a scientist comes forward with evidence that makes evolution seem like a 99.99% probability then I'll just say, "Great! God came up with a pretty cool system."
...it goes both ways. A lot of people on the evolution side of the debate expect religion to produce the same kind of evidence they expect from science. It isn't the job of religion to "prove" things to people or even to produce theories. Religion asks people to have faith in something. Basically, pitting science vs. religion in any debate is a futile effort in my opinion. Personally, I believe in God and I believe he is way smarter than us. If a scientist comes forward with evidence that makes evolution seem like a 99.99% probability then I'll just say, "Great! God came up with a pretty cool system."
|
Re: Dudeman3k - 2008-09-03 |
|
|
» God's OS
That last thing you said pretty much sums up the way i've been thinking about this whole religion and science thing. What was in the beginning? The big bang? God? How about both? Why can't science and religion coexist? well, I can see why creationists would hate certain scientific claims, but yea... let's leave them out for a minute. We have science to help explain the things around us- how things got to be the way they are and why. Maybe, just maybe, God set it up that way. Maybe this whole thing is just a mega complex operating system programmed by God or god, whatever you wanna call him/her/it/them.
Umm... probably best not to follow up on this too much.
That last thing you said pretty much sums up the way i've been thinking about this whole religion and science thing. What was in the beginning? The big bang? God? How about both? Why can't science and religion coexist? well, I can see why creationists would hate certain scientific claims, but yea... let's leave them out for a minute. We have science to help explain the things around us- how things got to be the way they are and why. Maybe, just maybe, God set it up that way. Maybe this whole thing is just a mega complex operating system programmed by God or god, whatever you wanna call him/her/it/them.
Umm... probably best not to follow up on this too much.
|
Re: Koru-Kun - 2008-09-05 |
|
|
» @ Dudeman3k
You'd have to believe in a pretty sick "god" if you believe that evolution was how the universe was brought about. That would be the "god of death" and the "god against natural law"... also there hasn't been a shred of factual, provable and testable evidence FOR the case of evolution. I can see clearly why many people would object to the theory being forced in by modern origin ideology.
Let's take this route the logical way. When you have a scientific theory that explains how something works and is accepted first, then a new theory comes along and is contrary to the first theory and is trying to be the major idea for actuality on the subject. It is up to the SECOND newcomer theory to be proven ABOVE THE PREVIOUS theory because the newcomer theory is carrying the burden of proof.
If the newcomer theory cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is superior and closer to the truth than the veteran theory... then it gets wiped out. That is... unless you happened to be the evolutionary theory.
The evolutionary theory completely goes against the scientific rules here. And people see that, it came AFTER the teachings of the 7-day creation by God yet it still hasn't provided any evidence to bring it to being the front runner in the origins teachings. So not only is the theory overstepping it's bounds, it is doing so WITHOUT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. Evolution has not even come close to providing any more truth on the subject than the evidence of a 7-day creation. This is why there is a huge issue because the theory of evolution is "claiming" that science is on it's side, when it really is not.
You'd have to believe in a pretty sick "god" if you believe that evolution was how the universe was brought about. That would be the "god of death" and the "god against natural law"... also there hasn't been a shred of factual, provable and testable evidence FOR the case of evolution. I can see clearly why many people would object to the theory being forced in by modern origin ideology.
Let's take this route the logical way. When you have a scientific theory that explains how something works and is accepted first, then a new theory comes along and is contrary to the first theory and is trying to be the major idea for actuality on the subject. It is up to the SECOND newcomer theory to be proven ABOVE THE PREVIOUS theory because the newcomer theory is carrying the burden of proof.
If the newcomer theory cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is superior and closer to the truth than the veteran theory... then it gets wiped out. That is... unless you happened to be the evolutionary theory.
The evolutionary theory completely goes against the scientific rules here. And people see that, it came AFTER the teachings of the 7-day creation by God yet it still hasn't provided any evidence to bring it to being the front runner in the origins teachings. So not only is the theory overstepping it's bounds, it is doing so WITHOUT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. Evolution has not even come close to providing any more truth on the subject than the evidence of a 7-day creation. This is why there is a huge issue because the theory of evolution is "claiming" that science is on it's side, when it really is not.
|
Re: MyDixieNormous - 2008-09-06 |
|
|
» .
"You'd have to believe in a pretty sick "god" if you believe that evolution was how the universe was brought about."
Biblical literalists *sigh*
"also there hasn't been a shred of factual, provable and testable evidence FOR the case of evolution."
Pick up a book mate, there's plenty of evidence supporting evolution. The fossils record, genetics, atavisms, etc. Why do you think it's called a theory?
'Closer to the truth' ? Didn't you read the article?
"
If the newcomer theory cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is superior and closer to the truth than the veteran theory... then it gets wiped out. That is... unless you happened to be the evolutionary theory."
What previous theory are you even talking about anyway?
And no the same goes for evolution, it has been proven. It is a fact and a theory.
" And people see that, it came AFTER the teachings of the 7-day creation by God yet it still hasn't provided any evidence to bring it to being the front runner in the origins teachings."
You're sadly mistaken. The idea that god created everything in 7 days isn't proven, it's a supernatural claim so it isn't a theory. There isn't even any evidence to support it.
"Evolution has not even come close to providing any more truth on the subject than the evidence of a 7-day creation."
There isn't any evidence for a 7 day creation XD Have you even bothered looking for the evidence from an unbiased standpoint?
"This is why there is a huge issue because the theory of evolution is "claiming" that science is on it's side, when it really is not. "
99% of scientists claimed that they accept the theory of evolution when being surveyed, I think most people would say science is on its side with those numbers.
"You'd have to believe in a pretty sick "god" if you believe that evolution was how the universe was brought about."
Biblical literalists *sigh*
"also there hasn't been a shred of factual, provable and testable evidence FOR the case of evolution."
Pick up a book mate, there's plenty of evidence supporting evolution. The fossils record, genetics, atavisms, etc. Why do you think it's called a theory?
'Closer to the truth' ? Didn't you read the article?
"
If the newcomer theory cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is superior and closer to the truth than the veteran theory... then it gets wiped out. That is... unless you happened to be the evolutionary theory."
What previous theory are you even talking about anyway?
And no the same goes for evolution, it has been proven. It is a fact and a theory.
" And people see that, it came AFTER the teachings of the 7-day creation by God yet it still hasn't provided any evidence to bring it to being the front runner in the origins teachings."
You're sadly mistaken. The idea that god created everything in 7 days isn't proven, it's a supernatural claim so it isn't a theory. There isn't even any evidence to support it.
"Evolution has not even come close to providing any more truth on the subject than the evidence of a 7-day creation."
There isn't any evidence for a 7 day creation XD Have you even bothered looking for the evidence from an unbiased standpoint?
"This is why there is a huge issue because the theory of evolution is "claiming" that science is on it's side, when it really is not. "
99% of scientists claimed that they accept the theory of evolution when being surveyed, I think most people would say science is on its side with those numbers.
|
Re: Koru-Kun - 2008-09-07 |
|
|
» @ MyDixieNormous
"Biblical literalists *sigh*"
-typical modernist...*sigh*
I've read plenty of books on the subject. First of all, if you think the fossil record helps evolutionist argument... you'd be dangerously wrong. The fossil record is HOSTILE to the theory of evolution. Darwin even stated that there should be COUNTLESS fossils for each and every intermediate stage and at all stages (which are clearly lacking in the fossil record). Even the late Stephen J. Gould, a very prominent paleontologist and evolutionist that taught at Harvard University ADMITTED before he died that there was a trade secret among paleontologists... even though they (paleontologists) claim that they are the true researchers and holders of factual history, they themselves do not and cannot see the very process of evolution in their findings from which they teach as truth. There is no fossil evidence, and i'd love it if you could name a few hundred like there's supposed to be. In fact, name only ONE to start with.
Oh, and genetics research recently spoke that the resemblance between chimps and humans in DNA is nowhere CLOSE to each other. I'll provide a link to a branch article that's writing about the findings:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081308.html
'Closer to the truth' ? Didn't you read the article?
-Yes i read the article. It's not my fault if you didn't understand my commentary on it.
"What previous theory are you even talking about anyway?
And no the same goes for evolution, it has been proven. It is a fact and a theory."
-Pitiful... The previous theory is CREATION. It's what was taught BEFORE the evolutionary theory in schools bud. It's been taught thousands of years before evolution and consistently. Evolution has not been proven and has no proof for it. Evolution is a philosophical ideology, not a science. There has been NO science ever recorded that ended up in support of the evolution theory. If you want to *believe* in the evolution religion, be my guest i won't stop you.
"There isn't any evidence for a 7 day creation XD Have you even bothered looking for the evidence from an unbiased standpoint?"
-Do you ever understand the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black"? Unfortunately for you, I've researched on many fronts, not just one. I like to look at both sides, and if one side has supremely more evidence and facts in favor of it.... I'm not going to sit around and still preach for the false side bud. Oh, and as for the evidence for a 7 day creation? I suspect that you, if you actually did, searched on evolutionist bias arguments and never on the creationist side. How do you even begin to imagine that you'll understand the other side's argument if you simply read about it from the enemy side of the fence? Evidence is all around you but you have your biased mind closed off to researching it with an open mind.
"99% of scientists claimed that they accept the theory of evolution when being surveyed, I think most people would say science is on its side with those numbers. "
-99% of all statistics presented on internet posts such as yours are made up on the spot. Go watch Ben Stein's "Expelled" movie.. that'd be a good kick-start for you.
"Biblical literalists *sigh*"
-typical modernist...*sigh*
I've read plenty of books on the subject. First of all, if you think the fossil record helps evolutionist argument... you'd be dangerously wrong. The fossil record is HOSTILE to the theory of evolution. Darwin even stated that there should be COUNTLESS fossils for each and every intermediate stage and at all stages (which are clearly lacking in the fossil record). Even the late Stephen J. Gould, a very prominent paleontologist and evolutionist that taught at Harvard University ADMITTED before he died that there was a trade secret among paleontologists... even though they (paleontologists) claim that they are the true researchers and holders of factual history, they themselves do not and cannot see the very process of evolution in their findings from which they teach as truth. There is no fossil evidence, and i'd love it if you could name a few hundred like there's supposed to be. In fact, name only ONE to start with.
Oh, and genetics research recently spoke that the resemblance between chimps and humans in DNA is nowhere CLOSE to each other. I'll provide a link to a branch article that's writing about the findings:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081308.html
'Closer to the truth' ? Didn't you read the article?
-Yes i read the article. It's not my fault if you didn't understand my commentary on it.
"What previous theory are you even talking about anyway?
And no the same goes for evolution, it has been proven. It is a fact and a theory."
-Pitiful... The previous theory is CREATION. It's what was taught BEFORE the evolutionary theory in schools bud. It's been taught thousands of years before evolution and consistently. Evolution has not been proven and has no proof for it. Evolution is a philosophical ideology, not a science. There has been NO science ever recorded that ended up in support of the evolution theory. If you want to *believe* in the evolution religion, be my guest i won't stop you.
"There isn't any evidence for a 7 day creation XD Have you even bothered looking for the evidence from an unbiased standpoint?"
-Do you ever understand the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black"? Unfortunately for you, I've researched on many fronts, not just one. I like to look at both sides, and if one side has supremely more evidence and facts in favor of it.... I'm not going to sit around and still preach for the false side bud. Oh, and as for the evidence for a 7 day creation? I suspect that you, if you actually did, searched on evolutionist bias arguments and never on the creationist side. How do you even begin to imagine that you'll understand the other side's argument if you simply read about it from the enemy side of the fence? Evidence is all around you but you have your biased mind closed off to researching it with an open mind.
"99% of scientists claimed that they accept the theory of evolution when being surveyed, I think most people would say science is on its side with those numbers. "
-99% of all statistics presented on internet posts such as yours are made up on the spot. Go watch Ben Stein's "Expelled" movie.. that'd be a good kick-start for you.
|
by whaleshark - 2008-09-04 |
|
|
» Well....
Science and Religion have always been blasting each other... yes... but they do coincide. Without religion, science would not exist. Even on the Basic level. Physics. Without Science, religion would not have anything to base all the biblical records. Because they could not. They would not have the scientific knowledge to write. This may sound VERY extreme, as it probably is. But it puts what i am trying to say in the easiest way i can say it.
And For scientific hypothesis to be "correct" it must be able to be proven wrong.
Science and Religion have always been blasting each other... yes... but they do coincide. Without religion, science would not exist. Even on the Basic level. Physics. Without Science, religion would not have anything to base all the biblical records. Because they could not. They would not have the scientific knowledge to write. This may sound VERY extreme, as it probably is. But it puts what i am trying to say in the easiest way i can say it.
And For scientific hypothesis to be "correct" it must be able to be proven wrong.
|
Re: Koru-Kun - 2008-09-05 |
|
|
» correction
The theory of evolution isn't a hypothesis. Hypothesis are theories about how an established truth is performed or how it works....
Evolution is a pure theory because there is no proof that it is how things work.
The theory of evolution isn't a hypothesis. Hypothesis are theories about how an established truth is performed or how it works....
Evolution is a pure theory because there is no proof that it is how things work.
|
Re: MyDixieNormous - 2008-09-06 |
|
|
» .
"Evolution is a pure theory because there is no proof that it is how things work. "
Please learn what a theory is. Just to show you how wrong you are, gravity is a theory XD
Quote from about dot com
"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it."
"Evolution is a pure theory because there is no proof that it is how things work. "
Please learn what a theory is. Just to show you how wrong you are, gravity is a theory XD
Quote from about dot com
"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it."
|
Re: Koru-Kun - 2008-09-07 |
|
|
» @ MyDixieNormous
"Please learn what a theory is. Just to show you how wrong you are, gravity is a theory XD
Quote from about dot com"
-I know what a theory is, no need for you to try to inform me to try to learn more where there is nothing left to learn. Take your own advice if you don't get it though, be my guest.
Gravity is actually a hypothesis, but many do not understand what causes gravity and how it works. They can only measure the rate and strength of force. The thing that gravity defines does exist because we can TEST IT. Evolution is a pipe-dream philosophical theory that was half-baked from a misunderstanding and distortion of natural selection and imagining it on an infinitesimal scale. Oh, and it cannot be tested or observed... it's not science, it's a pseudo-scientific based theory (Science Fiction).
"A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it."
- First of all, you clearly don't understand science if you really believe what you just wrote. A *NEW* theory is brought up and bears the BURDEN OF PROOF, do you understand that? If you can't find the answer on "about.com", let me explain. If there is a previous theory that is in use, and a newcomer theory (evolution) comes about to challenge the established understanding. Then the newcomer theory needs to PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that it is superior as in closer to actual truth than that of the already established theory. Evolution skipped that step and simply pushed creation theory off the throne by atheistic minorities without a shred of evidence and saying "we'll find the evidence later, AFTER we achieve dominance". Science's methods say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you just wrote on how things work.
Theories should be at LEAST somewhat based off of another established truth. If there is no evidence in SUPPORT of evolution, then it shouldn't be even used (even after decades and decades of research solely for it there has been no turn of evidence in favor of evolution).
"Please learn what a theory is. Just to show you how wrong you are, gravity is a theory XD
Quote from about dot com"
-I know what a theory is, no need for you to try to inform me to try to learn more where there is nothing left to learn. Take your own advice if you don't get it though, be my guest.
Gravity is actually a hypothesis, but many do not understand what causes gravity and how it works. They can only measure the rate and strength of force. The thing that gravity defines does exist because we can TEST IT. Evolution is a pipe-dream philosophical theory that was half-baked from a misunderstanding and distortion of natural selection and imagining it on an infinitesimal scale. Oh, and it cannot be tested or observed... it's not science, it's a pseudo-scientific based theory (Science Fiction).
"A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it."
- First of all, you clearly don't understand science if you really believe what you just wrote. A *NEW* theory is brought up and bears the BURDEN OF PROOF, do you understand that? If you can't find the answer on "about.com", let me explain. If there is a previous theory that is in use, and a newcomer theory (evolution) comes about to challenge the established understanding. Then the newcomer theory needs to PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that it is superior as in closer to actual truth than that of the already established theory. Evolution skipped that step and simply pushed creation theory off the throne by atheistic minorities without a shred of evidence and saying "we'll find the evidence later, AFTER we achieve dominance". Science's methods say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you just wrote on how things work.
Theories should be at LEAST somewhat based off of another established truth. If there is no evidence in SUPPORT of evolution, then it shouldn't be even used (even after decades and decades of research solely for it there has been no turn of evidence in favor of evolution).
|
by legaceez - 2008-09-04 |
|
|
» religion?
you know i always thought of religion as a way to control people (for better or for worse) based on fairy tales.
there was this quote someone said that goes something like this: "the ones that goes to heaven (if there is such a thing) are the ones that live their lives oblivious to a god, not the ones that blindly follow those who claim to do the work of god."
looking back in history i see most churches and religion as corrupt systems used to brain wash people. don't take that as an insult to religion though. there's obviously alot of commone sense and good intentions in alot of them, but there is also alot of stuff that does not make any sense or really smacks human rights in the face. that's just the way i see it.
science on the other hand at least tries to prove the basis of it's belief. it's not just blind faith. i'm sorry but blind faith is something that i, as a person of logic, just do not have.
you know i always thought of religion as a way to control people (for better or for worse) based on fairy tales.
there was this quote someone said that goes something like this: "the ones that goes to heaven (if there is such a thing) are the ones that live their lives oblivious to a god, not the ones that blindly follow those who claim to do the work of god."
looking back in history i see most churches and religion as corrupt systems used to brain wash people. don't take that as an insult to religion though. there's obviously alot of commone sense and good intentions in alot of them, but there is also alot of stuff that does not make any sense or really smacks human rights in the face. that's just the way i see it.
science on the other hand at least tries to prove the basis of it's belief. it's not just blind faith. i'm sorry but blind faith is something that i, as a person of logic, just do not have.
|
by PSPMAN90 - 2008-09-04 |
|
|
» We can say that...
Religion is a stereotype that People believes by fate, "The things are like that because of Fate"?!
Well people don't go deep trough the things to know exactly the truth, they just believe by fate.
But Religion and Science coexist both of them, because they are very similar:
Look at the "Book of Genesis" by the Religion, and look The "Theory of evolution "
As Creationist say, They both are very similar, but show to use in different ways, Religion show to use just by Fate and Science show to us as "How, WHy, When " the things happens.
Now in the actuality The "Theory of Evolution" is starting to fade, thanks to the new discoveries made by Science based on that same Theory.
Look at the Genes, even if something, lets say a Plant, have an exactly Twin of it, that a Person would look at it and it won't notice any difference, Now when we look at the Genes, we decode those genes with the Genome and we see that even if look Identical Both of them are Different Genetically, Means that Now the Humans and all Species in the world were based or still based in the "Theory of Evolution" how this would be possible?
Two exact Identical Plants with different Genes and DNA.
That we thought were truth or based in reality may be is not so truth after all?
If u see a "Whale" that is amphibian but also mammals , what would u tell me it is?
Mammal or amphibian?
Well the Theory of evolution show as each group of species are independents, but look at this case it seems that some organism evolve from fish to Amphibian , from amphibian to mammal, but in this case that one stays lik e in the middle of those two groups.
Not only the whale but also other organisms in our existence.
It suppose that all Life Organism can adapt trough ambient depending of the circumstances that an effect will cause, a long of the years has passed all this circumstances has been Natural, most of them, like the Extinction of Dinosaurs, some of the organism are forced to adapt in order to survive, and wen they do adapt they actually evolve.
But now, in the actuality since the ambient is changing so drastic, all existence is suppose to adapt to it?
Well since all this circumstances wee caused by the Human and not naturally from the beginning, Extinction is what we can call the opposite of evolution.
That's why today we have so many Extinction in every species around the world, even the Humans would extinct if this continues, But do we have the power to change the Ambient to a better one? So we can adapt?
We can think of that more than anything else...
Thanks!
Religion is a stereotype that People believes by fate, "The things are like that because of Fate"?!
Well people don't go deep trough the things to know exactly the truth, they just believe by fate.
But Religion and Science coexist both of them, because they are very similar:
Look at the "Book of Genesis" by the Religion, and look The "Theory of evolution "
As Creationist say, They both are very similar, but show to use in different ways, Religion show to use just by Fate and Science show to us as "How, WHy, When " the things happens.
Now in the actuality The "Theory of Evolution" is starting to fade, thanks to the new discoveries made by Science based on that same Theory.
Look at the Genes, even if something, lets say a Plant, have an exactly Twin of it, that a Person would look at it and it won't notice any difference, Now when we look at the Genes, we decode those genes with the Genome and we see that even if look Identical Both of them are Different Genetically, Means that Now the Humans and all Species in the world were based or still based in the "Theory of Evolution" how this would be possible?
Two exact Identical Plants with different Genes and DNA.
That we thought were truth or based in reality may be is not so truth after all?
If u see a "Whale" that is amphibian but also mammals , what would u tell me it is?
Mammal or amphibian?
Well the Theory of evolution show as each group of species are independents, but look at this case it seems that some organism evolve from fish to Amphibian , from amphibian to mammal, but in this case that one stays lik e in the middle of those two groups.
Not only the whale but also other organisms in our existence.
It suppose that all Life Organism can adapt trough ambient depending of the circumstances that an effect will cause, a long of the years has passed all this circumstances has been Natural, most of them, like the Extinction of Dinosaurs, some of the organism are forced to adapt in order to survive, and wen they do adapt they actually evolve.
But now, in the actuality since the ambient is changing so drastic, all existence is suppose to adapt to it?
Well since all this circumstances wee caused by the Human and not naturally from the beginning, Extinction is what we can call the opposite of evolution.
That's why today we have so many Extinction in every species around the world, even the Humans would extinct if this continues, But do we have the power to change the Ambient to a better one? So we can adapt?
We can think of that more than anything else...
Thanks!
|
Re: PSPMAN90 - 2008-09-04 |
|
|
» I actually meant Faith...
Sorry for my Bad spelling, just think as the word Fate+faith+Fe
is faith what I meant...
Thanks
Sorry for my Bad spelling, just think as the word Fate+faith+Fe
is faith what I meant...
Thanks
|
Re: Koru-Kun - 2008-09-05 |
|
|
» not bad, let me add some things
Although presented sporadically, i think you're pretty much near the right track.
The truth is, things don't go from disorder to order like the evolutionists and masons would like you to think. Yes, not only is "order out of chaos" and evolutionary ideology, it's a Masonic teaching as well.
The truth is, things go from Order TO Disorder... not the other way around. The theory of evolution flies in the face of science and claims that this basic and PROVABLE *LAW* of nature is somehow irrelevant to itself. Ridiculous if you ask me....
Here's a question for scientists if they want to tread into the realm of origins. Where did all the natural laws come from to govern the universe? Also, I'd like to have these evolutionists explain how the so-called "big-bang" could have possibly been the cause of the universe when it's clearly a REACTIONARY THEORY. The cause cannot be the result of the same thing, that's like saying something completely ridiculous and irresponsible such as objects can just somehow cause itself into existence by no other reason than it's own cause. Don't take human intellect as a fool you evolutionists. Logic, reason, evidence and history are all on the side of a 7-day creation (not to mention SCIENCE which actually provides lots of evidences that there was a creation and that matter, time and space had to come into existence at the exact same moment).
Although presented sporadically, i think you're pretty much near the right track.
The truth is, things don't go from disorder to order like the evolutionists and masons would like you to think. Yes, not only is "order out of chaos" and evolutionary ideology, it's a Masonic teaching as well.
The truth is, things go from Order TO Disorder... not the other way around. The theory of evolution flies in the face of science and claims that this basic and PROVABLE *LAW* of nature is somehow irrelevant to itself. Ridiculous if you ask me....
Here's a question for scientists if they want to tread into the realm of origins. Where did all the natural laws come from to govern the universe? Also, I'd like to have these evolutionists explain how the so-called "big-bang" could have possibly been the cause of the universe when it's clearly a REACTIONARY THEORY. The cause cannot be the result of the same thing, that's like saying something completely ridiculous and irresponsible such as objects can just somehow cause itself into existence by no other reason than it's own cause. Don't take human intellect as a fool you evolutionists. Logic, reason, evidence and history are all on the side of a 7-day creation (not to mention SCIENCE which actually provides lots of evidences that there was a creation and that matter, time and space had to come into existence at the exact same moment).
|
Re: MyDixieNormous - 2008-09-06 |
|
|
» .
"The truth is, things don't go from disorder to order like the evolutionists and masons would like you to think."
What does going from disorder to order have to do with evolution?
"Also, I'd like to have these evolutionists explain how the so-called "big-bang" could have possibly been the cause of the universe when it's clearly a REACTIONARY THEORY."
You're asking biologists to explain cosmology and physics? lol Why not ask someone who specializes in that field, or better yet, look it up for yourself.
"The truth is, things don't go from disorder to order like the evolutionists and masons would like you to think."
What does going from disorder to order have to do with evolution?
"Also, I'd like to have these evolutionists explain how the so-called "big-bang" could have possibly been the cause of the universe when it's clearly a REACTIONARY THEORY."
You're asking biologists to explain cosmology and physics? lol Why not ask someone who specializes in that field, or better yet, look it up for yourself.
|
Re: Koru-Kun - 2008-09-07 |
|
|
» @ MyDixieNormous
"What does going from disorder to order have to do with evolution?"
-Are you really serious? Big Bang out of nowhere causes more chain reactions from nothing that somehow became something and built itself through laws that came out of nowhere to eventually over infinite years to somehow naturally establish life and rocks and trees and water and every known and unknown thing in the universe, that ring any bells? The universe's laws don't permit something that has less and eventually have more than what it started out with. That means there is no way a living or non-living thing can become anything that it ISN'T unless it becomes LESS of what it already was in the first place. Genes and DNA *degrade* over generations, not improve. Humans will never have more or better evolutionary increases because we are DEGRADED from the first humans and getting worse. That's the natural laws at work. Cannot defy them, everything goes from established to worse... order to disorder... New paint job to messed up paint job. Get it yet?
"You're asking biologists to explain cosmology and physics? lol Why not ask someone who specializes in that field, or better yet, look it up for yourself."
-I'm asking *evolutionists* no matter WHAT field they are experts in to attempt a presentation with factual evidences in support of their theory. Nowhere did i state that i want a biologist to explain something other than their field of knowledge. Which is sort of what you are doing... trying to explain something outside your field of knowledge. You are only repeating what's been indoctrinated into your memory, not what you actually researched yourself.
"What does going from disorder to order have to do with evolution?"
-Are you really serious? Big Bang out of nowhere causes more chain reactions from nothing that somehow became something and built itself through laws that came out of nowhere to eventually over infinite years to somehow naturally establish life and rocks and trees and water and every known and unknown thing in the universe, that ring any bells? The universe's laws don't permit something that has less and eventually have more than what it started out with. That means there is no way a living or non-living thing can become anything that it ISN'T unless it becomes LESS of what it already was in the first place. Genes and DNA *degrade* over generations, not improve. Humans will never have more or better evolutionary increases because we are DEGRADED from the first humans and getting worse. That's the natural laws at work. Cannot defy them, everything goes from established to worse... order to disorder... New paint job to messed up paint job. Get it yet?
"You're asking biologists to explain cosmology and physics? lol Why not ask someone who specializes in that field, or better yet, look it up for yourself."
-I'm asking *evolutionists* no matter WHAT field they are experts in to attempt a presentation with factual evidences in support of their theory. Nowhere did i state that i want a biologist to explain something other than their field of knowledge. Which is sort of what you are doing... trying to explain something outside your field of knowledge. You are only repeating what's been indoctrinated into your memory, not what you actually researched yourself.
|
by trampdog79 - 2008-09-04 |
|
|
» Very simple people
It's very simple, science shows us the HOW and religion explains the WHY. And for the record science is a religion. Have you not talked to these people that believe science is the only truth in life. Science tells us how things work but can only guess as to why it works that. Thats where faith in something bigger than us comes in and tells us why.
It's very simple, science shows us the HOW and religion explains the WHY. And for the record science is a religion. Have you not talked to these people that believe science is the only truth in life. Science tells us how things work but can only guess as to why it works that. Thats where faith in something bigger than us comes in and tells us why.
|
Re: Koru-Kun - 2008-09-05 |
|
|
» uhh
Science isn't a religion...
But I can also say in the same breath that believing in an unproven and unscientific theory such as evolution is and should be classified in the same category as religion.
Science isn't a religion...
But I can also say in the same breath that believing in an unproven and unscientific theory such as evolution is and should be classified in the same category as religion.
|
Re: MyDixieNormous - 2008-09-06 |
|
|
» .
"But I can also say in the same breath that believing in an unproven and unscientific theory such as evolution"
That is an oxymoron. Theory + proven. Evolution, Gravity, Learning
"But I can also say in the same breath that believing in an unproven and unscientific theory such as evolution"
That is an oxymoron. Theory + proven. Evolution, Gravity, Learning
|
Re: MyDixieNormous - 2008-09-06 |
|
|
» comment system..
edit: Evolution, gravity, and learning are all theories.
edit: Evolution, gravity, and learning are all theories.
|
Re: Koru-Kun - 2008-09-07 |
|
|
» @ MyDixieNormous
"That is an oxymoron. Theory + proven. Evolution, Gravity, Learning"
-Just for the record, i'm not presenting my case in reply to your commentary for your sake. I'm doing this for everybody else that comes here and reads this because obviously into your ideology you fail to even grasp the idiocy of your statements.
The plain definition of theory means it's UNPROVEN. A *proven* theory that is TESTABLE AND OBSERVABLE becomes an established fact. Not a proven theory. I don't read or hear anywhere people saying the "fact of evolution".... nope, only hear the "theory" of evolution.
I explained gravity in a reply to another one of your posts above. I must say though.... to you, "learning" is a proven theory? Are you one of those people that just don't get it? One of those people who think there are no absolutes anywhere in existence? Before you answer that, make sure that you are absolutely sure that you have a mind to think about your answer and words to elaborate your answer and the internet to post your answer on... otherwise you might be in quite a predicament. In case you didn't realize, I'm being sarcastic... or am i?
"Learning" is a VERB, not a theory. The *act* of learning isn't anything but an action... if you presume idiotic rhetoric like that, why not try to test out your little theory with the act of "breathing". After all, you theorize that actions, for example, such as but not limited to breathing is simply a "maybe" and by association, "maybe" you can still keep conscious without breathing ever again... that is to assume that you theorize that you are actually conscious in the first place.
Do you ever read the things you write? It's utterly laughable at this point! Before you reply, i expect you to present a very good case as to why "learning" is a theory... completely ludicrous...
"That is an oxymoron. Theory + proven. Evolution, Gravity, Learning"
-Just for the record, i'm not presenting my case in reply to your commentary for your sake. I'm doing this for everybody else that comes here and reads this because obviously into your ideology you fail to even grasp the idiocy of your statements.
The plain definition of theory means it's UNPROVEN. A *proven* theory that is TESTABLE AND OBSERVABLE becomes an established fact. Not a proven theory. I don't read or hear anywhere people saying the "fact of evolution".... nope, only hear the "theory" of evolution.
I explained gravity in a reply to another one of your posts above. I must say though.... to you, "learning" is a proven theory? Are you one of those people that just don't get it? One of those people who think there are no absolutes anywhere in existence? Before you answer that, make sure that you are absolutely sure that you have a mind to think about your answer and words to elaborate your answer and the internet to post your answer on... otherwise you might be in quite a predicament. In case you didn't realize, I'm being sarcastic... or am i?
"Learning" is a VERB, not a theory. The *act* of learning isn't anything but an action... if you presume idiotic rhetoric like that, why not try to test out your little theory with the act of "breathing". After all, you theorize that actions, for example, such as but not limited to breathing is simply a "maybe" and by association, "maybe" you can still keep conscious without breathing ever again... that is to assume that you theorize that you are actually conscious in the first place.
Do you ever read the things you write? It's utterly laughable at this point! Before you reply, i expect you to present a very good case as to why "learning" is a theory... completely ludicrous...
Contact Us:
|
The QJ.net Network |
|
| Site | Feed |
| QJ.NET | RSS |
| Nintendo DS | RSS |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS |
| PSP Updates | RSS |
| Wii | RSS |
| Xbox 360 | RSS |
| MMORPG | RSS |
| Personal Computer Games | RSS |
| iPhone - iPod Touch | RSS |
| QJ.NET Forums | RSS |
Add QJ.NET
User Favorites - November
| Most Commented | |
| (103) | |
| (61) | |
| (48) | |
| (35) | |
| (34) | |
| (34) | |
| (34) | |
| (33) | |
| (29) | |
| (29) | |
| (29) | |
| (27) | |
| (24) | |
| (23) | |
| (23) | |
| (22) | |
| (22) | |
| (21) | |
| (21) | |
| (21) | |
User Favorites - November
Apple
(3236)E3
(752)Gadgets
(3645)Games for Windows
(6680)iPhone
(639)MMORPG
(7934)Mobile
(2790)News
(871)Nintendo DS
(8524)Opinions & Analysis
(93)Photography
(453)PlayStation 3
(18272)PSP
(17278)Rumors
(169)Science
(2794)Site News
(52)Tabula Rasa
(421)Wii
(14069)World of Warcraft
(3729)Xbox 360
(18352)
Archives
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
May 2005
