Hmmm...so if apparently evolution is a lie, how do we know what science is a lie and what's truth? If all men are liars, how do I know you're not lying?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Clearing up misconceptions about evolution
- Thread starter EmmaXO
- Start date
Hmmm...so if apparently evolution is a lie, how do we know what science is a lie and what's truth? If all men are liars, how do I know you're not lying?
Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
You're a seeker who believes in creationism?
We did not come from apes. Apes and humans came from a common ancestor.
Since we are apes, it would be more correct to say that modern/ extant apes share a common ancestor with humans. Therefore, it makes little sense to expect living ape species to "morph" (I assume evolve was meant ) into humans.
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I can't. They are my first hand experiences with work acquaintances. People who lie, cheat and steal. Normal people with advanced chemistry degrees who happen to wear lab coats every day. No different from anybody else.
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I don't believe that any of evolution is a lie. I believe some fictional stories about the past are not correct. But I have no better way of seeing into the past than I have seeing of into the future. The same as those I disagree with. You know I'm lying. We all use fake names here. OK, maybe your real name is Emma. My apologies.
Upvote
0
MoonLancer
The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar
It can say anything you want it to say. Gods actions speak for themselves
btw isn't the gospel of John touched by mans hands?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Most people tell white lies or say things that aren't completely true, but scientists don't really have an emotional connection to the results of the experiments. Perhaps I should say shouldn't. No one is going to be horribly upset by the results of an experiment about plant growth. Thus, there wouldn't be a reason to be defensive about the results or lie about them, besides for personal gain. When it was discovered DNA was a double helix no one was horribly upset. Well, maybe the guys who thought it was a triple helix.
The stories you're talking about. You can make speculations with reasonable belief they could be correct. You can't say completely outlandish, ridiculous things. I couldn't say, for example, invisible, leprechauns are causing evolution.
I'm sorry if this doesn't make sense, it's late and I'm tired.
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
You are hugely hugely hugely wrong. Some get money only for results. Some get money only for publishing findings. Some get paid the same no matter what they discover. Their ONLY payment (mentally) is recognition from peers or personal results. Results from an investment of their TIME.
To even suggest a non emotional relationship with their work is ludicrousness.
I think what you are thinking of is the amount of effort that goes into counteracting normal human behavior through "Scientific Review" of ones work. The bias in Peer review is a subject of a number of peer reviewed papers....ironically. It's measurable and present. As is fraud.
If the question was posed in more general terms, such as running experiments with deficient methods, failing to report deficiencies or misrepresenting data, the straight average suggested that 46% of researchers had seen others get up to such shenanigans.
Upvote
0
So I guess should was the right word to use. How is there any discernible way to tell what science is false or not? I said there would be no reason to lie about the findings besides for personal gain. Which apparently a lot of them seem to do.
So apparently scientists do care emotionally about the results. Would the results of an experiment about trees have a huge effect on that scientists life? No, results about trees wouldn't make the person rethink their life or religion. You may make some tweaks here or there to support your point, but outright changing the results completely?
If you make outright lies sometime soon someone will notice something fishy.
Evolution isn't something new and supported only by one experiment.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,070
- 16,820
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Wrong. The observations are repeatable. You don't need to try and get a particular population to "turn into something else" to do science when it comes to evolution. That's a Creationist straw man.
Morphing is a odd word choice. Though we do see baby apes morph into adult humans in about 14-18 years.
Wrong. But why don't you put your money where your mouth is and give us some scientifically valid definitions with explanatory power that are just as good?
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,070
- 16,820
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,070
- 16,820
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Still haven't found that link, hunh?
Lucy's who's right one day.....
You're talking about missing links? You might want to leave the 19th century behind and join us in the 21st Century. What sort of transitional series would you like? Fish to terrestrial tetrapods? Artiodactyls to Cetaceans? Theropods to Birds? Hominids?
Upvote
0
Hortysir
Regular Member
- Mar 18, 2005
- 461
- 28
- 59
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I find it hard to believe, in a world where survival of the fittest is easy to see, that in-between species could survive...much less thrive.
And that is in the case of all the transitions you've listed.
Maybe the reason these links are missing is because they never existed in the first place.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,724
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Mr Strawberry
Newbie
I find it hard to believe, in a world where survival of the fittest is easy to see, that in-between species could survive...much less thrive.
And that is in the case of all the transitions you've listed.
Maybe the reason these links are missing is because they never existed in the first place.
Every fossil is an in-between. As long as the species didn't become extinct soon afterwards that is.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
