I don't hold one either, but I do have a passion for biology and would like to hopefully one day pursue a degree in cytotechnology. While my overall knowledge is limited I do enjoy reading up on mitochondrial health, gene mutations, etc.
I tend to shy away from these discussions because they tend to get ugly fast. Closemindedness on both sides also usually turns me away as well.
|
-
04-22-2011, 11:00 PM #31
-
04-22-2011, 11:38 PM #32
-
-
04-22-2011, 11:42 PM #33
- Join Date: Jun 2008
- Location: Portland, Oregon, United States
- Age: 45
- Posts: 2,913
- Rep Power: 1993
That's because we didn't evolve from ape to human. Research a little more into evolution. Remember that it took billions of years. Estimates say that single cells evolved about 3 billion years ago. The amount of time it took for evolution to produce humans is absolutely staggering -- and hard for us to encapsulate. Here's an idea;
Human history, as we know it, began about 60,000 years ago.
Our species, as it's currently known, has been around 200,000 years.
Consider the amount of variation the human race already has, African, Caucasian, Asian, Indian, etc.
To give you an idea, here's a picture:
While not accurate down to the pixel (that takes more effort then I care to make for a single posting) it does show the magnitudes we are talking about. Each pixel is rougly 10,000 years. The upper left hand corner in red is 200,000 years, the age of our species. The rest is how long single-celled organisms have been around. All that black is how long it took for us to evolve from a single-celled organism to how we know ourselves today.--
'What is a human being, then?'
'A seed'
'A... seed?'
'An acorn that is unafraid to destroy itself in growing into a tree.'
-David Zindell, _A Requiem for Homo Sapiens_
My training log:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=114471221
-
04-22-2011, 11:43 PM #34
-
04-23-2011, 12:33 AM #35
A few of us here do. A few have Phds in the field so when they post, y'all stfu and listen.
What about evolution from cell-reptile-mammal dont you understand? Its good to see you dont try and refute it, but sounds like you could use some clarification on an aspect on something youre not certain about. I for dont even believe Darwins work was the cementing evidence, the evidence from genetics and molecular biology are so overwhelming its just idiotic to deny it now.
All your doubts disappear when you actualy observe it in a laboratory, its quite fascinating....although evolution will wreack havoc on our ability to fight infections soon enough.
-
04-23-2011, 02:45 AM #36
-
-
04-23-2011, 04:15 AM #37
- Join Date: Jun 2009
- Location: Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 47
- Posts: 19,532
- Rep Power: 0
That is exactally the point. 20 or 30 years ago the creationist might have had a philosophical/religious leg to stand on, but in 2011 stating that you do not believe in evolution (or not even knowing the difference between observable evolution and the theory of evolution... or even that a scientific theory is NOT the same thing as a philosophical theory... that theory is one of many words with two meanings in the English language) only shows profound ignorance are really is on par with stating "My religion teaches that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth".
In the United States we really are seeing an example of the church once again getting in the way of actual progress and understanding of our world and universe, just as it did when people were proving that the earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa. I will go so far as to state that given the overwhelming amount of evidence for it that people can see who actually study various fields of science for themselves and take a genetics or biochem course or two, that churches clinging to the creationism concept are in fact putting the nail in their own coffee, becuase they are not teaching just a spiritual message, they are teaching and putting the weight of their religious convictions on things that can be proven as nonsense. They can get away with stating that god exists, that Jesus existed and performed miracles etc... as while I find no evidence for such things, scientists cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these things are false, so it comes down to a matter of faith. The creationism has been proven by rediculously overwhelming amounts of evidence to be completely incompatible with observable reality. That being said I think more and more people will realize that evangelical Christianity just doesn't have a strong foothold on truth or fact. It will die off in the long run because of this and the strong backing and forcefullness it has produced for the creationism concept will move that along much quicker.
I'd go so far as to state that IF the tiny microscopic chance that their god and devil do exist is true, creationism would be a lie their devil worked into the modern church with the intent concept of making the church appear to be based on lies. It leaves a very logical argument open along the lines of "Well if they clearly are wrong on this area which we know based on the evidence that they are... what are the odds they are right on the areas we have little evidence for or against?". It would pretty much destroy the Pascal's wager argument often used by Christians by effectively making their faith appear to be near the bottom of the list of one's that might viable and worth grabbing just to cover your ass just in case their is a god and an afterlife.Last edited by JasonDB; 04-24-2011 at 11:48 AM.
-
04-23-2011, 04:29 AM #38
-
04-23-2011, 04:44 AM #39
-
04-23-2011, 09:07 AM #40
-
-
04-23-2011, 09:37 AM #41
There have been studies that have showed evolution is a fact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli...ion_experiment
this is a very short description of the Lenski E. coli evolution experiment but you can find longer articles about it on other sites
evolution is a FACT.
-
04-23-2011, 09:41 AM #42
-
04-23-2011, 09:53 AM #43
-
04-23-2011, 10:00 AM #44
-
-
04-23-2011, 10:32 AM #45
-
04-23-2011, 11:10 AM #46
-
04-23-2011, 11:18 AM #47
Your original claim is that observations are not objective. Not that observations can never be proven to be completely true.
You can never know for certain that the objects you see are actually reality. But if you believe that the computer in front of you is real, does that mean that your belief is not objective?
I am using a computer to type words. Is this an objective observation?
-
04-23-2011, 11:24 AM #48
-
-
04-23-2011, 11:29 AM #49
Not quite the same. We don't have as much evidence (atleast as much "infalliable" evidence) to show for evolution, simply on the fact of we haven't been studying it for that long - but rather look at different species, note the similarities, find different fossils, see how they fit structurally, find different bones, note the DNA similarities and structure of bone/which bone for comparison/theory. The theory comes with the tying all these little bits of data together to form them into making sense. Not at all the same as saying "I don't believe in gravity because I don't understand it"
-
04-23-2011, 11:35 AM #50
My point is that many observations can be objective
Neither beliefs nor observations can be objective. It is your belief and your observation, not mine. And if I were to observe and believe as you do (allegedly), then it would be our beliefs and observations.
What will the answer be? "I see the Earth. It is right here"
How is this observation not objective? What other reasonable response could there be?
In my opinion, you took some "nature of science class" and heard the professor say something about observations and you are now stretching it way too far and regurgitating nonsense information that you think you heard someone else say
-
04-23-2011, 11:39 AM #51
-
04-23-2011, 11:40 AM #52
-
-
04-23-2011, 11:42 AM #53
-
04-23-2011, 11:45 AM #54
-
04-23-2011, 11:53 AM #55
-
04-23-2011, 11:55 AM #56
- Join Date: Jul 2010
- Location: Chula Vista, California, United States
- Age: 34
- Posts: 3,701
- Rep Power: 2163
Kind of tired trying to argue rationally, it's hard for an atheist to be truly intellectually honest. Where are your crocoducks?!
Started losing weight in 2010 at 300 lbs
Started lifting April 2013
5'7" 171 lbs
Progress / Goal:
B.S. Computer Science & Engineering in May 2018 / Graduate with my B.S.
14% BF / 10% BF
Deadlift 495 lbs / 585 lbs
Front Squat 275 lbs / 315 lbs
Pull ups (bar to chest) 12 / 20
Weighted Dips +70 / +90
Mile Run 7:30 min / 6:00 min
-
-
04-23-2011, 12:00 PM #57
So we can't even agree that the objects our eyes see are things that actually exist?
Whats your definition of objectivity? Mine would be something like "existing without personal bias"
If someone says "The Earth is touching my feet" and then I look down and see that the Earth is touching his feet, then I would say his observation was objective
-
04-23-2011, 12:11 PM #58
Agreement wouldn't mean it is objective. It would mean our subjective opinions match.
Originally Posted by TBU
Originally Posted by TBU
-
04-23-2011, 12:14 PM #59
-
04-23-2011, 12:15 PM #60
Similar Threads
-
whats the diff between normal peanut butter and "natural" peanut butter???
By Celty in forum NutritionReplies: 23Last Post: 03-14-2007, 07:59 PM -
How can I tell the difference between a productive workout and a "pump workout"?
By NoStoppingMe in forum Workout ProgramsReplies: 3Last Post: 09-20-2004, 05:47 PM -
What is the difference between an Olympic bar and a regular bar? Any advantages?
By agex000 in forum Workout EquipmentReplies: 8Last Post: 03-10-2004, 04:47 PM -
What's the difference between a power rack and a smith machine?
By brandonb in forum Teen BodybuildingReplies: 13Last Post: 07-09-2002, 06:00 PM
Bookmarks