Evolution, Science And Education

[Cal]

Originally posted by mark44@Jan 31 2005, 03:25 PM

one huge problem for any LDS who accept evolution is the doctrine of accountability.

evolution was allegedly a very sloooowwww process ie miniscule changes and alterations taking place over millions upon millions, even billions, of years. it took at least a few millions for a fish fin to even look anything remotely like a webbed foot, or a wing perhaps.

so, it must have been the same with humans. okay... in which case, at what point did man become accountable? i mean, it's impossible that the sun came up one day and that very same day pre-homo-sapien suddenly became fully fledged homo-sapien and accountable for his actions.

so, accountability and consciousness must have developed real slow too.

also, who were all the unfortunate pre-existant spirits who had the poor luck of being sent into pre-homo-sapien or neanderthal bodies???

i'm sorry, evolution, at least human evolution, is contrary to church doctrine.

also, how come the oldest buildings in the world only date back to about 5000BC. i believe jericho is the oldest remaining city. history begins in about the same era, with sumeria being the first civilization and no evidence of any civilization (in the sense of a civil society) having existed before it. what, cavemen evolved into a civilization like sumeria overnight!? what? crude paintings of animals on cave walls evolved into sumerian cuiniform overnight!? so we now have missing links, not only in the fossil record, but in the historical record, and in the written and speech record.

most damning of all is the timeline used by evolutionists themselves. "the cambrian explosion" marks a time when all of a sudden, in one millionth of a second on evolutions long slow timeline, all these complicated lifeforms appeared out of nowhere! that's why they call it an "explosiion" coz it didn't happen gradually like evolution should do.

"like evolution SHOULD do?" Who says evolution has to progress at the same pace for every kind of organism? As a matter of fact, the fossil record indicates that some populations evolved much faster than others. Some groups have hardly changed in 300,000,000 years--like the cockroach.

Whether or not human evolution contradicts church doctrines is irrelevant to the fact that it DID happen. There is no question--the fossl record is extensive and convincing. The church will just have to deal with it.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 1 2005, 07:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 1 2005, 07:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--mark44@Jan 31 2005, 03:25 PM

one huge problem for any LDS who accept evolution is the doctrine of accountability.

evolution was allegedly a very sloooowwww process ie miniscule changes and alterations taking place over millions upon millions, even billions, of years. it took at least a few millions for a fish fin to even look anything remotely like a webbed foot, or a wing perhaps.

so, it must have been the same with humans. okay... in which case, at what point did man become accountable? i mean, it's impossible that the sun came up one day and that very same day pre-homo-sapien suddenly became fully fledged homo-sapien and accountable for his actions.

so, accountability and consciousness must have developed real slow too.

also, who were all the unfortunate pre-existant spirits who had the poor luck of being sent into pre-homo-sapien or neanderthal bodies???

i'm sorry, evolution, at least human evolution, is contrary to church doctrine.

also, how come the oldest buildings in the world only date back to about 5000BC. i believe jericho is the oldest remaining city. history begins in about the same era, with sumeria being the first civilization and no evidence of any civilization (in the sense of a civil society) having existed before it. what, cavemen evolved into a civilization like sumeria overnight!? what? crude paintings of animals on cave walls evolved into sumerian cuiniform overnight!? so we now have missing links, not only in the fossil record, but in the historical record, and in the written and speech record.

most damning of all is the timeline used by evolutionists themselves. "the cambrian explosion" marks a time when all of a sudden, in one millionth of a second on evolutions long slow timeline, all these complicated lifeforms appeared out of nowhere! that's why they call it an "explosiion" coz it didn't happen gradually like evolution should do.

"like evolution SHOULD do?" Who says evolution has to progress at the same pace for every kind of organism? As a matter of fact, the fossil record indicates that some populations evolved much faster than others. Some groups have hardly changed in 300,000,000 years--like the cockroach.

Whether or not human evolution contradicts church doctrines is irrelevant to the fact that it DID happen. There is no question--the fossl record is extensive and convincing. The church will just have to deal with it.

Cal, which part of the fossil record is extensive and convincing?

All the literature I have read concludes just the opposite of what you are stating. Darwin, himself, stated the fossil record was the biggest hurdle against the theory of evolution, but he hoped that someday that new discoveries would do away with the problem. Instead, it exacerbated it. It took off in the direction Darwin was least hoping it would.

So, which part of the fossil record is extensive and convincing?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 1 2005, 07:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 1 2005, 07:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Feb 1 2005, 07:11 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--mark44@Jan 31 2005, 03:25 PM

one huge problem for any LDS who accept evolution is the doctrine of accountability.

evolution was allegedly a very sloooowwww process ie miniscule changes and alterations taking place over millions upon millions, even billions, of years. it took at least a few millions for a fish fin to even look anything remotely like a webbed foot, or a wing perhaps.

so, it must have been the same with humans. okay... in which case, at what point did man become accountable? i mean, it's impossible that the sun came up one day and that very same day pre-homo-sapien suddenly became fully fledged homo-sapien and accountable for his actions.

so, accountability and consciousness must have developed real slow too.

also, who were all the unfortunate pre-existant spirits who had the poor luck of being sent into pre-homo-sapien or neanderthal bodies???

i'm sorry, evolution, at least human evolution, is contrary to church doctrine.

also, how come the oldest buildings in the world only date back to about 5000BC. i believe jericho is the oldest remaining city. history begins in about the same era, with sumeria being the first civilization and no evidence of any civilization (in the sense of a civil society) having existed before it. what, cavemen evolved into a civilization like sumeria overnight!? what? crude paintings of animals on cave walls evolved into sumerian cuiniform overnight!? so we now have missing links, not only in the fossil record, but in the historical record, and in the written and speech record.

most damning of all is the timeline used by evolutionists themselves. "the cambrian explosion" marks a time when all of a sudden, in one millionth of a second on evolutions long slow timeline, all these complicated lifeforms appeared out of nowhere! that's why they call it an "explosiion" coz it didn't happen gradually like evolution should do.

"like evolution SHOULD do?" Who says evolution has to progress at the same pace for every kind of organism? As a matter of fact, the fossil record indicates that some populations evolved much faster than others. Some groups have hardly changed in 300,000,000 years--like the cockroach.

Whether or not human evolution contradicts church doctrines is irrelevant to the fact that it DID happen. There is no question--the fossl record is extensive and convincing. The church will just have to deal with it.

Cal, which part of the fossil record is extensive and convincing?

All the literature I have read concludes just the opposite of what you are stating. Darwin, himself, stated the fossil record was the biggest hurdle against the theory of evolution, but he hoped that someday that new discoveries would do away with the problem. Instead, it exacerbated it. It took off in the direction Darwin was least hoping it would.

So, which part of the fossil record is extensive and convincing?

To begin with, the human fossil record itself. Have you examined the finds? Are you aware of the many human fossils dating back to our common ancestors with the Chimps, 4-5 million years old. Are you familiar with Australopithus, Homo habilus, Cro Magon, Neanderthal and the hundreds of fossils out of Africa, China, the middle east, France and Germany? Go get a book on human evolution. You might find it enlightening. After you have read the literature. By the way, there are lots of other lines of fossils that show clear lines of evolution. The horse is one, but there are lots of others--and that is just the beginning.

I don't know where you got the idea that Darwinian evolution has be discarded by the Scientific community. It most certainly has not. It has been expanded and modified to account for things that Darwin would not have been expected to know about, but scientists accept the general laws of natural selection as still a valid part of evolutionary theory.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 1 2005, 07:53 PM

To begin with, the human fossil record itself. Have you examined the finds? Are you aware of the many human fossils dating back to our common ancestors with the Chimps, 4-5 million years old. Are you familiar with Australopithus, Homo habilus, Cro Magon, Neanderthal and the hundreds of fossils out of Africa, China, the middle east, France and Germany? Go get a book on human evolution. You might find it enlightening. After you have read the literature. By the way, there are lots of other lines of fossils that show clear lines of evolution. The horse is one, but there are lots of others--and that is just the beginning.

I don't know where you got the idea that Darwinian evolution has be discarded by the Scientific community. It most certainly has not. It has been expanded and modified to account for things that Darwin would not have been expected to know about, but scientists accept the general laws of natural selection as still a valid part of evolutionary theory.

I don't have a problem with intra-species evolution, but there just isn't proof that we descended from gorillas or chimpanzees. There isn't even "proof" that birds or reptiles descended from dinosaurs, although, I admit, those are the closest they have come to proving.

Do you know that half of the "human fossils" you listed are dead ends? Detours? A sub-species that we did not descend from?

I do find human evolution interesting. I like to watch the specials on Discovery, etc., and learn quite a bit from them. But what I have learned is that, so far, they have not found anything that connects us to chimps.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 1 2005, 08:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 1 2005, 08:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 1 2005, 07:53 PM

To begin with, the human fossil record itself. Have you examined the finds? Are you aware of the many human fossils dating back to our common ancestors with the Chimps, 4-5 million years old. Are you familiar with  Australopithus, Homo habilus, Cro Magon, Neanderthal and the hundreds of fossils out of Africa, China, the middle east, France and Germany? Go get a book on human evolution. You might find it enlightening. After you have read the literature. By the way, there are lots of other lines of fossils that show clear lines of evolution. The horse is one, but there are lots of others--and that is just the beginning.

I don't know where you got the idea that Darwinian evolution has be discarded by the Scientific community. It most certainly has not. It has been expanded and modified to account for things that Darwin would not have been expected to know about, but scientists accept the general laws of natural selection as still a valid part of evolutionary theory.

I don't have a problem with intra-species evolution, but there just isn't proof that we descended from gorillas or chimpanzees. There isn't even "proof" that birds or reptiles descended from dinosaurs, although, I admit, those are the closest they have come to proving.

Do you know that half of the "human fossils" you listed are dead ends? Detours? A sub-species that we did not descend from?

I do find human evolution interesting. I like to watch the specials on Discovery, etc., and learn quite a bit from them. But what I have learned is that, so far, they have not found anything that connects us to chimps.

First, you use the term "proof". That is strawman. Scientists NEVER use the word proof. The better term would be "best explanation" or best theory.

The "best" explanation for the changes that can be seen in the human fossil record is that we, humans, are decended from ancestors that were also common to Chimps, and less directly to other primates (since we share the biggest % of our genes with Chimps). You are simply wrong that there is no evidence of "micro evolution", there is plenty evidence that life forms and branches of living things have changes drastically over time.

ONe thing there is NO evidence for is the idea that living things were zapped into existance in a single "miraculous" beginning.

The rational person doesn't seek for absolute proof, he seeks for the best explanation for the existing evidence. Find me a credible scientist (biological) that thinks the fossil record and other evidence points "best" at some sort of instantaneous creation, and I will show you 99 others that say evolution is the best explanation. Frankly, I don't think you can name even ONE PhD Biologist that thinks evolution didn't happen.

[Jenda]

Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. embryologist.

[mark44]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 1 2005, 09:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 1 2005, 09:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 08:03 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 1 2005, 07:53 PM

To begin with, the human fossil record itself. Have you examined the finds? Are you aware of the many human fossils dating back to our common ancestors with the Chimps, 4-5 million years old. Are you familiar with  Australopithus, Homo habilus, Cro Magon, Neanderthal and the hundreds of fossils out of Africa, China, the middle east, France and Germany? Go get a book on human evolution. You might find it enlightening. After you have read the literature. By the way, there are lots of other lines of fossils that show clear lines of evolution. The horse is one, but there are lots of others--and that is just the beginning.

I don't know where you got the idea that Darwinian evolution has be discarded by the Scientific community. It most certainly has not. It has been expanded and modified to account for things that Darwin would not have been expected to know about, but scientists accept the general laws of natural selection as still a valid part of evolutionary theory.

I don't have a problem with intra-species evolution, but there just isn't proof that we descended from gorillas or chimpanzees. There isn't even "proof" that birds or reptiles descended from dinosaurs, although, I admit, those are the closest they have come to proving.

Do you know that half of the "human fossils" you listed are dead ends? Detours? A sub-species that we did not descend from?

I do find human evolution interesting. I like to watch the specials on Discovery, etc., and learn quite a bit from them. But what I have learned is that, so far, they have not found anything that connects us to chimps.

First, you use the term "proof". That is strawman. Scientists NEVER use the word proof. The better term would be "best explanation" or best theory.

The "best" explanation for the changes that can be seen in the human fossil record is that we, humans, are decended from ancestors that were also common to Chimps, and less directly to other primates (since we share the biggest % of our genes with Chimps). You are simply wrong that there is no evidence of "micro evolution", there is plenty evidence that life forms and branches of living things have changes drastically over time.

ONe thing there is NO evidence for is the idea that living things were zapped into existance in a single "miraculous" beginning.

The rational person doesn't seek for absolute proof, he seeks for the best explanation for the existing evidence. Find me a credible scientist (biological) that thinks the fossil record and other evidence points "best" at some sort of instantaneous creation, and I will show you 99 others that say evolution is the best explanation. Frankly, I don't think you can name even ONE PhD Biologist that thinks evolution didn't happen.

Cal:

so you admit you believe in evolution because it's "the best explanation." so, you admit you don't have proof. you know what, gravity is no longer the best explanation to explain why an apple falls to the eart, gravity is now a law of science (though of course we don't know how absolute it is, einstein showed that). also, "best explanation" is such a "subjective" term.

i still don't know how you can explain the cambrian explosion. in your own words, 99% of species appeared all of a sudden.

also, answer me this, what was there "before" the big bang? i think we need to move more into astrophysics rather than natural science in order to really put a nail in the coffin of evolution.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 1 2005, 09:03 PM

I don't have a problem with intra-species evolution, but there just isn't proof that we descended from gorillas or chimpanzees. There isn't even "proof" that birds or reptiles descended from dinosaurs, although, I admit, those are the closest they have come to proving.

Do you know that half of the "human fossils" you listed are dead ends? Detours? A sub-species that we did not descend from?

I do find human evolution interesting. I like to watch the specials on Discovery, etc., and learn quite a bit from them. But what I have learned is that, so far, they have not found anything that connects us to chimps.

True, evolution is a theory. It's a widely accepted version of what heppened, but it is still a theory, as is Intelligent Design.

I don't know that I believe in drastic evolution as in ape-to-man, but I believe that many species do evolve and adapt to a degree over time. Darwin got a lot of it right.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 1 2005, 09:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 1 2005, 09:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 1 2005, 07:53 PM

To begin with, the human fossil record itself. Have you examined the finds? Are you aware of the many human fossils dating back to our common ancestors with the Chimps, 4-5 million years old. Are you familiar with  Australopithus, Homo habilus, Cro Magon, Neanderthal and the hundreds of fossils out of Africa, China, the middle east, France and Germany? Go get a book on human evolution. You might find it enlightening. After you have read the literature. By the way, there are lots of other lines of fossils that show clear lines of evolution. The horse is one, but there are lots of others--and that is just the beginning.

I don't know where you got the idea that Darwinian evolution has be discarded by the Scientific community. It most certainly has not. It has been expanded and modified to account for things that Darwin would not have been expected to know about, but scientists accept the general laws of natural selection as still a valid part of evolutionary theory.

I don't have a problem with intra-species evolution, but there just isn't proof that we descended from gorillas or chimpanzees. There isn't even "proof" that birds or reptiles descended from dinosaurs, although, I admit, those are the closest they have come to proving.

Do you know that half of the "human fossils" you listed are dead ends? Detours? A sub-species that we did not descend from?

I do find human evolution interesting. I like to watch the specials on Discovery, etc., and learn quite a bit from them. But what I have learned is that, so far, they have not found anything that connects us to chimps.

If the gorilla and chimp specy became us, why are they still in an unevolved state? Why did some become human and others just stay what they were for thousands of thousands of years? It doesn't make sense.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

A big part of this debate has to do with the problem of definitions. "Proof" is being used to mean "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt" -- which almost never exists. In law, depending on the standard being used, something is considered proven when it is shown by evidence to be more likely than not. The theory of evolution meets that standard.

Amillia -- Before being so sure of yourself on the evolution issue, educate yourself a little more. Evolution does not say that we descended from gorillas and chimpanzees.

Mark: Re: the Cambrian explosion -- Part of the reason the Cambrian-era rocks contain so many fossils is that pre-Cambrian rocks tend to be heavily metamorphic, meaning they're so old and have been buried so deep for so long that they've changed their mineral form, erasing most of the fossil record within them.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Feb 2 2005, 01:17 PM

A big part of this debate has to do with the problem of definitions. "Proof" is being used to mean "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt" -- which almost never exists. In law, depending on the standard being used, something is considered proven when it is shown by evidence to be more likely than not. The theory of evolution meets that standard.

Amillia -- Before being so sure of yourself on the evolution issue, educate yourself a little more. Evolution does not say that we descended from gorillas and chimpanzees.

Mark: Re: the Cambrian explosion -- Part of the reason the Cambrian-era rocks contain so many fossils is that pre-Cambrian rocks tend to be heavily metamorphic, meaning they're so old and have been buried so deep for so long that they've changed their mineral form, erasing most of the fossil record within them.

I was asking a question! Where did I say I was sure of myself. Before you act all sure of yourself about me, get your facts!

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Amillia@Feb 2 2005, 10:45 AM

If the gorilla and chimp specy became us, why are they still in an unevolved state? Why did some become human and others just stay what they were for thousands of thousands of years? It doesn't make sense.

Gorillas and chimps didn't become us. Aiyaiyaiyaiyai....read a few reliable books for heaven's sake!

[Outshined]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 2 2005, 01:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 2 2005, 01:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Feb 2 2005, 10:45 AM

If the gorilla and chimp specy became us, why are they still in an unevolved state? Why did some become human and others just stay what they were for thousands of thousands of years? It doesn't make sense.

Gorillas and chimps didn't become us. Aiyaiyaiyaiyai....read a few reliable books for heaven's sake!

I don't know; I've met some folks...

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Outshined+Feb 2 2005, 02:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Feb 2 2005, 02:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -curvette@Feb 2 2005, 01:48 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Feb 2 2005, 10:45 AM

If the gorilla and chimp specy became us, why are they still in an unevolved state? Why did some become human and others just stay what they were for thousands of thousands of years? It doesn't make sense.

Gorillas and chimps didn't become us. Aiyaiyaiyaiyai....read a few reliable books for heaven's sake!

I don't know; I've met some folks...

Yeah. Quite a few are driving out there on the freeway as we speak!

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Cal@Jan 26 2005, 07:12 PM

Because there is ample "scientific evidence" that Einstein EXISTED. There is no scientific evidence for the existance of God, fortunately or unfortunately depending on how you look at it.

Why would the study of how the world came into being, set strictly upon scientific studies. Why not religious studies. Why guess and theorized in science as to how it all came about, and not give a little of the guess work to the creationist's ideas.

Science is supposed to be a study of concrete evidential facts. Yet coming up with a big bang theory is considered science. It is totally stupid.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Outshined@Feb 2 2005, 01:03 PM

I don't know; I've met some folks...

Although the hairy back thing makes me wonder....

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Amillia+Feb 2 2005, 12:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Feb 2 2005, 12:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Feb 2 2005, 01:17 PM

A big part of this debate has to do with the problem of definitions.  "Proof" is being used to mean "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt" -- which almost never exists.  In law, depending on the standard being used, something is considered proven when it is shown by evidence to be more likely than not.  The theory of evolution meets that standard.

Amillia -- Before being so sure of yourself on the evolution issue, educate yourself a little more.  Evolution does not say that we descended from gorillas and chimpanzees.

Mark:  Re: the Cambrian explosion -- Part of the reason the Cambrian-era rocks contain so many fossils is that pre-Cambrian rocks tend to be heavily metamorphic, meaning they're so old and have been buried so deep for so long that they've changed their mineral form, erasing most of the fossil record within them.

I was asking a question! Where did I say I was sure of myself. Before you act all sure of yourself about me, get your facts!

You asked a question, and then you said "It doesn't make sense," which I took (maybe mistakenly) as applying to evolution in general. The question you asked doesn't render evolution senseless, because it mischaracterizes the evolutionist position -- which is that humans evolved, not from gorillas and chimpanzees, but from a long-ago common ancestor of both those apes and humans. In other words, the chimpanzees took one fork in the road and evolved to fill one evolutionary niche, while we took another fork and evolved to fill another one.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Amillia+Feb 2 2005, 01:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Feb 2 2005, 01:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Jan 26 2005, 07:12 PM

Because there is ample "scientific evidence" that Einstein EXISTED.  There is no scientific evidence for the existance of God, fortunately or unfortunately depending on how you look at it.

Why would the study of how the world came into being, set strictly upon scientific studies. Why not religious studies. Why guess and theorized in science as to how it all came about, and not give a little of the guess work to the creationist's ideas.

Science is supposed to be a study of concrete evidential facts. Yet coming up with a big bang theory is considered science. It is totally stupid.

Amillia,

Scientific theorizing isn't just "guessing," any more than Scott Peterson got sentenced to death based on guesswork. Both science and law look at the available evidence, and decide what are the likeliest conclusions based on that evidence.

The fact that other theories are theoretically possible doesn't make this "guesswork." For example, it's theoretically possible that Scott Peterson was just horribly unlucky to go fishing in precisely the same place where his wife's body bobbed up. Somebody could have framed him, for example. However, the jury in that case concluded that this would be far less likely than his having dropped the body off the fishing boat.

The Big Bang theory isn't just a guess, either. What would you conclude if you observed that the universe was expanding, with all the observed material in it moving outwards from a central point, and background radiation shown to be cooling at a steady rate? Since the universe is getting cooler and less dense as time goes by, the logical conclusion is that in the past, it was warmer and denser. Running the clock all the way backwards, you reach a point where the universe was so hot and so dense that, based on what we know about high-energy physics, it would have started expanding rapidly outwards.

Or you could just take a random guess and say that the expansion and cooling process began at one particular stage of density and energy, and call that the day of creation. THAT would be a guess.

Science consists not only of collecting the facts, but deciding what those facts mean in light of what we've learned from other facts. It's not guesswork, nor is it "stupid."

[Lindy]

Scientific theorizing isn't just "guessing,"

PD....some people just don't believe a lot of what men find in science theories to be true. Studies, graphs, facts, logic, guesses, conclusions....some people just can't absorb all the data, findings, and such. I find a lot of it interesting, I love learning others viewpoints and findings.....but personally I take some of it with a grain of salt. Nothing against scientists, they are very intelligent people, and I enjoy listening to them talk. Doesn't mean I agree with everything they say.

[Guest curvette]

It's amazing to me that there are internet savvy people out there who don't take the time to really look at the information. There is no conspiracy of "scientists" who push an evolution agenda. Scientists from all different disciplines publish independent studies within their areas of expertise. Together, all the information shows evolution to be our history. Don't take anyone's word for anything. Research it. It's fascinating!

[Lindy]

I find the world of science and technology fascinating. I also find others viewpoints of evolution fascinating as well, they may or may not be my viewpoint, but I have been taught to at least listen to what others have to say. And then if the time comes for a good debate, then I was told I better have something to back myself with. Very hard for me to debate evolution therories with "I know what I know is true" I would feel very silly I guess to just keep saying that over and over again.....and where was I going with this? (got sidetracked with grandson crying).....well I lost track of where I was going.....

I will say that I really enjoyed reading Travelers post of his viewpoint of evolution, I remember Fast and Testimony meetings when we have the opportunity to listen to one of our area scientists speak (we do have a lot in our area). And you are right Curvette, scientists are from all different areas of disciplines It is interesting to hear different points of views. And I agree that researching subjects is a great way to educate oneself, to help open up different doors of thinking.....but I would like to add that it should be a subject that one has an interest in. I am interested in the science of volcanoes and the science of human behavior, I leave the evolution debates for those who like that sort of "history". :)

[Outshined]

Originally posted by curvette@Feb 2 2005, 05:52 PM

It's amazing to me that there are internet savvy people out there who don't take the time to really look at the information. There is no conspiracy of "scientists" who push an evolution agenda. Scientists from all different disciplines publish independent studies within their areas of expertise. Together, all the information shows evolution to be our history. Don't take anyone's word for anything. Research it. It's fascinating!

Ah, this "science" stuff is all made up anyway. >snicker<

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Exhibit "A" for evolution = the cold viruds that's kdocked me dead the last three days.

[cough, hack, wheeze, groan, expire]

[Outshined]

Do we need the defibrillator from the other thread?

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by lindy9556@Feb 2 2005, 06:17 PM

(got sidetracked with grandson crying).....well I lost track of where I was going.....

You're a grandma? So, what, you got married when you were twelve? (your cyber aura is so young!)