Creation vs. Evolution

[Soggy]

Isn't that indirectly calling those on an opposing side "stupid" ... uneducated ... blind ... misguided? Oh, man I couldn't resist that one.

Uneducated, yes. Stupid, no. Blind and misguided, possibly.

We have to agree theory, since no one was actually there to witness it; circumstantial.

Once again, there is a difference between the scientific concept of a theory and common use of the term.

 

[Midnight Star]

Uneducated, yes. Stupid, no. Blind and misguided, possibly.



Once again, there is a difference between the scientific concept of a theory and common use of the term.

Just a thought ... but isnt the use of "education" to out perform the average person a way of saying that they are indeed "stupid"? Not just ignorant or uneducated per se, but recklessly so - they can't think correctly for themselves? Hence, stupidity? See, I feel that the majority of people are highly intelligent, and that talking down to someone (not that it's been done ... just thinking outside the box), using education at the tool, doesnt necessarily prove them right or wrong, egotistical perhaps.

In the course of education, our knowledge has been written and re-written. Some of the theories,so vahemently stood by in the past, today have been proven wrong or inaccurate. That's why education is important yes, but not the deciding factor in truth. It has the fallibility of changing as our knowledge increases. Shouldnt those things also be taken into consideration when attempting to finalize an idea or concept? That we can only discern based on what we know - and what we know, can and does often change?

-

All things, in a way are theory. It's mine (or someone else's) representation of what they discern (how they view or try and understand) or believe they know. I know it sounds strange, but outside the box, let's look at this ... 2 + 2 = 4. If I said that was theory, some would say fact because 2 + 2 does equal 4. But why is 2, 2. How is it assigned value? Some have said that 2 is merely an abstract representation of something; language. If the parts of the whole are abstract, then so would be the result. It's only fact because we choose to represent it that way. See what i'm trying to say?

-----

Mike.

 

[Uncle Pug]

The reason many people don't "believe" in evolution is that the lack the background to understand it. With all due respect, to "prove" this to you would require that you complete about 12 credits of upper division work in Zoology, not to mention the time that it'd take you to fill the holes in your background that are prerequisite to those courses.

Catechism in evolutionary faith aside... it's easy to accept something as proven as long as it goes along with what you already know.

For example... look at the folks in this thread who lack the required 12 credits of upper division work in Zoology (not to mention the prerequisite courses needed to fill the holes in their background) who've accept evolution by faith without nearly so much 'proof' as you've offered by merely stating that that the Sarcopterygian ancestors of the amhipia transformed swim baldder tissue to lungs.

Such is the magic and power believing. It.... defies logic!

 

[Soggy]

Just a thought ... but isnt the use of "education" to out perform the average person a way of saying that they are indeed "stupid"? Not just ignorant or uneducated per se, but recklessly so - they can't think correctly for themselves? Hence, stupidity?

No, it's not a way of saying "stupid"...it's lack of education. Don't put words in my mouth.

Uneducated people often form opinions about things they do not understand and then are unwilling to accept the new information if they ever bother to try learning about it. Evolution is a perfect case of that. Few people educated on the topic find disagreement with it, but there are critics everywhere that don't have a clue. They may be intelligent and highly educated in other fields (like theology), but be clueless about anything scientific.

See, I feel that the majority of people are highly intelligent, and that talking down to someone (not that it's been done ... just thinking outside the box), using education at the tool, doesnt necessarily prove them right or wrong, egotistical perhaps.

Every day, I see fewer and fewer intelligent people around. We'll have to disagree vehemently on that point. I think the majority of people aren't very smart.

See what i'm trying to say?

Nope.

 

[Cacia]

I feel that the majority of people are highly intelligent,

actually...less than half, according to the ol bell curve. If highly intelligent means higher than average? Most have around 100 for IQ's ..and that is not "highly intelligent"

personally, I don't think interfaith marriages work...that doesn't mean I am a bigot, does it, Soggy?

Seems to be some pretty big misunderstandings of intelligence VS education..or exposure to scientific principles here.

I think the majority of people aren't very smart.

The majority are average, by definition.

And..people below average did not choose it...it is a biological limitation for the most part. Remember that the next time you are frustrated as someone has trouble counting your change...maybe they are doing the best they can with what God gave them.

As long as everyone is discussing evolution...maybe we need to all consider what allowing ourselves to evolve spiritually would look like...

Attributing wrong intentions to a person who is of low intelligence, or even to an uneducated person, just makes no sense, really. You can be very intelligent and still be very unevolved in a spiritual sense, or an altruistic sense, if you like that better.

So, no matter what you beleive..I cannot understand why you could be aggitated by "the other side".

They may be intelligent and highly educated in other fields (like theology), but be clueless about anything scientific.

that shouldn't offend you Soggy. ...just know that it is so.

 

[Midnight Star]

No, it's not a way of saying "stupid"...it's lack of education. Don't put words in my mouth.

I wasn't referring to you with that statement. Just showing how "blurry" that particular line is, and can become.

Uneducated people often form opinions about things they do not understand and then are unwilling to accept the new information if they ever bother to try learning about it.

This is absolutely true. In many cases, it's been the detriment of the doer.

Evolution is a perfect case of that. Few people educated on the topic find disagreement with it, but there are critics everywhere that don't have a clue. They may be intelligent and highly educated in other fields (like theology), but be clueless about anything scientific.

I completely understand that, and would like to also add, that I think both sides are missing the point that each other is trying to make. As I said previously, what we know about evolution is based on a conclusion bound or formed by circumstantial evidence. With circumstantial, I mean, we were not there to see it; it all makes sense, little one celled critters first, then more complex organisms, and onwards up. Without really being there, could we concretely say that it was this, or that? That's why I used the term theory.

Every day, I see fewer and fewer intelligent people around. We'll have to disagree vehemently on that point. I think the majority of people aren't very smart.

I see more and more careless people, that don't really think something through for whatever reason; the capacity for intelligence is there, they just dont seem to fully use it when doing or trying really crazy things.

-----

Mike.

 

[Soggy]

As I said previously, what we know about evolution is based on a conclusion bound or formed by circumstantial evidence. With circumstantial, I mean, we were not there to see it; it all makes sense, little one celled critters first, then more complex organisms, and onwards up. Without really being there, could we concretely say that it was this, or that? That's why I used the term theory.

No, it is not circumstantial. It has been tested and observed directly and scientifically. That has been explained probably a dozen times

 

[Midnight Star]

actually...less than half, according to the ol bell curve. If highly intelligent means higher than average? Most have around 100 for IQ's ..and that is not "highly intelligent"

I was actually referring to capacity for, as opposed to memorized concepts or formal education.

-----

Mike.

 

[Midnight Star]

No, it is not circumstantial. It has been tested and observed directly and scientifically. That has been explained probably a dozen times already.

Who lived and observed the Pleistocene or even Hadian eras? Certainly not me. So, direct observation is out. Based on my understanding, all things, upto where man begins in the evolutionary tree does make sense, but since I wasnt there, it's just circumstantial. It looks like this leads to this, and then to this ... kinda thing, therefore it must be true. If I were to plant evidence at a crime scene, implicating someone else, does that mean they did it based on the evidence? I'm not arguing for or against either side since that's their own personal decision to make, just pointing out, perhaps another possibility.

-----

Mike.

 

[Bryan]

No it is not. It means exactly what it says.

The tone is dogmatic and full of disdain for those of different views.

But, we're letting that slide for the sake of discourse.