Jaden wrote:
Open Mind wrote:
I'm showing the white feather and avoid this debate. You have made a point. Concratulations!
On one hand you believe in Evolution although it is still debated by scientists (forget about the Creationists). There are lots of observations that speak against evolution at first sight. But you believe in it though. Maybe you are right, because if you take a closer look there is a way to fit most (but not all) of those observations in the theory. But you have to look into it.
It's really not debated by scientists. Not anymore. I have actually studied it, and I know for a fact that no anti-evolution articles are ever published in scientific magazines because they just aren't scientifically sound. Like I said, the Earth rotating the sun is also a theory, and evolution is right up there with it, considered one of the most sound theories we have.
I want to know these observations against evolution that you speak of. Just an ambigious statement proves nothing. And really, evolution isn't about "fitting" pieces and logic into a theory. It's not like metaphysics. It has been torn at for the last century and a half, and has only gained power and credibility.
We know evolution takes place, we can see micro evolution very apparently, and few deny this. We have, as well, seen macro evolution. For example, we've taken a species of rapid-reproducing worms, segregated them for about twenty years, and then brought them back together. They now looked different from one another, and would and could not mate together; they were now two different species.
Fact is, thousands of pre-human fossils have been found, that show clear evolution to our current state. We know evolution takes place, and we can see our's with no small abundance of backing.
Don't try to engage me in a stupid and pointless debate. Your textbook examples have been quoted and discussed by amateurs like you and me 1000 times before without any effect. I don't know what you mean when you say you "studied" Evolution therory, but I know that you aren't in a position to argue scientifically sound about it, unless you are a Wunderkind. The problem with Evolution theory is that every idiot without a solid education feels appointed to add his stupid babbling.
The fossil example is a bad one. I have done two university courses in palaeobiology. At the end I mentioned to the professor (an award winnig pro-evolutionist) that in fact we know little, and he answerd that, "to tell the truth, we don’t know the first thing". I hope you can accept that I rather I believe him than I believe you.
When you say that no anti-evolution articles are ever published in scientific magazines, I have to believe this. I won't waste my time to look for recent counter-examples. But I don't really wonder because meanwhile the public debate has become so unobjective that someone who dares to raise his voice against Evolution runs the risk of being put down as oddball, or even worse, Creationist.
When you say that they aren't published because they just aren't scientifically sound, I don't believe it, because you can not know this if they weren't published. WHAT I know is the politics of scientific publishing and from my own experience* I know that not everything that is scientifically sound is published.
You say that Evolution is considered one of the most sound theories we have. I think Quantum Mechanics and Statistical Thermodynamics are also on this list. So why is there a debate about Evolution but not about the latter? Don’t blame Creationists for it because they also attack Statistical Thermodynamics and even earth rotation. But here no one cares because, contrary to Evolution, there is simply too much evidence and no flaws. (Well, I haven’t verified all by myself so I better say I believe that there are no flaws).
*
In case that you prefer personal experience over textbook knowledge, here's my story:
In Metamorphic Geology there is a model called P-T evolution. This model describes the formation of metamorphic rocks through several stages of equilibrium, i.e. a sequence of different mineral paragenisis. There are 1000s of observations that support this theory.
However, a theory that explains Metamorphism by equilibrium sounds even more stupid then a theory that explains life by random mutations of self-organized matter.
So the theory had to be extended with terms like quasi-equilibrium, local non-equilibrium. Finally an experimental approach to determine the kinetics of geochemical reactions under such high pressures and temperatures had been found and the two pioneering works supported the P-T evolution theory and everyone was happy, although nobody really understood it. (And if a figure called Jaden was interested in Earth Science he would defeat this theory against every moron who doubts it, wouldn’t he?) The sad thing is that Earth scientists are not necessarily experts in advanced maths or thermodynamics so no one found the mistake in those works. A ittle later I started my Ph. D. thesis in this research area. After 3 years of theoretical work, computer simulation and experiments I showed that you have to process the experimental data in a different manner and the result was simply a disproof of the P-T theory. I went to a conference and gave a talk about this. The reaction was staggering: "fluff!", "speculation!", "experimental mistakes!". They didn't even consider that I could be right. The end of the story: My doctoral advisor asked me to use the common method to show that our data do fit the P-T-model, because he was concerned about his reputation and because our work would be rejected by the magazines anyway. Moreover, by using the old approach the data scattering was too high, so he wanted me to remove the "outliers". End of the story: I refused to fake data, lost my job, the thing was never published and the Jadens of this world still believe in the P-T-evolution model. You may call this an individual case but fact is that every single thesis, of which I know the author closer, has undergone some data mining.Jaden wrote:
Quote:
On one hand you believe in Evolution although it is still debated by scientists (forget about the Creationists). There are lots of observations that speak against evolution at first sight. But you believe in it though. Maybe you are right, because if you take a closer look there is a way to fit most (but not all) of those observations in the theory. But you have to look into it.
On the other hand you reject Karma on the base of one single observation which is the standard stereotype objection of the bissfully ignorant Westener. This has been resolved a thousand times but you didn't even try.
And you are telling me that I just believe what I want to believe?
Allthogether, your reply is a nice excercise that proofs that you are good in specious rhetorics, nothing else.
Yay, I'm a blissfully ignorant Westerner. But really, stop telling me how ignorant I am, and how all this has been proven, and actually tell me the proof.
You are not ignorant but quite naive. If the "proof" for Karma was so easy it would be common knowledge. You sound like a 12 y.o. who don't believe in Fermat's Last Theorem and askes for a proof for it. Every 12 y.o. can understand this theorem but only round 20 people in the damn whole world understand the proof. What next? Do you object Fermat's Last Theorem because I can not show you how this have been proofed? However, to give you another hint that I'm a moron, I tell you that your objection on Karma is resolved with reincarnation. But I'm pretty sure that you already know why this is bullshit.
From my point of view, your world-view looks biased. You believe in materialism and therefore you believe in science. Scientific therories by definition have to be materialistic and backed by physical processes. So every scientific theory that "proofs" that there is no spiritual world is circular reasoning. So stop asking for scientific proofs of spiritual truths, but also stop to reject everything that can't be understood by science alone. The only reason why people who describe particles as
condensed energy in a quantum field win the Nobel Prize and people who describe thoughts as
condensed energy in a mind-field are laughed at, is the fact that science is limited to the material world in the first place.
Rock on though, you found the right path.
