NationStates Jolt Archive

Almost everyone now a days say evolution is a fact, well facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.

Okay, and this proves what exactly?

And what's wrong with the truth? Or, for that matter, facts?

That seems more like your no sense on evolution.

The locution is "two cents." "Two sense" makes no sense.

And what's wrong with the truth? Or, for that matter, facts?
They're not enough to prove a point.

Two sense? Last time I checked, I had five.

Indeed. Now do you have a point, or is this a well masked question? :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

My two Cents are that it's important to prove Christians wrong...

I mean..

Yeah I'm just kidding

They're not enough to prove a point.
i dispute that fact!
<climbs back into his box>

My two Cents are that it's important to prove Christians wrong...

Now there's a herculean task... :rolleyes:

People who don't believe in evolution usually dont know shit all about it.

P.S. Move out of the bible belt.

My two Cents are that it's important to prove Christians wrong...
you don't have to prove them wrong, they prove themselves wrong pretty well

They're not enough to prove a point.
facts aren't enough to prove a point, eh?
makes total and utter sense to me :confused:

facts aren't enough to prove a point, eh?
makes total and utter sense to me :confused:
If facts are facts then you need facts to prove those facts and more to prove those, thus it is better to be completely nonsensical.

If facts are facts then you need facts to prove those facts and more to prove those, thus it is better to be completely nonsensical.
Well, that explains most of your posts ;)

If facts are facts then you need facts to prove those facts and more to prove those, thus it is better to be completely nonsensical.
i see, so nonsense makes sense, eh? i should bludgeon you with a wet fish

*Bangs head on wall*
A FACT is merely a statement that is not an opinion. Opinions can not be proven true or false. Facts, however, can.

YOUR opinion, however, is a very rare exeption.

*bangs head against wall for the fun of it*

Indeed. Now do you have a point, or is this a well masked question? :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

It's a quote from the Simpsons...

Almost everyone now a days say evolution is a fact, well facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.
thats why science works on disproving things. by a process of elimination you end up with what is most likely to be true.

this is how we know that the biblical story of creation isnt literally true, its easily disprovable.

*bangs head against wall for the fun of it*

That's hot.

That's hot.
i'm all about the headbanging baby ;)

i'm all about the headbanging baby ;)

Well, at least it's some sort of head. :fluffle:

It seems the original poster is conceding that evolution is true.

People who don't believe in evolution usually dont know shit all about it.

P.S. Move out of the bible belt.

Bingo. They always argue from a position of ignorance. For some examples, let me repeat the common talking points I see amongst the anti-evolution crowd.

1. "It's just a theory!" No response is needed for this. If you don't see the fault, then there is no help for you!

2. "Darwin can't explain how life started!" Nor did he try to. Nor does anyone commenting on the theory of Evolution. The spontaneous genreration of life from inert ingredients is covered by the theory of abiogenesis.

3. "So, if evolution is true, how did the universe start? Where did the big bang come from? What created the singularity?" Again, this has nothing to do with evolution. Ask theoretical physicists, not biologists.

4. "But piltdown man was a fraud, so were the moths! This proves evolution is false!" No, it just proves that in science, just as in anything else, there are some unscrupulous people. Luckily their frauds are usually easily found out over time. Additionally, these rare examples do nothing to eliminate the mountains of other examples of evidence for evolution.

5. "But it's still just a theory!" Oh god, not this shit again...

6. "But what about the big bang?" Look, I already explained about that. You aren't really listening, are you?

7. "Why do you hate God?" I don't. Evolution has nothing to do with god. It neither proves nor disproves his existance. All evolution does prove is that some people without any access to scientific language, who thought mammoth or elephant skulls were dead giants, who thought the heavens were unchanging and eternal, who thought the world was flat, who thought the heart was the brain, who thought illness was caused by evil spirits, weren't exactly accurate as to how biological diversification came to be.

/snip



That was wonderfull.

To those who take not just any evolution, but Darwin evolution as complete fact, you are sadly mistaken. New evidence comes up all the time that changes a few details about Darwinism. So, while the general ideas are valid, you can't take it word for word as absolute truth.

Plus, on either discovery or national geographic, they talked about how one of our early ancestors basicly went from one species to another in a straight line. That's right. Biologically and geneticly different enough to be classified as different species, yet no branch. Not saying all of human history is a straight line. Just saying that another "law" has been disproven thanks to Mr. Exception. Yep.

PS. Who's to say that the bible was the first with a basic idea of our current science? Who's to say it wasn't? The "god created this after he created that" stuff is on par with scientists saying that A formed before B. The bible talks about how man was created after the animals. So does the theory of evolution. The bible says that:
the universe was created first.
then the earth showed up.
then plants and animals appeared.
finally, man appeared.
I guess the bible wasn't so anti-science after all. It was all those atheists and fundy-Christians who were at fault for the stereotype.

Almost everyone now a days say evolution is a fact, well facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.

Facts are meaningless?

I guess since the Bible doesn't use facts that makes them meaningless. I get your logic now.

Let me break this down

Evolution = theory
Theory = Well tested and supported idea based on empirical data and evidence

Anyway evolution isn't a fact, it's built on logical facts and evidence and that's why it's in science books, which are taught in school.

It's true that there's no such thing as a 'fact', really. Unless you believe in an objective reality, but that's as impossible to prove as God or my friend, the invisible crimson kangaroo-dragon. There's just theories and evidence.

There's a lot of testable evidence that points to evolutionary theory being likely as somewhere near the way things probably are. Though I personally, after a bit of research into the subject, tend to think pure natural selection as the sole driving force of evolution probably isn't enough on it's own. I also think Intelligent Design is, as Mr. Garabaldi would say, a load of horse-hocky. There's always more to be discovered.

Almost everyone now a days say evolution is a fact, well facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.
All I got to say WTF

All I got to say WTF

UpwardThrust FTW! :D

UpwardThrust FTW! :D
;) hehehe

Plus, on either discovery or national geographic, they talked about how one of our early ancestors basicly went from one species to another in a straight line. That's right. Biologically and geneticly different enough to be classified as different species, yet no branch. Not saying all of human history is a straight line. Just saying that another "law" has been disproven thanks to Mr. Exception. Yep.

Huh... That's odd, because on what I would assume to be another show on the same channel, it was demonstrated that the path to human evolution had plenty of branches, and that if only one 'branch' of descendance was noted, it was likely because the other(s) had simply not been found yet.

To those who take not just any evolution, but Darwin evolution as complete fact, you are sadly mistaken. New evidence comes up all the time that changes a few details about Darwinism. So, while the general ideas are valid, you can't take it word for word as absolute truth.

No scientist, or even a layman who has bothered to familiarize himself with the basics of evolution, takes what Darwin said as Gospel. That's the beauty of science. It refines itself over time. Since Darwin, almost every discipline of science has moved on. We don't use 150 year old science to make the space shuttle, do we?

Plus, on either discovery or national geographic, they talked about how one of our early ancestors basicly went from one species to another in a straight line. That's right. Biologically and geneticly different enough to be classified as different species, yet no branch. Not saying all of human history is a straight line. Just saying that another "law" has been disproven thanks to Mr. Exception. Yep.

What "law" is this? That species always branch? Never heard of it. If the new species completely drives the old species out of existance by overwhelming it's niche, then there's no branch.

PS. Who's to say that the bible was the first with a basic idea of our current science? Who's to say it wasn't? The "god created this after he created that" stuff is on par with scientists saying that A formed before B. The bible talks about how man was created after the animals. So does the theory of evolution. The bible says that:
the universe was created first.
then the earth showed up.
then plants and animals appeared.
finally, man appeared.
I guess the bible wasn't so anti-science after all. It was all those atheists and fundy-Christians who were at fault for the stereotype.

No one is saying that the bible doesn't contain some truths. The rub comes when someone tries to say the Bible contradicts a natural process that we know to be mostly true.

Also, I would say that the average atheist doesn't give a crap. The militant atheist, being as far out on the belief spectrum as the fundy religious-type, is who you should blame.

My two Cents are that it's important to prove Christians wrong...

I mean..

Yeah I'm just kidding

Not all Christians are creationist...

Almost everyone now a days say evolution is a fact, well facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.

Dern right! I'm sick-to-death of all these fact-mongers and their fancy book-learning! Just cause somethings a fact don't mean its true!

Dern right! I'm sick-to-death of all these fact-mongers and their fancy book-learning! Just cause somethings a fact don't mean its true!

:rolleyes:

... well facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.Look, just because you can't use facts to prove something that's not even remotely true doesn't mean they are bad things.

This thread is really shallow. It takes loner then one line to explain things.

First, everything that anyone says is fact is based on an assumption. Even "I think threrefore I am" is an assumption. Science says if several people try something several times and it comes out the same every time, we assume it's a fact. Literal religious people say "If it's in my book, it's fact." They assume everything is literal fact. Both build on their assumed facts. The difference is, a scientist can find an exception to his "fact" that will change the assumptions. Then the scientist will begin to build anew on the new assumptions. When a religious literalist finds an exception to their "facts", they reject the exception since the original assumption cannot change.

I would recommend the book, "The Day The Universe Changed". It is a group of stories about times in history when an exception was found that changed the assumptions of science. It is interesting that each time this happened, scientists slowly accepted the exception and changed their assumption to fit the new understanding. At the same time, religious literalists always argued that the old scientific assumptions better fit their religious writings and the new assumptions were therefore not valid. Many people died under the hands of religious literalists each time. Example: The earth is the center of the universe. I doubt if many Religious literalists today can quote why putting the sun at the center of the solar system went against the teaching of their holy book. But, at the time, religious literalists argued that it would destroy their religion to remove the earth from the center.

In another 500 years people will laugh about the evolution-creation arguement in the same way. Either exceptions will be found to change the assumptions of science, or it will be found that evolution really didn't change religion any more than removing the earth from the center.

Two sense? Last time I checked, I had five.


Well, thank evolution for that too!

I think the original poster, who quoted a line by Homer Simpson btw, was just making a joke.

I think the original poster, who quoted a line by Homer Simpson btw, was just making a joke.


Finally somebody gets it! I kind of expected this kind of thing to happen though...

Finally somebody gets it! I kind of expected this kind of thing to happen though... Seriously, we get some odd types on the forums and your OP could well have been serious.

I think the original poster, who quoted a line by Homer Simpson btw, was just making a joke.
OMG I missed a simpson quote

God, this thread gave me rabies.

Huh... That's odd, because on what I would assume to be another show on the same channel, it was demonstrated that the path to human evolution had plenty of branches, and that if only one 'branch' of descendance was noted, it was likely because the other(s) had simply not been found yet.

Both are the case. It is theorized that in hominid evolution the dominant branch periodically wiped out all the others. Such as 50,000 years ago, when homo sapiens first arrived on the scene and Erectis, Heidelbergensis, and Neanderthalis were present all over Eurasia. In several thousand years' time all of our cousins mysteriously disappeared from the fossil record as we proliferated accross the globe. Wonder what happened...