Music evolves but not always in a way I appreciate. I don't think I have a taste for country and western rap.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Darwin's Illusion
- Thread starter Neuropteron
- Start date
Music evolves but not always in a way I appreciate. I don't think I have a taste for country and western rap.
Jimmy
Veteran Member
Goo goo Gaga
Jimmy
Veteran Member
This makes no sense
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
If you think that then you have rather limited reasoning abilities.
Tell me, who do you believe made the Earth? Who made "nature"?
Jimmy
Veteran Member
We are now over 5,100 posts into this thread. Many members who have actually studied science have provided a tremendous, absolutely huge, amount of actual information and learning. They have been answered with denials backed up by -- well not much actual information and learning, but a lot of doubt based on a lack of those.
Does anybody here still think we're going to teach those who choose their science based on personal preference to examine and and reasonably evaluate the evidence that is so clearly presented? If so, please continue to argue away.
Everybody else, give yourselves a break and leave them to it.
As Dorothy Parker once said, when asked if she could use the word "horticulture" in a sentence:
"You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think!"
Does anybody here still think we're going to teach those who choose their science based on personal preference to examine and and reasonably evaluate the evidence that is so clearly presented? If so, please continue to argue away.
Everybody else, give yourselves a break and leave them to it.
As Dorothy Parker once said, when asked if she could use the word "horticulture" in a sentence:
"You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think!"
Since I responded to that, I see that you have.
I've been on the downward slope of enthusiasm for teaching moments that would mean something to someone else. I think by now, I should just give up and just read @It Aint Necessarily So posts. They are an interesting approach and don't leave me frustrated and angry having to deal with the closed minded, anti-science positions that just get repeated and repeated and repeated.
I've seen it for over 25 years, yet I still cannot fathom how some feel they hold positions of authority in science, religion and general philosophy while leaving no trace of that expertise in the trail they leave behind.
However, I cannot leave erroneous claims devoid of evidence and reason unattended.
The change observed in the fossil record is not from a single fossil, but seen in broader view of numerous fossils across time and geography. I have never seen an actual expert paleontologists make the claims that self-appointed authorities do on this thread or this forum. I've never seen professional scientist here or elsewhere make any of the claims that I see here regarding science made by the obviously uninitiated. It is as if these claims are made in a vacuum of belief that they are brand new and no scientist ever heard them before. As if they alone have the ability to come up with these novel stumbling blocks for science that have been until now, unseen. Yet, are repeats of empty claims decades old.
The fossil record may be like reading tea leaves for those that don't have the skill and knowledge to draw conclusions about it, but that the case for experts that actually study these things. And there is no evidence that the conclusions are made and then evidence is fitted to them. It is the other way round. No evidence that scientists only find what they already believe has been presented despite this claim being on heavy rotation like a Top 40 hit.
And yes, scientists draw conclusions. It is part of the scientific method. Conclusions in science are not revealed truth, absolute and unchangeable for all time. They are always tentative and might be overturned by the work of the next scientist if that work is valid.
In my opinion, most of what has been done on here by those against science have been more than 90% wrong and that is being charitable. They don't appear to have learned science from any sort science education and seem to be self-taught from non-science sources that are mostly wrong. Or they are positions that are made up without ever being vetted.
The change observed in the fossil record is not from a single fossil, but seen in broader view of numerous fossils across time and geography. I have never seen an actual expert paleontologists make the claims that self-appointed authorities do on this thread or this forum. I've never seen professional scientist here or elsewhere make any of the claims that I see here regarding science made by the obviously uninitiated. It is as if these claims are made in a vacuum of belief that they are brand new and no scientist ever heard them before. As if they alone have the ability to come up with these novel stumbling blocks for science that have been until now, unseen. Yet, are repeats of empty claims decades old.
The fossil record may be like reading tea leaves for those that don't have the skill and knowledge to draw conclusions about it, but that the case for experts that actually study these things. And there is no evidence that the conclusions are made and then evidence is fitted to them. It is the other way round. No evidence that scientists only find what they already believe has been presented despite this claim being on heavy rotation like a Top 40 hit.
And yes, scientists draw conclusions. It is part of the scientific method. Conclusions in science are not revealed truth, absolute and unchangeable for all time. They are always tentative and might be overturned by the work of the next scientist if that work is valid.
In my opinion, most of what has been done on here by those against science have been more than 90% wrong and that is being charitable. They don't appear to have learned science from any sort science education and seem to be self-taught from non-science sources that are mostly wrong. Or they are positions that are made up without ever being vetted.
I hear claims of some alternate, better theory than evolution and natural selection, but it is never presented or explained. Anyone claiming to have argued in a circle and come up with a better theory than that of scientists is completely lost in my opinion. The claims that Darwin had it wrong for assuming things like stable populations and uniformity of individuals in a population are so off point that they are ridiculous. Flying in the face of the evidence, Darwin's own words and common sense.
Repeating the opinions of a scientists and declaring the theory of evolution is dead on that basis is equally ridiculous. Controversy in science meaning theory collapses is a logically flawed position that isn't so and doesn't lead to any random personal believe assuming the role of explanation.
Even if new information lead to a rejection of the current theory, the phenomena of evolution would still exist and need explanation. Science is the best means we have to come up with one and those science-deniers would just pile on to deny that theory as well. It would be a denial in the same form as the present denial.
Repeating the opinions of a scientists and declaring the theory of evolution is dead on that basis is equally ridiculous. Controversy in science meaning theory collapses is a logically flawed position that isn't so and doesn't lead to any random personal believe assuming the role of explanation.
Even if new information lead to a rejection of the current theory, the phenomena of evolution would still exist and need explanation. Science is the best means we have to come up with one and those science-deniers would just pile on to deny that theory as well. It would be a denial in the same form as the present denial.
Jimmy
Veteran Member
I’m far from lost
There is no evidence or reason to conclude that Darwin assumed the conclusion of the theories he formulated. He spent years accumulating evidence and vetting his work personally and through the lens of skilled and knowledgeable peers.
In fact, he was prompted to publish, because others were independently coming to the same conclusions he had.
The fossil record of his time wasn't very extensive and most of his evidence was from other observations and experiments.
I'm not sure if the claims to the contrary are willful or just ignorant, but claiming he had assumptions opposite of those he did have is a giant straw man.
In fact, he was prompted to publish, because others were independently coming to the same conclusions he had.
The fossil record of his time wasn't very extensive and most of his evidence was from other observations and experiments.
I'm not sure if the claims to the contrary are willful or just ignorant, but claiming he had assumptions opposite of those he did have is a giant straw man.
You were not on the forefront of my mind when writing that post. You are talking about a belief system that you claim as a belief system. It is different from mine, but just explaining it and that you hold it leaves me no reason to attack it without cause. It is just you telling others what you believe.
But I might be inclined to disagree with you regarding science and some of the posts you've made on other threads.
For instance, there is no biblical claim of how God created and no reason to conclude that God didn't use some form of abiogenesis to create living things. Afterall, Genesis says that life was created from non-living matter. On some things, even ancient claims can be on the right track in the main even if the details are far from accurate. It wouldn't have been dust for instance.
A logical and reasoned support of abiogenesis is not a statement against God or assuming worship of a hypothesized natural process.
Jimmy
Veteran Member
Ok cool. Yeah my posts about abiogenesis are basically trying to figure out if it could happen if god had allowed that time to exist in the first place. Just mulling over ideas really. As u know I think existence began around 1980 so…
Audie
Veteran Member
What's wrong with combining
the two worst kinds of music ever?
Audie
Veteran Member
That makes it a perfect match for the story.
Seriously, don't hold back. What do you really think?
LOL!
I'm not a big rap fan, but there is some that I like. Probably more country that I like. But to be fair, I am from that part of the world where country was predominant for so long.
I have rather eclectic tastes.
One of the places I used to eat was a Chinese restaurant where they would have performances of pieces of Chinese opera. Not claiming this was avant garde expansion of my cultural knowledge, but I enjoyed it. Of course, not knowing the language or the history of these things, they could have been singing about how they got stupid Americans to think this was serious. That would actually make me laugh to find that out. But I don't think it was happening.
Audie
Veteran Member
To be fair, unsupported claims of ancient cultures over 40,000 years old that had science and some sort of near-perfect universal language are novel. Fanciful, with no evidence or reason to accept any of it, but novel. At least in the context of science, if not the context of science fiction.
Renaming species for no good reason is sort of novel too.
Being unsupported and so fantastic that it would require fantastic evidence to support it, they can be easily dismissed if it were not for the fact they are repeated ad nauseum as if they were factual. Along with a host of claims that were debunked before they were even made.
The conspiracy theories now, that is old had. Declaring the theory of evolution dead and it is replaced with some religious view by default is also old hat. Seen it all many times. Just as impotent the first time as it is now.
She has a lovely voice. It is a shame I don't speak the language to better understand. I linked into another video of hers and am listening to it now. Not reading the language any better than I understand it, I can't say I can place the songs. Though the one you linked certainly sounds familiar to me.
I'm not experienced enough to render and opinion about it being old fashioned, new fashioned or out of fashion. I just like it.