Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

Truth is admitting there is new evidence or research that may alter a conclusion.

As opposed to sticking with old conclusions that have no supporting evidence.

Truth is truth and life is life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, how stupid of them. Imagine being truthful!!!!

The evidence doesn't change. The phenomenon of evolution still exists. What changes would be the explanation if change was demanded by new evidence that couldn't be explained by the current theory. As opposed to ideological dogma that can never change and must always be the same regardless of any new information that must it seems be rejected by definition. Of course, this isn't all believers. Some do not seem so mired in dogma that they cannot move or learn. C'est moi.

I'm aware that you know this, but I thought it was worth repeating.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Truth is admitting there is new evidence or research that may alter a conclusion.

As opposed to sticking with old conclusions that have no supporting evidence.

Or making them up as if they were suddenly facts. That isn't science. I have names for it, but it definitely isn't science or even philosophy.

 

[John53]

The evidence doesn't change. The phenomenon of evolution still exists. What changes would be the explanation if change was demanded by new evidence that couldn't be explained by the current theory. As opposed to ideological dogma that can never change and must always be the same regardless of any new information that must it seems be rejected by definition. Of course, this isn't all believers. Some do not seem so mired in dogma that they cannot move or learn. C'est moi.

I'm aware that you know this, but I thought it was worth repeating.

But apparently honesty is a weakness. I see it as something that should be praised. I guess I'm as stupid as those scientists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Proto human pleases spoke a proto language it was very simple like Bee or Beaver or any of the other languages.

It was concrete representative and digital. Just like other natural languages that had only a few words

Still waiting for that evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

The evidence doesn't change. The phenomenon of evolution still exists.

Phenomenon? Where? Like fish that are or are not still maybe evolving?

What changes would be the explanation if change was demanded by new evidence that couldn't be explained by the current theory. As opposed to ideological dogma that can never change and must always be the same regardless of any new information that must it seems be rejected by definition. Of course, this isn't all believers. Some do not seem so mired in dogma that they cannot move or learn. C'est moi.

I'm aware that you know this, but I thought it was worth repeating.

Not all religions claiming to be Bible based agree either. Now there's a bit of a fight in some U.S.states because of a mandate to teach the Bible in public schools. Which Bible? Which take?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But apparently honesty is a weakness. I see it as something that should be praised. I guess I'm as stupid as those scientists.

I must be that stupid too. If I was against something, I would learn what it is I am against and not rely on half-baked nonsense and meaningless statements that I can denounce as weakness. I wouldn't want to rely almost completely on ignorance and logical fallacies.

I remember as a kid, I picked up on someone saying something negative about communism. I repeated it to my parents. They asked what I knew about communism to come to that conclusion. I didn't know much about it accept that it was widely considered bad in the community I lived in. They told me before I started casting stones, I should learn what it is I'm apparently against. I did. I found reasons to reject the idea based on evidence and facts.

I wish those rejecting science here would do that.

 

[YoursTrue]

But apparently honesty is a weakness. I see it as something that should be praised. I guess I'm as stupid as those scientists.

They say what they're primed to say, imo. Your honesty has been noted, however.

 

[YoursTrue]

I must be that stupid too. If was against something, I would learn what it is I am against and not rely on half-baked nonsense and meaningless statements that I can pronounce as weakness. I wouldn't want to rely almost completely on ignorance and logical fallacies.

I remember as a kid, I picked up on someone saying something negative about communism. I repeated it to my parents. They asked what I knew about communism to come to that conclusion. I didn't know much about it accept that it was widely considered bad in the community I lived in. They told me before I started casting stones, I should learn what it is I'm apparently against. I did. I found reasons to reject the idea based on evidence and facts.

I wish those rejecting science here would do that.

Let's try to get something straight. I'm not against science. I believe that vaccines can help prevent diseases such as polio. The research and formulation was done by... scientists.

 

[YoursTrue]

I must be that stupid too. If was against something, I would learn what it is I am against and not rely on half-baked nonsense and meaningless statements that I can pronounce as weakness. I wouldn't want to rely almost completely on ignorance and logical fallacies.

I remember as a kid, I picked up on someone saying something negative about communism. I repeated it to my parents. They asked what I knew about communism to come to that conclusion. I didn't know much about it accept that it was widely considered bad in the community I lived in. They told me before I started casting stones, I should learn what it is I'm apparently against. I did. I found reasons to reject the idea based on evidence and facts.

I wish those rejecting science here would do that.

It's very easy to be influenced by others if we think they know more than we do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think the problem is that the uninformed feel they know more than the informed. In some cases, there are those that seem to believe they know more anyone in existence. They seem to have special knowledge that exists no where else except with them.

 

[John53]

My irony meter has melted.

 

[YoursTrue]

Furthermore I'll say this: science in the form of evolution is not taught in school as possibly changeable. That has been my experience maybe not all educators preface their statements and ideas with, "Class, maybe this will change, but for now this is what most scientists agree upon, but it's not for certain."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My irony meter has melted.

Maybe one of those new industrial strength irony meters that NASA uses, but that may not be enough.

 

[YoursTrue]

My irony meter has melted.

Ok you're gone.

 

[YoursTrue]

Maybe one of those new industrial strength irony meters that NASA uses, but that may not be enough.

Hehe so funny, not.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think the problem is that the uninformed feel they know more than the informed. In some cases, there are those that seem to believe they know more anyone in existence. They seem to have special knowledge that exists no where else except with them.

Uninformed? Hmm maybe tomorrow things will be informed differently...

 

[John53]

It's very easy to be influenced by others if we think they know more than we do.

You do realise scientists publish their results, explain their findings,, show their evidence etc ? There is no need to blindly believe a scientific finding.

 

[John53]

Furthermore I'll say this: science in the form of evolution is not taught in school as possibly changeable. That has been my experience maybe not all educators preface their statements and ideas with, "Class, maybe this will change, but for now this is what most scientists agree upon, but it's not for certain."

You prefer the certainties like 1918, 1925 and 1975?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You prefer the certainties like 1918, 1925 and 1975?

I think I got another threat of damnation from those claiming to be Christian. It seems like it was a threat. Though it also seems that it was veiled.