[QUOTE=crackerjack;1945919]
But you ARE bashing it nd YOU are not considering it because you are calling the idea BS. I don’t call creationism BS even though I don’t believe that theory. It’s your belief system and I respect that… in turn my belief system should be respected and not called BS.:yes:[/QUOTE]
Evolution is not a belief system. With genetic evidence, especially (but not only), it is science. Creation is belief, period. I wouldn’t call it bs because I don’t denigrate anyone’s beliefs. But I would not try to debate it on a scientific level.
Creationists always bow out of debates because they have no evidence. You can only repeat “I believe” so many times. I’d call it intellectual laziness, especially considering how many evolution folks on this thread consider themselves “believers”.
[QUOTE=Parysa;1945736]
But, you cannot say that evolution doesn’t require belief, that it’s fact. It’s the theory of evolution, not the law of evolution. And if I remember my science correctly, theories can still be disproven. .[/QUOTE]
Gravity is also a “theory” however I doubt any creationists would in fact say test that it is just a “theory” by jumping off a building. Just because something is held under the name theory doesn’t make any less valid. And evolution doesn’t require belief, it requires a knowledge of science enough to know what is logically true and what isn’t. Logic, science, TESTING, say that evolution is true.
The fact that people want to deny science, evolution etc, comes as a result of those FACTS not jivving with their beliefs. It isn’t science’s fault that people have beliefs that are archaic…however when those people who believe science is wrong, need to BACK IT UP, and creationists don’t.
There is more than one creation story as well, creationists seem to (again based on their beliefs) think that their creation story is the only valid one. If they want that belief to be taken seriously then you must bring in ALL creation stories and give them as much time and credence.
As a devout believer in evolution I have to ask the question of the creationists…has it never occured to any of them the evolution may be the mechanism of intelligent design?
[QUOTE=dizzywriter;1945950]
Evolution is not a belief system. With genetic evidence, especially (but not only), it is science. Creation is belief, period. I wouldn’t call it bs because I don’t denigrate anyone’s beliefs. But I would not try to debate it on a scientific level.
Creationists always bow out of debates because they have no evidence. You can only repeat “I believe” so many times. I’d call it intellectual laziness, especially considering how many evolution folks on this thread consider themselves “believers”.
Welcome to hell. It’ll be fun.[/QUOTE]
THANK YOU. I was about to post the same thing. FACTS DO NOT REQUIRE FAITH. I don’t care if someone doesn’t “believe” that the Earth is round. It IS, and not believing that doesn’t change the fact that it’s true.
Sorry sorry I actually meant to edit that post and change it from belief system to beliefs. (As in I believe that my ancestors were primitive ape like creatures as opposed to I believe they were put on this earth as is or by aliens) I know it’s not a belief system. :yes: A million sorries for my forgetfulness! Anyway hell should be fun - being bad is always more fun that being good!! Plus I believe (oh there it is again) my hell will be a series of neverending cavalettis and bounces.
And I have to ask the question of the evolutionists…has it never occured to them that some, if not many (or even ALL) of their “evidence” for “evolution” might only be the result of the archictect/engineer/“creator” re-using or recycling ideas?
And just an intersting observation about “science” I read a while back: Scientists, by their very definition, are searching for “truth”. As such, they are often shockingly unskilled at detecting deception. The “scientific method” is very linear and makes no allowances for flashes of intuition that might land closer to the “truth” than peer review ever could. Just because something cannot be proven to be so within the limits of technology and human intelligence does not mean it’s false. We may think we’ve “proven” evolution because we don’t have the equipment or the brain-wiring necessary to do better.
Like the “Flat Earth” thing that evolutionists are fond of denigrating creationists with – to the people of that time who rarely got further than five miles from the place they were born, a flat earth made sense, even though it wasn’t the “truth”. As clever minds applied themselves to the necessary technology, they found not only a round earth, but a solar system with nine planets. But even that was not the “truth” – increasing sophisticated technology has found moons (or rings, in the case of Saturn) around some planets not previously observed, added the possiblity of previously undiscovered planets, and questioned the validity of Pluto as a planet. So the “Solar System With Nine Planets” that science had accepted was WRONG. Just as WRONG as the “The Earth Is Flat” proponents had been in their own time. Who knows what knowlege the next 500 years will bring? Evolution has every bit as good a chance of being disproven as creation does.
Yes but they continued to research even after they thought they were right, saw that they were wrong, accepted that fact, proved why they were wrong and accepted a new theory (with even more scientific evidence). They were not unmovable in their theories disputing everything else others had to say. They were willing to learn, take in new facts and create the theory why pluto is not a planet. Scientific theories change as we gain new information - it’s called learning.
Sorry this really isn’t horse related at all and I will stop now:yes:
I am a little confused as to your meaning in the first paragraph. Flashes of intuition are what drive the scientific method. A person observes something that raises a question which usually stems from some sort of wonder or intuition or whatever you want to call it. Ie they think …“hey I think I might have an idea what is going on” and then they see if the data supports what they originally thought.
How are they unskilled at detecting deception, says who and based on what??? The method weeds out falsehoods. Everything being tested pionts to evolution being truth. There is sooooo much evidence for it, from so many different areas of science that the likelihood of evolution being totally wrong or incorrect is soo extremely small. You are refering, with the flat earth idea, to a time before science as we know it today. The time when there was essentially no technology, so it’s not really comparable. However, nobody is saying it is 100 percent impossible that things are out of line, if someone finds something that BLOWS the entire theory out of the water, then so be it. That is what science is for. Then I will change my mind no doubt!
Evolution has every bit as good a chance of being disproven as creation does.
Well…no, creationism is false and all of it’s “facts” are disproven by science or they rest on a faith belief and are thus invalid (in relation to scientific knowledge). Evolutionary theory has sooo many peices of evidence that do not rest on one another for validy, that the chance of all of them being proven wrong are very low because you would have to add all of those individual probabilities. So while yes…it could theoretically happen, you cannot even compare them because creationism is out of the running in terms of probability of being declared false. It already has been.
Tell me what the hell does this have to do with HORSES?
This is the off course board. I am assuming that non horsey things are a go.
To get this back to the OP topic, what are you supposed to do when this topic comes up? This entire message board generally deals with science. Horse care, the science of equine medicine, sport horse breeding is very science intensive, nearly all the discussion topics on this forum rely heavily on a knowledge of science.
So what are you supposed to do if you rely on a science that someone says to you straightfaced they don’t believe? Horses have chestnuts because of evolution. The fact that this has supposedly become a “train wreck” just illustrates the pickle the OP is in.
It is a timely discussion horse related or no, and I think in the end has do to with openmindedness and tolerance on both sides. HOWEVER I do think that the burden lies on the side of the creationists who believe through faith not fact. In dealing with the care of your horse faith is a part of it but you better believe that fact is what you would rely on. And I think that is what the OP was trying to get across.
First, yes, I know I was being pissy about the format. Like I said, I usually don’t worry about that stuff and likely should not have this time, either. But the English teacher in me just cringes…at any rate, pretty colors would be nice. And Papyrus is a very nice font…
But you’re barking up the wrong tree if you think I don’t accept both. I thought I’d made it pretty clear that I do. Heck if anything I lean far more toward accepting the evolutionary theory even though I’m a good church going girl!
You have missed the boat completely - major kerplunk in the water. I am a scientist. I do research. I have hypotheses that I test. Sometimes I get started in a new direction because of that flash of intuition. Can’t be a good scientist if you’re not creative and able to think outside the box. That is, I have a theory, for example, that chestnuts are the remnants of a toe. Having stated the theory, it is testable, and I should be able to make predictions based on my hypothesis. So I would predict that ergots and chestnuts would be comprsied of the same sort of biological material, that they might still retain some of the properties that bones might have. It is possible there would be fossil evidence to suggest intermediaries. I would then do the experiments, and see if they validated my hypothesis. The experiments would have controls so that I would know that the design of the experiment was actually specifically testing what it was supposed to be testing. If the experiments disprove my theory, well, then, hey, it’s out the window, and I come up with a new idea.
If this was written up as a paper, or in a grant, it would then be subjected to peer review. For a paper, this is usually 3 people who are acknowledged experts in the field, and they are supposed to read the paper without bias. And yes, I have declined to review both grants and papers because of either a negative or positive bias. For a grant, there are 3 major reviewers, backed up by a panel of over 20 people (and that doesn’t count the editor of the journal or the program driector of the review panel). Once published, the work would have to be reproduced independently by other researchers before it would be accepted.
CREATIONISM IS NOT A THEORY THAT CAN BE TESTED OR VALIDATED. EVOLUTION CAN, AND HAS BEEN.
Just so you know. Weeny fruit flies have the same signaling molecules in the brain that we do. Yes siree, we can actually go waaay lower than apes. They not only have them, they are synthesized the same way, by the same molecules, and they modulate many of the same behaviors. There are actually people who do experiments to determine whether flies have consciousness.
And thank goodness for fruit flies. Without them as a wonderful model system, we wouldn’t have been able to characterize many, many crucial and vital developmental genes that have given us tools to study human diseases. For example, the human gene that encodes the Alzheimer precursor protein rescues the neurobiological defects in fruit flies.
That being said. Is there a God? I don’t know. I don’t worry about it much. Do I think the Bible is the literal word of God? Well, obviously not.
But I would like to know what chestnuts and ergots, vestigial little whatevers that they are, used to be. Just out of curiousity. Thank goodness for baby vaseline (GET YOUR MINDS OUT OF THE GUTTERS, PEOPLE!) because it gets rid of chestnut protrusion.
There are differences between scientific laws and theories but I think some people misunderstand them.
To the average person, something that is a theory is just speculation and hasn’t been proven. While scientific theory is a bit more encompassing. It is something that has not been disproven. They have all sorts of information to support their findings but do not feel it is enough to consider it a law.
Some examples are the cell theory. How many people believe there are cells? Have you ever seen them? Learned how they function? The theory states that all living things are composed of cells, the cell is the smallest unit of life, and all cells come from preexisting cells. We know cells exist, we know they come from other cells and that they are the smallest unit of life BUT it is STILL a theory.
The Theory of Tectonic plates. There is another I would not dispute but it is still a theory.
So for something to be considered a Scientific theory is a big thing and is not taken lightly.
Now back to the original topic at hand. I believe chestnuts and ergots could possibly be evolutionary left overs of previous toes. But I really don’t know and don’t care either way. All I do know for sure is they can be a pain in the a** when the only thing that can cut my shires is a nice sharp pair of hoof nippers and his ergots are split into 2-3 pieces and grow in curls…eek!! O.o
Well it is a tough situation because you know this woman is raising her kids up to be totally ignorant to reality. I find it very sad that by the time they are old enough to learn about science their minds are already to warped by everything they have invested in literallist religion, so much so that they are unable to see science for what it is. One of my best friends became a Jahovas Witness. I went with her to one of the gatherings they have every week. The kids were putting on a little skit. It was about how they were to go about convincing people that evolutionary theory was the work of the devil on their weekend door to door missions. These kids were young. It was depressing.
On one hand you know you’ll never ever come across as even remotely sane if you try to explain anything to her because her mind is totally blocked. Her whole life is clearly invested in her faith and changing her view on evolution would knock her entire world view off kilter. But then I don’t know if I could control myself if someone that clearly uneducated about the issue came right out and implied that I was some sort of moron because I wasn’t brainwashed from the age of 3 to believe what she believes.
Science is forever telling us, “Ohhhh, this or that or the other thing is SO BAD for you…ooops, wait a minute, that’s not quite so”: Butter is so bad for you, eat oleo – scratch that, the transfats in fake butter are worse than the cholesterol in butter; chocolate is bad for you – scratch that, a bit of dark chocolate is good for the heart; booze is bad for you – scratch that, an occasional glass of red wine is good for you; coffee is bad – scratch that, moderate coffee consumption does improve your performance; eggs are bad – scratch that, they aren’t as bad as we thought. Or the other way around, “Ohhhh, this is SO good for you… oops, wait a minute it’ll probably KILL you”: Premarin (here’s the horse thing) is the menopausal miracle – scratch that, not only is it not as good as we thought, it’s actually harmful; Viox is the miracle pill for arthritis – scratch that, it might kill you; thalidomide is great stuff – scratch that, it causes birth defects.
If science can’t do better than that on the little stuff, how is it going to be right on the big stuff? It would be funny if the day came when Science has to admit, “DAMN, those pigheaded, closeminded, sneering creationists were right the whole time”.
Anyway hell should be fun - being bad is always more fun that being good!! Plus I believe (oh there it is again) my hell will be a series of neverending cavalettis and bounces. 