they say this is the possible missing link between humans and apes....

[QUOTE="wis3boi"][QUOTE="FelipeInside"] I understand. So basically whoever believes in Evolution has lots of evidence to back it up, but those that don't, don't have the evidence to refute it. Do they try to refute it by logical means? as in discuss why they don't think it's plausible. On the subject of evidence, going back to God. Most atheists that believe in evolution say that they have lots of evidence backing it up, and that religion doesn't have evidence of God existing. (or nothing beyond death) Now. When people have those "near-death" experiences and things alike, all of them describe the same feeling or seeing the same things. Could this be considered evidence? (ie. If out of 100, 95 people saw a dolphin then we can say that that dolphin was there)ShadowMoses900

To some degree, but there have been many different cases where people have had out of body experiences. The question is complex because what is actual death? The heart and other organs can stop functioning (clinically dead) but they can be brought back, but then there are coma patients who have all their organs and body parts working fine but they have no conciousness, but are technically alive.

I know your super atheist so it is going to offend you but I beleive in that our conciuosness is the soul. You are free to disagree and that's fine, but there are plenty of things we cannot explain. I watched a good National Geographic video on the subject and studied some about in my college class, there is defnately something there.

Energy can neither be created or destroyed, so what if our conciousness is a form of energy? What if it leaves when we die and goes somewhere else? It's what makes you, you. It's what makes you unique.

So long as the brain is fine you can be brought back. I'd not consider you alive if you weren't capable of consciousness, though you are biologically, you're no longer 'human' you're just a lump of flesh.

The 'soul, your individual consciousness' is just the circuitry in the brain, as far as anyone can know. You maintain your individual consciousness the same way that your video card is always able to display the correct image, it's that it's what you're made of, it's 'your' configuration, if the molecules move, you move (obviously), all that matters is that the circuitry is the same when you move.

Maybe a bit empty, but 'you' are 'you' and 'I' am 'I' is just the remnant of the electricity that passed through that circuit. We only imagine that we are anything, that our molecules had to of been somewhere before with 'our' consciousness, but we're just that remnant.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

There was an estimation in 1987 of 700 out of 480 000 scientists being creationists, or ~ 0.14%

And a pew research poll in 2009 showing 97% of scientists in agreement on evolution.

----

Perfectly true that there are a lot of people who are against evolution, but there are only a small % of quack scientists against it.

But wait a sec. You are calling them quack cause they don't agree with evolution right? Or do they have their own theories on why evolution didn't happen or is not plausible?

What I'm saying is: for a theory to be 100% accurate, shouldn't ALL scientists arrive at the same result through their own research? If a random number of 5% of scientists don't agree with it cause of their own studies, then it can't be considered fact????

They're quacks because they're calling themselves scientists, then ignoring all the evidence, and not providing valid testable counter evidence/hypotheses.

"I have a hunch, and I cannot verify the probability that my hunch is correct, or provide any testable evidence" Is not science.

They 'should' come to the same conclusion, but by a stretch of non-thinking/illogic, they're denying it. At least I've never seen a valid point brought up from the other side of the argument.

It's completely possible for it to be wrong (hugely unlikely, the % of chance that it's wrong is like 6x10^-16 or something), science thrives on skepticism. That's why we have Quantum Mechanics, someone got curious and discovered more to physics than had previously been known.

^^ To expand on that, don't they say nobody knows what 80% of our brain does or what it's there for?FelipeInside

The brain has been pretty well mapped. The "you only use 10% of your brain" thing is a myth.

^^ I'm guessing on that principle, Religion has basically been the only theory that has been steady for the past 2000 years???FelipeInside

Religion isn't a theory in the scientific sense. In fact, it isn't science at all.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

The brain has been pretty well mapped. The "you only use 10% of your brain" thing is a myth.

Guybrush_3

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]^^ I'm guessing on that principle, Religion has basically been the only theory that has been steady for the past 2000 years???Guybrush_3

Religion isn't a theory in the scientific sense. In fact, it isn't science at all.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]^^ To expand on that, don't they say nobody knows what 80% of our brain does or what it's there for?Guybrush_3

The brain has been pretty well mapped. The "you only use 10% of your brain" thing is a myth.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]^^ To expand on that, don't they say nobody knows what 80% of our brain does or what it's there for?ShadowsDemon

The brain has been pretty well mapped. The "you only use 10% of your brain" thing is a myth.

[QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"][QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

The brain has been pretty well mapped. The "you only use 10% of your brain" thing is a myth.

Human-after-all

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

But wait a sec. You are calling them quack cause they don't agree with evolution right? Or do they have their own theories on why evolution didn't happen or is not plausible?

What I'm saying is: for a theory to be 100% accurate, shouldn't ALL scientists arrive at the same result through their own research? If a random number of 5% of scientists don't agree with it cause of their own studies, then it can't be considered fact????

They're quacks because they're calling themselves scientists, then ignoring all the evidence, and not providing valid testable counter evidence/hypotheses.

"I have a hunch, and I cannot verify the probability that my hunch is correct, or provide any testable evidence" Is not science.

They 'should' come to the same conclusion, but by a stretch of non-thinking/illogic, they're denying it. At least I've never seen a valid point brought up from the other side of the argument.

It's completely possible for it to be wrong (hugely unlikely, the % of chance that it's wrong is like 6x10^-16 or something), science thrives on skepticism. That's why we have Quantum Mechanics, someone got curious and discovered more to physics than had previously been known.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]^^ I'm guessing on that principle, Religion has basically been the only theory that has been steady for the past 2000 years???Guybrush_3

Religion isn't a theory in the scientific sense. In fact, it isn't science at all.

[QUOTE="Human-after-all"][QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"] That's true, because in reality it's actually 0.01%. ;)ShadowsDemon

[QUOTE="Human-after-all"][QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"] That's true, because in reality it's actually 0.01%. ;)ShadowsDemon

No. But despite knowing the brain quite well anatomically and chemically. Synapses are easily the most complex thing on earth. Were no where near mapping them. Not defending you, you're still a moron. Human-after-all

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"] Yep. I'm a moron because I'm not an expert on brain sciene or have an opinion? Well done.

ShadowsDemon

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"] Yep. I'm a moron because I'm not an expert on brain sciene or have an opinion? Well done.

ShadowsDemon

[QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]No; you're a moron because you either pull obviously bullsh*t figures out of your ass, or because you're so impossibly naive that you believe said bullsh*t figures when someone else tells you themchaoscougar1

Yeah, you forced me to agree with you.ShadowsDemon

[QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"]

[QUOTE="Human-after-all"] No. But despite knowing the brain quite well anatomically and chemically. Synapses are easily the most complex thing on earth. Were no where near mapping them. Not defending you, you're still a moron. Funky_Llama

He's also a moron because he doesn't understand the difference between opinion and fact.

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"]

[QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"] Sorry to disappoint, but no amount of name calling and trolling is going to make me submit and believe what you want me to believe. You're just like bullies in a playground. Sorry, but I thought you'd be just a little more mature. :lol:ShadowsDemon

So
Stupid

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"] Yep. I'm a moron because I'm not an expert on brain sciene or have an opinion? Well done.

He's also a moron because he doesn't understand the difference between opinion and fact.

ShadowsDemon,

Opinion:

a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

If the evidence for evolution is insufficient for you, then you're a lost cause or you're utterly unwilling to accept reality. It's not like you have any potentially valid, testable explanation for your position.

ShadowsDemon,

Opinion:

a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

If the evidence for evolution is insufficient for you, then you're a lost cause or you're utterly unwilling to accept reality. It's not like you have any potentially valid, testable explanation for your position.

Inconsistancy

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"] Sorry to disappoint then. :)ShadowsDemon

You're not disappointing, you're straight up lying. There is no way you could remain in such a class with that kind of ignorance of the subject.

We're not just talking about a difference of opinion, but you don't even seem to demonstrate a grasp on what "theory" means in scientific terms. Perhaps you are enrolled in such a class, but I can't imagine, based upon what you have shown in this thread, that you are anywhere within light years of a passing grade in it.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"] But wait a sec. You are calling them quack cause they don't agree with evolution right? Or do they have their own theories on why evolution didn't happen or is not plausible? What I'm saying is: for a theory to be 100% accurate, shouldn't ALL scientists arrive at the same result through their own research? If a random number of 5% of scientists don't agree with it cause of their own studies, then it can't be considered fact????FelipeInside

There is litterally no subject that all scientists agree 100% on as far as I know. You will always have some outliers but unless they come up with solid evidence to back up their claims (which no one has for evolution) their claims are mearly weak hypothesises.

Those near-death experiences may be ancedotal evidence, but they're not verifiable. In order for something to be verifiable it has to be observable by others. Let's say you claim to have found a way to turn lead into gold. I ask you to show me the method. If you are unable to produce this method in a way that I can observe and test for myself then it isn't verifiable.

(And apoligies if this post has already been reasonably answered, I'm just now getting caught back up on this thread.)

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

ShadowsDemon,

Opinion:

a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

If the evidence for evolution is insufficient for you, then you're a lost cause or you're utterly unwilling to accept reality. It's not like you have any potentially valid, testable explanation for your position.

ShadowsDemon

Why do you believe that though?

Does it really seem reasonable to you, even in the face of all the evidence contradicting it?

Is it that it's from a book, that's been rewritten many times and isn't exactly 'accurate' and was never very accurate?

Is it that many people believe it, so it's "if so many believe 'this' than how can it 'not' be true?"

How do you explain vestige organs, or some wildly inefficient designs? Why would a creator make useless body parts, or shape them inefficiently?

Why would a loving god test his creations by making such obvious evidence against his design? (doesn't seem very loving, to try to damn people to hell for thinking)

How exactly can you be so certain that you're worshiping the right god, the right set of beliefs in that god?

Was it because it was the first thing someone told you? What if you had been born in India, you'd likely have not believed in your current religion, so would you be right then?

---

Great thing about science, you're right where ever you go, where ever you're born.

I don't understand the leap of non-thinking(faith) that it takes to ignore so much obvious evidence and to keep going on about something that, to any clear thinking individual, is obviously inaccurate. Unless it's just fear, "what if it's all a lie, what is death if there is no after life?"← I can see how this could potentially be unsettling, from experience even. And the fear of non-belief sending you to hell.

Evolution is correct? Opinion You guys are stupidly trying to shove it down my throat: True. :)ShadowsDemon

[QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

You're not disappointing, you're straight up lying. There is no way you could remain in such a class with that kind of ignorance of the subject.

worlock77

We're not just talking about a difference of opinion, but you don't even seem to demonstrate a grasp on what "theory" means in scientific terms. Perhaps you are enrolled in such a class, but I can't imagine, based upon what you have shown in this thread, that you are anywhere within light years of a passing grade in it.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"] No, I am in that class, and for some reason the people there have the brains to understand that just because you don't believe in the theory of evolution it doesn't mean you can't be in the class or understand biology concepts. They actually respect other people's opinions there. :roll:ShadowsDemon

We're not just talking about a difference of opinion, but you don't even seem to demonstrate a grasp on what "theory" means in scientific terms. Perhaps you are enrolled in such a class, but I can't imagine, based upon what you have shown in this thread, that you are anywhere within light years of a passing grade in it.

I have a question: what sh*tty diploma mill do you go to?

[QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

We're not just talking about a difference of opinion, but you don't even seem to demonstrate a grasp on what "theory" means in scientific terms. Perhaps you are enrolled in such a class, but I can't imagine, based upon what you have shown in this thread, that you are anywhere within light years of a passing grade in it.

worlock77

I have a question: what sh*tty diploma mill do you go to?

theres no point trying to argue with religious people,most of them have their minds so closed off or are so blind in their fake beliefs...

its funny how they can believe in a being that no one has ever seen (because god is something man made up to have control over people) but yet they deny evidence put in front of them lol.

ignorance is bliss.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"] We'll see how that goes. I passed last year and got around 85% in my overall mark, and that was a higher level of Bio then I'm in now. Maybe it's because there evolution isn't considered a fact, it's a theory because it is a theory.ShadowsDemon

I have a question: what sh*tty diploma mill do you go to?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"] No, I am in that class, and for some reason the people there have the brains to understand that just because you don't believe in the theory of evolution it doesn't mean you can't be in the class or understand biology concepts. They actually respect other people's opinions there. :roll:ShadowsDemon

We're not just talking about a difference of opinion, but you don't even seem to demonstrate a grasp on what "theory" means in scientific terms. Perhaps you are enrolled in such a class, but I can't imagine, based upon what you have shown in this thread, that you are anywhere within light years of a passing grade in it.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"] We'll see how that goes. I passed last year and got around 85% in my overall mark, and that was a higher level of Bio then I'm in now. Maybe it's because there evolution isn't considered a fact, it's a theory because it is a theory.ShadowsDemon

I have a question: what sh*tty diploma mill do you go to?

And about your college belief: bull$hit. I don't live somewhere like the US where you guys stick with one theory and everyone else who disagrees is shunned. ShadowsDemon

^ I know that, and I said something very similar yesterday, which you already know, because you just repeated your post. ShadowsDemon

And about your college belief: bull$hit. I don't live somewhere like the US where you guys stick with one theory and everyone else who disagrees is shunned. ShadowsDemon

yeah good old australia where all the christian nutters come around every saturday and sunday knocking on our doors trying to cram their religion down our throat.

[QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"]And about your college belief: bull$hit. I don't live somewhere like the US where you guys stick with one theory and everyone else who disagrees is shunned. chaoscougar1

And about your college belief: bull$hit. I don't live somewhere like the US where you guys stick with one theory and everyone else who disagrees is shunned. ShadowsDemon

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"][QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"]And about your college belief: bull$hit. I don't live somewhere like the US where you guys stick with one theory and everyone else who disagrees is shunned. ShadowsDemon

yeah good old australia where all the christian nutters come around every saturday and sunday knocking on our doors trying to cram their religion down our throat.

washnwax