Wifey's got a new laptop and it runs Windows 8! Yikes!!!!

[Feathers McGraw]

I don't even believe in evolution, though I used to.

I'm shocked... how much have you looked into it?

Try Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution Is True", it's a great read. Evolutionary theory is supported by so many different pieces of evidence that I can't see how you could not accept it to be true, having reviewed the available information.

[charles052]

I'm shocked... how much have you looked into it?

Try Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution Is True", it's a great read. Evolutionary theory is supported by so many different pieces of evidence that I can't see how you could not accept it to be true, having reviewed the available information.

Friend, I've debated this extensively on another forum and I've looked into many, many articles, scientific papers, and such. I just can't bring myself to buy into it anymore. But that's just me.

I have no problem with others believing in it and I'm not about to impose my beliefs onto anyone. I see no harm done one way or the other. Although, there are a lot of fundamental Christians and atheists who would disagree with that statement wholeheartedly.

Trust me, it's not that big of a deal.

[Feathers McGraw]

I don't want to impose my beliefs on you either, but I am interested in what it is exactly that you can't bring yourself to buy into - I don't understand and am curious.

If you'd rather not get into it then fair enough.

We're off topic anyway

As for the no harm done part of what you said, for me it depends on whether you're talking about individuals choosing not to believe it (absolutely fine), or something amounting to academic censorship in schools, where children are told that there is more debate than there actually is amongst biologists, and therefore something else (like "intelligent design") is equally valid from a scientific point of view.

IMO, Genuine, well informed criticism of evolutionary theory is a good thing and should be encouraged because it will help us understand life better. Misrepresentation of the facts is not.

[SteveRiley]

For me, it's simple: I have no beliefs.

What, how is that possible? you ask. Quite simple, really. To believe something is to assert or maintain the truth of that something without necessarily requiring evidence. This just doesn't wash, in my view. So I chose not to encumber myself with beliefs. I don't need to "believe" that the universe is 13.7 billion years old; numerous independent measurements have confirmed this fact. And if, tomorrow, a new method for measuring the universe's age were to appear, and it were to withstand the scrutiny of science, then I will alter the fact in my head to match the new, better-proven evidence.

[Feathers McGraw]

Well said! Being sloppy when choosing words in this kind of conversation is a bad idea.

I'm sure I have some beliefs, but when I become aware of them I do some research, form an informed opinion, and it ceases to be a belief. Better?

[SteveRiley]

Well said! Being sloppy when choosing words in this kind of conversation is a bad idea.

Well, now that we've learned you're still a college kid, we'll give you a little slack. Emphasis on little, of course

[charles052]

I don't want to impose my beliefs on you either, but I am interested in what it is exactly that you can't bring yourself to buy into - I don't understand and am curious.

If you'd rather not get into it then fair enough.

We're off topic anyway

As for the no harm done part of what you said, for me it depends on whether you're talking about individuals choosing not to believe it (absolutely fine), or something amounting to academic censorship in schools, where children are told that there is more debate than there actually is amongst biologists, and therefore something else (like "intelligent design") is equally valid from a scientific point of view.

IMO, Genuine, well informed criticism of evolutionary theory is a good thing and should be encouraged because it will help us understand life better. Misrepresentation of the facts is not.

Well, there are several reasons as to why I'd rather not go into it, respect for the members here on this board is one of them because I know this will turn into a heated debate. It's the nature of the material in question. But the bigger reason is that finding good reference material is extremely difficult for me because: 1) It either has come from a site that is neutral, i.e. not come from a fundamental Christian site and/or 2) be validated by either a photo or scientific acknowledgement. Those are my standards for evidence. And finding such evidence amongst an internet full of people that believe in evolution is rather difficult. In fact, it's a fricking PITA! And I'm just not going to do it again.

But I will provide a single example. Only one, then I'm done.

First off, the evidence is not as important as the person who interprets it. Know this: everyone has beliefs. There is no exception (sorry, Steve). Therefore, people have biases. Now, since evolution or the Big Bang Theory isn't subject to the scientific method, and all the evidence to suggest evolution or a young earth is circumstantial, you have to take a look at the person who's interpreting the evidence to understand their take on it. Take this soft tissue from a T-rex for instance: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc.../dinosaur.html

You have at least 2 possible interpretations of this evidence. 1) Since there is still soft tissue preserved in the fossil, some sort of preservation unlike any we have ever known must have taken place since scientists have previously determined that no soft tissue can remain after 100,000 years or so. This is the interpretation of a typical evolutionist. Then we have 2) Soft tissue could not have possibly been preserved for 65 million years so this dinosaur must've died within the last few thousand years and is evidence of a young earth. A typical interpretation from a young earth scientist (yes, they do have our own scientists).

Now, this is not the only piece of evidence that led me to believe as I do. There's tons of it such as polystrate fossils, canyons formed in only a few days instead of thousands and thousands of years, stalagmite covering a chair inside a cave (it's supposed to take a thousand years to gain an inch in height), Cro-magnon man and the neanderthal actually being fully human instead of pre-man (or whatever), etc... But it all depends on who and how the evidence is interpreted. Now, considering that science has a paradigm for evolution, one that's constantly being hammered by other scientists because there's always new evidence being discovered that doesn't fit into it, most scientists have a both a professional and personal interest in protecting evolution theory and any evidence that's discovered that doesn't fit into said paradigm is often considered tainted in some way and discarded.

Now, I could go on for pages and pages. Believe me, I actually have. But I've said enough (probably too much actually) and I'll leave the rest up to you and whoever else wants to take an interest.

I just hope that everyone respects my viewpoint and kindly lets it be.

[richb]

You have an interesting interpretation of the soft tissue find, which the researcher herself would dispute.

[SteveRiley]

Moderator reminder:

We have a rich tradition here at KFN of not stifling such discussion. Yes, we've gone off topic of the thread -- so what? We're a small enough community that such rigidity doesn't matter. Members are free to ignore this thread if they don't want to see any of the conversation. Members are also free to simply read, or even to contribute. No one is free to attack another member, however.

Carry on, and be excellent to each other.

[charles052]

You have an interesting interpretation of the soft tissue find, which the researcher herself would dispute.

Would dispute? I think she did dispute it. But you know us creationists.....

[SteveRiley]

You have an interesting interpretation of the soft tissue find, which the researcher herself would dispute.

Would dispute? I think she did dispute it.

RichB is writing in the future-in-past tense: an action that has happened before, is likely to happen again, but not at the present time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uses_o...re-in-the-past
http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/v...odal-would.htm
http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/futureinpast.html

If you really want to get grammar-geeky, the construction is a form of epistemic modality.

[SteveRiley]

Hm... talking about the potential sudden strengthening of evidence... check this out.

Simulations back up theory that Universe is a hologram

A team of physicists has provided some of the clearest evidence yet that our Universe could be just one big projection.

In 1997, theoretical physicist Juan Maldacena proposed1 that an audacious model of the Universe in which gravity arises from infinitesimally thin, vibrating strings could be reinterpreted in terms of well-established physics. The mathematically intricate world of strings, which exist in nine dimensions of space plus one of time, would be merely a hologram: the real action would play out in a simpler, flatter cosmos where there is no gravity.

Maldacena's idea thrilled physicists because it offered a way to put the popular but still unproven theory of strings on solid footing — and because it solved apparent inconsistencies between quantum physics and Einstein's theory of gravity. It provided physicists with a mathematical Rosetta stone, a 'duality', that allowed them to translate back and forth between the two languages, and solve problems in one model that seemed intractable in the other and vice versa. But although the validity of Maldacena's ideas has pretty much been taken for granted ever since, a rigorous proof has been elusive.

In two papers posted on the arXiv repository, Yoshifumi Hyakutake of Ibaraki University in Japan and his colleagues now provide, if not an actual proof, at least compelling evidence that Maldacena’s conjecture is true.

[Feathers McGraw]

Charles, RE the respect thing, I think you can respect a person without respecting all of their beliefs.

I don't think anything should be off the table for fear of "offending" someone, as long as everyone is trying to have a genuine conversation. We all live in a common reality, how are we supposed to live together without having a conversation about that reality?

Trolling is, of course, entirely different.

Thanks for giving an example. As you'd rather not talk about it I'll leave it there.

[richb]

RichB is writing in the future-in-past tense: an action that has happened before, is likely to happen again, but not at the present time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uses_o...re-in-the-past
http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/v...odal-would.htm
http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/futureinpast.html

If you really want to get grammar-geeky, the construction is a form of epistemic modality.

Would that I had explained it as thoroughly.

[SteveRiley]

Charles, RE the respect thing, I think you can respect a person without respecting all of their beliefs... I don't think anything should be off the table for fear of "offending" someone, as long as everyone is trying to have a genuine conversation. We all live in a common reality, how are we supposed to live together without having a conversation about that reality?

Correct, and this is the reason that such discussions often spiral out of control. For example, someone can claim belief in the ability to "cure" same-sex orientation. I am under no obligation to respect that belief. Furthermore, I will most certainly criticize it, which will likely lead to the person becoming offended. But this doesn't concern me because the belief is wrong.

Does this mean I have an agenda or bias? Well, maybe -- if "biased by science" is a thing, then sure, I'm happy to say I'm biased. Now 'scuze me while I return to that agenda thing