Global Warming and Evolution

[Outlawstar]

Oh darn youve set me off now.

Personally I dont believe this to be a "missing link", however maybe that come from my skepticism of the current theory of Evolution, why would this be the "missing link" when its clearly a defined species, not a transitional species of any kind, and that in turn begs the question of why the Earth seems to be full of distinct, defined species.

Heres an interesting quote from Darwin himself, who somewhat went the way of Einstein in this sense towards the end of his life.


"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well defined species?" — Charles Darwin




As was clearly pointed out earlier, science has in th epast adhered to the will of the church, in turn keeping the status quo, well these days it seems science is more dogmatic than ever.

Another intersting quote from PHD physicist, Brian Martin.


Textbooks present science as a noble search for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth. They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous -- especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent. The usual pattern is that someone does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic's ideas or the critic personally--by censoring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors.

 

[ayase]

It is a sad fact that many are so dogmatic (whatever their beliefs) that they are often unwilling to listen to views which oppose their own.

Once we've evolved a bit ourselves or created a successor species with all humanity's bugs ironed out (I think that's more likely, and will be faster and easier than waiting for nature. And they will be like the Borg - The internet is Stage 1 of a collective consciousness I'm sure) then we can really get down to finding The Truth about everything and won't have to debate "theories" any more. Sadly, that could take a few million years, by which time we'll have been able to witness evolution taking place anyway.

 

[Outlawstar]

It is a sad fact that many are so dogmatic (whatever their beliefs) that they are often unwilling to listen to views which oppose their own.

Once we've evolved a bit ourselves or created a successor species with all humanity's bugs ironed out (I think that's more likely, and will be faster and easier than waiting for nature. And they will be like the Borg - The internet is Stage 1 of a collective consciousness I'm sure) then we can really get down to finding The Truth about everything and won't have to debate "theories" any more. Sadly, that could take a few million years, by which time we'll have been able to witness evolution taking place anyway.

i know what you mean, it is such an annoying thing, but inevitable I suppose, personally my mind is open to EVERYTHING, I never discount ANYTHING, and most importantly, I am ALWYAS open to admitting Im wrong and changing my beliefs, how am I gonna get anywhere otherwise?

 

[ayase]

I try to be open minded, but I think humanity is evolving the need for "proof" for good reason. If we don't judge a theory by factual evidence backing it up, then what reason do we have to believe (or disbelieve) anything?

If we don't lay down hard facts (like scientific principles for example) we would never have been able to advance. Requiring proof before we accept something as fact just seems to be good sense, as does discarding that which can't be proven.

I'm not saying we should disbelieve everything for which there is no proof, but we should just put it to one side and say "at the moment, there's no reason for us to accept this as truth" and move on. Bye-bye religion. Then if one of these Gods decides to show themselves sometime we can re-evaluate the situation.

 

[shira]

Oh darn youve set me off now.

Personally I dont believe this to be a "missing link", however maybe that come from my skepticism of the current theory of Evolution, why would this be the "missing link" when its clearly a defined species, not a transitional species of any kind, and that in turn begs the question of why the Earth seems to be full of distinct, defined species.

Heres an interesting quote from Darwin himself, who somewhat went the way of Einstein in this sense towards the end of his life.


"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well defined species?" — Charles Darwin




As was clearly pointed out earlier, science has in th epast adhered to the will of the church, in turn keeping the status quo, well these days it seems science is more dogmatic than ever.

Another intersting quote from PHD physicist, Brian Martin.


Textbooks present science as a noble search for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth. They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous -- especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent. The usual pattern is that someone does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic's ideas or the critic personally--by censoring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors.

You know, you have changed my entire view on evoloution there. Thats pretty amazing. Schools never teach you counter-arguments to evoloution, thats for sure.

Wow.

 

[Outlawstar]

I try to be open minded, but I think humanity is evolving the need for "proof" for good reason. If we don't judge a theory by factual evidence backing it up, then what reason do we have to believe (or disbelieve) anything?

If we don't lay down hard facts (like scientific principles for example) we would never have been able to advance. Requiring proof before we accept something as fact just seems to be good sense, as does discarding that which can't be proven.

I'm not saying we should disbelieve everything for which there is no proof, but we should just put it to one side and say "at the moment, there's no reason for us to accept this as truth" and move on. Bye-bye religion. Then if one of these Gods decides to show themselves sometime we can re-evaluate the situation.

Well said!!

 

[Outlawstar]

You know, you have changed my entire view on evoloution there. Thats pretty amazing. Schools never teach you counter-arguments to evoloution, thats for sure.

Wow

Im glad, and your right they DONT teach counter-arguments, let me tell you there is a LOT they dont teach you at school, and I dont say this lightly, its no accident.
Refer to my recent quote about the suppression and dogmatism in science and look into the issue if you wish, you will find no end of shocking revelations

 

[shira]

You know, you have changed my entire view on evoloution there. Thats pretty amazing. Schools never teach you counter-arguments to evoloution, thats for sure.

Wow

Im glad, and your right they DONT teach counter-arguments, let me tell you there is a LOT they dont teach you at school, and I dont say this lightly, its no accident.
Refer to my recent quote about the suppression and dogmatism in science and look into the issue if you wish, you will find no end of shocking revelations

I've always said that people who come away with A's-A*'s in GCSE are generally dull because they simply learn to quote the textbooks. I think this proves it.

I've always hated how when you question things in school the teacher will merely reply "It doesnt matter, thats not what the examiner wants you to say" (I was trying to say that I didn't belive in Global Warming, but apperntly, a different opinion isnt allowed!)

 

[kupocake]

I've always said that people who come away with A's-A*'s in GCSE are generally dull because they simply learn to quote the textbooks. I think this proves it.

What you've said above makes it sound like B-E grade GCSE students are some sort of revolutionary heroes, who fail to learn facts not because they can't be bothered, or simply have an 'anal sphincter' level of intelligence ("my thoughts stay in when I strain hard enough!"), but because they're taking some kind of intellectual stand against a cruel totalitarian education system. Which fits with the E-grade students I knew, because they seemed to think they were rebelling at the time (sixteen year olds throwing tantrums have SO much going for them). And they probably still think they're rebelling behind the counter at (name of maligned fast food chain here) too.

But that's the point. They don't teach you beyond a handful of disputeable basics at GCSE level because the education system is mostly designed to filter out those who can't handle any facts at all. You get all the alternative theories at a higher level, (you know, when the facts you learn may actually have some kind of relevance to where your life is headed. Or not, fellow Humanities majors.), and you'll probably get a shitload of extra-credit for supporting them too.

The scariest thing in this thread is the vague sense that if 'evolution' was replaced with 'holocaust', it wouldn't make as much difference as it should. Ditto for conspiracy theories about 9/11. Just because alternative theories are suppressed by education, media (and all the other bugbears of the capitalist hegemony), doesn't mean there is some heinous plot to suppress them in favour of a false version of events. Sometimes, things are suppressed because actually, they're clusterf***ingly stupid.

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well defined species?" — Charles Darwin

Heres an interesting quote from Darwin himself, who somewhat went the way of Einstein in this sense towards the end of his life.

Fascinating.

Unless of course, it's quoted from the 90th page of the Origin of Species itself and taken so far out of context its lost its meaning entirely. I mean, that would be pretty ironic, considering that you're saying that any old s*** can be made up to support the evolutionary theory.

Hell, I'm not saying this thing is water-tight, but I think it's beyond dispute that there are shards of truth in it. And that why it's among the disposable but easily learnt facts they drum into you at an ultimately inconsequential examination phase.

 

[Maltos]

Fascinating.

Unless of course, it's quoted from the 90th page of the Origin of Species itself and taken so far out of context its lost its meaning entirely. I mean, that would be pretty ironic, considering that you're saying that any old s*** can be made up to support the evolutionary theory.

I'm glad someones up in this thread, talking some ******* sense.

 

[ayase]

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the thread...

People should be able to think what they like, no matter how ridiculous it is. What they shouldn't be able to do, without proof, is use the fact that they do believe something to get special treatment (They're picking on my unfounded beliefs! Make them stop officer!)

No view should be spared criticism, but neither should they be suppressed. We'd be getting into thoughtcrime territory again like those ridiculous Holocaust denial laws on the continent: "How dare you believe something which we can prove wrong! Off to prison with you!" So when will they be locking up all the Young-Earthers and tabloid journalists?

 

[shira]

I've always said that people who come away with A's-A*'s in GCSE are generally dull because they simply learn to quote the textbooks. I think this proves it.

What you've said above makes it sound like B-E grade GCSE students are some sort of revolutionary heroes, who fail to learn facts not because they can't be bothered, or simply have an 'anal sphincter' level of intelligence ("my thoughts stay in when I strain hard enough!"), but because they're taking some kind of intellectual stand against a cruel totalitarian education system. Which fits with the E-grade students I knew, because they seemed to think they were rebelling at the time (sixteen year olds throwing tantrums have SO much going for them). And they probably still think they're rebelling behind the counter at (name of maligned fast food chain here) too.

No. I would say on the whola B-C student would be more intelligent. This is because these morons who get 19 A*'s generally refuse to accept anything bar what they've read in a GCSE textbook. They generally lack common sense or any knowledge of real life because they've spent to long with thier head in a GCSE textbook.

I can assure you 90% of the A-A* achieving pupils in my high school, when you talk to them, they have no clue about anything. They're opinion is what they are told it should be. I'm obviously not saying an E grade pupil who throws **** at the walls when they can't understand something isn't intelligent, I just assumed everyone here was intelligent to understand what I was saying.

Why do I belive that a C-B grade student is more intelligent? Because they question the syllabus- Why do they question it you ask? Because they want to learn more. They know to know how and why things work. They want to use the outside knowledge in thier studies too. The example i've given above, I know there are arguments against Global Warming, however, if I question Global Warming in class, or put a point arguing against Global Warming in my exams, I get 0 marks on that question. That is not teaching fairly at all, that's teaching kids one side of an argument and not allowing them to explore any other arguments

Much is the same with this evoloution point that Outlawstar has brought up; in Biology, if you put an argument against Evoloution, you instantly get 0, whether it's relevant or not.

As I belive Zin5ki (If i'm remembering right here) said, the GCSE RE exam is actually a Political Correctness exam. If you use the quote, that is from the bible that, to simplify says "It's not a sin to kill gays" and you use that quote in you're RE exam on a homosexual related question, regardless of how relevant it could be, you get 0 marks.

Do you understand what i'm saying now? Those B-C grade students are the ones who dare to challenge what they are taught because they want to learn more.

 

[Outlawstar]

What you've said above makes it sound like B-E grade GCSE students are some sort of revolutionary heroes, who fail to learn facts not because they can't be bothered, or simply have an 'anal sphincter' level of intelligence ("my thoughts stay in when I strain hard enough!"), but because they're taking some kind of intellectual stand against a cruel totalitarian education system.

It may have sounded like that, but its certainly NOT what he said, he made a point that certainly generalized, but lets not put words in his mouth.

But that's the point. They don't teach you beyond a handful of disputeable basics at GCSE level because the education system is mostly designed to filter out those who can't handle any facts at all. You get all the alternative theories at a higher level, (you know, when the facts you learn may actually have some kind of relevance to where your life is headed. Or not, fellow Humanities majors.), and you'll probably get a shitload of extra-credit for supporting them too.

How is that what the education system is made for?
Okay thats your opinion, but come on if thats not a generalisation I dont know what is?

And as for opening up at a higher levels, thats only true to an extent and in many cases not the case at all, which I personally know from experience.

The scariest thing in this thread is the vague sense that if 'evolution' was replaced with 'holocaust', it wouldn't make as much difference as it should. Ditto for conspiracy theories about 9/11. Just because alternative theories are suppressed by education, media (and all the other bugbears of the capitalist hegemony), doesn't mean there is some heinous plot to suppress them in favour of a false version of events. Sometimes, things are suppressed because actually, they're clusterf***ingly stupid.

Yes, and sometimes they arent clusterf***ingly stupid, and your admission that other theories are suppressed, is enough to focus the general view on something and thusly discount other theories, wrong in my opinion.

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well defined species?" — Charles Darwin

Heres an interesting quote from Darwin himself, who somewhat went the way of Einstein in this sense towards the end of his life.

Fascinating.

Unless of course, it's quoted from the 90th page of the Origin of Species itself and taken so far out of context its lost its meaning entirely. I mean, that would be pretty ironic, considering that you're saying that any old s*** can be made up to support the evolutionary theory.

Actually its really not taken out of context at all, its just simplified, the general point is the exact same, and Darwin does not give a satisfactory answer, Im not saying that means Evolution is wrong, but its certainly interesting to consider, I have my own views on how the whole thing works, but I wont go into that here.

Hell, I'm not saying this thing is water-tight, but I think it's beyond dispute that there are shards of truth in it. And that why it's among the disposable but easily learnt facts they drum into you at an ultimately inconsequential examination phase.

[/quote]

It may be inconsequential to some, but to others it warrants one of the most important moments in their lives, not personally for me but again lets not generalize.


i just want to point out that Im not on some sort of Anti-evolution crusade, I just like to look at all sides of everything before making a judgement, and even then Im always open to change.

 

[Outlawstar]

The example i've given above, I know there are arguments against Global Warming, however, if I question Global Warming in class, or put a point arguing against Global Warming in my exams, I get 0 marks on that question. That is not teaching fairly at all, that's teaching kids one side of an argument and not allowing them to explore any other arguments

This is actually a very good point, and important in this case, Ive hd the same experience, literally I have been laughed at point blank for voicing my opinions on Global Warming and many other things, in fact I think Global warming is a recent and great example of how easy it is to create an impression of reality amongst the general population through the corporate media.

And yes people in a perfect world should be smart enough to question what theyre told, but how many people really have the time these days.
They rely on the "truth" of the world to be told to them by sources that they consider are theyre to do just that, when in fact we are all human and have motives of our own in all walks of life.

 

[Outlawstar]

Fascinating.

Unless of course, it's quoted from the 90th page of the Origin of Species itself and taken so far out of context its lost its meaning entirely. I mean, that would be pretty ironic, considering that you're saying that any old s*** can be made up to support the evolutionary theory.

I'm glad someones up in this thread, talking some ******* sense.

Define sense.

 

[shira]

The example i've given above, I know there are arguments against Global Warming, however, if I question Global Warming in class, or put a point arguing against Global Warming in my exams, I get 0 marks on that question. That is not teaching fairly at all, that's teaching kids one side of an argument and not allowing them to explore any other arguments

This is actually a very good point, and important in this case, Ive hd the same experience, literally I have been laughed at point blank for voicing my opinions on Global Warming and many other things, in fact I think Global warming is a recent and great example of how easy it is to create an impression of reality amongst the general population through the corporate media.

And yes people in a perfect world should be smart enough to question what theyre told, but how many people really have the time these days.
They rely on the "truth" of the world to be told to them by sources that they consider are theyre to do just that, when in fact we are all human and have motives of our own in all walks of life.

Tell me about it seriously. Same thing in my Chemistry class. I threw some counter arguments against it and the whole class were like "You're talking bull" and started quoting textbooks -__-

Another one is the presentation I gave about Stopping Aid to Africa... But that's a different story

 

[Outlawstar]

Tell me about it seriously. Same thing in my Chemistry class. I threw some counter arguments against it and the whole class were like "You're talking bull" and started quoting textbooks -__-

Another one is the presentation I gave about Stopping Aid to Africa... But that's a different story

[/quote]

Ha, I know what you mean, that is the way society is set up, its not some frikin conspiracy theory, its just a fact, dissent, particularly in science, is clearly not encouraged, and funny enough Im sure I know what youre gettin at with Africa, but yes thats a whole other converstaion

 

[shira]

Tell me about it seriously. Same thing in my Chemistry class. I threw some counter arguments against it and the whole class were like "You're talking bull" and started quoting textbooks -__-

Another one is the presentation I gave about Stopping Aid to Africa... But that's a different story

Ha, I know what you mean, that is the way society is set up, its not some frikin conspiracy theory, its just a fact, dissent, particularly in science, is clearly not encouraged, and funny enough Im sure I know what youre gettin at with Africa, but yes thats a whole other converstaion[/quote]

To say the least I had some comments from my class about being heartless

I'm glad i've found someone who seems to think like me at last xD

 

[CitizenGeek]

Ugh, of course you're laughed at for denying evolution and global warming. Both are overwhelmingly backed up by scientists and objective science.

 

[Outlawstar]

Ugh, of course you're laughed at for denying evolution and global warming. Both are overwhelmingly backed up by scientists and objective science.

Since when did we deny anything, we simply questioned, something I suggest you do more often, my mind is always open, my personal opinion on global warming, which lets say is the opposite of yours, is backed up by just as many scientists and objective science as yours Citizengeek.