Facts, Conclusions, and Lies
Facts are true by definition. Conclusions based upon facts may or may not be true.
Example: A Ford has 4 wheels, has a steering wheel, it has brakes, it has thousands of parts and sub-assemblies, (building blocks), that are just like a Chevy. Facts!
Therefore the Ford and the Chevy are from the same parents or maker. ( Conclusion - False )
That is the problem with people who say, “These fossils are very similar to these fossils, and therefore they both are from the same parents.”
No, it is the part after the “therefore” that many have a problem with.
Just because my DNA and a Gorilla’s DNA are very similar, (Fact), that does not necessarily “force” the “conclusion” that we have the same ancestors, it just means we are made with many of the same “building blocks.”
The plain truth that I just explained will be totally ignored by many who are so blinded by their hate and their "belief" in their world view, that their brain will not even allow the entertainment of the possibility that my statements make sense.
Many conservatives believe in the “facts” of Evolution, the fact that there are fossils is indisputable for example.
The problem is that many conservatives don’t believe in some of the “conclusions” about Evolution such as MacroEvolution or biological evolution.
“Survival of the fittest” seems to be a logical conclusion, as the idea that there can be evolution “within” species. But the “conclusion” that there is evolution from one species to another “could” be a “false conclusion.”
There are those who will lie trough their teeth and accuse people who don’t support “all” of the “conclusions” of evolution to be people who are stupid or people who don’t acknowledge science or facts. They are being deceptive by using false logic to lie by saying that if you don't believe in "all" of the conclusions, then therefore you don't believe in any part of Evolution and therefore you also hate science.
Those accusations are coming from people who “claim” to be “fair minded” people who are “always” interested in the “minority” or divergent views, but evidentially not when the divergent views, (conclusions), are conservative or who's views don’t coincide with theirs.
posted by Free Agency Rules @ 10:40 AM
17 comments
17 Comments:
There you go again.
Using extremes like "all" and "always" to try and explain something that does not fit your ideology.
FAR-The problem is that many
conservatives don’t believe in some of the “conclusions” about Evolution such as MacroEvolution or biological evolution.
I thought conservatives were political ideologues not religious fundamentalists. The fact that you think the two are one and the same explains a lot.
Answer a question for me please.
50,000 years ago our ancestors lived at the same time Neanderthals lived. At that time Neanderthals were a separate species and went extinct.
Neanderthals
Do you believe they existed?
Do you believe they were a separate species that died out?
Humans and their close Neanderthal relatives began diverging from a common ancestor about 700,000 years ago, and the two groups split permanently some 300,000 years later, according to two of the most detailed analyses of Neanderthal DNA to date.
There are large gaps in the evolutionary tree to be sure, that does not mean evolution is false only that we do not have the entire picture but certianly enough of it to know what we are looking at.
FAR Just because my DNA and a Gorilla’s DNA are very similar, (Fact), that does not necessarily “force” the “conclusion” that we have the same ancestors
Humans and gorillas are separate species according to DNA- Fact
Humans and Neanderthals are separate species according to DNA- Fact
Go back far enough and we will find a common ancestor or do you think the separate species of Neanderthals appeared by ????
Top 10 Useless Limbs
The Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths)
All About Evolution and Intelligent Design
TorC,
First, please don't mis-quote me, it is deceptive.
Using extremes like "all" and "always" to try and explain something that does not fit your ideology.
Please show me where I used "all" and "always"
that many have a problem with.
by many who are so blinded...
Many conservatives believe...
many conservatives don’t believe...
There are those who...
from people.... (Some people)
I only used "always" once and it was in realation to a "tounge in cheek" statement that was meant to show that some, (from people), on the left make a claim of "always" being fair.
And I only used "All" in relation to many not believing in "all" of the Theory, which was also a proper use.
according to two of the most detailed analyses of Neanderthal DNA to date.
Notice the "analyses" statement? When we analyze data, we get a conclusion.
The data may be factual, but the analyses, is a conclusion and may or may not be true.
See, you did just what I said...
"accusing me of not believeing in the Entire Evolution Theory....that does not mean that evolution is false
I never said "it" was false, only some of the conclusions.
Your and others "Conclusion" that Go back far enough and we will find a common ancestor....is just that, "a Conclusion."
or do you think the separate species of Neanderthals appeared by ????
Yep, separate species that were created by the creator. Similar DNA does not mean same ancestor as I said in my post.
Now, I will do what most will not, I will answer direct questions. Will You?
Neanderthals
Do you believe they existed?
Yes, of course.
Do you believe they were a separate species that died out?
Yes, of course.
Now let me ask you a direct question.
"Is it possible that the Earth was created from other planets that happened to have other life form fossils?" (Or was the Earth created out of nothing?)
Yes or No? Possible or Impossible?
Mmmm.....will you answer?
FAR.
FAR -
I don't really understand the point. So there are some people out there who get mad at those who don't buy evolution wholeheartedly. So what?
ii,
Fair Question. :)
The point is in the Title.
Facts are True, but Conclusions may or may not be, and Evolution Conclusions are one example of the point.
People will Lie and say that those of us who don't "buy" the "total" package of Evolution, i.e., all of the conclusions that go with the facts, are summarily dismissed as people who don't believe "any" part of it, which is a lie.
Mainly I was trying to draw attention to the huge difference between facts and conclusions because so many will act as if they are the same.
Sorry, if I wasn't clear enough. :)
FAR.
So you believe the parts of evolution that fit your ideology but not others?
First your question-
FAR "Is it possible that the Earth was created from other planets that happened to have other life form fossils?" (Or was the Earth created out of nothing?)
I assume you mean "life on" earth.
It is possible that life came to earth from an object from space. (comet meteorite etc.)
It is also possible that life began from "nothing". That really is an inaccurate description, the building blocks of life are scattered through out the visible(known)universe. All that is needed is a reaction
(lightning and or chemical explanation at the end)
How life began is NOT the same as evolution. How life began is a question. The fact that life forms evolve is not a question but a fact.
SO more questions.
Are you religious to the point you believe the Bible literally?
What parts (conclusions)of evolution do you not believe? And what evidence made you think the current theory is wrong?
Life emerged through a complex chain of evolutionary events, dictated by the physical-chemical environment on the early Earth. The reducing atmosphere (one with only traces of oxygen and therefore a lack of reactive oxygen species which would attack chemical bonds), provided favourable energetic surroundings for the formation of relatively complex polymers from organic monomers which were already present on the primitive Earth. The monomers have been demonstrated to be from two sources: either formed from terrestrial synthetic pathways [2] or were derived extraterrestrially from solar system materials [3]. Over time, simple molecules developed into larger, more complex biological molecules and eventually to cells.
I assume you mean "life on" earth.
No, I mean the earth itself?
Could other planets have come together to form the earth? Forget life itself for the moment.
Possible or Impossible?
Please answer that one first.
Now my turn again.
Do you believe the Bible literally?
No. There are metaphores in the bible that are undeniable.
Do you believe we are "sheep" as Jesus calls us? Of course the Bible cannot be taken literally.
The Bible has been translated. Do you think that all of the translated words were translated "perfectly?"
We have proof that they were not. The Hebrew word for Kill is ""harag" while the Hebrew word for murder is " ratsah" which is the one found it the Torah and the same for the Greek Translations.
Kill means to take a life and includes self defense, while Murder means the taking of an innocent life. All Bible scholars now agree that the bible should be translated "Thou shalt not Murder."
But, I don't think "religious to the point" has anything to do with it though, because one could believe in it literally and not be any more or less religious.
What parts (conclusions)of evolution do you not believe?
I don't believe in Macro Evolution.
And what evidence made you think the current theory is wrong?
First your asked "do you not believe? and then you ask about evidence.
What I hope you are getting out of my point is that facts are facts or evidence, but "conclusions" are things that I don't believe. Conclusions that "because this species has very similar DNA to this species, therefore we can draw this conclusion...."
When people say "Life emerged through a complex chain of evolutionary events, dictated by the physical-chemical environment on the early Earth."
They are making that statement based upon "conclusions" choosen from a set of possibilities.
Or, do you deny that they have no way of being able to duplicate that "conclusion?"
FAR.
FAR-Could other planets have come together to form the earth? Forget life itself for the moment.
Speaking for all planets not just Earth that would seem unlikely.
To believe that I would have to believe planets always existed. Then where did the planets come from to form the earth or any other planet.
A planet orbits around a star. For planets to come together something strange would have to happen. If an object big enough hit the earth to move its orbit it would more than likely destroy it. Like the planet that probably existed between Earth and Mars. Its an asteroid belt now. A smaller object would destroy all life and possibly eject enough material from the planet to form a moon, likely how our moon formed.
Planets form from material from dead and exploded stars. The dust and gas coalesce to form new stars and planets.
How do you believe planets including the Earth formed?
How do you believe humans came to be on Earth?
This is he reason for the religious aspect of questioning. Did god create other humans that went extinct?
You disbelieve evolution (but not all) because you believe God created man in current form. True or false?
All Bible scholars now agree that the bible be translated "Thou shalt not Murder."
ALL?
Is that like all scientist in their field believe evolution to be a fact and all scientist in their field believe global warming to be mostly human caused?
BTW- people must rely on others to interpret how the Bible is to be believed. Those interpretations have changed over time even when the facts (the words) do not change. Is the kings version of the book the right one? Says who, the king at the time.
No one will ever know exactly how life began on Earth, all we can do is come to "conclusions" from the evidence and facts that sciences say are possible.
Some will believe "conclude" God made man with magic so case closed. While it is easier since zero proof is required I still would like my conclusions to come from facts and the realm of what is physically possible.
T or C,
Now this is getting good. You are making good points and one's that I can respond to.
This back and forth is what good discussion is all about and it can really be fun as long as both sides can try to put aside their bias, (Worldview filters), long enough to really contemplate the others answers.
So, with that said....
TorC: Speaking for all planets not just Earth that would seem unlikely.
So, your answer is that it is possible, but not likely, yes?
TorC: How do you believe planets including the Earth formed?
I believe, (notice the word believe since neither of us has proof), that the Universe came into being by way of the "Big Bang."
I believe that during that time many collisions and upheavals occured for millions of years and some bodies, not necessarily planets, had life forms on them, including Dinosaurs and perhaps Neanderthals.
Now, before the current orbits and planets came into being, some of these "bodies" were not trapped in an orbit and were colliding with each other, thus depositing older strata that can sometimes be closer to the surface of the Earth than those below them, (I believe I read in some scientific books about this quandry), thus allowing for fossils that may not have been from here.
Now, you will ask how I would come to this conclusion?
Simple, I will try to explain.
I am a very analytical person. My relatives lovingly call me "Perry Mason" because of my uncanny ability to tell them "who done it" way before anyone else can.
I look for conflicting data and then postulate what must be the answer. For example.....
The Bible tells us that Adam appeared on the earth about 4000 years Before Christ. That means that man was "created" on the sixth day.
And that the Earth was created 6000 years prior to that. I can explain where I get that date from another time, but suffice it to say, that if the Earth is only about 12,000 years old, (we are in the year 6000 after Adam), then how can I believe in the Bible and still believe that the "Elements" that make up the Earth are older than that, and that there are fossils that are older than that, well I must look for an explaination that fits both things, and hence my postulate.
Now, you can laugh and scoff at it, but that's O.K., I think anyone who must make "conclusions" because there are no "first hand" witnesses, are bound to bring scoffing.
TorC: You disbelieve evolution (but not all) because you believe God created man in current form. True or false?
True.
TorC: ALL?
Well, you got me on that one. I should have said, all that I am aware of. :)
TorC: Is the kings version of the book the right one?
No, But it is the "best" one.
TorC: Some will believe "conclude" God made man with magic...
No, not magic, science. Someone as smart as God can have a lab, no? God does not do magic, he must obey the laws of the Universe.
Miracles are only acts of Science for which we do not have the Scientific explaination for yet.
Your turn.
If there was a big bang, who set it off as Steven Hawking once asked?
And as far as proof goes, I give you the incrediable workings of the Universe.
FAR.
Your question
FARIf there was a big bang, who set it off as Steven Hawking once asked?
No way to ever know.
If there is a god he lost control of the universe after the big bang. The laws of physics where set once the the universe started to cool.
As for your answer
FAR-I believe that during that time many collisions and upheavals occured for millions of years and some bodies, not necessarily planets, had life forms on them, including Dinosaurs and perhaps Neanderthals.
Now, before the current orbits and planets came into being, some of these "bodies" were not trapped in an orbit and were colliding with each other,
As for your explanation of how Neanderthals came to live on Earth and older fossils and strata Impossible!
Planets and stars have been created and destroyed since the Big Bang cooled approx 13-15 billion years ago. It would have been approx a billion years after the big bang Timeline before the universe started cooling enough to allow gravity to coalesce gas to later form stars and planets.
Any object hitting the earth would destroy any fossils and certainly would not leave entire skeletons and areas intact let alone living humanoids. Impossible. Physics do not allow what you are saying.
Could life have come from space in the form of building blocks or microscopic organisms surviving a small impact. Possible.
Again you twist yourself into a pretzel to explain how the bible has to be right. You say you do not believe in a literal interpretation then go on to quote the bible as a book of fact in respect to the age of the Earth. Sorry but science does not allow your explanation of older fossils and the amount of strata that would be involved. Please show me where you learned this or is it just a hunch you made up to fit your ideology?
The Bible
FAR-
No, But it is the "best" one.
Says you? Why is it the best interpretation? Most popular? latest model?
FAR-No, not magic, science. Someone as smart as God can have a lab, no? God does not do magic, he must obey the laws of the Universe.
What laws of physics allow a humans to appear out of???
A supreme being is a supernatural belief not a provable fact. That is more a magical realm than science. If you had been born in the middle east you would be reading the Koran and believing what ever interpretation the people teaching it gave you.
Big Bang
Approximately 13.7 billion years ago, the entirety of our universe was compressed into the confines of an atomic nucleus. Known as a singularity, this is the moment before creation when space and time did not exist. According to the prevailing cosmological models that explain our universe, an ineffable explosion, trillions of degrees in temperature on any measurement scale, that was infinitely dense, created not only fundamental subatomic particles and thus matter and energy but space and time itself. Cosmology theorists combined with the observations of their astronomy colleagues have been able to reconstruct the primordial chronology of events known as the big bang
TorC,
Lets chop these up.
First,
TorC: If you had been born in the middle east you would be reading the Koran and believing what ever interpretation the people teaching it gave you.
There are Christians in the Middle East that were brought up reading the Koran, and have studied on their own and converted to Christianity. Would you dispute that fact even though you made a flat statement about what I "would" definately be reading as if there was no other choice?
FAR.
Should have been
If you had been born in the middle east you would "likely" be reading the Koran and believing what ever interpretation the people teaching it gave you.
While there are exception what religion you believe and how that religion is interpreted has more to do with where you are born (geographically) and how you where raised. Such as what the parents and community believe.
TorC
Should have been :)
We each have one goof, no? :)
O.K.
Now, I don't have a problem with the idea that God places us in an environment that suits our personality that we are born with. If we need to have a certain amount of truth, then we are born in a family that has a religion that professes that amount of truth.
You do realize that all religions cannot all be true because they have different views on the same points. So, either they all have some truth, they all have no truth, or one has all the truth and it may be up to us to find out which is the case.
We can say it doesn't really matter, but that may be irresponsible if there is a God.
FAR.
TorC,
What laws of physics allow a humans to appear out of???
When God said he created "man" out of the dust of the earth, could he have meant that we all are made from elements or matter?
Could God have produced DNA strands in a Lab that make up each species? Like test tube species?
Possible or Impossible?
Look, here is what I am trying to get you to consider.....
Organic Evolution is not the only possibility of how life started, or how species can be found prior to Adam.
Would you not agree that there may be other explanations and that if there is a God, he may have had a hand in it?
My speculation on "Worlds in Collision" and others is just that, speculation but with the basis that if the basic concepts of the bible are true, (notice I did not say that it is perfect in every way, but rather considering it as a history book for the moment), then there must be a way for those things to be explained that don't have to be caused by "random chance" that is so far fetched in terms of the law of probability that it becomes almost impossible.
Other possibilities? Yes or No.
Have an open mind. Once we think we have things figured out, (organic Evolution - Theory!), then we have a tendancy to stop thinking about other possibilities. Human Nature.
Truth is truth. Religious Truth, Scientific Truth, Economic Truth....They cannot disagree. It is impossible.
So if it is true that God exists, he cannot disagree with FACTS or truth. He may differ with Conclusions, but not facts.
Theory - 1. a system of assumptions...... 2. Abstract reasoning; speculation. 3. A belief that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment. 4. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
The Theory of "Organic" Evolution is full of Assumptions, Conjecture, Speculation and Conclusions.
Assumptions, Conclusions? True or False?
Notice that a Theory is a "Belief."
Religion is a Belief that is based upon Conclusions, of the facts of life.
FAR.
Could God have produced DNA strands in a Lab that make up each species? Like test tube species?
Possible or Impossible?
Impossible the way you phrase it.
FAR-then there must be a way for those things to be explained that don't have to be caused by "random chance" that is so far fetched in terms of the law of probability that it becomes almost impossible.
There must be another way? Why because the bible says so? The theories of how life began and particularly evolution which is a fact are anything but far fetched. Only those that have their "conclusions" already set for them by the bible would think so.
FAR-Have an open mind. Once we think we have things figured out, (organic Evolution - Theory!), then we have a tendancy to stop thinking about other possibilities. Human Nature.
You seem to be the one who's mind is closed, all of your "conclusions" and speculation have to fit a book that relies on others to interpret and as a science or history book is completely inaccurate.
FAR-Notice that a Theory is a "Belief."
Religion is a Belief that is based upon Conclusions, of the facts of life.
A scientific theory is NOT a belief. Religion is a belief that has no basis in fact only a book that is inaccurate as a history or science book. Trying to make the earth only thousands of years old by saying the creatures (human and animal) came from other worlds is impossible.
A theory used in science is different than the common usage by non scientists.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
Far if you want to debate whether their is a god then from a scientific stand point you should say god started the big bang and set in motion the physical laws and time lines we see and say the bible is not literal in any way when it comes to science or history.
When you try to use the bible as a science or history book you end up saying things like Neanderthals and dinosaurs came to Earth within the last 6000 years by way of another planet or object hitting earth which is silly.
As you said in an earlier comment
FARNo. There are metaphores in the bible that are undeniable.
Do you believe we are "sheep" as Jesus calls us? Of course the Bible cannot be taken literally.
Some would say religion was a power and followers should obey like sheep and not question the religion.
Since you know the bible cannot be taken literally then why try to use it as a fact book as to the age of the Earth when all credible science puts the Earth's age at approx 4.5 billion years?
Please do not think I am attacking you or religion I am not. As for your post you have made conclusions based on non facts which is worse than making conclusion based on facts. yes?
Is there a god?
I do not know but as I said before if there is he started the universe and then left it on it's own.
THEORY- a little more from the link.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.
An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.
A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.
An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.
A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.
Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
FAR did you go on vacation or something?
Hope everything is well.
I Broke My Ankle about 6 weeks ago and have been dealing with the pain from all of the torn muscles and ligaments.
Thanks for asking....I am back now and ready to rock and roll.
:)
FAR.
Post a Comment
<< Home