Welcome Guest ( Log In · Register · Change Skins )
Global PokedeX Plus
Lab · Shelter · Main · Dex · PC · Shop · Stats · Help · Rules · Users Online · IRC Chat
GPX+ GPXPlus Forums Member Options
X   Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Religion Overgeneralization
jellybean chi
post Mar 18 2013, 07:09 PM
Post #1


Pokémon Trainer
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 6-December 12
From: Asgard
Member No.: 184 458

Avengers Assemble!



Ok what i noticed a lot on this forum is that a lot of people seem to think there's a huge black and white difference between a religious person and a "normal" person.
So...i hope to clarify some things.

No, not all Christians think that pokemon is evil or incorrect or whatever. I'm proof.
No, not all atheists are right because they believe in science. a lot of science has been proven false, especially when it comes to evolution (Haekel's embryos?)
No, not all Christians believe that evolution is retarded and totally false 'cuz it's "against God." I believe in evolution. Well microevolution anyway. (humans did not come from apes. that's just what the first impression is by a glance at darwin's "tree of life," but he didn't intend to say that humans are a "higher-up" than chimpanzees.)
Yes, there are many types of Christians and atheists. There are some Christians who may think that pokemon is evil or satanic, but there are some christians who believe music is satanic too. There are some atheists who believe all christians are stupid, but there are also some atheists who believe Jesus as a person never existed (come on, he's a recorded historical figure by many different rulers and nations, you can't really prove that as false without trying to claim a lot of other facts as false as well).
So, please stop overgeneralizing. I look through this and a lot of you talk about christians like we're all idiots. Sure, there are a lot of Christians that are in fact idiots, I know many and I am probably one myself. But I also know a lot of atheists that are idiots. Being atheological doesn't make the atheist an idiot. Being theological doesn't make the Christian an idiot.
I try to be as accepting as possible of everyone no matter how wrong I think they are, but since no one can actually know the truth, please just stop saying stuff like "ooh, those jesus freaks think pokemon is evil that's so stupid they're all so stupid let's make fun of them 'cuz they're all idiots and talk to their imaginary 'friend' and say that science is false 'cuz they're so stupid" because that, people, is, in fact, idiotic. (and on my part, that was meant to be an overgeneralization so please don't call me a hypocrite. I already know i am one.)

Anyway, please share your opinions. ^-^
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Cinto
post Mar 18 2013, 07:36 PM
Post #2


(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 226
Joined: 14-December 12
From: Paradise
Member No.: 185 285

Who Am I?



I've actually been asked before, "As a Christian, do you think atheists are stupid?"

I wasn't sure how to respond then, being the awkward person I am.

And I'm also not sure where I'm going with this, but I agree with you completely.

-fail opinion-


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

DJ Majja Kool
post Mar 18 2013, 08:01 PM
Post #3


Hungry hungry Hippowdons
Group Icon

Group: +Donors
Posts: 527
Joined: 31-May 09
From: GPXPlus
Member No.: 29 051

Hi.



I've never seen anyone claim that all or most Christians think Pokemon is evil. Most people I've seen are aware that it's just a small group of people that have that mindset.

but yes, I agree with you. Something similar I can't stand is when a/theists claim that a/theists only believe or disbelieve in religion because they were brainwashed into thinking that way.

*Side note: I know there's a thread on this board for discussing whether Pokemon is "the devil's work", and I don't understand the point of it. Who on a Pokemon forum is going to say "Yes, I think Pokemon is of the devil"? That would be like going on a fan site of a band and making a thread asking "Do you like *insert name of band*?" It's pretty much a given what everyone's response will be.

This post has been edited by Laughing Cupcakes: Mar 18 2013, 08:02 PM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

callmeish
post Apr 3 2013, 02:46 AM
Post #4


Pokémon Trainer
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 3-April 13
Member No.: 194 563

Active Squad



Generalizations are generally a bad thing, regardless of where they're used. But sometimes they're handy, like the one I just used. I think this whole debate gets blown out of proportion though. Those generalizations, on both sides, come from what seems to be an overwhelming majority of any given population expressing misguided opinions and ideas. But this doesn't usually represent the majority, as the majority keeps their mouths shut. It's the incredibly loud few that shape how groups are perceived.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Lord Raven
post May 27 2013, 12:17 PM
Post #5


i need something to put here
Group Icon

Group: Global Moderators
Posts: 3 900
Joined: 2-July 07
From: Ellicott City, Maryland
Member No.: 34

Active Squad



Generalizations aren't too bad a tool to use, but my problem is that people take it to an extreme and make it extremely simplified. They don't add any sort of nuance to a generalized argument, which is my problem with people on the internet in general; many just tend to recite what they read and they "play to win" more than play to put their point across. It seems to be the "cool" thing to do especially to rag on conservative values.

Here's to say, I don't agree with conservative values in the slightest but I see where they are coming from. However, like these politicians we all love to hate, many with more liberal beliefs fall into the trap of irrational hatred and intolerance of beliefs outside of their own, which is in itself very close-minded. You don't even need to think about how close-minded it is for someone to be unaccepting of a person who doesn't believe in something such as gay marriage, abortion etc because of failures to understand the argument from the other side.

I think the best way to argue to win, at any rate, is to understand the argument from the other side. Could fan a few flamewars here and there.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Vixenite
post Jun 3 2013, 11:46 PM
Post #6


Pokémon Trainer
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 6-November 10
From: United States
Member No.: 119 451

Active Squad



You've said a lot of ignorant and wrong things here. Like saying you only believe in microevolution - you can't. There's not a difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution, it's made up by creationists who want to get a jail out of free card to claim they believe in science and creationism. To quote from this page (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Microevolution), "This is the evolutionary equivalent of saying that the mechanism you use to move from your bedroom to the kitchen (i.e., walking) is insufficient to get you from Boston to Los Angeles". No one who understands evolution even uses the words micro and macro evolution

Science has been proven wrong? Of course it has. Unlike the bible, science wants to be proven wrong, corrected, and added onto. It's the current best understanding we have of the way that things work. Just because certain facets have been proven incorrect does not mean you get to throw all of science out the window. It's certainly a better place to look than most religions. Science adjusts to new information and knowledge, religion does not.

You said humans do not come from apes. This is common misconception, and is apparently something that schools need to teach more. Humans and apes share a common ancestor. No scientist has ever claimed that humans evolved from apes. If you want an example of how this works - can you say that you came from your sibling? No, that's impossible. Both of you came from your parents, a common ancestor. You need to make your opinions about evolution based on more than just "my first impression", because you're showing a severe lack of knowledge on the subject.

On you saying that Jesus was historically proven to be a person - that's also incorrect. However, for the scare amount of evidence there is that Jesus existed, it certainly does not substantiate the radical and ridiculous claims of what he did in his life. If Jesus existed, which is under a great deal of historical debate, than he was most likely a normal man who had claims of his deeds greatly exaggerated. Most of the historical writings about Jesus come straight from the bible, which has not proven itself to be a reliable historical document .. in fact, it's done quite the opposite. The bible states many things that have been completely disproved by our modern knowledge of science and history.

Please see this article, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_...of_Jesus_Christ, especially the part about non-biblical evidence. It's very telling on the likelihood of "Jesus" having been a real living human being.

I've also never heard anyone say that all pokemon-haters are Christian. Ever. They probably said something along the lines of "most pokemon-are-of-the-devil people are Christian". The latter is very accurate. When is the last time you've heard an atheist go "Our kids can't play that, it's of the devil!"? It's a solely religious problem, but that doesn't mean the majority of religious people believe it.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

jellybean chi
post Jun 7 2013, 12:39 AM
Post #7


Pokémon Trainer
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 6-December 12
From: Asgard
Member No.: 184 458

Avengers Assemble!



QUOTE(Rainbow Dash x @ Jun 3 2013, 09:46 PM) *
You've said a lot of ignorant and wrong things here. Like saying you only believe in microevolution - you can't. There's not a difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution, it's made up by creationists who want to get a jail out of free card to claim they believe in science and creationism. To quote from this page (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Microevolution), "This is the evolutionary equivalent of saying that the mechanism you use to move from your bedroom to the kitchen (i.e., walking) is insufficient to get you from Boston to Los Angeles". No one who understands evolution even uses the words micro and macro evolution

Science has been proven wrong? Of course it has. Unlike the bible, science wants to be proven wrong, corrected, and added onto. It's the current best understanding we have of the way that things work. Just because certain facets have been proven incorrect does not mean you get to throw all of science out the window. It's certainly a better place to look than most religions. Science adjusts to new information and knowledge, religion does not.

You said humans do not come from apes. This is common misconception, and is apparently something that schools need to teach more. Humans and apes share a common ancestor. No scientist has ever claimed that humans evolved from apes. If you want an example of how this works - can you say that you came from your sibling? No, that's impossible. Both of you came from your parents, a common ancestor. You need to make your opinions about evolution based on more than just "my first impression", because you're showing a severe lack of knowledge on the subject.

On you saying that Jesus was historically proven to be a person - that's also incorrect. However, for the scare amount of evidence there is that Jesus existed, it certainly does not substantiate the radical and ridiculous claims of what he did in his life. If Jesus existed, which is under a great deal of historical debate, than he was most likely a normal man who had claims of his deeds greatly exaggerated. Most of the historical writings about Jesus come straight from the bible, which has not proven itself to be a reliable historical document .. in fact, it's done quite the opposite. The bible states many things that have been completely disproved by our modern knowledge of science and history.

Please see this article, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_...of_Jesus_Christ, especially the part about non-biblical evidence. It's very telling on the likelihood of "Jesus" having been a real living human being.

I've also never heard anyone say that all pokemon-haters are Christian. Ever. They probably said something along the lines of "most pokemon-are-of-the-devil people are Christian". The latter is very accurate. When is the last time you've heard an atheist go "Our kids can't play that, it's of the devil!"? It's a solely religious problem, but that doesn't mean the majority of religious people believe it.


ok, first of all, i would like to apologize for not being clear in my topic post. i never intended to come across as saying anything like "all pokemon haters are christian." quoted, i said, "No, not all Christians think that Pokemon is evil or incorrect or whatever." How is that in any way suggesting that the majority of christians hate it? The whole point of the statement I made was that Im sick of overgeneralizations. Of course it 's not true that the majority of christians "hate pokemon." I was merely stating the fact that there are those who have this idea in their head that all christians must hate pokemon because it "talks about evolution." now don't you go tellin me im wrong, ive dealt with people who actually think like that. but i never said it was the majority. did i?
now, im only in high school. i haven't learned nearly as much anatomy and biology as i would have liked to so far. but i researched extensively in the past few years about the whole debate between "creation" and "evolution," because i personally think it's ridiculous. i'm blessed to be raised in a nondenominational christian family my whole life, so nothing about my "religion" says i need to take every word of the bible literally. in fact, i really believe it's full of mystery and potential discoveries, just like the earth we live on.
as far as ive studied, micro evolution and macro evolution can be taken in many different senses. i mean, they're separate theories. im not talking about "evolution in a microscopic sense," but just the theory of "microevolution." it's hard for me to explain in a very formal scientific way, cuz like i said im only a sophomore. so far. id like to devote my life to studying it though.
did i ever say anything that suggested i don't believe any science because some facts have been proven wrong? i think biblical history and science go hand in hand. which not a lot of denominational christians are willing to go for. (see, not ALL of them, but SOME of them.) i know very well that history and the nature of science are very different. the bible is history (to be taken in a word for word literal sense or not) and the laws of nature are still yet to be discovered and proven.
of course i said humans don't come from apes. i even pointed out that it was a misconception. not in that wording but anyway. i feel at this point you're just restating what i already proposed, which makes me want to apologize again for not getting my point across. for example, a lot of my fellow christians refuse to believe in any type of evolution of species simply because they don't want to think that "man came from apes." which was the point i was trying to get across.
oh, wait, i found an actual argument. ok. actually there are a lot of claims outside of the bible that lead to proof of the existence of jesus of nazareth. i once got into this really horrible debate with an atheist (honestly he talked like a five year old) and i realized the actual existence of many people in history that we take to be so real now could very well be lies. i know ive been taught a lot of lies in school, but i won't go into that now. anyway, there are a lot of outside claims (or whatever ya wanna call them its like midnight ok im sleepy) including pilates court, and other leaders from rome and other places that i cant remember right now. there's a lot of debate over whether or not he was actually crucified, but evidence from pilate's court supports that someone called jesus was crucified, whether or not it was THE jesus, no one can prove, but that's why we have faith. after all, christianity is solely based on faith. so basically, there is proof pointing to jesus's existence. there's proof of a lot of things, but that doesn't always make them true, yeah? i mean, i believe in this proof, and i believe in the evidence supporting the old and new testaments' historical accuracy (including miracles or not, however you interpret things), and therefore i personally believe that jesus was a historical figure, divine or not. (ugh i mean i believe he was divine, but i believe he existed anyway, but grahhhhh this doesn't even matter im sorry ok)
so, basically, im sorry for causing an unnecessary argument. i do love debating, but this seemed almost pointless, which was completely my fault for not getting my point against overgeneralization across. im sorry if i did seem ignorant. i hate when that happens.

oh--- in the future, try not to start out a reply on a post against overgeneralization with an overgeneralization. science is physical proof of something, i find it foolish to not at least take scientific claims into consideration. i always hold the nature of science and scripture together. as for my beliefs specifically, though, i won't look at one without the other. you can call that ignorant if you want, though, or naive, or whatever, 'cuz that's me personally and doesn't really have to do with overgeneralizations.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Vixenite
post Jun 7 2013, 02:49 AM
Post #8


Pokémon Trainer
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 6-November 10
From: United States
Member No.: 119 451

Active Squad



QUOTE(jellybean chi @ Jun 7 2013, 01:39 AM) *
ok, first of all, i would like to apologize for not being clear in my topic post. i never intended to come across as saying anything like "all pokemon haters are christian." quoted, i said, "No, not all Christians think that Pokemon is evil or incorrect or whatever." How is that in any way suggesting that the majority of christians hate it? The whole point of the statement I made was that Im sick of overgeneralizations. Of course it 's not true that the majority of christians "hate pokemon." I was merely stating the fact that there are those who have this idea in their head that all christians must hate pokemon because it "talks about evolution." now don't you go tellin me im wrong, ive dealt with people who actually think like that. but i never said it was the majority. did i?

I .. think you're seriously misunderstanding what I'm saying. I said I doubt people think all Christians hate pokemon. I was wondering if you were mistaking people saying "most people who hate pokemon are religious" for "most religious people hate pokemon". They look similar at first glance, but they have very different meanings.

QUOTE(jellybean chi @ Jun 7 2013, 01:39 AM) *
now, im only in high school. i haven't learned nearly as much anatomy and biology as i would have liked to so far. but i researched extensively in the past few years about the whole debate between "creation" and "evolution," because i personally think it's ridiculous. i'm blessed to be raised in a nondenominational christian family my whole life, so nothing about my "religion" says i need to take every word of the bible literally. in fact, i really believe it's full of mystery and potential discoveries, just like the earth we live on.
as far as ive studied, micro evolution and macro evolution can be taken in many different senses. i mean, they're separate theories. im not talking about "evolution in a microscopic sense," but just the theory of "microevolution." it's hard for me to explain in a very formal scientific way, cuz like i said im only a sophomore. so far. id like to devote my life to studying it though.

Micro and macro evolution are not separate theories .. they're not theories at all. Only evolution is. I'm aware of what people describe microevolution as (I'm not mistaking it for microscopic evolution), but microevolution is not a term used in any accepted scientific circles. Evolution is evolution. In order to believe in microevolution and only microevolution, you have to believe that for some bizarre reason evolution has a wall that it can hit and the species suddenly stops evolving. Otherwise, enough small changes can happen to an animal to eventually make it completely incompatible with others that it originated from. We have species we've observed evolving, actually. Such as this lizard: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...ive-birth-eggs/

QUOTE(jellybean chi @ Jun 7 2013, 01:39 AM) *
did i ever say anything that suggested i don't believe any science because some facts have been proven wrong? i think biblical history and science go hand in hand. which not a lot of denominational christians are willing to go for. (see, not ALL of them, but SOME of them.) i know very well that history and the nature of science are very different. the bible is history (to be taken in a word for word literal sense or not) and the laws of nature are still yet to be discovered and proven.

The problem is you brought up science was wrong as a way to discredit atheists and the stock they put into science. It doesn't really matter if science is proven incorrect, though. It's the best knowledge we have of the world around us, and it makes more sense to believe in science than to believe in the bible or other religious texts.


(skipping over historical stuff, I linked to a webpage from people with more knowledge than me for a reason. I don't do a lot of research into history, I'm just pointing out there is indeed legitimate points the other side has.)

QUOTE(jellybean chi @ Jun 7 2013, 01:39 AM) *
oh--- in the future, try not to start out a reply on a post against overgeneralization with an overgeneralization. science is physical proof of something, i find it foolish to not at least take scientific claims into consideration. i always hold the nature of science and scripture together. as for my beliefs specifically, though, i won't look at one without the other. you can call that ignorant if you want, though, or naive, or whatever, 'cuz that's me personally and doesn't really have to do with overgeneralizations.

Not quite sure where I ever over generalised.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

jellybean chi
post Jun 8 2013, 11:19 PM
Post #9


Pokémon Trainer
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 6-December 12
From: Asgard
Member No.: 184 458

Avengers Assemble!



QUOTE(Rainbow Dash x @ Jun 7 2013, 12:49 AM) *
QUOTE(jellybean chi @ Jun 7 2013, 01:39 AM) *
ok, first of all, i would like to apologize for not being clear in my topic post. i never intended to come across as saying anything like "all pokemon haters are christian." quoted, i said, "No, not all Christians think that Pokemon is evil or incorrect or whatever." How is that in any way suggesting that the majority of christians hate it? The whole point of the statement I made was that Im sick of overgeneralizations. Of course it 's not true that the majority of christians "hate pokemon." I was merely stating the fact that there are those who have this idea in their head that all christians must hate pokemon because it "talks about evolution." now don't you go tellin me im wrong, ive dealt with people who actually think like that. but i never said it was the majority. did i?

I .. think you're seriously misunderstanding what I'm saying. I said I doubt people think all Christians hate pokemon. I was wondering if you were mistaking people saying "most people who hate pokemon are religious" for "most religious people hate pokemon". They look similar at first glance, but they have very different meanings.

QUOTE(jellybean chi @ Jun 7 2013, 01:39 AM) *
now, im only in high school. i haven't learned nearly as much anatomy and biology as i would have liked to so far. but i researched extensively in the past few years about the whole debate between "creation" and "evolution," because i personally think it's ridiculous. i'm blessed to be raised in a nondenominational christian family my whole life, so nothing about my "religion" says i need to take every word of the bible literally. in fact, i really believe it's full of mystery and potential discoveries, just like the earth we live on.
as far as ive studied, micro evolution and macro evolution can be taken in many different senses. i mean, they're separate theories. im not talking about "evolution in a microscopic sense," but just the theory of "microevolution." it's hard for me to explain in a very formal scientific way, cuz like i said im only a sophomore. so far. id like to devote my life to studying it though.

Micro and macro evolution are not separate theories .. they're not theories at all. Only evolution is. I'm aware of what people describe microevolution as (I'm not mistaking it for microscopic evolution), but microevolution is not a term used in any accepted scientific circles. Evolution is evolution. In order to believe in microevolution and only microevolution, you have to believe that for some bizarre reason evolution has a wall that it can hit and the species suddenly stops evolving. Otherwise, enough small changes can happen to an animal to eventually make it completely incompatible with others that it originated from. We have species we've observed evolving, actually. Such as this lizard: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...ive-birth-eggs/

QUOTE(jellybean chi @ Jun 7 2013, 01:39 AM) *
did i ever say anything that suggested i don't believe any science because some facts have been proven wrong? i think biblical history and science go hand in hand. which not a lot of denominational christians are willing to go for. (see, not ALL of them, but SOME of them.) i know very well that history and the nature of science are very different. the bible is history (to be taken in a word for word literal sense or not) and the laws of nature are still yet to be discovered and proven.

The problem is you brought up science was wrong as a way to discredit atheists and the stock they put into science. It doesn't really matter if science is proven incorrect, though. It's the best knowledge we have of the world around us, and it makes more sense to believe in science than to believe in the bible or other religious texts.


(skipping over historical stuff, I linked to a webpage from people with more knowledge than me for a reason. I don't do a lot of research into history, I'm just pointing out there is indeed legitimate points the other side has.)

QUOTE(jellybean chi @ Jun 7 2013, 01:39 AM) *
oh--- in the future, try not to start out a reply on a post against overgeneralization with an overgeneralization. science is physical proof of something, i find it foolish to not at least take scientific claims into consideration. i always hold the nature of science and scripture together. as for my beliefs specifically, though, i won't look at one without the other. you can call that ignorant if you want, though, or naive, or whatever, 'cuz that's me personally and doesn't really have to do with overgeneralizations.

Not quite sure where I ever over generalised.


i think we both misunderstood each other in certain places. again, i do apologize for that. i don't think that most people think all religious people hate pokemon, but i do know a few people who do think that. i used to go to this school, it really was a lame place, where they wouldn't allow kids to bring pokemon cards or anything like that because it was strictly denominational, and they believed genesis 1 should not be studied into in a scientific way because it's holy. now i do agree it's holy, but i dont see any reason why we can't try to understand it for ourselves. there are tons of people in this world, and at least one of them, i know for a fact, thinks that pokemon is evil, and that right there may cause overgeneralization (and has, at least in my community) and that is what i was speaking against. i may not have been clear in my statements, but i do know the difference of those meanings.
as far as i've been educated, there are many different theories in the category of evolution. for example, the dragonfly has barely evolved since prehistory, so there are some who are trying to find a specific "path" or whatever of evolution that is consistent. but because it hasn't really been proven in one single consistent form, there are many different theories. like there are many different theories of creation, and theistic evolution. it's really fascinating to study and think about, but im pretty bad at science so i can't really speak for anything ^^"
i'm sorry if i came across as being negative or ignorant towards science. that wasn't my intention, but going back i can see how i have come across like that. the problem i realized is, and this is basically from people my own age, not necessarily educated adults, there are a lot of ignorant atheists (and christians, too, please don't think of me as judgemental!) who don't do research in scientific fields, who think that they are right because there's scientific proof of some things like the big bang and evolution (etc) and there's no physical evidence of god. mind you this is an extremely ignorant way of thinking and it was directed towards lesser educated people, and i definitely was not referring to all atheists. i didn't say atheists are all wrong because they believe in science. i think that i know how i came across as confusing and im trying desperately to change my wording, but im sorry i'm really not good with words...grahhhhh...um... ok, what i was trying to say is that just because an atheist "believes in science," doesn't mean he's (or she's) always right. because that is an overgeneralization. and in my own words i purposely phrased it as an overgeneralization. i think im making sense right now.

the thing about proof about jesus being a historical figure, is that it's become a very biased subject. simply by googling or whatever "proof of jesus existing" is that every other article it pops out with says something completely different. for example, the one you provided in your last reply said something different than a lot of other articles out there. i mean, as far as i know, the majority of modern scholars, skeptical or not, have accepted the fact that there was a man named jesus living in the first century jerusalem as a teacher (who claimed he was the son of God), who was the son of a man named joseph and the brother of a dude named james, which is statistically most likely the same jesus written into the gospels in the bible. so until someone figures out how to travel in time, i guess no one will ever agree whether or not jesus actually existed, since there's been evidence on both sides. =p
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Synx Itax
post Jun 9 2013, 07:46 PM
Post #10


A learning vessel of several lessons to make me more clever.
Group Icon

Group: Global Moderators
Posts: 1 487
Joined: 15-May 09
From: Seattle, WA
Member No.: 23 405

My Loves



QUOTE
as far as i've been educated, there are many different theories in the category of evolution. for example, the dragonfly has barely evolved since prehistory, so there are some who are trying to find a specific "path" or whatever of evolution that is consistent. but because it hasn't really been proven in one single consistent form, there are many different theories. like there are many different theories of creation, and theistic evolution.


There are NO creation theories, nor are there theistic evolution theories. Scientific theories are frameworks of how things work and are comprised of facts. They are not guesses. As far as science is concerned, evolution (macro AND micro, as the latter leads to the former) is a fact just like gravity. That's not to say they can't be proven wrong -- they are considered facts until evidence to anything otherwise is convincing enough.

This post has been edited by Synx Itax: Jun 9 2013, 07:46 PM


--------------------


Check my GPXPlus journal to see what I contributed to the site!

portfolio | twitter | dA | tumblr

Interested in a commission? PM me.


Wymsy may have left the site, but she's forever in my heart. <3
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Lord Raven
post Jun 9 2013, 07:56 PM
Post #11


i need something to put here
Group Icon

Group: Global Moderators
Posts: 3 900
Joined: 2-July 07
From: Ellicott City, Maryland
Member No.: 34

Active Squad



They're not facts so much as models that work within a certain framework. General Relativity (the far more all-encompassing model for gravitation) for instance contradicts Quantum Mechanics, despite both things being shown to work (GPS' need General Relativity and our smart phones need Quantum Mechanics...)

Having that said, we can't exactly say evolution is a fact, just a model that worked well within a certain framework, so using that argument is a no-go because the theory is faaaaaaar from complete (and generally, when new things are figured out new questions arise, some of which may end up contradicting other questions and etc). It's just the observations/arguments are far more compelling on one side than the other, it's still "just a theory," but it makes enough more sense than its counterparts on the virtue of the observations and most explanations being fairly consistent with them.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Synx Itax
post Jun 9 2013, 08:05 PM
Post #12


A learning vessel of several lessons to make me more clever.
Group Icon

Group: Global Moderators
Posts: 1 487
Joined: 15-May 09
From: Seattle, WA
Member No.: 23 405

My Loves



Well, facts are true until proven wrong. Yes, there are new things that show up in evolution that might contradict earlier things, but that's how science works. It happens all the time. The theory itself is the best model we have of how the diversity of life works, and there is also absolutely no evidence for creation or pretty much any other "model." Even if evolution were proven wrong, creation wouldn't be the automatic alternative since... that'd be a false dichotomy.

I agree for the most part, but I'm just saying that evolution might as well be considered true (as a framework consisting of facts) since it is indeed far more consistent and convincing than any other idea.

This post has been edited by Synx Itax: Jun 9 2013, 08:08 PM


--------------------


Check my GPXPlus journal to see what I contributed to the site!

portfolio | twitter | dA | tumblr

Interested in a commission? PM me.


Wymsy may have left the site, but she's forever in my heart. <3
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Lord Raven
post Jun 9 2013, 08:23 PM
Post #13


i need something to put here
Group Icon

Group: Global Moderators
Posts: 3 900
Joined: 2-July 07
From: Ellicott City, Maryland
Member No.: 34

Active Squad



*shrug* my only point was that nobody's completely wrong when they say "it's just a theory," because string theory is "just a theory" that is consistent with other theories and hasn't been proven wrong, but there is literally zero evidence behind it because you can't take measurements of it.

As for evolution, it makes sense and it does make sense given vague inferences of fossil evidence (and stuff about bacteria), but many people find it hard to accept evolution on a larger-than-bacteria scale and they find it hard to believe you can know so much about something that died so long ago, and etc. But I feel like we can't comment too much on a subject that neither of us really know that much about; I highly doubt our 9th or 10th grade biology class (or introductory Biology in college) give us enough information to truly say it's true or false or a good theory or a bad theory. But I don't know how far you've gone in Biology yourself, so...


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Synx Itax
post Jun 9 2013, 08:40 PM
Post #14


A learning vessel of several lessons to make me more clever.
Group Icon

Group: Global Moderators
Posts: 1 487
Joined: 15-May 09
From: Seattle, WA
Member No.: 23 405

My Loves



String theory isn't an actual scientific theory -- you can't have a theory in science until there has been enough testing done and observations made about the subject in question in order to explain it. Theoretical physics is a thing, so perhaps that's what most people mean when they call it string theory, but it's not a theory in the true definition. Evolution, however, passed the theory test as all evidence pretty much lines up and has been able to be tested. Various types of dating, all fossil evidence, geologic layers, genetics, etc etc etc.

And while I may not have my degree in biology (art, actually), I'm 27 and did a LOT of outside reading on the subject. I take pride in not being ignorant about this stuff. People who have a hard time grasping evolution simply aren't looking at the evidence (and there is a ton in every single field of science from geology to biology to chemistry as I've stated). Hell, we can't have genetics without evolution.

Edit: Let me add that people might also look at the evidence and simply not accept it because it'd GASP make their religion wrong. Can't have that. wink.gif

It's very true that there are unknowns out there -- you got that right, but thankfully we have scientists to figure these things out.

This post has been edited by Synx Itax: Jun 9 2013, 08:47 PM


--------------------


Check my GPXPlus journal to see what I contributed to the site!

portfolio | twitter | dA | tumblr

Interested in a commission? PM me.


Wymsy may have left the site, but she's forever in my heart. <3
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

jellybean chi
post Jun 10 2013, 10:53 PM
Post #15


Pokémon Trainer
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 6-December 12
From: Asgard
Member No.: 184 458

Avengers Assemble!



QUOTE(Synx Itax @ Jun 9 2013, 05:46 PM) *
QUOTE
as far as i've been educated, there are many different theories in the category of evolution. for example, the dragonfly has barely evolved since prehistory, so there are some who are trying to find a specific "path" or whatever of evolution that is consistent. but because it hasn't really been proven in one single consistent form, there are many different theories. like there are many different theories of creation, and theistic evolution.


There are NO creation theories, nor are there theistic evolution theories. Scientific theories are frameworks of how things work and are comprised of facts. They are not guesses. As far as science is concerned, evolution (macro AND micro, as the latter leads to the former) is a fact just like gravity. That's not to say they can't be proven wrong -- they are considered facts until evidence to anything otherwise is convincing enough.


yeah...there are theories concerning biblical creation...at least they're considered viable theories by scholars... like the day age theory, the gap theory, the theistic evolution theory, and then there are some people who take the "seven day creation" to be literal. i mean, they're not always taken seriously by agnostic and atheological scientists, but there are a lot of people who study the earth's formation and the existence of life on it in a biblical point of view... oh, didn't you know? there are such things as scientists that believe in a higher being. there are such things as scientists who believe that there might be something beyond human explanation. there are such things as scientists that are, you know, "religious." tsk.

the day age theory is really interesting to study, i think. i enjoyed researching it a lot. the gap theory doesn't make all that much sense to me, and neither does the literal seven twenty-four hour genesis 1 idea. but sorry, even if "God" hasn't been proven to exist, these are still considered theories. ... but maybe you have a completely different definition of "theory" than i do, or Lord Raven, or whatever.

don't act like every religious person won't look at scientific facts because it might "prove our religion wrong." people have very different perspectives on the Bible alone, not to mention every other religion in the world. we're not all the daydreaming idiots so many people make us out to be. (not saying that some of us ARENT idiots, but THAT WAS THE FREAKING POINT OF THIS FREAKING POST. GRAHH. GOD.)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Synx Itax
post Jun 11 2013, 12:23 PM
Post #16


A learning vessel of several lessons to make me more clever.
Group Icon

Group: Global Moderators
Posts: 1 487
Joined: 15-May 09
From: Seattle, WA
Member No.: 23 405

My Loves



QUOTE(jellybean chi @ Jun 10 2013, 10:53 PM) *
QUOTE(Synx Itax @ Jun 9 2013, 05:46 PM) *
QUOTE
as far as i've been educated, there are many different theories in the category of evolution. for example, the dragonfly has barely evolved since prehistory, so there are some who are trying to find a specific "path" or whatever of evolution that is consistent. but because it hasn't really been proven in one single consistent form, there are many different theories. like there are many different theories of creation, and theistic evolution.


There are NO creation theories, nor are there theistic evolution theories. Scientific theories are frameworks of how things work and are comprised of facts. They are not guesses. As far as science is concerned, evolution (macro AND micro, as the latter leads to the former) is a fact just like gravity. That's not to say they can't be proven wrong -- they are considered facts until evidence to anything otherwise is convincing enough.


yeah...there are theories concerning biblical creation...at least they're considered viable theories by scholars... like the day age theory, the gap theory, the theistic evolution theory, and then there are some people who take the "seven day creation" to be literal. i mean, they're not always taken seriously by agnostic and atheological scientists, but there are a lot of people who study the earth's formation and the existence of life on it in a biblical point of view... oh, didn't you know? there are such things as scientists that believe in a higher being. there are such things as scientists who believe that there might be something beyond human explanation. there are such things as scientists that are, you know, "religious." tsk.

the day age theory is really interesting to study, i think. i enjoyed researching it a lot. the gap theory doesn't make all that much sense to me, and neither does the literal seven twenty-four hour genesis 1 idea. but sorry, even if "God" hasn't been proven to exist, these are still considered theories. ... but maybe you have a completely different definition of "theory" than i do, or Lord Raven, or whatever.

don't act like every religious person won't look at scientific facts because it might "prove our religion wrong." people have very different perspectives on the Bible alone, not to mention every other religion in the world. we're not all the daydreaming idiots so many people make us out to be. (not saying that some of us ARENT idiots, but THAT WAS THE FREAKING POINT OF THIS FREAKING POST. GRAHH. GOD.)


No, no, and no. None of those other things are theories. The creationists/scholars/religious leaders might claim they are, but they are NOT theories in science. I tried to hammer the definition to you a few times, but clearly, it's sailing right by. A scientific theory is completely different than what you clearly think it is, and you might simply not be aware of what the true scientific definition of a theory is (if you've had a religious education, I am not surprised in the slightest). Here's a site that explains it very well: http://www.notjustatheory.com

Theories in science are frameworks of how something works -- the best model we have of an observable thing in reality. They are comprised of facts gathered from repeated experiments, observations, tests, etc. When it comes to the diversity of life and how life formed, the only theory in place is evolution. Not creation and not anything else that has zero evidence for it. If these other "theories" had evidence for them, they'd pass peer review and be taken seriously. Even the day age hypothesis (I have too much respect for the word to call it a theory) isn't taken seriously, despite it being at least respectful to the current evidence about time frames. After all, shoving god there at the beginning loses the point of science, which is to find out for ourselves. It also makes everything seem so anthrocentric when it's very possible and extremely likely that there is life elsewhere in the universe. (Also, if you believe in the day age thing and microevolution... just when did whatever that microevolved show up? Did they poof out of thin air? The things that evolved into variants of themselves or... people, who apparently didn't evolve at all... what's the timeframe for them in all this? Yeah, doesn't make sense to anyone who believes in real evolution.) You also can't start from a biblical point of view because everything you find out has to line up to it. If it doesn't, welp, must have made a mistake then, since we're only human and all. *rolls eyes*

And yes, I am aware there are religious scientists (and I have no issue with that as long as they don't insert their views into their work, ESPECIALLY if they happen to be literal creationists). We're all aware there are things beyond human explanation, but we don't just insert "god" in there to explain them. As I said, we find out for ourselves and do science. Saying "we don't know" is okay. (By the way, we've seemed to combine cosmology and evolution here when they're generally separate things. Oh well; it's a common thing to do.)

I hate to sound crass, but I can't stand it when people throw the word theory around like it's a hypothesis or guess.

I'm pretty much done here as it's straying off topic and I really have nothing else to say on the matter that a million other people, both very well educated on the subject and not, haven't already said. Point is, educate yourself, look at the evidence, see why so many people unanimously agree on what they do, and if you disagree, tough. Claims must have evidence or no one cares.

This post has been edited by Synx Itax: Jun 11 2013, 12:58 PM


--------------------


Check my GPXPlus journal to see what I contributed to the site!

portfolio | twitter | dA | tumblr

Interested in a commission? PM me.


Wymsy may have left the site, but she's forever in my heart. <3
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

jellybean chi
post Jun 11 2013, 03:11 PM
Post #17


Pokémon Trainer
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 6-December 12
From: Asgard
Member No.: 184 458

Avengers Assemble!



QUOTE(Synx Itax @ Jun 11 2013, 10:23 AM) *
QUOTE(jellybean chi @ Jun 10 2013, 10:53 PM) *
QUOTE(Synx Itax @ Jun 9 2013, 05:46 PM) *
QUOTE
as far as i've been educated, there are many different theories in the category of evolution. for example, the dragonfly has barely evolved since prehistory, so there are some who are trying to find a specific "path" or whatever of evolution that is consistent. but because it hasn't really been proven in one single consistent form, there are many different theories. like there are many different theories of creation, and theistic evolution.


There are NO creation theories, nor are there theistic evolution theories. Scientific theories are frameworks of how things work and are comprised of facts. They are not guesses. As far as science is concerned, evolution (macro AND micro, as the latter leads to the former) is a fact just like gravity. That's not to say they can't be proven wrong -- they are considered facts until evidence to anything otherwise is convincing enough.


yeah...there are theories concerning biblical creation...at least they're considered viable theories by scholars... like the day age theory, the gap theory, the theistic evolution theory, and then there are some people who take the "seven day creation" to be literal. i mean, they're not always taken seriously by agnostic and atheological scientists, but there are a lot of people who study the earth's formation and the existence of life on it in a biblical point of view... oh, didn't you know? there are such things as scientists that believe in a higher being. there are such things as scientists who believe that there might be something beyond human explanation. there are such things as scientists that are, you know, "religious." tsk.

the day age theory is really interesting to study, i think. i enjoyed researching it a lot. the gap theory doesn't make all that much sense to me, and neither does the literal seven twenty-four hour genesis 1 idea. but sorry, even if "God" hasn't been proven to exist, these are still considered theories. ... but maybe you have a completely different definition of "theory" than i do, or Lord Raven, or whatever.

don't act like every religious person won't look at scientific facts because it might "prove our religion wrong." people have very different perspectives on the Bible alone, not to mention every other religion in the world. we're not all the daydreaming idiots so many people make us out to be. (not saying that some of us ARENT idiots, but THAT WAS THE FREAKING POINT OF THIS FREAKING POST. GRAHH. GOD.)


No, no, and no. None of those other things are theories. The creationists/scholars/religious leaders might claim they are, but they are NOT theories in science. I tried to hammer the definition to you a few times, but clearly, it's sailing right by. A scientific theory is completely different than what you clearly think it is, and you might simply not be aware of what the true scientific definition of a theory is (if you've had a religious education, I am not surprised in the slightest). Here's a site that explains it very well: http://www.notjustatheory.com

Theories in science are frameworks of how something works -- the best model we have of an observable thing in reality. They are comprised of facts gathered from repeated experiments, observations, tests, etc. When it comes to the diversity of life and how life formed, the only theory in place is evolution. Not creation and not anything else that has zero evidence for it. If these other "theories" had evidence for them, they'd pass peer review and be taken seriously. Even the day age hypothesis (I have too much respect for the word to call it a theory) isn't taken seriously, despite it being at least respectful to the current evidence about time frames. After all, shoving god there at the beginning loses the point of science, which is to find out for ourselves. It also makes everything seem so anthrocentric when it's very possible and extremely likely that there is life elsewhere in the universe. (Also, if you believe in the day age thing and microevolution... just when did whatever that microevolved show up? Did they poof out of thin air? The things that evolved into variants of themselves or... people, who apparently didn't evolve at all... what's the timeframe for them in all this? Yeah, doesn't make sense to anyone who believes in real evolution.) You also can't start from a biblical point of view because everything you find out has to line up to it. If it doesn't, welp, must have made a mistake then, since we're only human and all. *rolls eyes*

And yes, I am aware there are religious scientists (and I have no issue with that as long as they don't insert their views into their work, ESPECIALLY if they happen to be literal creationists). We're all aware there are things beyond human explanation, but we don't just insert "god" in there to explain them. As I said, we find out for ourselves and do science. Saying "we don't know" is okay. (By the way, we've seemed to combine cosmology and evolution here when they're generally separate things. Oh well; it's a common thing to do.)

I hate to sound crass, but I can't stand it when people throw the word theory around like it's a hypothesis or guess.

I'm pretty much done here as it's straying off topic and I really have nothing else to say on the matter that a million other people, both very well educated on the subject and not, haven't already said. Point is, educate yourself, look at the evidence, see why so many people unanimously agree on what they do, and if you disagree, tough. Claims must have evidence or no one cares.


look, i don't really know who you are or how much you've been educated in this (i mean for all i know this is what you study for a living, so im not trying to say you're wrong or anything) (although last time i said that to someone they got all ticked like 'it's an illogical fallacy to attack one's profession in a debate' and i was like 'dude i wasn't even, i seriously don't know what im up against so im not gonna make any dumb assumptions' blah blah blah) but because of that, i really don't think i'm going to take your word over what i've been educated these past few years.
i wasn't trying to say those "theories" are the same kind of theories as like the idea of gravity or proven scientific facts and all, and i don't think i meant that theories like the day age theory are necessarily scientific theories.
actually, i haven't had a big religious education. in the past couple of years i've been learning about this whole debate between biblical creation vs evolution, and it all seems ridiculous to me (being a spiritual person). 'cuz i believe in god, but i also think it's stupid to ignore the facts in front of us, and right now they point to evolution. studies have shown (obviously) that the earth is billions of years old, but that the homosapien (oh god i don't think i spelled that right) species is only ten to thirty thousand years old. but there's still evidence that other species were living on this planet ages and ages before that. so, basically, if you didn't know this already, the day age theory takes into consideration the different translations of the bible throughout history. originally it was written in hebrew. again i think that's obvious. so anyway, in the story of the creation, the word that was used instead of our english word "day" (as in the six day/twenty four hour periods of time) the word was "yom," (with some weird dialect accent lines and all that) which was recently discovered to also translate to the english word "age," or a much bigger time period than a twenty four hour day. i mean, i believe that if God wanted to make the world and life on it in six twenty four hour periods of time, then sure he could, cuz he's God. but the scientific evidence doesn't show that, because if that was true, then the earth would have to be only ten to thirty thousand years old. which it's not. so, like, say the first "day" god created "the heavens and the earth," which a lot of people take to mean the big bang or something along those lines. which probably did not take one twenty four hour period. there was probably a lot of time in between each step. so sure, it's a "hypothesis," but reasonably so, on a spiritual person's case anyway. i haven't been a christian my whole life, but i never saw a real point in throwing out the idea of the possibility of God, or a higher being, or whatever.
don't act like i'm ignorant, it's obvious that people have evolved. the story of the bible started with the people, but it doesn't say anywhere that people were the first. it doesn't even specify what types of animals god created in the very beginning. i believe what a ton of other people believe, in a single common ancestor. (oh, and just so you know, "poof" is not a verb; you may have been thinking of "pop" or another word along those lines. ahem *rolls eyes*) and yeah we're only human, yeah we're gonna make mistakes, every single person and people on the face of this planet has been wrong at some point, and no one thinks that the israelites who started out with god were any different. in fact, the bible shows they were definitely not perfect, and a lot of history does too.

likewise to what i've said in the beginning. i don't know you or your studies, but you definitely do not know me. i pour way too much of my time and thought into this kind of stuff already, so don't you think you can tell me that i need to educate myself. believe me, i've been doing that for three years straight.
i don't even know how this got so off topic. i think it's a kind of blessing, personally, on my part. sometimes i start to wonder and have doubt about the bible, but i remember that there isn't a difference between what the bible says and what science has proven.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Synx Itax
post Jun 11 2013, 04:39 PM
Post #18


A learning vessel of several lessons to make me more clever.
Group Icon

Group: Global Moderators
Posts: 1 487
Joined: 15-May 09
From: Seattle, WA
Member No.: 23 405

My Loves



QUOTE(jellybean chi @ Jun 11 2013, 03:11 PM) *
likewise to what i've said in the beginning. i don't know you or your studies, but you definitely do not know me. i pour way too much of my time and thought into this kind of stuff already, so don't you think you can tell me that i need to educate myself. believe me, i've been doing that for three years straight.
i don't even know how this got so off topic. i think it's a kind of blessing, personally, on my part. sometimes i start to wonder and have doubt about the bible, but i remember that there isn't a difference between what the bible says and what science has proven.


Well, I wasn't specifically referring to you when I said "educate yourself," but you really should educate yourself more. I'll say it and mean it. This is especially because you said that there's no difference between what the bible says and what science has proven -- this is a complete and utter joke. Talking snakes, giants, sea serpents that breathe fire, some guy who walks around doing magic (whose proof of existence isn't documented anywhere outside of any holy book), seas parting, whales that eat people, etc? Yeah, science eats all that up. Except it doesn't. Not to mention that the creation story, even if you don't take it literally, still has the events happening out of order. Science doesn't say that the Earth appeared before other stars, nor does it say that water appeared before land. No sense at all.

You said in your first post in this thread that you believe in microevolution but not macroevolution and said something like "humans didn't come from apes." Well, if you believe in evolution, you believe in ALL evolution -- which includes humans coming from ape-like creatures that came from primates that came from small mammals that came from mammal-like reptiles that came from reptiles and so forth. Of course people didn't come from chimps, and evolution doesn't suggest an improvement -- merely change to adapt to an environment.

(By the way, "poof" is a perfect example of an onomatopoeia that illustrates my point. So yes, it would be a perfectly fine verb to use, and I did indeed choose it over "pop.")

Finally, I'm not throwing out a possibility of a god or some kind of higher, supernatural being, but I won't believe in it until I have evidence. I certainly don't think the god of the bible exists (and wouldn't want such an egotistical tyrant to exist, either), though.

This post has been edited by Synx Itax: Jun 11 2013, 04:48 PM


--------------------


Check my GPXPlus journal to see what I contributed to the site!

portfolio | twitter | dA | tumblr

Interested in a commission? PM me.


Wymsy may have left the site, but she's forever in my heart. <3
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Manticore
post Jun 11 2013, 04:54 PM
Post #19


The Manticore
Group Icon

Group: +Donors
Posts: 164
Joined: 12-April 09
From: Mount Vernon, Ohio
Member No.: 10 532

Burds4Manti



The bible is not proof that what the bible says is true. Peer reviewed scientific studies (thousands upon thousands of them) are proof that evolution is true.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

The Shadow
post Jun 11 2013, 06:09 PM
Post #20


Pokémon Champion
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3 152
Joined: 11-January 10
From: Idk haven't been off the pc to check
Member No.: 79 425

My Dream Team



QUOTE(Synx Itax @ Jun 11 2013, 04:39 PM) *
Well, I wasn't specifically referring to you when I said "educate yourself," but you really should educate yourself more. I'll say it and mean it. This is especially because you said that there's no difference between what the bible says and what science has proven -- this is a complete and utter joke. Talking snakes, giants, sea serpents that breathe fire, some guy who walks around doing magic (whose proof of existence isn't documented anywhere outside of any holy book), seas parting, whales that eat people, etc? Yeah, science eats all that up. Except it doesn't. Not to mention that the creation story, even if you don't take it literally, still has the events happening out of order. Science doesn't say that the Earth appeared before other stars, nor does it say that water appeared before land. No sense at all.

Finally, I'm not throwing out a possibility of a god or some kind of higher, supernatural being, but I won't believe in it until I have evidence. I certainly don't think the god of the bible exists (and wouldn't want such an egotistical tyrant to exist, either), though.


Let me make a few points to you about debating the Bible. If only to help you in the future.

1. If you are going to quote the bible, please, at least put where there are sea serpents that breathe fire. I know it's been a while since I've completely read the bible, but I don't recall that at all.

2. If you believe in evolution, how is it not possible for a serpent to have human vocal chords at first and therefore talk. Possibly later finding that it had no use for them and "evolving".

3. How is it also not possible under your theory to state that whales didn't go after bigger prey? Possibly whales had, at first, been a terror such as sharks and ate people. They then evolved finding no need to eat larger prey.

4. If you haven't been to other stars, how could you be sure that Earth hadn't appeared before them? Just because one star explodes doesn't mean it's been there longer than our sun.

5. If the universe started as a bunch of dust everywhere, how did it start spinning and forming stars? How would we know that the Sun was not he first star formed? To quote Newton, "An object at rest will stay at rest until acted upon by an outside force" therefore, the "dust", if you believe in that at all, would have had to be interferred upon by an outside force. Unless you want to throw out Newton.


--------------------

Wanna dance? (click to show)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post


2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th July 2019 - 03:14 AM
All content and images ©2007-2015 GPX.Plus and Shiny New Software, LLC. Powered By IPB 2.3.1 © 2019 IPS, Inc.
Optimal viewing in the latest version of Safari, Chrome, or Firefox, 1024x768+.