Like, the point of evolution is to show off how a primary organism can improve and become greater(which we see evidence of on a daily basis) not how a fish magically turns into a platypus and then into a dog.
Listen to what the very Creationist given in your "dogs from rock!" video (Kent Hovind) has to say on this matter, starting at the 6 min 30 sec mark:
(response is roughly 3 minutes or so)
Haha... he started with a Christian praise song and prayer and then continued on to an ignorant straw-man rebuttal of evolution.
That is embarrassing.
No, it's not just micro evolution of bird beaks that proves evolution. It's mountains of evidence from multiple disciplines that you Creationists refuse to try to understand.
I feel like I could read the OP's 3 opening posts or I could inject acid directly into my brain and the results would more or less be identical.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Except a lot of scientists are usually prepared to concede and change their entire world-view assuming new empirical evidence arises. Religious blood suckers can be given a shit ton of proof about evolution and still say "Herr, I dont accept it!"
Anybody who thinks people in science and medicine are vastly different in terms of true open-mindedness probably doesn't know much about the actual history of science OR medicine.
You know something of German as well as English?
Ever seen the following by Max Planck in either language?
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
----------------
History abounds with examples of the above. I've been debating starting a thread concerning one case that struck me as the most profoundly tragic, senseless, and wasteful: that of Ignaz Semmelweis, whose work would have saved the lives of thousands, if only the fields of science and medicine really DID work the way you're suggesting they do ...
----------------
Came across an article that fairly accurately puts a name to what your stance and that of most others seems to be. Briefest of excerpts below; article itself is worth a few moments reading:
Kuhn ... singlehandedly changed the way we think about mankind's most organised attempt to understand the world. Before Kuhn, our view of science was dominated by philosophical ideas about how it ought to develop ("the scientific method"), together with a heroic narrative of scientific progress as "the addition of new truths to the stock of old truths, or the increasing approximation of theories to the truth, and, in the odd case, the correction of past errors", as the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy puts it. Before Kuhn, in other words, we had what amounted to the Whig interpretation of scientific history in which past researchers, theorists and experimenters had engaged in a long march, if not towards "truth", then at least towards greater and greater understanding of the natural world ...
Given I'm going to medical school, yeah I'm aware of the actual history of medicine and, to a degree, science.
Now you mention Ignaz Semmelweis, but that's a poor example because it only plays into my argument more. He was rejected because he lacked empirical data to prove him right at the time, thus he was rejected. Later when proof came up and it was confirmed his theories are true they earned widespread acceptance. Tragic it took them so long to do so, but they eventually did when enough evidence came to the table that he was right.
There will obviously be close-minded scientists and doctors who are hesitant to accept new theories, but at least they eventually will accept them if enough evidence is present. Religious people, however, usually don't give a damn about evidence and go straight to blind faith.
Beware of spending too much time here, if that's true.
This website can be both life-saver AND life-drainer.
It's something well-known and something you can relate to, so im thinking it even better now than I did originally.
Max Planck wrote what he wrote for a reason, and generally disagrees with you.
So, from everything I can tell, did Thomas Kuhn.
So do I.
It's easy enough to say this, however, there are several things you're overlooking, and after giving the first of these points, I might start that thread after all, just to give these the attention they need.
For now, for consideration of time, I'll just present the first:
1. Semmelweis HAD empirical data. He had observed and recorded death rates in midwife clinics versus his own. He observed and recorded what happened to death rates when chlorine hand washings were implemented. The death rates plummeted. He observed what happened after he left and chlorine hand washings ceased. The death rates went back up to what they had been.
Then Semmelweis introduced chlorine hand washings in his new place of hire.
Again, death rates dramatically plummeted.
This process of observing and testing is practically the definition of empirical, which means "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic".
Semmelweis had that.
Eh, I can find the free time. Appreciate the concearn, though.
And Max can have his opinion and anecdote all he wants, it doesn't change the fact that scientists are far more open-minded to new discoveries assuming proof exists, than extremists of any religion.
Semmelweis, when he first postulated, didn't have enough empirical data on his side hence why he was primarily rejected. Later on he did several tests which convinced a lot of people and chlorine hand-washing began slowly but surely being implemented. Now, I'll concede that not every scientist did in fact support his theory and denied his proof, but soon after his death even they said "fair enough, it works".
There'll obviously be the close-minded even among doctors, technicians, scientists, etc. But on a general-basis and on average, it's much easier to convince a scientist or atheist of something if you have enough proof, than a Christian, Muslim or any other religious blood-sucker. And I'm openly a Christian(Orthodox) but I definitely don't believe the Bible is 100% true nor do I believe that stuff like evolution and tons of other postulated scientific theories are impossible.
I didnīt read all of it, in fact, I just skimmed through.
But why do you care that Darwin hadnīt a biology degree? (Dunno if thatīs correct at all, but I am to lazy to look.) I mean, after all you also say...your things, and you arenīt a prophet.
Also, thousands of people with biology degree agreed with him - his theory stands correct. Heck, if I he would be a stripper, and he could prove Evolution (like Darwin did), then it would also be legit
KMC Community Forums
Jul 18th, 2017 02:01 PM
