Yes, but by saying it's the search for it you're implying that there is an absolute truth and that it is reachable.
Anyway, this debate is pointless, but I'm answering merely to point out that I didn't say what you say I did, haha.
I said that I beilieve in evolution up to a point, and that you have to be careful with it because it's been scientifically used to justify racism, discrimination, imperialism, colonialism and ethnocentrism. Or something along those lines.
And I also mentioned that it has even been used to scientifically justify genocide in a number of occations, which seemed to outrage you.
I never said evolution "is bad".
I'm not implying anything - at some point everything in the universe and about the universe will be known (whether by us or another race) - there is a point in time and space where absolutely everything will be known - we'll almost certainly never be there, but there is the absolutely remotest chance. We are always REACHING for absolute truth, whether its "is there life on other planets" and w'ere about 5% there, or "how does the EM spectrum work where we're about 99.99% there (until its all disproven (highly unlikely). We aim to have all the facts of everything as much as possible and constantly improve our understanding.
I want to know up to which 'point' you believe in evolution.
I'm also going to make an outrageous statement.
"I understand gravity and how it works, and I know that it changes dependant on the planets and orbits and the star etc. But I only believe in it up to a point. I don't agree with the idea that someone could use gravity to scientifically justify heavy missiles, weapons of mass destruction, bullets, mallets, arrows, catapaults etc, to fall on people and destroy towns and kill people. So therefore, its a man-made fact with no real meaning, and is not testable or proveable. So yes, I guess you could say I believe in gravity up to a point"
Scientists (not just "insane dictators") justified the extermination of entire populations and the destruction of cultures based on the theory of evolution.
That is one of the most ridiculous things i've ever heard. Scientists were not justifying evolution during the holocaust - they were working for a dictator who told them to make these machines, and to find him an excuse he put to his peers for genecide. How does that mean that they were proving evolution?
Even if you could somehow make the argument that this genecide was evolution based on the fact that humans are part of nature, you still COULD NOT define this as evolution, because evolution is the diminishing of a species or sub-species due to various natural occurances - such as natural selection survial of the fittest (along with genetic mutation). Considering that Jews, whites, asians, gingers etc all share the common ancestor and have evolved from the same thing (homo erectus) it means that none of us are a stronger species or race than the other.
Therefore evolution has not and will not ever be a means to justify genocide until part of the human race does evolve, and even then, you still couldn't argue that it was natural since humans have removed this from their nature (ie by mate selection, religeon, contraception, medicine etc)
Noone could argue that any of those people were weaker.
What i'm saying is that even if someone was trying to use that as an excuse or reason for genocide, that doesn't disprove evolution or make it wrong. Evolution IS an observable scientific fact which is explained using a THEORY (namely Darwin's) - it will never stand as justifictation for something so horrible, therefore stating this is a detraction of evolution is ridiculous.
Beatle Babe, you inverted what Juli said. She didn't said a genocide was used as a proof or as a way to justify evolution. What has been justified are genocides, using the theory of evolution to legitimize them. And that's a fact, it has been proved and documented.
Also, you have to remember that still today people (even a Medicine Nobel prize winner) believe that there are races, even though science has prooved there's no such thing, and what's more, most of them (including that Nobel prize winner) believe that there are superior and inferior races. So, as you can see, it's feasible that scientists try to justify genocides, ethnocides, discrimination, etc. backing themselves in "scientific proof". Not only it's feasible, it has happened and it continues to happen, it's a fact.
You sound just like Dave, you two seem to have a blind religious faith in science and forget that it's a creation of men. Men, not robots.
Beatle Babe, you inverted what Juli said. She didn't said a genocide was used as a proof or as a way to justify evolution. What has been justified are genocides, using the theory of evolution to legitimize them. And that's a fact, it has been proved and documented.
Also, you have to remember that still today people (even a Medicine Nobel prize winner) believe that there are races, even though science has prooved there's no such thing, and what's more, most of them (including that Nobel prize winner) believe that there are superior and inferior races. So, as you can see, it's feasible that scientists try to justify genocides, ethnocides, discrimination, etc. backing themselves in "scientific proof". Not only it's feasible, it has happened and it continues to happen, it's a fact.
You sound just like Dave, you two seem to have a blind religious faith in science and forget that it's a creation of men. Men, not robots.
It DOESNT MATTER if somebody attempted to use evolution to justify genocide or not, the fact is, it never will be justified and no one would ever accept it. You talk as though this is a slight on evolution - evolution is evolution, no matter what you say, it is an observable fact of nature, which is subject to all other facts, they are always tried and tested and perhaps a better theory will come along to EXPLAIN evolution.
As far being dogmatic etc, are you not being dogmatic in never really commenting on the major issues brought up by the rest of us, and side-stepping them to repeat yourself?
As far science being created by man, thats a load of nonsese. Man did NOT make the universe, man did NOT create gravity, man did NOT create life, and man did NOT set the earth at this distance from the sun (and yes, nor were they made by a robot) Taking just these bare FACTS that were there before we even existed into account, we have now OBSERVED such facts, and described them and measured them USING science. Science is a mechanism - it is a means of demonstrating a fact the best of our ability.
Hitler did not make evolution, evolution was occuring and has occured since the 'dawn of life' and will continue to do so. Merely attempting to justify insane genocidal behaviour is no slight on evolution, regardless of whether this can or cannot be deemed 'evolution', which lets remember our views and interpretations of, like all things factual and evidential, have changed over the last 60 years.
PS I cannot say enough times that as a scientist I HAVE to acknoweldge just as the moon orbits the earth, that all things are not 100% certain and there is always room for debate, the thing is that, the fact in question must be debated using a GOOD argument.
you two seem to have a blind religious faith in science
I think (or rather hope) I see what you're driving at here, but this as statement is so contradictary and absurd.
The idea that that someone could possibly be dogmatic/religeous about science is ridiculous. My entire point, and the entire premise of science, is that it is always changing based on new knowledge. We accept what is repeatable and observable as scientific fact, and commit to the continuous proof of this fact, until we find any contrary evidence. There is always room for argument in science, there is NEVER room for argument in religeon.
As for "faith in science", once again, this doesnt even come into it. By suggesting I have faith AT ALL in Science, you are saying I have "belief that is not based on proof" in "a branch of knowledge dealing with a body of facts or truths; systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation"
Lastly (Sorry about reverse order) as far BLIND, how can it be BLIND if it is OBSERVABLE and REPEATABLE by ANY single person, belonging to any faith, creed, country, political party, race, gender, class, society, background, or any other denomination - thsi is why these factors are irrelevant (as you disagreed with before) because people from all of these denominations have to come together constantly to agree on said facts - its IMPOSSIBLE for them to interfere without some bizarre conspiracy or totalitarianism
Ok. This is really stupid. It has been for pages, so why not end this futile conversation? It's getting way too boring.
Plus, saying "That's not what I said" each time I have to answer something is tiring. I know my English isn't great, but really, some things you say I say are so absurd and farfetched it's riddiculous! You (and Beatle Babe in her post) are always puting words in my mouth. I won't even bother to explain myself yet again. I don't care if you think I say whatever you want to think I say. I couldn't care less.
We're all repeating ourselves over and over, and it won't change anything.
Like I said a few pages ago, our views on what science is are totally different, therefore we do not share a base from which we can start debating this kind of things. So be it!
Funny how everyone is misconstruing what you say, considering you keep changing your mind - its no surprise since no one knows what youre trying to say - "Scientists 60 years ago were asked to find a way to justify genocide, what they came up with was evolution" - SO? That doesn't mean ANYTHING!
You beleive in evolution up to a point? What does that mean?! What is this point?
No such thing as a view on science - science IS science - it is a group of facts - my entire last post had nothing to do with twisting words - its pointing out the flaw in your supposed 'views'. You're right there is miscommunication - you clearly have no idea about what science is, and therefore are not really fit to comment until you have something sensible to say. And thats leaving the whole evolution thing aside. You can disagree with PEOPLE who attempt to use scientific principals for bad things, but not for science
You sound just like Dave, you two seem to have a blind religious faith in science and forget that it's a creation of men. Men, not robots.
How do I sound just like Dave? I have not commented on a SINGLE thread about science or religeon or pretty much anything Dave has ever said. Having one similar opinion does not make me have a blind faith in science.
Is it now just a case that if someone even partially agrees with him, they're all the sudden a crazy scientist...?
Dave. while you have raised some good points, and I have enjoyed our debates at times, Do you start these threads so that you can berate and belittle anyone who disagrees with you ? If you want to change peoples minds then surely the way to do it is by gently pointing out their arguement may be flawed instead of being so arrogant and aggresive, just a thought.
Funny how everyone is misconstruing what you say, considering you keep changing your mind - its no surprise since no one knows what youre trying to say - "Scientists 60 years ago were asked to find a way to justify genocide, what they came up with was evolution" - SO? That doesn't mean ANYTHING!
You beleive in evolution up to a point? What does that mean?! What is this point?
No such thing as a view on science - science IS science - it is a group of facts - my entire last post had nothing to do with twisting words - its pointing out the flaw in your supposed 'views'. You're right there is miscommunication - you clearly have no idea about what science is, and therefore are not really fit to comment until you have something sensible to say. And thats leaving the whole evolution thing aside. You can disagree with PEOPLE who attempt to use scientific principals for bad things, but not for science
I, like everyone else, comment on whatever topic I want to. The fact that Juli and I don't have the same conception of science as you, it doesn't mean we don't have the right to express our opinions. To you we don't know what science is, to me your conception of what science is completely old fashioned, naive and ethnocentric. So of course, I don't agree with you one bit. And yet, I don't tell you you are not fit to comment. You have to be more open and tolerant. Otherwise, don't bother asking for opinions.
Beatle Babe wrote:
Aletways wrote:
You sound just like Dave, you two seem to have a blind religious faith in science and forget that it's a creation of men. Men, not robots.
How do I sound just like Dave? I have not commented on a SINGLE thread about science or religeon or pretty much anything Dave has ever said. Having one similar opinion does not make me have a blind faith in science.
Is it now just a case that if someone even partially agrees with him, they're all the sudden a crazy scientist...?
You called Dave a crazy scientist, not me! I just said that, based on what you wrote, you two seem to have the same approach towards science, that's all. If you take being like Dave as an insult it's not my problem, I never insulted neither of you.
and yet i can get from one side of a stream to the other by using the water and swimming in it,even though i did not invent swimming or water.
the water and the ability ( not just for me or humans in general ) to swim was already in existence, other creatures have swam in this water before me. water was used by the japanese to kill people. therefore because water already existed,that is the sole reason those people died,thats the reason for killing people with it.because it exists.
or...
people and their demented minds decided to use a tool for the project they wished to carry out.they could have used any tool, a hammer ( man made)or a rock (naturally occurring )for example .it is not the waters fault.the water can have no fault.
science is a tool.we use it to try to understand things better with all of the information at hand(facts).science has a definition. fact is a definition. these are not contestable.it doesnt matter what YOUR opinion of it is. a pencil is a pencil no matter what you would like to call it.it has the same function no matter what name you decide to assign it. so YOUR view of science has no baring on any matter, other than pointing out your own shortcommings.
man did not as you say create science.science is data collating, a natural process of most humans, and although i am wrong to do so i would assume most other animals also.we as a species are a walking ,talking data collating machine,on an unconscious and also conscious level.
how do you suppose you can catch a ball moving at 80 miles per hour on an arched tragectory with your hands first of all in your pocket at a starting distance of 150 meters? ill tell you how
you make many many calculations with out even realising it.thats science.just because we only gave it a name fairly recently doesnt mean it was not in existence before hand.like that guy dave said gravity has always been there,we havent always been able to describe how it works.because we live in a world of answers, we are trying to find out how these answers came to be. and simply saying 'god did it' just wont cut it im afraid. evolution is not and cannot be the justification for anything, in the same way that water is not the justification for filling some innocent person up til they are bloated with it and beating them til they burst nad consiquently die.evolution was going on before the human race and will contue to do so after its gone,assuming this rock we live on is still functioning well.
point 2.
and also guess what, you can attribute all these genocides, and the holocaust etc. to...... the guy who ordered them for his own personal gain, since anyone in power is trying to do the best for them selves,which quite often involves ruining someone elses life,way of life or entire countries, cultures etc. based on their personal beliefes/politics. im not saying the use of scientific experimentation has always been for good things,but thats down to the human part.people have done terrible things to each other for centuries,strangely, even when science was considdered the devils work.
so you are listening to a deranged, syphilus laden beastiality fiend( hitler ) about anything to do with science? again thats your problem. science is not hitler and hitler is not science. for a start you cannot evolve to a speciffic or desired state, so aiming to have the 'master aryan race' in control makes little sence since genes pass on traits that may well skip a generation or two before reappearing.or if you are religious, your god,or anyone elses god is resposnsible for anything and everything bad that happens.if thats what you believe ,since god apparently has the full control of everything and can take responsibility for everything, leaving man free to do as he pleases. like commit genocide for example.
You people are so certain that what you say is true, and "it's a fact". You say that science is what you say it is and that it's a fact, so opinions on what people think it is just doesn't matter.
So science is something that's there, just like water. The same thing, really.
Congratulations, you have solved in one single thread on a Travis board a debate that has been going on for ages. And it's still going on. Where have you been all these centuries? Please, inform every scientist, every philosopher in the world that you know what they have been trying to figure out all their lives: the right answer.
Not only you seem to know the one and only truth about what science is, the connection between science and men, and how science is or is not responsible of its consequences, BUT you also happen to know the truth about what caused the holocaust. So apparently it was the result of the will of a crazy man, or bunch of men, who happened to have gained power in Germany in the 30s.
It's good to know. You should also warn all those historians, sociologists, philosophers, psychologists and all kinds of professionals who have been arguing and debating this for years and are still doing so.
Please do inform the scientific and intellectual community of the world, and prevent all these people from continuing doing pointless research and writing tons of books about these issues, because the answer, the truth, is so obvious. And it's a fact.
Point 2:
I have NEVER in ANY of my posts implied that the reason that the holocaust happened was because of the theory of evolution. Let alone saying that it's the one and only reason or that it's the theory of evolution's fault that holocaust happened. WTF???
I only said that it was the scientific way nazis justified it. It's not a linear connection, and historical processes like this one always have multiple causes, neither of which is the theory of evolution.
I said this before and I'll say it one last time: Saying that the nazis used a scientific theory to justify a genocide IS NOT THE SAME THING as saying that the scientific theory caused the genocide. It's more than obvious, but apparently my English tends to lead people to think that it is the same thing. It is not and I never said it was. So there's absolutely NO point for me in arguing something I never said and never would.
And finally, I don't think myself that the theory of evolution justifies a genocide, so don't bother pointing out that it's a flawed argument to me: go and argue with the scientists who deffended that connection in the first half of the XXth century, and with all of those who thought it was right (just like scientists and people before the Copernican Revolution, who thought the earth was the centre of the universe and thought they were right, and who considered that science provided enough evidence to prove they were right).
Right, I now have absolutely no idea what it is you're trying to say - the initial question is "evolution or...?" - as in, are you happy to accept evolution as a scientific proveable fact, or does, eg, the bible and gensis, impede you from accepting it.
As for this whether science is or isn't fact or is or isn't good, I'm just completely losing your train of thought because it seems to change - i understand what you're saying in BOLD up there, I know you didn't say that and no one has said thats what you meant.
So I'll ask the question - WHAT DO YOU think of evolutoin, do you accept it as fact or not?
Also, please point out a single scientific fact that, as you seem to be saying, is not 'fair' or not 'justfied' or is flawed because 'we are humans' or is flawed because of 'poliotics, economy, race' etc - Thats what I mostly want to know - give me an example.
