|
Post by nightfalcawk on May 27, 2004 14:12:39 GMT -5
Well, I wouldn't say evolution is proven as fact. There are conflicting elements which leave the subject open to debate. We have bones and we speculate, based on archeology, history, biological discoveries etc, what it means to our orgins. But there's still a great deal we simply don't know. There are gaps in the puzzle yet to be filled. Science wears the banner of being irrefutable but often Science deals with theories and probable cause. For example, The rings of Saturn were thought for years to be constructed of gasses, years later we learn that it's basically made up out of a bunch of little rocks. But almost every theory supports evolution. 1) Quantum mechanics: The decay of carbon-14 is how you date the fossils, and this is predicted by quantum mechanics, the most accurate theory ever. 2) Chemistry: The amino acid strands or whatever that become a protien (the building blocks of life) are predicted by it. You could even delve into cosmolgy and string theory to suppport it, but I haven't the time.
|
|
|
Post by mightyjack on May 27, 2004 15:29:11 GMT -5
I've read articles where the accuracy of Carbon 14 dating has been called into question.
Dating materials isn't pinpoint, to the letter 100% perfect. The finds at Nag Hamandi have been dated anywhere from 200 to 500 years after Christs death. That's a whole chunk of history there. 200 or 500, a lot changes in that time.
And your still dealing with theory, not fact. You still have gaping holes that need to be filled.
Look, I'm no expert on evolution. I'd be taking out of my ass if I tried to get into a heavy deabate. But I know there are reputable scientists who have published papers that have challenged certain evolutionary theories and offered up alternate ideas on the orgin of our species.
It's still probablility not absolutes were talking about here.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on May 27, 2004 16:24:46 GMT -5
I really am not in the right place personally to play right now. I've been getting the crap kicked out of me at work the last couple weeks and am struggling through some stuff. So please go easy on me for a little while.
Two things real quickly- 1) Micro-evolution (adaptations within species) has been proven. Macro-evolution (cross-species change) has not. Based on the evidence and presuppositions, one can say that all evolution is true. Based on the same evidence but different presuppositions, one can say that creative design is true. Neither side is conclusive, and to believe either takes a great deal of faith.
2) Don't confuse Fundamentalism or Behavioralism with Biblical Christianity. The Jesus portrayed in the Bible is clearly more concerned with grace, forgiveness, and humility than he is with power, politics, or behavior control. Don't confuse the messenger and the message. Judge the message on its own merits. (And I'm not sure that changing the message to fit my own conclusions on what it should be is a good choice. It's either true or it isn't.)
|
|
Alleged
Moderator Emeritus
"Is It Wrong To Not Always Be Glad?"
Posts: 572
|
Post by Alleged on May 27, 2004 17:10:15 GMT -5
Well, I wouldn't say evolution is proven as fact. Neither has Daltonism. But we still generally accept atomic theory, and it is recognized as the best model that fits the available evidence.
|
|
|
Post by mightyjack on May 27, 2004 18:50:39 GMT -5
Two things real quickly- 1) Micro-evolution (adaptations within species) has been proven. Macro-evolution (cross-species change) has not. Based on the evidence and presuppositions, one can say that all evolution is true. Based on the same evidence but different presuppositions, one can say that creative design is true. Neither side is conclusive, and to believe either takes a great deal of faith. 2) Don't confuse Fundamentalism or Behavioralism with Biblical Christianity. The Jesus portrayed in the Bible is clearly more concerned with grace, forgiveness, and humility than he is with power, politics, or behavior control. Don't confuse the messenger and the message. Judge the message on its own merits. (And I'm not sure that changing the message to fit my own conclusions on what it should be is a good choice. It's either true or it isn't.) Good thoughts, you've given me something to chew on there. I feel my faith is weak, I'm too much like Thomas who needs to see and touch the wounds. But I'm very squimish about "changing the message" as you've said because it's not about -"what I think"- it's what is the truth. My struggle is trying to figure out if what I beleive is the truth, or am I simply following what I was brought up to beleive. If I was raised in India wouldn't I beleive a whole different thing? Alleged: I never said it wasn't true. It's me being that doubting Thomas. Asking for solid, irrefutable, 100% fact. Again, I have problems with faith, with beleiving based on the evidence that's there. I want more, show me more. Don't give me suppositions and parables. My wife asked me what I wanted, I said I want Jesus to knock on m door one morning, have breakfast with me and make it all clear. I'm not being a smart ass either, that would be a dream come true. To put an end to my internal struggles. >>>>>>> And sampo, I'll send off a prayer for you and hope that things get better. Hang in there okay.
|
|
|
Post by Unsavory on May 27, 2004 18:57:27 GMT -5
I'm kinda in the same boat as you MightyJack. I have all those questions myself. I came up with my own theories but I'm almost desperate to get away from them. It's too painful to believe that life is virtually meaningless. I grew up with religion as well and I'm still around it every day. I want to believe so that I have some kind of path in my life. I'd like to think that my good deeds mean something. It just doesn't seem that probable.
On the other hand though, if Jesus came up to your door as you said, that would be too easy I think. It would take all the experimenting, the struggle, and the growth out of life. If God is indeed real, and Earth is a test, it makes sense that we have to develop our own faith and find the right path somewhat on our own.
|
|
|
Post by nightfalcawk on May 28, 2004 11:54:37 GMT -5
I've read articles where the accuracy of Carbon 14 dating has been called into question. Dating materials isn't pinpoint, to the letter 100% perfect. The finds at Nag Hamandi have been dated anywhere from 200 to 500 years after Christs death. That's a whole chunk of history there. 200 or 500, a lot changes in that time. And your still dealing with theory, not fact. You still have gaping holes that need to be filled. Look, I'm no expert on evolution. I'd be taking out of my ass if I tried to get into a heavy deabate. But I know there are reputable scientists who have published papers that have challenged certain evolutionary theories and offered up alternate ideas on the orgin of our species. It's still probablility not absolutes were talking about here. Note: before I begin, I want to tell you, I am not challenging your beliefs, just trying to defend the accuracy of science. When we are talking evolution, 100 or 200 years is insignifigant. Think about it. Evolution takes thousands of years for a small change to occur. Humans/ great apes have been evolving for millions of years. Also, though C-14 is not 100% accurate, saying it is not a viable means of dating fossils is false.Like if I wanted to give you $1000000000001, if I forget that one dollar at the end, is it going to make a big difference? The reason it is innaccurate is beacuse of wave-functions. You can never know the exact location or speed of an electron, soyou can never tell the exact half life of a nucleus. 200 years is a lot of history for us, but in the big picture, it is incredibly minute.
|
|
|
Post by Ator on May 28, 2004 12:20:37 GMT -5
I really am not in the right place personally to play right now. I've been getting the crap kicked out of me at work the last couple weeks and am struggling through some stuff. So please go easy on me for a little while. Two things real quickly- 1) Micro-evolution (adaptations within species) has been proven. Macro-evolution (cross-species change) has not. Based on the evidence and presuppositions, one can say that all evolution is true. Based on the same evidence but different presuppositions, one can say that creative design is true. Neither side is conclusive, and to believe either takes a great deal of faith. sampo just hit the nail on the head, into the soft, yielding wood (riff). The problem with following Christianity, or ANY God-related religion for that matter, is that there is no physical proof that God, in fact, exists. You have to BELIEVE that it's true. The same can be said anything. You have faith that your car won't suddenly careen off into a ditch while driving to work. You have faith that the food you eat was processed correctly by the company that made it. You have faith that the Earth is currently the only body in the solar system that can support life. You can say "You have no proof that God exists" but I can say "You have no proof that God DOESN'T exist". In the end, that's how all these debates will end up, and Faith will carry on your beliefs until the day you die.
|
|
|
Post by nightfalcawk on May 28, 2004 12:25:25 GMT -5
You have faith that the Earth is currently the only body in the solar system that can support life. What about Europa?
|
|
|
Post by mightyjack on May 28, 2004 13:17:35 GMT -5
Interesting read Nightfalc.. and no, you didn't offend me or my beleifs. As I said to Alleged in a later post, I don't think evolution is absolutely 100% wrong, but that I've got this Doubting Thomas thing going on where I have a hard time accepting anything without a doubt.
It's my curse.
|
|
|
Post by nightfalcawk on May 28, 2004 13:43:43 GMT -5
Interesting read Nightfalc.. and no, you didn't offend me or my beleifs. As I said to Alleged in a later post, I don't think evolution is absolutely 100% wrong, but that I've got this Doubting Thomas thing going on where I have a hard time accepting anything without a doubt. It's my curse. I'd like to add that the fact we can ask such questions answers them. The answer to the reason why we exist is that if we didn't, who would be here to ask the questions?
|
|
|
Post by nightfalcawk on May 28, 2004 15:03:19 GMT -5
Sorry to interupt the religious discussion....(continue it if you wish, I just have some observations about the interview) but since this is a Mike interview thread, two questions: 1. Was anyone else horrified when Mike said that Jim Mallon actually talked to a director that wanted to make films specially for the show? If Jim agreed, the show would be crap. I'd hate MST forever. 2. And, does Satellite News hate us? They won't post anything about the Mike interview. 1) Yes. I agree. It's the equivalent of chopping off a deer's legs and hunting it with heat seeking rocket. 2) Did you e-mail them? If so, then they probably do hate you.
|
|
|
Post by mightyjack on May 28, 2004 15:06:55 GMT -5
#1. Oh yeah, Forrest when I first read that I was... "Man that would defeat the whole purpose of the show". I do think they could probably make something funny out of it, I have great faith in Mikes brilliant comedic mind. But no, I wasn't too fond of that idea.
#2. I don't know why they should. Are you out there guys. I mean, it's not like you have hundreds of new front page updates to post a day. Hmm, I wonder.
|
|
|
Post by Phantom Engineer on May 28, 2004 16:51:33 GMT -5
1. Was anyone else horrified when Mike said that Jim Mallon actually talked to a director that wanted to make films specially for the show? If Jim agreed, the show would be crap. I'd hate MST forever. . I didn't get the impression that he was in favor of this. What a bastardization of the concept that would be.
|
|
|
Post by RocknRollMartian on May 28, 2004 17:40:32 GMT -5
A couple of my thoughts on the interview:
Mike's political slant: He seems like a deeply religious person. Moralistic values tend to steer people directly into the modern Republican party. Living in Minnesota probably strengthens his conservative beliefs because he has to constantly defend them from local criticism.
Mike's lack of TVs: For me, this was the weirdest part of the interview. Here's a dude, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure somebody will), that was/is writing for TV Guide and he doesn't watch TV. Why doesn't TV Guide just hire the Aumish to pen their Fall Previews (those are very valuable you know, just ask Frank Costanza)?
|
|