Haz

What good does it do? It does about as much good as this thread. It's about as constructive as this thread and the people & arguments within it. You are simply fighting amongst yourself "Oh, I believe this." - "Your belief is wrong." Without anything to support yourselves, you are simply throwing out a bollocks-load of assumption and speculation which is partly due to the nature of the 'debate', I suppose. Making a post to directly insult someone is probably far more effective than coming up with a 500 word post describing why they are so very, very wrong because they'll never listen and they'll never even bother to attempt to understand your point of view. This isn't a debate thread, it's an opinions thread. An opinions thread where no one actually cares for anyone's opinion, only to get across their own and say "This is the right opinion, everyone!" Kudos to Lago and a few others for still trying to engage in actual debate, however.

I once had hope for humanity. Now that I have read this, I no longer have hope. I'm not going to patronize you by asking you if you know what 'Google' and 'research' is, I assume you know. Go onto Google and starting researching. Congratulations, you're conducting secondary research - well done. Now, why don't you use this research to support and further evince the points you are trying to make in your post instead of just talking a load of cobblers. Honestly, you could save yourself and others a lot of time here if you actually did some research. There is no point in arguing here, you're clearly too closed-minded to accept that you're wrong. Just start looking at some existing research into both sides, you will come to see that you are literally talking out your ass. I cannot possibly see what enjoyment you derive from continuously spewing out the same ____ over and over again. What kind of egocentric pathology compels you to do this? If you cannot accept that sometimes you might be wrong then you shouldn't even be in a debate thread, my friend.

It's nice that you tried. But it remains that most people are simply far too appraising of their own ideologies that they couldn't possibly even begin to fathom such an advanced concept. I blame the OP to be quite frank. Such a topic of debate is utterly pointless in all aspects, esp. on the internet.

Are you an elaborate and intricate troll? I was very much almost rused, kudos to you. Your part on morality especially tickled my funny bones. This thread should be locked already, it's a joke.

You realize that simply insulting people because of their beliefs makes you no more than what you accuse them to be yourself. The Theory of Evolution cannot be proven to be something that has happened. Religious beliefs that indicate towards some form of divinity cannot be proven to be true. I hope you come to realize how much a complete plonker you are simply for suggesting that either-which-way can be proven. Why do people have no morals now? Where do you get the idea that 200 years ago people had far better morality? Are you pulling this from your deepest and darkest crevice? You realize that the amount of bloodshed in the last 200 years is far-out exceeded by the bloodshed before. A larger span of time, I admit - but the atrocities that have occurred in the name of religion have been far worse than any that aren't in the name of religion. How can you even remotely suggest religion is a source of morality? The human mind itself and its belief mechanism (excl. religion for a moment) is enough to construct a solid moral compass. I am not religious in any sense of the word. I am genetically predisposed to tendencies akin to that of a sociopath, and not to mention the urges to harm people emotionally, mentally and physically. Does that mean I lack morality? Quite the opposite. Despite these predispositions my morality which is not derivative from my belief of religion has allowed me to maintain a steady life with no killing involved. If anything, religion encourages selfishness. You become religious because you are selfish, because you want something out of it for yourself, not because it is in the benefit of man. For example: "Oh, death... I should behave so I can get to heaven!"

No theory is designed to create or construct morality within man. The Theory of Evolution helps us to understand the function of nature and everything within. Morality is derived from what a man believes, and this is not just limited to his religion, but his entire outlook on life. Click here for more.

That was a little unnecessary. You do realize that most of what you have written here is wasted, a person who could spend the time to write such drivel would not be able to change their view, opinion or way of thinking to conform to something a little more logical. You come to such a thread expecting results? It's 77 pages of getting nowhere because of the nature of the topic and largely because of the people on the server. Most of the people in this community are far too up their own arse and self-obsessed to realize that their opinion is not necessarily correct/true. In the entirety of the 77 pages of this thread I would highly doubt you'd find anyone who has changed their opinion/view because of what someone has said within the thread. People in the community simply blabber on about how their ideology is the best and do not focus on trying to support it with anything empirical. It's rather sad when you think about it.

PLEASE read everything. Read all of my other posts too, it is apparent to me you haven't been fully reading what I've been writing. Also, quoting isn't working properly for me, so I'll just quote certain sections. "Explanations of facts, not fact. Example, gravity exists, it's a fact, the gravitational theory explains how." Right - so I never said that a theory was a fact..? I don't know where you got that from. "I placed in red what you should be reading in the quote I before gave. I never said theories were facts, I said they explain facts (at least the best explanation we have so far)." Okay? Again, I never said that you said theories were facts either. I'm not sure where you're getting this whole idea from. REFER: "In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science." This doesn't in any way, shape of form even imply 'fact'. Note that I underlined the key-word 'nature', the sentence I wrote (above) is focused towards you thinking that the explanation of nature is equal to explanation of fact. "This one is accepted after the theory is already done, example: theory of gravity states that all mass attracts itself. So why don't planets fall to the sun? Hypothesis - they are already in motion, and inertia exists, so since the planets are in orbit, what keeps them in orbit is gravity. Alright lets collect data, lets interper them -> the hyposisis is true, and the theory of gravity is now more updated." No... No it's not... Please refer to the below... "Yes, this is how new theories are made." Please do some research into what I have said, I think you'll find that the deductive method is far more widely accepted by scientists across the board as a scientific method. A large portion of scientists consider the deductive method the only 'true' scientific method. "There are various ways to do things. You don't collect data to falsify a theory, you collect it to falsify a hypothesis, and change a theory. And even after not proving a hypothesis wrong, to make a theory, you need to combine many of them to make the theory. The theory explains and predicts. After the theory is done, you use the predicting ability of it to make new hypothesis, and if that hypothesis is proven wrong, you find out why, and change the theory acordanly, until is it as close to reality as posible." Obviously I was not thinking "Oh, he'll probably be pedantic and shout me out regarding how I've worded this sentence ill regard to all other sentences whereby I have refereed to the falsification of hypothesis rather than theories." Further suggests you haven't been properly reading what I've been saying... I didn't refer to the falsification of theory by intention, it was a semantic error - but the message is still there and is clear, I don't see why you felt the need to comment. "Mhh... no... You don't start with the theory. You start with a hypothesis: "ALl swans are white" Then you go around trying to find out if that's true (one of them could very well be trying to find one that wasn't white) and if you find it is, then the hypotheses is true. Yet one true hypotheses is not enough for a theory. A theory explains the nature of the whiteness of the swan, using the many confirmed hypotheses, and so on." Refer to my previous post on scientific method. "You find a swan which is not black, do you destroy the theory because of that? No, you study the anomaly and find out why it exists, then you update and improve the theory. the Hypothesis was wrong, yes, the Theory improved. The theory after finding the hypotheses untrue, could turn into: "All healthy swans, between the age of 1 and 2 years, which reside in these expecific location are white. Those that migrated further south have started to develop a more yellow tone." New hypothesis: "The ones in the south have more yellow tone because of the water they live in" I never said the theory is 'destroyed'. I did not even indicate to such a thing, rather the opposite: refer to scientific theory (circular). "A belief can be wrong. If you want an example again of a wrong belief "I do not believe in gravity". Does it mean there is no such thing as gravity? No, means the one who believes that has wrong information about something, making his belief a wrong one. But maybe this is just scementics." Belief is not a fact. Belief does not make something true. Belief is a self-sufficient thing, used to benefit ourselves as one and as social beings. "I do not believe in gravity." Is not wrong, it's a belief. It doesn't mean: "There is no gravity." Look, please just read what I've said in previous posts and this one. If you are not going to reply to me with anything other than pedantic comments, nitpicking and straw-manning then I'm just going to get frustrated. If you are going to offer an argument, at least provide some evidence to support your point and then explain it. Okay, and your sources/research to back this up? Otherwise, you know, it's just pure speculation. One might as well go into the lore forum and find an appropriate religion thread and simply copy/paste into here.

Yes. What? God no... I'm not sure if it's just me, but you appear to have been offended what I have said, this is not an intentional/desired effect so please do not get snappy with me. Please do not accuse me of being close-minded, I am always willing to listen to someone's opinion and if they are right I am willing to say "Yeah, okay. This is a good ideology and I accept that it bears some truth." That's probably the most insulting thing anyone has ever said to me, it hurts man. I'd accept that I was wrong if I was wrong, however, I am not wrong. No, you are misinterpreting the text that is already there my friend. Regardless of how you use the word 'theory' it will never mean to 'explain fact' - not in any study of the world is a theory considered an explanation of fact, it contradicts the initial definition of a theory for starters. "In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science." This doesn't in any way, shape of form even imply 'fact'. Okay... Basically there is something called the 'scientific process' which is part of the scientific method. There are two main methods of scientific process: The inductive method, which means that the data collection has caused a creation of theory - such as Newton's supposed ability to see patterns in the way things works, he collected data and then came up with a theory. Second is the deductive method, which obviously means that a theory is deduced which might explain the natural world, data collection is done in order to try and disprove the null hypothesis (the opposite of a hypothesis) which will then tick one of the 'Does it support the Theory?' boxes. Also, just a side note: The deductive method is also known as the Darwinian scientific process and looks a little like this: Theory -> Hypothesis -> Data Collection -> Interpretation. On the other hand, the structure of the inductive method is as follows: Hypothesis -> Data Collection -> Interpretation -> Theory Many scientists such as Karl Popper who was a great philosopher of science said that the deductive method is the only scientific process worthwhile. He suggests that this is because the data is collected to try and falsify a theory (you do not collect data to 'prove' a theory). Which brings me onto my next point, nothing is ever regarded as being 'proof' of a theory. You cannot 'prove' a theory, that is not what a theory is for or how the scientific method is supposed to be conducted - you must try to disprove a theory. EXAMPLE: Theory: I have a theory that all swans are white. Hypothesis: All swans are white. You do not go around finding swans that are white, that doesn't many sense. Instead you create a null hypothesis like so: Null Hypothesis: There will be a swan which is not white. This is the only time the word 'proof' should be used; you aim to prove that the null hypothesis is true. When you manage to find a black swan you know that your original hypothesis is therefore falsified. This is called falsifiability which is something Popper delved in quite detail. You use the word proof when there is almost 100% certainty of a fact. If you see a black swan, that is proof that black swans exist, because it cannot be disputed (unless of-course you want to be pedantic and bring in colour blindness). Example of something can be proven: Humans can have blue eyes. (Like me!) Something that cannot be proven: A human's blue eyes are due to evolutionary changes in their ancestral biology. It can be theorised, and evidence can be submitted to support the theory - but it cannot be proven. That's a pretty poor example, but I blame my lack of food. ALSO! There is also a circular process (scientific method): Theory -> Hypothesis -> Data Collection -> Interpretation -> Theory You can start at theory (deductive) or hypothesis (inductive) and go around the circle. CLICK ME FOR A VISUAL REPRESENTATION! (Sorry for the bad hand-writing) Perhaps I already covered this, however... A belief can never be wrong, regardless of what you do to try and disprove it. It's a belief, it is not intended to be dis-proven - it's completely illogical. Do not try and treat a belief as a theory, they are two very different things, I already covered this in my initial post.

I wouldn't say it's an explanation of fact. A theory is generally created before evidence is established. Except in the cases of people like Newton whom gathered factual data, created a hypothesis and then came up with a theory. Evolution was not based on any fact at first, it was simply that - a theory. Normally evidence (i.e. a 'fact') is generated to support a theory. Just a side-note, I prefer to use 'evidence' instead of 'fact'; 'fact' implies that there is a 100% validity, nothing has 100% validity (accuracy). EDIT: I don't think you've properly understood the message I was trying to convey in that post. Reading it with an open-mind will yield the best results and have a more prominent effect.

You realize that there is always the possibility that the theory of evolution is completely inaccurate? You cannot /know/ that evolution occurred, it is a widely accepted thing but that does not make it a fact, a theory can never be a fact and a theory can never be proven. I think you are too quick to discard the beliefs of others, particularly relating to scientific beliefs simply because it is not the 'ideal' theory of evolution that you have come to believe in yourself. My earlier post for those that missed it: CLICK

Are you suggesting that a person's beliefs can be 'wrong'?

Such a topic of debate is rather pointless, you cannot 'prove' anything - you can only hope to submit 'evidence' (i.e. pseudo-evidence) which supports these ideologies. It is completely illogical to even begin arguing as one is a belief and another is a theory, they are completely different things; you cannot argue against a belief, it's a belief! Does such a debate benefit anyone in anyway? Not really. People already accept that evolution was something that happened, not because there is 'proof' but because it can be used to explain various types of phenomenon that occur in modern society. Can faith do this? No. It serves no benefit other than for one's self, whereas the idea of evolution allows us to begin to understand animal (inc. human) behaviour and can help explain certain characteristics of practically everything that is a living organism. In the end, it is better if we think that evolution happened. Why? Because it's essential for our understanding of life. Is faith? Beliefs? Is it crucial? No. It is important for understanding of self (and also to form a para-social relationship with an invisible giant grey-beardy man in the sky who likes to sit on a cloud and sing 'Singing in the Rain'). I am not saying there is no greater being. Just that it serves no purpose to believe in a greater being or to focus upon "Does a divine creator tower above us and watch over us?" It serves no benefit to us in our modern day and age unless priests were suddenly granted divine powers to cure mass disease and prevent famine. Is that likely? ...I don't think so. Basically: Neither the belief nor theory can be proven, regardless of whatever 'evidence' you propose, a theory is never considered 'proven' and beliefs are not meant to be 'proven' anyway. Again... They are two very different things. I believe that most people on this planet are probably born without a brain - does this serve a function to me? No, but it's an important ideology to me, it helps me to dictate how I should associate myself with other people and how I conduct myself in social relationships. It does not help me to understand, however. I do however think of many different theories such as evolution, behaviorism and cognitive-psychology to be partially true as it serves a function to do so. They help me to understand why a person might conduct themselves as they do and what could've led them to make a certain decision. Does it help my own self? No. It doesn't dictate how I look at the world, they do not dictate my moral or ethical code. To summarize: Belief is important for one's self. It helps a person to discover their identity and belonging in the world, belief is not simply limited to religion. It helps a man construct his morals, his 'code'. It allows us to build strong social connections with others with whom we think share a similar belief to our own, it is important for society to have beliefs and morality. Theory serves to help us understand the mechanics of the world and the creatures within it. It allows us to create new medicines and diversify technology; it is important for advancing as a collective being and allows us to move forward technologically and economically. They are both important things and very different things, they should not be compared to each other as they serve different functions. There is no 'Creation or Evolution'. There are always multiple ways to approach, to understand and look at things - to simplify something to the extent of 'Creation of Evolution' is simply medieval, quite literally. Our modern way of thinking is not that primitive, is it? No - we are beyond that, or at least should be. You should be thinking 'What has contributed to the creation of our world and the creation of us as a species?' The answer is many things my friend, there is no singular answer, there is no 'Creation of Evolution'. That is all.

Very good, I am impressed. Although you could add some more emotes though, but you've covered the main ones so that's fine (since there's an ever-infinite number of actions one can do). Perhaps add a little paragraph about the understanding of emoting and using the body language you have helped to detail here. Understanding how to use body language is just as important, learning to adapt these emotes to a variety of different situations or even combining them.