Printable View
i know this is off topic, but u should know that a word that makes sense in normal american speak could have totally different meaning (and in this case no meaning) in a scientific discipline from which this word is derived.
thats my point..
i could have a definition of a theory in normal speak, but within the realm of the science, it can have a totally different meaning (or lack there of).. thats my point... and in this thread we are discussing the science!
I am positive that there are plenty of words that had a different meaning before "peer reviewed scientist" gave them a scientific meaning. I take a more universal approach in dealing with this amalgamation that we call the English language.Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
yes.. there are some words that are in scientific lexicons that have their basis in normal english language...but these words do not define or explain a discipline!
thats why the word "devolve" arouses so much disgust to evolutionists because it totally contradicts the true biological meaning of "evolve".
now first and foremost.. donrt get me wrong.. there is nothing wrong with the word devolve.. im just saying it has no place in biology. i understand totally the cultural and societal definition it has, but this type of definition and what it implies goes against the biological understanding of evolution.
To devolve would contradict its root word evolve. De- in devolve brings about the contradiction. Evolutionist shouldn't get so emotional ,"the word "devolve" arouses so much disgust to evolutionists," if there is truth in a word.Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
If I were a "peer reviewed scientist" would you accept it?
it causes disgust for a good reason...
many people already have a messed up .. off kilter distorted view of what evolution really is.. so for them to now get it more twisted by adhering to the definition implied in the word "devolve" is cause for concern!
its no wonder questions are asked like " if humans came form monkeys, why are there still monkeys around".. these type of questions are fueled by a lack of understanding of biological evolution. the word devolve adds to it by making one think that the evolutionary process involves "improvements" and "advancement"
good question.. the answer is yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by WamukotaX
if the word was peer reviewed and explained in a biological journal as having some merit and meaning within the realm of biological evolution.. i would be forced to happily accept it...
in order for this to happen.. the fundamental definition of evolution would first have to be changed and the rationale for its change would have to be successfully defended
I rest my case.Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
im simply demonstrating how within the discipline there is basically a "quality control"
that qc is carried out by the act of peer review where every change, or addition to a theory must go thru rigorous skepticism and proof before it can be accepted and categorized within the recognized nomenclature
teh word devolve has yet to do this. and more importantly in doing so, it would change the very definition of evolution.
LOL
You guys answer nothing then want to close the thread.
Anyways, I am over it. It's a one-sided discussion.
Did someone say close this thread??
ok
last call for more questions/rebuttals.
Peace timbs
The reason why I feel evolution is so offensive is because it strives to prove that true human origin is less than divine.
Im not a professional scientist but, I do have respect for what you do.
I think it goes way deeper than scientific formulas...human origin and essence is undoubtedly supreme. Your "evolution" leaves no room for human genius.
It doesn't get to the point of anything...in fact it does nothing but confuse and cover the true purpose and invention of human existence.
So, no I can't speak the jargon with you but, my common sense tells me the jargon of evolution is confusion.
Peace
peace
i understand exactly what u are saying but ultimately most people who are evolutionists think totally different than what u are stating.
when u say that evolution basically confuses everything and makes our existence "less than special", to us, the "evolutionists" it does exactly the opposite
the theory of evolution provides us with the knowledge of exactly what our origins are and our place in the universe.. embracing it provides us with a sense of wonderment, awe and reverence and respect for the world we live in!
to me.. there is nothing more awe inspring and "special" than embracing our evokutionary past and present and possible future.
evolution doesnt take awy from the joys of life.. in my opinion it actually makes life much more enjoyable on a "spritual level" !
if we are the result of a naturl occurence and their is not necessarily a divine thing about us.. this means that life is very very precious! its precious because we are lucky to be here conversing with eachother! we are lucky that the dinosaurs dies off and allowed mammals to take the throne!
there is nothing more awe inspiring and spiritual than realizing that we are indeed special!
the problem is that the spiritual creationist viewpoint is that it proclaims we are specially created but not because of an unslefish awe of nature, but rather a selfish humanistic bias!
in addition.. if common sense tells u there is something fishy about evolution .. this basically means that u must learn more about it and approach it from a totally objective unemotional view.
evolution doesnt take away from our specialness.. in my opinion it wholeheartedly adds to it a million times more than creation by a divine deity