Truth is a factual situation or statement. There is nothing relative about it.
Truth is a factual situation or statement. There is nothing relative about it.
It is only perceived, and it is done so differently by each individual. So yes it is relative
We have differing understandings of reality....so be it.
Let's just accept the reality....and be done.
The universe is doomed by entropy. I assure you, this statement is an absolute truth.
We have differing understandings of reality....so be it.
Let's just accept the reality....and be done.
It is mighty arrogant to think that your understanding of reality is the only right one. With out evidence that proves that it is just a wild claim.
Nothing is absolute truth, your assurance is meaningless, unless you are something more than man.
It is an absolute truth that you typed the above statement....I have noted it, verified it, and have no doubt it exists.
Unless you wish to explain to me how I am mistaken, I will clearly state this is an Absolute Truth.
Your doubt is meaningless. You accept what you wish to accept, you choose to do so, hence truth is relative.
Can't explain how you are mistaken, for you to be mistaken I would have to have spoken absolute truth which doesn't exist. If you need to structure your mind frame as things exist so there fore I accept them, be my guest, I am nobody to say that is wrong.
Truth is relative.
Absolute truth is like something being the most best, if it was truth then it would be absolute. People that like to use dual superlatives I often find are attempting to convince themselves of the absolute they chose to accept.
I don't find the need to exist based on any absolutes, frankly absolutes are improbable, since the only absolute I can think of is that there are no absolutes, but alas I grow board attempting to explain things to people that already have their minds made up on what is or what isn't.
I don't find the need to exist based on any absolutes, frankly absolutes are improbable, since the only absolute I can think of is that there are no absolutes, but alas I grow board attempting to explain things to people that already have their minds made up on what is or what isn't.
Polydectes, you are bringing up points that I addressed way earlier in this thread and you never acknowledged. So, let's try again. What you are bringing up is philosophically considered a valid point- Cogito ergo sum - I think, therefore I am. Basically all that you can be sure of is that you exist. While that might be a valid point, there has to be some line between which you differentiate between everything else- a line you draw where one thing becomes at least "more true" than something else and when it comes to society (i.e. schools), where society decides to teach or stress one truth over a possible alternative. Yes, it might be questionable, but that does not make it any less the truth. And it seems you agree, when you agree 1+1 should in fact be taught as 1+1=2. So I pose the question to you, where do YOU draw the line between fact such as 1+1=2 and something which is more questionable to you like evolution? To put this whole thing into literally one question: what is your methodology for determining the truth?
same as anybody elses, I choose what I accept, you do the exact same thing as does everybody else.
1+1=2 is a lot more solid than a few dusty bones and magic soup. Again I will explain, pick one apple, them pick another apple, that is two. lets try that with evolution, pick one apple, them pick another apple, no, that doesn't mean life began at some puddle of goo.
Mathematics are elegant because they are simple. This make believe that a fish learns to breath air and that life just decided to force itself into existence seems very far fetched, overly complicated and completely dependent on peoples willingness to blindly except things as fact. You are just like a creationist, pretending you know everything because some book told you so.
You don't understand this argument that is why you continue to beat your one note drum pretending that your beliefs are facts, creationists do the exact same thing. Why do you need this fabricated answer so desperately?
Perhaps, but on what basis do you think that we as a society should discern fact from fiction? Because if we are to have schools, etc. we need to do that...
This is your opinion. I see sufficient proof of evolution to call it fact and sufficient lack of proof or even proof that contradicts a lot of alternative, popular theories. Also, by your description of the evidence of evolution ("puddle of goo" and "few dusty bones") I am led to believe you have not seen or educated yourself upon the hard data behind evolution. But I guess you are just as much a skeptic on germ theory or relativity too, huh?
Ironic that mathematics supports the theory of evolution over creationism then, huh? And if you think I pretend to know everything, you must have missed pretty much every post I've made in this thread.
Better question is the one you still haven't answered- what is your methodology for determining the truth?
By the way, the most ironic thing in all this "you are not keeping an open mind" screaming is that you are the one not keeping an open mind when it comes to methods of discerning the truth. For you it seems like everything after 1+1=2 is opinion- and you are very "I am right" about that matter. I have already said many, many times that I could be wrong and so could evolution, but until you disprove it or put forth another theory with the adequate data to support it, it should be fact as far as society is considered. Just like doctors act by assuming germ theory is fact or physicists act assuming relativity or gravity is fact.
Last edited:
There is no fact so there is no need to. Schools teach children, not facts.
If there is undeniable proof, produce it, i haven't seen such. I am unfamiliar with germ they, if it is as simple as 1+1=2 as you say a five year old can understand it. So please put your money where your mouth is and produce this simplistic fact and end this debate, you should have done so on the first page.
Okay mathematically explain it, since you have this knowledge of what Iss and isn't instead of this frustrating debate just simple proof that is conclusive to anybody. That is all I ask, all I ever asked for, I certainly don't know and have repeatedly said as much. If you have this proof provide it, to advance science.
I have answered, but I will again, pay attention. People accept what they choose to accept that is fact to them, and because I am a person I do the same. Typically the methodology is to consult peers, our the people you wish to be peers with.
Children are taught facts amongst other things, are they not? Schools teach children facts is what your statement should read. You seem to be avoiding my question with word play...
I have already hit on the major pieces of evidence for evolution in this thread. It is such a large topic at this point that it has spawned several fields and sub fields and with that tons and tons and tons of data. I cannot possibly reproduce it all here for you, but I suggest you go check out some college level textbooks (on genetics, evolution, taxonomy, etc.) as well as free databases like pubmed ( Home - PubMed - NCBI ) for more on that.
If that is your methodology then you should think 1+1=2 is also questionable and not fact too because someone's opinion might just be that it isn't true. In that case, what do you actually teach at schools if everything is equally-valued opinion?
where on earth did you concoct this nonsense that I said that all opinion is equal, I didn't suggest that we teach creation in schools, not all opinions are equal
Your proof isn't conclusive so it isn't proof, I have read all of that already, you said you had simple equation to represent evolution not this study that merely suggests it. It is a fascinating theory, but not enough.
Schools don't teach fact, they never did, they teach languages and modes of thinking to children, how long have you been a teacher?
You are using this as a basis for treating evolution and creationism the same when it comes to discerning the truth: "People accept what they choose to accept that is fact to them, and because I am a person I do the same."
Without an actual methodology (I am beginning to think you don't even have one and just say things based on what comes to mind), I am not sure what else to believe. It is quite clear you simply reject facts you don't like- you led me to believe this was because you thought they were opinion.
But honestly, you just keep evading the primary points I am trying to make with semantics.
You saying you have read all of it tells me that you probably have read very little of it. There isn't anyone on this planet who has read all of the studies...
And again and for the millionth time if it is not enough- why? What is your methodology for determining fact?
Lol. Not sure what schools you went to, but most schools (in the US) at least attempt to teach children about the real world. Even 1+1=2 or the process by which you get there is teaching "fact"
exactly.
I explained the methodology you and I and everybody else uses, you go by what your peers or those you wish to be peers with believe. That is the methodology you and I use to Severn what we accept as fact. I have explained this twice now lets see if you continue t to reject it.
I haven't rejected a single fact, for the millionth time I stand by my assumption that I don't know, your failure to produce fact is not my rejection of fact. There is still a debate going on, are the people that debate you just stupid? if they are what does that say about you for debating?
Prove beyond all doubt your side or realize it is just what you accept as truth. Otherwise this conversation is really over. My side is that I don't know, I am open to proof but I need to see it, you haven't provided such as of yet.
You keep evading the call for proof, it kind of tells me you don't have any, tippy can easily prove 1+1=2, I am no scientist, and if you want me to accept your opinion stop being rude and disrespectful and explain it simply like I did the above mathematic equation. You want me to accept you're truth you need to do a better job explaining it, and not suggest that I am uneducated or all of the other disrespectful things you say, its clear that you don't have any evidence of your belief.
This is your last chance prove it without a doubt, withdraw your statements or lose you credibility. I am sick of your insistence that you are right, muslims and Christians insist they are right also, with the same credibility you have. So dip you have this proof? (foot patting waiting for proof)
I am not evading you just reject what I say.
I read through the things you posted, they weren't conclusive. Of course I haven't read everything.
I went to a Jesuit school, 95% of my class had doctorates within 9 years of graduating, they all attended theology classes and were taught creation in history class. So I don't know your meritsLol. Not sure what schools you went to, but most schools (in the US) at least attempt to teach children about the real world. Even 1+1=2 or the process by which you get there is teaching "fact"
This explains much of the differing realities between you two....MYP seems to be focused on what has been studied and verified to an extent, whereas you come from a theological background which by every definition in science cannot be verified.
There is absolutely no evidence to confirm creation and simply cannot be. There is ample evidence indicating Evolutionary Theory, though incomplete explains much of the natural order on Earth. Given the need to educate within schools, and the above realities, it seems to me we have no choice but to teach Evolution if we are to be fair to our children.
Just a Theory
In laymen terms a 'theory' is something of which is just a guess. In scientific terms a 'theory' is an explanation based on empirical evidence of how/why something occurred or works. The scientific equivalent to the laymen use of the word 'theory' would be the word 'hypothesis'. If something is "just a hypothesis" then we would not have reason to accept it as anything more than just a guess. Saying that something is "just" a theory means it is a proven explanation. The 'theory of evolution' is the explanation of how the fact of evolution occurs just as the 'theory of gravity' explains how the fact of gravity occurs.
Are Scientists Switching To Creationism?
Almost every single scientist in fields related to the history of life agree that evolution is a fact. A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that only about 5% of scientists identified themselves as creationists. However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in creationism or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of one percent.
Micro & Macro Evolution
The only difference between Micro and Macro evolution is time. Macro and Micro evolution have little to nothing to do with appearances. Changes are accumulated to the DNA every time it is passed on during reproduction. If the accumulated changes on a genetic level causes organisms to be unable to reproduce with each other they are defined as separate species. These changes are a case of Macro evolution. If the changes do not make the DNA too different to prevent the organisms from reproducing with each other it is a case of Micro evolution.
Micro-Evolution = changes within a species
Macro-Evolution = changers across multiple species
Species = Organisms that are able to breed among themselves
Can't Explain Where Life Came From
True, the explanation of how life evolved cannot explain where life came from just as the theory of gravity can not explain how an object which is falling was first created. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with where life come from, only with how that life evolves. There are however various explanations to how life most likely formed through natural means incase you were wondering.
Similar threads
