Jazeon Wrote:+snip+
There's a difference between finding evidence to support a previously made prediction and stretching evidence to support a conclusion you want to believe. Peer review would discourage the later, as if you're stretching data to make fit what you want it to fit, it'll easily be found out once it gets to this stage. However, that's not the same as having a prediction and testing it to see if it's consistent, which is pretty much the point of the scientific method anyway.
As for carbon dating, yes it has its limits; that's why it's not used for fossils older than what it can measure. You do realize that there are many other dating methods which confirm each other via cross referencing, and that you'd use different methods for different things, right? Everyone seems to bring up carbon dating as if it's the only thing anyone ever uses to date anything, when that couldn't be anymore further from the truth. Click here to learn more about said other methods, their uses, and how they can confirm each other. You wouldn't use carbon dating on everything, that's silly. That'd be like using a screwdriver to stab a nail into wood when you have a hammer by your side. Different tools for different situations.
For your youtube link, I skipped to 16 minutes and the dude is just talking about how there's no evidence of monkeys becoming humans or vice-versa. This is correct, as nobody should believe that. There's a large difference between coming from monkeys and sharing a common ancestor with them. You can read up a bit on some fossils we've found, along with what groups they belong in and how they relate to each other here if you wish. Aside from that, he's pointing out bone structures being vastly different when...they're actually very similar, so I'm not sure what he's trying to point out there. There are slight differences, but that's to be expected, honestly. I don't have the time now, but I'd be willing to watch the whole video later and provide sources relevant to what this dude is misinterpreting, if you'd like. Provided its a topic I actually know about, that is. I won't sit here and say I know everything, but I can research something for you if you'd like as well.
KhainiWest Wrote:I'd say religious doctrine is silly, the idea of a creator is not.
I'd say that falls more under the realm of philosophy. A creator brings about more questions than it answers, not that it'd be a bad thing though. I sometimes like to think about weird stuff such as our whole universe simply being a simulation of how a potential universe could work. Of course, there's also the lovely thought that I'm all alone here in this world and everything is simply made to fit my senses; that is, nothing else exists outside of my mind, and even right now you guys all talking to me is actually just a part of what's created for me to see and interpret for myself. After all, everything that we (or...shall I say everything that "I") experience has to first be relayed to the senses and interpreted in the brain for a conclusion to be drawn from it, and senses are known to be tricked easily as it is already.
There are many questions that I can go on about, but seriously believing any of them may put me against societal norms and mark me as psychotic, so it's probably in my best interest to just queerly ponder the possibilities and analyze them in my mind without delving too deeply into them.
You...you guys are all real, right? You're not just puppets created to make me feel like I'm not all alone here?