beliefs 2

Lots of debate on evolution/creationism is not what the 'beliefs' post was about.

I grant it is hard to envisage an alternative. I feel that it's difficult because our knowledge of the universe is limited.
The science of physics has certainly revealed a strange universe: non-locality, uncertaintity principle, spin, string theory with several more dimensions than the everyday experience, etc. A paradigm shift seems crucial to step outside of he tired old debate.
Imagine proposing evolution without understanding mendelian genetics, DNA, etc.

A point I made regarding beliefs was that our beliefs shape how we see the world - this can make us unconsciously selective in the evidence we 'see' and the contradictions we reject.

I fear that absolutely accepting evolution as fact stops people thinking.
I do not reject the 'theory' of evolution outright, but find it to be too weak to reasonably accept. I personally feel the whole subject to be a great mystery.
If evolution was a strong theory why would there be so much debate?
Whose debating the laws of thermodynamics?
Why would people use ad-hominem tactics against critics? Surely a sound theory stand up to scrutiny in-it-self without slights against people's 'intelligence' or 'education'. When the world was considered the centre of the universe, a whole system of measurements was devised to show it thus.

I do not need to be converted. I am interested in other possibilities.

Pseudosciences are more likely to be driven by ideological, cultural, or commercial goals.

In the pseudosciences, a challenge to accepted dogma is often considered a hostile act if not heresy, and leads to bitter disputes or even schisms.

Proponents of pseudosciences have a lot to lose and thus spend much time attacking alternative views rather than increasing understanding of their own beliefs.

Observations or data that are not consistent with established beliefs tend to be ignored or actively suppressed. Failing this, dubious theories are introduced to account for any inconsistencies.

The major tenets and principles of the field are often not falsifiable, and are unlikely ever to be altered or shown to be wrong.

Pseudoscientific explanations tend to be vague and ambiguous, often invoking scientific terms in dubious contexts.

Pseudoscientific explanations tend to over jargonize the subject in order to give the impression of a technically complex and intellectual theory. Proponents often invoke authority (a famous name, for example) for support.

Pseudoscientific evidence is normally highly ambiguous, open to different interpretations, and often not powerful enough to convince reasonable sceptics.

Pseudosciences have an explain-all character yet proponents reduce its’ explanatory prowess when confronted with a major challenge.

You set tough parameters to discuss things.
You put up the Bait, saying you find Evolution too weak a theory, and then demand that people DON'T debate that.

Life is Made, by Gods or Aliens or Self creation....
... or gradually Come Into Being over a long period of time...
... or is all just a Dream from which I will someday awaken....
... or....

I was going to say this in another thread, I am also a nonbeliever of these two theories.
I do believe creatures can and have evolved, I do not think we came from apes. Religions are so similar, I dont see how you can look at one and not the other and just have faith in the one as being true.
Its all to close minded to be blunt, blah blah blah heres how it went now just belive in it...much like you said. I'd rather believe in what naturally comes to my thoughts.
I think its alot more powerful of a story than what we can imagine atm.
It comes down to our past being lost or forgotten. Religion has all the answers already when we are suppose to not know, yet they understand it all and just have faith. You see it on here, they have the answer for everything because its in the bible.

Evolution is a strong theory, but thinking right now, for one...our capabilities far exceed what is needed to survive here. if we were simply a creature of evolution..we wouldnt need cars and malls, we would still be very simple minded beings. A soft balance with the surrounding environment. we fit in nowhere on the planet.


[edit on 24-4-2007 by Mailman]

Then how do you explain how similar we are to apes Mailman? Did you ever observe an ape ?