It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Why is it called the theory of evolution
The definition of a theory is
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
Yet you treat it like a fact
What a mature retort. @Ludovico was right however, you may want to look into the difference between a generic theory and a scientific theory.
Which interpretation can be wrong but no your right facts and theories are the same just like atheists and idiots
There are two meanings of the word "theory", unfortunately. The colloquial meaning is not to be used when talking about evolution. The scientific meaning is far stricter and is the only true meaning of the word when talking about the theory of evolution. By asserting that both meanings are interchangeable, one commits an equivocation fallacy.
Furthermore, the "theory" attempts to explain evolution. Evolution itself, however, is a simple fact. We can observe it in a petri dish, with crops and even in humans. Explaining the underlying mechanisms is more challenging, and that's what theories are for. Theories are constantly being adjusted, modified, made stronger... in the face of new evidence. That's not a weakness of science; that is, in fact, its greatest strength! That is also what's missing from almost all other varieties of human activity, including religion, which seem to solely rely on dogma. Science is trying and it's succeeding. Impatience ("science cannot explain everything just yet") or lack of expertise in a certain field ("I'm not a physicist so I will simply dismiss all physics") are not valid arguments to debunk science. The criticism that science doesn't have all the answers and that our theories are never absolute or final is a poor one. It only exposes the critic as seeking dogma, which is a sign of intellectual laziness. Furthermore, to submit that because science hasn't all the answers yet, we might as well invoke God to fill in the blanks, siphons the "truth" down to a binary choice: it's either what science knows today, or else it's God. We won't wait for what science may discover in ten or twenty years from now. We won't keep certain explanations marked as 'X' until some genius figures it out. Instead, we'll just feast (while we still can) over the fact that there are some things science still doesn't understand, which gives us at least some excuse, albeit a poor one, to call some things 'God'. Such a childish logic is obviously inexcusable in an adult debate, except when my fellow debater never received a decent education, to no fault of his own of course.
Either way, even if we forget our disagreement about the meaning of the word "theory", whether there even is a theory of evolution doesn't divert our attention from the fact of evolution, which is empirically observable, irrefutable and "undebunkable".
I’ve got nothing to add except even if evolution was just a theory in the way @Risico007 means that’s still more than religion which is just 2000 year old unsubstantiated hearsay from a bunch of fishermen who were part of a cult.
What I aimed to say, only 10,000x better. This to a T.
Brilliantly put, @DarthDimi. I don't see why self-styled Fundamentalists refuse to see that, while they may still reject it as the alternative to creation originally. But suppose a god exists and he/she/it has a plan for the future development of species, why shouldn't it be evolution? Something that makes those species stronger and healthier by sorting out the weaker elements?
As an aside, I find it puzzling that those most opposed to Darwin's teachings usually act the most Darwinist in their daily life, by throwing poorer and somehow-challenged fellow humans under the bus.
But still in his mind anything unprovable or unknown is a vacuum that God automatically rushes in to fill.
by Darth Dimi
When I’m asked what I consider to be the fundamental characteristic of any free society, I reply "freedom of speech". Few people raise an eyebrow in response since freedom of speech is so strikingly “of course”. It’s tantamount to answering “oxygen” when someone wants to know what kept you alive while you were stuck in a collapsed building. Freedom of speech is taken for granted; so much, in fact, that we rarely dare assert that it actually isn’t to be taken for granted in this day and age. And we almost never dare admit that even in our “free society”, there currently really is no such thing as complete freedom of speech anymore.
Even in Western Europe and North-America freedom of speech was once no more than a fantasy. Yet if we consider post-WW2 Europe and America, we can all concede that the situation has drastically improved since. However, I’m in my 30s now and I like to think that half a lifetime ago, I could really speak my mind in public without ever having to worry about retribution. Naturally, my parents always taught me that words can still bruise egos and when they do, the person at the receiving end of my insults – intended or not – might beat me up. And also: Nazis. Nazis aren’t okay so whatever I would think about the Nazis and the Holocaust and the Jews and whatever, a wise man would refrain from taking the controversial route in those discussions. Other than that, though, the sky was the limit.
But that was then. Now, in 2018, the aforementioned liberties seem a thing of the past. The very countries that once adopted the basic principle of freedom of speech have since swung the pendulum even further to the other side. We used to have no rights whatsoever; now, at least in my opinion, we have demanded – and received – too many of them, rendering our list of rights a very confusing mess. In some sense, freedom of speech is still preserved in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but in many civilized countries, it nowadays comes with some wild caveats. Everything we say, will, after all, be monitored and possibly even recorded in some shape or form. When our words offend a self-proclaimed minority – which includes half the world’s population also known as women – we will be put on some kind of trial. Angry tweets, pathetic public anger displays starting with “excuuuuuse me?!?”, open letters which actually get published in tabloids or newspapers, or a factual court case over allegations of slander, racist slur, offensive words, … , all of this could come our way if we should speak our mind. The pitchfork wielding angry mob still exists, and more than ever is it equipped with the proper tools for an effective execution. I, along with my big mouth, are driven to despair. We have the right to say what we want alright, but it seems others also have the right to translate their fury into social media aggression and other forms of vengeance. It almost never turns out well for the one who spoke his mind. Some rights, it seems, are more “right” than others.
Even though in most cases I would no doubt have the law on my side, such conflicts can destroy one’s life faster than a judge has read and then dismissed the case. Learning from other people’s mistakes, we have all, in recent times, grown extra careful. In mortal fear of reprisals, we no longer dare to criticize certain religions and their objectively determinable involvement in global terrorism. Avoiding the eye of the “#MeToo” storm, we let women go by their business, even when they’re doing something wrong and one could offer good advice or be helpful. The tables are turned so easily. Criticism, even when it’s got absolutely nothing to do with one’s gender, race, colour, sexual persuasion, …, is almost always read as deeply offensive comments. The actual content of the criticism is intentionally obfuscated and what remains, in the eye of the public, is verbal brutality seeking to repress one of our beloved and profusely cuddled “minorities”. In this day and age, such alleged brutality seems to have become a worse crime than burglary, bank heists or teaching young men how to blow themselves up in public.
The crux of the problem is that people who feel “offended” somehow seem to think that my offending them gives them supplementary rights, including the right to sanction me, which itself is in direct violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights if the sanction is issued in response to me speaking merely my mind. And yet we have reached that dreadful point where, as a society, we tolerate punishment of “verbal offenders”. We let it happen. We neither revolt against it nor stand up for the accused. Someone gets butchered over the Internet for having said something to a woman, and we’re merely glad that someone is not us. From our silence, the censorship supporting society deduces we’re okay with it. Strange precedents are created and very soon the punishment of free speech becomes “fair” in an ever-growing list of situations. It has nowadays indeed become normal practice to publish screen caps of Facebook posts in newspapers and invite everyone to form a New Age angry mob and get the digital pitchforks out. With an incomplete knowledge of what has transpired and only one side of the story read or heard, thousands unite in anger over what the awful man said to the poor, defenceless girl; over what the evil, racist politician said about the poor, peace-loving religion of the suicide bombers. Freedom of speech no longer exists since we have turned the tides so fast, no-one really knows what is or isn’t offensive anymore. Rather than stand up for what we value most, we shy away from speaking our minds, knowing there are madmen everywhere who will dissect your every word and sniffle at the fragments for traces of bigotry or mere insults. Accusing others of having fired insults at minorities appears to be the driving force of many people nowadays.
We might want to briefly consider the fact that we are all members of one or two or more minorities. Skin colour, sexual taste, spirituality, a distinct anatomical detail, a medical condition, a certain political conviction, a developmental disorder, … they might all condemn us to some minority or another. Obviously, no minority should be targeted in any way unless it’s trying to operate outside the law. However, it’s not only quite normal for competing groups to mistrust each other, it’s an easily triggered defence mechanism locked up in our DNA. Different religions can easily coexist in the same country, street or even house, but as soon as one starts shoving his “truths” in the other’s face, all bets are off. Luckily, we have learned to behave. Many of us will rather express criticism when we feel it is necessitated in order to maintain a functioning society rather than go to battle right away. Criticism functions in two ways: A) it’s a pretty effective, harmless and civilized way to communicate and purge one’s fear and irritation, B) it should put both parties at the table and engage them in a constructive discussion about the future. However, as long as the criticism is silenced under the false premise that it’s nothing but offensive talk in disguise, we’re only going to widen certain gaps and increase the social temperature.
Take religion, for example. In countries like Ireland and Denmark, one can be fined, as Stephen Fry recently discovered, for “offending God”. Please explain to me why this is so, in 2018 no less? Fry challenged God for giving some children bone cancer, and Fry did so on public television in Ireland. He came ridiculously close to having to pay 25 000 euros under the Defamation Act, which makes blasphemy a punishable crime. Fry only spoke his mind. Since when is that punishable? Furthermore, he spoke his mind about God. I find it fascinating that “offending God” should be punished according to some authorities. I find it fascinating in the same way that I find some mating behavior among the criminally insane fascinating: the world stops making sense while I’m making my observations.
Allow me to submit the perfectly justifiable assertion that God either exists or doesn’t. In the former case, would God really need us, mere mortals, to defend his honor when one of us insulted him? Would he give a damn? That’s like us, adults, suffering some juicy rudeness from a 7 year old and demanding that his fellow classmates give him hell for it. It wouldn’t do for a supreme being like God to stand behind such a no-insults policy, now would it? Shouldn’t the Almighty be better and stronger than that? Surely, he doesn’t care. Surely, he loves Stephen Fry, as we all do. Worst case scenario: he does want to exact revenge. Shouldn’t he then set up the punishment himself rather than have us punish one of our own in his name? Do we really need an Act or Law to protect God from name-calling or the smearing of his Celestial reputation? Worse still, in case God doesn’t exist, how flat-out insane is it that we have established rules which defend the good name of a being that doesn’t exist; rules which in fact can punish someone for having belittled a being that doesn’t exist? In summary, either God exists or he doesn’t, and in both cases it’s utterly ridiculous that our freedom of speech is narrowed in favor of his Divine Status.
One might, of course, argue that such laws don’t really exist for God but instead for his followers, to protect them from all the emotional injuries sustained when we, irritating atheists, offend God. And that brings me back to what I wrote before. We’re so obsessed with hearing only positive things about ourselves, our loved ones, our culture, our heritage, our favourite actors, our gender, our pets, our sexual pleasures, our local sports team, our religion, … we’re actually willing to fight off potentially offensive words with fire and fury. We’re willing to kill for our nationalist, religious, cultural pride. We organize social course correction events like the infamous hashtag movements, completely outside the law I might add. When enough supporters can be found, we simply presume our retaliation is now law and we act on it. By the same token, when Ben Affleck pulls the “Islamophobia” card on television while Sam Harris is going through objectively collected statistics, an entire nation learns that it’s not okay to criticize, but it’s very much okay to criticize the critic. Thank you, Ben. More critics silenced by strawman fallacies.
We’re living in a time of “hyper-racial consciousness, insistence on female fragility and paranoid-philistinism” as SPIKED editor Brendan O’Neill so eloquently put it in an interview in which he also concluded that “people use progressive phrases to disguise reactionary agendas”. I can only agree with him. Our fixation with socio-political hygiene is blinding us from the bigger threat that’s staring us in the face: we are about to lose freedom of speech again, in its entirety. Voice an opinion about anything other than your cat and you’ll likely have “offended” someone. This is why you deliberately keep your voice down in a restaurant or at school these days. This is why you remain neutral in many debates and start every sentence with “I’m really not a sexist, but …”. This is why you carefully consider which books you probably shouldn’t be reading on the train, including “Tin-Tin in Africa” or “Live and Let Die”. But above all, this is why the topic of religion has become the new Holocaust. Only say what you know others want to hear or you will suffer severe consequences. “Acts” and in some countries “Laws” have already been instituted for the purpose of keeping our voices down when addressing “sensitive” subjects. Freedom of speech has become the new menstrual frustration: whether you laugh or cry, there will be blood.
I want to conclude by saying that these trends of late both anger, upset and frighten me, but only to some extent. I will continue to speak my mind, though wisely, and I have hopes for the future. Like so much else, this is a trend, a temporary thing. I strongly believe that societies always find a way to reach a new equilibrium, which is why societies that constantly try to stray off the path of normalcy are in a perpetual mess. No matter how repressive their laws and habits, people always strife towards something better. Angry youths go against their parents, financial interests always overrule ancient habits, and we’re fundamentally hungry for certain freedoms, including the freedom to bloody say whatever the hell we want. We will return to the point where no one tolerates an intellectual neutering that exists simply out of fear of offending some minority. In fact, the many hashtags that have been floating around the Internet for a few years now, have already aggravated enough people to, at least in my experience, gain more opponents than followers these days. And countries that used to suffer oppression by religious institutes almost always end up adopting a secularized society. But it will take some time to win our complete freedom back and more social media silliness, embassy attacks and hashtag cults will have to be endured before we get there. One thing we must never do, however, is endorse this repugnant defecation on one of the very principles on which our freedom is ultimately established. We have grown soft, disgustingly sensitive and above all incapable of sucking up criticism and doing something with it. Rather than understand what wise men and women are trying to say and act on their wisdom, we tremble at the mere thought of having been delicately affronted a.k.a. criticized. Like cowards, we hide behind the curtains of the always predictable Internet Consensus or the “right” of the offended to slay the offender in the name of some god, political correctness, anti-bigotry acts or whatever else there is. Sometimes, a joke is just a damn good joke; sometimes, a word of criticism is a very good opportunity to help build a better world; and sometimes, opinions just differ. And that’s also “just” okay.
And if I offend any of you, your culture, your god, the rest of your religion, your gender, your sexuality, … intentionally or not, by saying or writing something, then say or write something back if you must. I can take it. Just don’t be so bloody sensitive about it.
"Through the ages, the presence of the grave of Saint Servatius in the church crypt and the many relics in the church treasury, have drawn large numbers of pilgrims. Starting in the 14th century (but perhaps earlier) a seven-yearly pilgrimage was organized in cooperation with nearby Aachen Cathedral and Kornelimünster Abbey, attracting tens of thousands of visitors to the region. This so-called Heiligdomsvaart continued until 1632 when Maastricht became affiliated with the Dutch Republic (Capture of Maastricht). The Heiligdomsvaart was revived in the 19th century and the tradition continues in our days. The next Heiligdomsvaart will take place in July 2018.
Today, the Basilica of Saint Servatius is the main church of the Deanery of Maastricht, which belongs to the Diocese of Roermond. The church continues to be a center of Catholicism in Maastricht (the other main church being the Basilica of Our Lady). The church was made a Basilica Minor by Pope John Paul II during his visit in 1985."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/04/project-blitz-the-legislative-assault-by-christian-nationalists-to-reshape-america
PS I think the main issue is that certain sectors of our skillls have developed far faster than others. We can send a man to the moon, swap a heart, send a message around the World in milliseconds, clone a sheep etc etc
But in other areas, we are still doing the same things as our descendents thousands of years ago (dressing up and singing songs to invisible sky fairies). We have made little or no progress in dealing with our own inner fears. If we could deal with this area of our species, all of the other progress would come so much quicker.
Want to find a cure for cancer? Then spend no time and money of the sky fairy and more time on the science of medicine.
PPS I went to a BBQ of an old friend last weekend. She is around 50, a professional musician with a husband, 2 kids, 2 cars, cat, mortgage, etc all the trappings of a modern, Western liberal lifestyle. As I sat on the loo, I had a scan of the books on the shelf in the bathroon. Homeopathy for kids was a distinct theme amongst the titles. There we have it, THATS the issue. Outwardly perfectly normal, educated, mature adults openly sucked into to childish garbage and happy to reject all of the advances that science has brought to children over the decades. Whilst this stuff still exists, including religion, we can't really progress that far.
@patb Depressing. Dangerous even.
Entirely possible that they will achieve their aims because, like the NRA, they are organised and they have vast swathes of the population who would agree with them and pliable members of Congress who either support them or are easily swayed for fear of losing their seats.
I’m sorry what now? Ok let me ask something to Darth what is the Cambrian Explosion?
See I know what it is and why it dismantles Darwin’s argument but do you know what it is?
Also yes I agree micro evolution is a fact we are discussing Macro evolution and if you call that a fact well your wrong and need to stop teaching (or is it brainwashing) youth
Speaking of brainwashing Wizard show me one other cult in the history of the world that the disciples were not removed from society to keep the brainwashing up.
It dawned on me rereading Acts last night that the disciples didn’t go anywhere Jesus was curicfied died and was buried in Jerusalem and he disciples went straight to he Sandhedrian and told them they crucified the messiah. Again your cult theory doesn’t hold water because it’s not just the empty tomb it’s everything around that you need to explain including
Paul and James conversion to Christianity. Seriously it would be akin to the head of the FBI becoming a follower of Jim Jones. Or you becoming a Christian (science forbid).
But I am the crazy one. I ask simple questions and instead of answers I get ignorance and mocking replies if you all want to be children about this fine I can hurl insults as easy as you can but for actual debate I fear you all are running around in circles without looking at any scientific or historical evidence
@patb: Utterly terrifying!
And like I said ignored yet again
Well teacher here is what the Cambrian explosion is
The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation[1] was an event approximately 541 million years ago in the Cambrian period when most major animal phyla appeared in the fossil record.[2][3] It lasted for about 20[4][5]–25[6][7] million years.
Here is an obvious question how can ever major animal group appear at once but have the same ancestor?
And I guess that by your standards Mussolini was right to become a fascist as he no longer was a socialist. Maybe instead of reading the Acts you'd question and investigate their claims you'd improve your nonexistent investigation skills. Historical evidence indeed!
Again I am not talking 7 days I am talking no connections between the animal classes period.
Again Lud you make no sense you claim knowledge that everything we know about the first century is wrong but you don’t offer any proof
While I'm not a biologist and @DarthDimi can correct me if I'm wrong but this is not what the Cambrian Explosion is. Species did not appear ex nihilo: there was evolution before, during and after.
You are making a strawman again. The thing is everything we know about first century does not equal what's in Act of the Apostles. Which are a bunch of stories told for propaganda purposes written by biased people. There may be some truth in them or there may not. Even if Peter had written an hour after a meeting with the Sanhedrin what he said then and we had an original copy that was authenticated it would prove nothing but his own sincerity.
Please allow me some time. The exams are coming...
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jun/04/doctors-hail-world-first-as-womans-advanced-breast-cancer-is-eradicated
1. Doctors take biopsies of primary tumour and metastases.
2. Immune cells that have infiltrated the tumour tissue are extracted from biopsy material and grown in the billions in a lab.
3. Gene sequencing of the tumour tissue reveals the main mutations that characterise it.
4. Immune cells from tumour are screened to find those that target the cancer’s key mutations
5. These immune cells are infused back into patient where they attack and kill the cancer cells
Phew! What a palaver. Someone should tell these fools that you could just pray instead and get the same results.
Presumably if this therapy goes on to prove it's efficacy (only one case so far you see so science not having a ticker tape parade just yet, compared to religion which would declare one case enough for it to be 'proven') @Risico007 wouldn't want any of his female friends or realtives taking advantage of it given his contempt for science and his faith in God either curing them through the power of prayer or having a grand masterplan by giving them cancer in the first place which puny men shouldn't try to interfere with?