OT: The Avalounge: Mmm... Steamed Yams!

[McMetal]

A phenomena might be well understood, but it can still be up for debate. Science isn't 100% accurate in all things that are studied.

You mentioned "evolution is real" - that can be debated until the end of time because science does not have definitive, 100% proof of it. It can be even further debated when pitted against religious beliefs.

All I'm saying is, don't antagonize people if they aren't big believers in science - and anything in life, really - just because it's what you believe in.

I don't argue with people who think soccer is a better sport than hockey, because that's a matter of opinion. I BELIEVE hockey is a better and more interesting sport, but I won't look down at somebody who appreciates soccer more, because that's their preference. I don't look down on people who like rap music, or sushi, or like to drive fast cars, either. Those are all completely valid points of view that I happen to not share, but respect nonetheless.

But something like "Evolution is real" isn't the same thing. It's an exhaustively documented subject (genetic studies have 100% conclusively proven that evolution has happened). Perhaps if someone doesn't understand the evidence, they might think otherwise, but if they're not willing to educate themselves about what the facts are, their "opinion" about evolution is not valid when it comes from a place of ignorance.

 

[McMetal]

It certainly isn't GOAT level, but Cracklin Oat Bran is about as underrated as it gets. Top 5, easily.

That stuff is SO good. I don't buy it often, because it's expensive for a little box when I could buy a giant box of something else for cheaper, but every once in a while I treat myself.

 

[henchman21]

That stuff is SO good. I don't buy it often, because it's expensive for a little box when I could buy a giant box of something else for cheaper, but every once in a while I treat myself.

I think people disregard it because it looks like a healthy cereal to stay 'regular'... when in fact it is oatmeal cookie crack in cereal form.

 

[The Abusement Park]

It certainly isn't GOAT level, but Cracklin Oat Bran is about as underrated as it gets. Top 5, easily.

Are you looking through my cereal cabinet right now? I’ll also throw Golden Grahams in the mix as I also think they’re quite underrated.

 

[Foppberg]

I like to pour a bowl of Honey bunch of oats and the add honey Roasted Peanuts into it.

No milk though.

 

[The Abusement Park]

I like to pour a bowl of Honey bunch of oats and the add honey Roasted Peanuts into it.

No milk though.

Damn... that sounds really good actually.

 

[Foppberg]

Damn... that sounds really good actually.

It's great. Between that and my chocolate Almond protein smoothie I'm able to keep my sugar tooth and chocolate addiction at bay.

 

[S E P H]

Don't you wish we had mods who didn't have lives?

 

[McMetal]

Don't you wish we had mods who didn't have lives?

I have no life, but I'm as guilty as anyone else here.

 

[Frenchy]

Don't you wish we had mods who didn't have lives?

yes ? What can i do for you buddy ?

 

[dahrougem2]

I don't argue with people who think soccer is a better sport than hockey, because that's a matter of opinion. I BELIEVE hockey is a better and more interesting sport, but I won't look down at somebody who appreciates soccer more, because that's their preference. I don't look down on people who like rap music, or sushi, or like to drive fast cars, either. Those are all completely valid points of view that I happen to not share, but respect nonetheless.

But something like "Evolution is real" isn't the same thing. It's an exhaustively documented subject (genetic studies have 100% conclusively proven that evolution has happened). Perhaps if someone doesn't understand the evidence, they might think otherwise, but if they're not willing to educate themselves about what the facts are, their "opinion" about evolution is not valid when it comes from a place of ignorance.

Depends on what type of evolution you're talking. Because if the evolution you're talking about is anything remotely related to Darwinism then no, it's not 100% conclusively proven. Not even close.

 

[McMetal]

Depends on what type of evolution you're talking. Because if the evolution you're talking about is anything remotely related to Darwinism then no, it's not 100% conclusively proven. Not even close.

Yes, Darwinian, macro evolution has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Your ignorance of the proof does not invalidate it.

Science does not require you to personally understand it in order to be true. I don't understand quantum mechanics. I have tried, I've had it explained to me like I'm five by some very smart people who got degrees in it, but I only get the very fuzzy basics of it. Nonetheless, I accept that smarter people than me have worked on it and yes, electrons can be in multiple places at once in a probability field. My lack of understanding doesn't make it not true. That's how science works, it isn't subject to anyone's personal opinion.

 

[UncleRisto]

Depends on what type of evolution you're talking. Because if the evolution you're talking about is anything remotely related to Darwinism then no, it's not 100% conclusively proven. Not even close.

Sure, the current knowledge of cosmology and evolutionary theory is limited and open to debate in some ways, but that doesn't mean for example, that creationism hasn't been disproved as a scientific theory.

 

[dahrougem2]

Yes, Darwinian, macro evolution has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Your ignorance of the proof does not invalidate it.

Science does not require you to personally understand it in order to be true. I don't understand quantum mechanics. I have tried, I've had it explained to me like I'm five by some very smart people who got degrees in it, but I only get the very fuzzy basics of it. Nonetheless, I accept that smarter people than me have worked on it and yes, electrons can be in multiple places at once in a probability field. My lack of understanding doesn't make it not true. That's how science works, it isn't subject to anyone's personal opinion.

This is way, way too big of a topic for us to undertake but I'll just say that I believe you're wrong, because I value religion over science, and always will. And you probably believe I'm wrong. And that's ok for us to disagree.

But the main point from the beginning that I was trying to make was antagonizing someone for having different beliefs does nothing positive.

 

[MonsterMack]

Antagonizing someone in person and antagonizing someone on a random message board are two very different things.

I don't really care what nonsense someone believes in as long as it isn't harmful to other people, which Djokovic's anti-vax beliefs certainly are. And frankly some beliefs just invite mockery.

 

[McMetal]

This is way, way too big of a topic for us to undertake but I'll just say that I believe you're wrong, because I value religion over science, and always will. And you probably believe I'm wrong. And that's ok for us to disagree.

But the main point from the beginning that I was trying to make was antagonizing someone for having different beliefs does nothing positive.

The problem with science vs. religion is that the two sides do not speak the same language. Religion speaks the language of belief, of having faith in things you cannot see or touch. Religion is about all of the things that CANNOT be proven. Science is about ONLY the things you can prove. If the hypothesis isn't testable, and those results can't be repeated, it isn't something that science can give an answer to. Science can't test souls or afterlives or miracles, so any attempt to apply science to that field is going to be instantly futile.

But it's important to remember that the reverse is also true. Religion can't be applied to testable data and frameworks for the fundamental mechanics of the world around us on an equal footing with science. It should be reserved for the metaphysical questions that individuals have about their own lives and personal experiences, the things that science can't touch. But for the material, physical world we share, science does have to have the upper hand. If you think diseases are caused by God's judgement and not microscopic organisms, you're wrong, because you're attempting to force religion into science's world, the same way a scientist would be on a fool's errand if he tried to mathematically prove you don't have a soul.

If you are religious and want to explore that side of the question of "What are we all doing here?" I won't judge you. Religion answers questions science doesn't ask. But the questions that science CAN answer should be left to the scientists.

 

[PAZ]

I think part of the issue is that there are a lot of assumptions going on. I personally have not have studied religion or have spent countless hours of my life devoting myself to a religion - thus I don't think it's fair to say what the meaning of religion is, especially when it can be different for each person. I also don't think a science vs religion debate is ever productive, as both topics are very rigid by nature.

Science isn't 100% accurate and facts do constantly change as the years pass. Things that we believed to be true based on science were no longer valid based off of newer studies. I think what @dahrougem2 is trying to say is that science isn't completely accurate either. For example I 100% believe in evolution, but I also don't think it's wrong for others to not completely believe it in as well. Both god creating life and evolution are theories that are able to coincide together.

 

[UncleRisto]

Both god creating life and evolution are theories that are able to coincide together.

This is the thing. Natural science and theology can coincide because they aren't even nearly adjacent, as religion is a cultural phenomenon. I'm Christian and I'm aware of the cultural artifacts Christianity has produced. Personally, this has no bearing on my worldview outside of "this is my interpretation of this cultural information". This is why religious theory and scientific theory can coincide and two scientific theories on the same matter cannot.

 

[Foppberg]

I've never been a religious person, or a believer in any higher power, I'm more of an agnostic if anything. So for me science is in a completely different category from any belief, it's part of the system that governs and explains our world and entire existence. Religion on the other hand gives people a feeling of purpose, community, etc. Two totally different roles from each other.

 

[Ceremony]

If you don't believe vaccines work and don't have or want them that's fine, but you shouldn't be allowed to use any public services or enter any enclosed spaces while you're a walking health risk to everyone else.

 

[PAZ]

If you don't believe vaccines work and don't have or want them that's fine, but you shouldn't be allowed to use any public services or enter any enclosed spaces while you're a walking health risk to everyone else.

I agree, I wish there was a system where people could sign a waiver - if they don't want to give their kid vaccines, wear a mask, social distance, etc. that's fine. But if your family comes down with anything you're on your own.

 

[Ceremony]

Vaccines don't cause autism, m8.

 

[Hasbro]

Vaccines don't cause autism, m8.

And if they did, what does it say that you'd rather your kids be dead than autistic?

 

[dahrougem2]

The problem with science vs. religion is that the two sides do not speak the same language. Religion speaks the language of belief, of having faith in things you cannot see or touch. Religion is about all of the things that CANNOT be proven. Science is about ONLY the things you can prove. If the hypothesis isn't testable, and those results can't be repeated, it isn't something that science can give an answer to. Science can't test souls or afterlives or miracles, so any attempt to apply science to that field is going to be instantly futile.

But it's important to remember that the reverse is also true. Religion can't be applied to testable data and frameworks for the fundamental mechanics of the world around us on an equal footing with science. It should be reserved for the metaphysical questions that individuals have about their own lives and personal experiences, the things that science can't touch. But for the material, physical world we share, science does have to have the upper hand. If you think diseases are caused by God's judgement and not microscopic organisms, you're wrong, because you're attempting to force religion into science's world, the same way a scientist would be on a fool's errand if he tried to mathematically prove you don't have a soul.

If you are religious and want to explore that side of the question of "What are we all doing here?" I won't judge you. Religion answers questions science doesn't ask. But the questions that science CAN answer should be left to the scientists.

This statement right here is where we fundamentally differ. Because in order for one to be devoutly religious, especially with regard to Islam, we must believe that all things come from God - good and bad.

It's ok if you think of science in the way that you do. I'm sure there are a lot of posters on here that would side with you on that.

It doesn't make you right and me wrong. It just means our belief systems are different.

Keep in mind, this doesn't mean I dismiss science. On the contrary, I believe in science - but I believe in it as a reinforcement of my religion.

A concept like Darwinism is something I vehemently reject, based on my faith, not based on a disbelief in science.

 

[Balthazar]

It doesn't make you right and me wrong. It just means our belief systems are different..

Do you believe in the color red? Do you believe in gravity? Do you believe that water boils at 100°C?

Science is not a belief, it's a language to explain how nature works. You cannot cherry pick scientific facts.