Jump to content
✨ STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE WORLD TOUR ✨

People who dont believe in evolution


bmillerlte

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

what frightens me most (and more than the pseudoscientific crap above) is the power that the evangelical right wing in America has gained in the last few years, and especially in relations to the ability to corrupt the minds of the young.

 

In all of this the deepy disturbing aspect is the 'fact' that religion is said to be an absolute truth. It is nothing of the sort. It is a social construct born out of a rapid growth in the human species in the last 250000 years, and especially in the last 25000, post-agriculturalisation. Monotheistic religions - such as Christianity, as the MOST recent incarnation for the need to explain the fundamental questions:

1. where do we come from

2. why are we here

3. where do we go when we die.

 

Science explains these well through evolution and empiricalism. Religion through the abdication of personal responsibility by the construction of a mythical being(s). What is most interesting about religion is the etyology of them, especially the flux from multiiconic religions tthrough to monotheistic (normally through quite bloody forced conversions and conquest)

 

Science's 'failing' is that it is based on the empirical accumulation of knowledge, and governed by the search for 'truth' by the constant testing and refining.... and in a lot of cases the abandoning of hypothesis. It is also a failing that they aren't as vociferous as others in progressing their views, just happy in the knowledge that another piece of the jigsaw is in place.

 

It is said that nothing is ever proven, only disproven.

 

The accumulation of knowledge has lead to a more complete understanding of the 'reality' we live in than ever before, and one that is becoming more complete as we progress. It is this absolute that is most frightening to the religeous fundamentalists - of whatever persuasion.

 

My greatest sadness is the way in which society has developed in such a way that religeon is ingrained into society, but that, ironically, is a result more of our evolution and the way our senses perceive our outside world, and the way in which we interact with each other and our surroundings.

 

Oh, yes and I do have the right, and background to say this. A degree and PhD say so. And I haven't even go to the bad science above!

 

point2? You haven't even taken into account magnetic polar shift. North and south aren't always as they are, and polar regions have 'flipped' numerous times in the last few million years. Magnetic fields by their nature aren't constant.

 

"EARTH'S ROTATION

The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth. "

 

- The earth is deformed. The equitorial circumference is larger than the polar circumference.

 

"8. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION

Evolutionists like to tell us that at least thousands of years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you guessed it, Noah's flood. "

 

You can make artificial diamonds like this as well. Proves nothing. This is a known chemical process of vhigh pressure molecular rearrangement using pure seeded starting products. Fossils require certain optimal conditions which is why the're not common, or evenly spread. They occur most prevalently around the edges of ancient seas, and in areas of ancient high tectonic activity. What's this obsession with Noah's ark? Remember that at the supposed time of writing ~300-5000 years ago post-agricultural society was in it's infancy and the population at the time was numbered globally in the 100000's. Noah's 'flood' has been geologically traced to the breaching of the Gibraltan straights due to increased sea levels at the end of the last Ice Age. It is far more likely to be a locally catastrophic flooding event... other non-religeous societies also document cases like this in their passed down history

 

"12. DINOSAURS

Evolutionists insist that dinosaurs died out millions of years before man appeared. However, there are many reasons to disbelieve this. There are the stories of animals much like dinosaurs in the legends of many lands. These creatures were called dragons.

 

Many times in the recent past, explorers have recorded sightings of flying reptiles much like the pterodactyl. Human footprints were found along with those of a dinosaur in limestone near the Paluxy River in Texas.

 

Also not to be tossed aside is the possibility of dinosaurs living today. Consider the stories such as the Loch Ness monster (of which many convincing photographs have been taken). Some have claimed to see dinosaur-like creatures in isolated areas of the world.

 

Recently, a Japanese fishing boat pulled up a carcass of a huge animal that intensely resembled a dinosaur. A group of scientists on an expedition into a jungle looking for dinosaur evidence claims that they witnessed one, but their camera was damaged.

 

However, they tape recorded the roar of the beast. This recording was checked. The voice patterns on it did not resemble those of any other roaring. You decide. At any rate, the evidence that man and dinosaur did live together at one time poses another problem for the evolutionists. "

 

Oh, dear.

 

"SUN'S DIAMETER

The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago. "

Remember that the sun is a nuclear furnace, and not normal combustion. Oh, and in about 3.5billion years the sun will go Nova and swallow up all the planets upto Mars. Where will god be then??

 

"The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

 

*Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

 

Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."

 

See my point about scientific 'fact'. Creationists argument is that scientists have said Darwin's theory of natural Selection was wrong and that the srgument is leaning in the direction of creationism. Couldn't be further from the case. Darwinian theory has been refined, expanded on, and increased, as is the case for scientific testing by empirical methods. The predictions by Mendel have been borne out. The theory was pre- discovery of DNA, but the theory predicted it's existence. The whole area of genetics really debunks the creationists arguments with a 4letter code that is more eleoquent than any evangelical fervour can come up with.

....

 

"Evolutionists talk fondly of the "one-celled organism" that started it all, but what they don't mention is the fact that it is impossible for such an organism to appear by natural causes. There are complex functions and parts needed to work in harmony with one another in even the simplest of living things. Unless all these parts were arranged and "turned on" at one time, life would never begin. Hence, it is necessary that some "Intelligent Designer" fit those parts together. By way of example, consider the human eye. The eye has thousands of nerve endings, millions of cells, all working in harmony with one another to send information to the brain, which is then interpreted in the mind as images. It would be impossible for an eye to develop piece-by-piece, for each individual element of the eye would be worthless without all the rest already in place. Thus, they eye must have been formed instantaneously by some "organizer", not randomly thrown together by the chance forces of nature. "

 

We're talking about the cumulative effects of 3.5billion+ years here (and including the estimated 2.5 of that where life was impossible). Spread open your arms... from left to your nose., nothing existed. At your wrist the dinosaurs became extinct. The last segment of your index finger, the reign of mammals and human evolution. The tip of your nail... society as we know it. Put's it all into perspective. the creationists arguments really resolve around the limited ability of the human brain to comprehend linear time.

 

getting bored now... Many of the major players in the genetical/darwinian group won't get into these kinds of discussiions, not because they are afraid of losing the argument... as if. But because literally by doing so it appears to give credence the creationists arguments by them being on the same platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

like half of america doesnt believe in it because it "contradicts" the bible' date=' and some states are trying to replace teaching of evolution with the christian based theory, intelligent design (basically an attempt to make creationism scientific). What do you all think bout this? personally i'm embarrassed, the rest of the world is lauging at us (america).[/quote']

 

Sounds more like the kind of brainwashing The Scientologists might come up with.

See what I mean about ALL religious extremists being equally as dangerous??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just like people beleived long ago the earth was the center of the universe, evolution too will be proven wrong, ive seen even more evidence then i put down agaisnt it, it amazes me with all the evidence agaisnt it people still believe it and want to teach it in school! but people will believe just about anything that goes agaisnt religion, all evolution is, is the scientific community's anwer to creatism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry man but your stubbornness amazes me mooore.

 

Geocentric conception was based in beliefs of people in that time... not with the scientific method we have now. If scientists take evolution as a valid theory is because there's overwhelming evidence to prove it. END.

 

And good luck with all your points against it... :idea2: with a bit of luck and those lucid arguments you will make collapse the fundaments of modern biology by others that include creationism. ;) Just keep persevering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all I have to say for you. No more.

 

And good luck with all your points against it... :idea2: with a bit of luck and those lucid arguments you will make collapse the fundaments of modern biology by others that include creationism. ;) Just keep persevering on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol I am no more stubborn then you, its quite ignorant to call peopel stubborn like that when we are argueing something that is not fact. if it was a fact, a proven fact with lots of evidence then i would be stubborn. but its not its a theory, and ive show lots of evidence against it, so please stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

none of that shit proved anything in your opinion. The question is, can you prove creationism with HARD EVIDENCE without trying to debunk evolution. We didnt want you to prove evolution wrong, we wanted you to do was to give evidence of your theory WITHOUT REFUTING ANY OTHER THEORIES. We've presented evidence for our opinion, all you have done is presented so called (and not correctly so) fallicies of evolution. And this time, can you at least summarize what you find on the internet instead of copying and pasting. Im sure your smarter than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok man, whatever. I know that deep down there is a little part of you wondering, just wondering if maybe all of these other people may be right. You are surrounded with the obviousness of evolution everyday but because of your religion, you are unwilling to see this as fact. And don't tell me it's not your religion that makes you believe that way. That is the only logical explanation for your disbelief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a theory eh?

 

Fundaments of Chemistry, physics and biochemistry? atomic theory. Something nobody has seen, but it explains perfectly our universe.

 

Same with Relativity of Einstein... a theory isn't something imaginative, mrcool.

 

Okay I'll stop. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

evolution, is just a theory, its not a fact, its never been proven. it may be true, but its not proven, and as of now ive seen more evidence agaisnt it then for it. calling someone stubbonr because they dont believe in your beliefs is childish, if it was fact and i didnt agree with it then i would be stubborn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just like people beleived long ago the earth was the center of the universe' date=' evolution too will be proven wrong, ive seen even more evidence then i put down agaisnt it, it amazes me with all the evidence agaisnt it people still believe it and want to teach it in school! but people will believe just about anything that goes agaisnt religion, all evolution is, is the scientific community's anwer to creatism.[/quote']

 

They also beleived the earth was flat, until the first 'scientists' the ancient greeks debunkes that one. Astronomy has really put us in our place... and into perspective.

 

I'm afraid you've got the last comment totally the wrong way round. Scientific theory was around before doctrinated religeon. The scientific community doesn't have to disprove creationism... it'll do that on it's own.

 

The problem is that doctrinated religeon is just that. It's fixed. It suffocates the reality of the wonders of the natural world by having to wrap it up in a convenient package of 'the creator'.

 

If the argument is to ban teaching of evolution, then that should be across the board for all 'theories' of where we come from, including religeon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes a theory is not a fact but is taken as valid since it explains what still has no empiric explanation. Btw I still keep saying there's overwhelming evidence, might be you aren't well informed about the theory or scientific work in general, I'd recomend you to read about it. I remember an excelent article of the theory in general in the National Geographic magazine of November last year. ;)

 

About the stubborn, I'm sorry but you cannot go against facts. If I was you I'd investigate more before defending it or going against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

evolution' date=' is just a theory, its not a fact, its never been proven. it may be true, but its not proven, and as of now ive seen more evidence agaisnt it then for it. calling someone stubbonr because they dont believe in your beliefs is childish, if it was fact and i didnt agree with it then i would be stubborn.[/quote']

 

See my post in scientific testing and empirical hypothesis.

 

I've still yet to see any evidence for creationism apart from the logicless statement that the world is all so wonderfull that there must be a creator.

 

Be realistic, were one organic lifeform on a pretty fragile rock spinning around a pretty mediocre sun.

 

Human arogance, especially into thinking were so superior to other species amazes me. I don't think the virus strain that will eventually wipe out a large chunk of humanity (excluding aids which is doing that now) will really care about our belief systems. The selfish gene will win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

evolution' date=' is just a theory, its not a fact, its never been proven. it may be true, but its not proven, and as of now ive seen more evidence agaisnt it then for it. calling someone stubbonr because they dont believe in your beliefs is childish, if it was fact and i didnt agree with it then i would be stubborn.[/quote']

 

See my post in scientific testing and empirical hypothesis.

 

I've still yet to see any evidence for creationism apart from the logicless statement that the world is all so wonderfull that there must be a creator.

 

Be realistic, were one organic lifeform on a pretty fragile rock spinning around a pretty mediocre sun.

 

Human arogance, especially into thinking were so superior to other species amazes me. I don't think the virus strain that will eventually wipe out a large chunk of humanity (excluding aids which is doing that now) will really care about our belief systems. The selfish gene will win.

 

Yikes, tifosi, that's a terribly grim outlook, have at least a little faith, even if it's only in your fellow man. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

evolution' date=' is just a theory, its not a fact, its never been proven. it may be true, but its not proven, and as of now ive seen more evidence agaisnt it then for it. calling someone stubbonr because they dont believe in your beliefs is childish, if it was fact and i didnt agree with it then i would be stubborn.[/quote']

 

See my post in scientific testing and empirical hypothesis.

 

I've still yet to see any evidence for creationism apart from the logicless statement that the world is all so wonderfull that there must be a creator.

 

Be realistic, were one organic lifeform on a pretty fragile rock spinning around a pretty mediocre sun.

 

Human arogance, especially into thinking were so superior to other species amazes me. I don't think the virus strain that will eventually wipe out a large chunk of humanity (excluding aids which is doing that now) will really care about our belief systems. The selfish gene will win.

 

Yikes, tifosi, that's a terribly grim outlook, have at least a little faith, even if it's only in your fellow man. ;)

 

Ah, but that's part of my point. Once you cut to the chase you can enjoy nature, science, and for what it is without the blinkers we force on people.

 

Just a hardened realist. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8. PEPPERED MOTH

 

There are two varieties - the light and the dark. Elimination of the light variety is NOT evolution. They are still Peppered Moths. Kettlewell's experiments were specifically designed to get the results he wanted and were seriously flawed. Results contradicting his evolutionary views were ignored.

 

but that thing was one of the things that proved natural selection was true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

evolution' date=' is just a theory, its not a fact, its never been proven. it may be true, but its not proven, and as of now ive seen more evidence agaisnt it then for it. calling someone stubbonr because they dont believe in your beliefs is childish, if it was fact and i didnt agree with it then i would be stubborn.[/quote']

 

See my post in scientific testing and empirical hypothesis.

 

I've still yet to see any evidence for creationism apart from the logicless statement that the world is all so wonderfull that there must be a creator.

 

Be realistic, were one organic lifeform on a pretty fragile rock spinning around a pretty mediocre sun.

 

Human arogance, especially into thinking were so superior to other species amazes me. I don't think the virus strain that will eventually wipe out a large chunk of humanity (excluding aids which is doing that now) will really care about our belief systems. The selfish gene will win.

 

Yikes, tifosi, that's a terribly grim outlook, have at least a little faith, even if it's only in your fellow man. ;)

 

 

I think Tifosi was just quoting from the book "The Selfish Gene"... Go check it out if you've never seen it, it's interesting ;)

 

 

Personally, I think it's interesting that nature may inherently be "selfish" in preserving its own interests even to the point of altruism towards others as explained by the book. In this context, even apparent altruism towards others may have a selfish motive :o While I agree that you can certainly see this "selfish gene" at work in our world, I'm not so sure by what / whose hand... God-believers say God, Scientists say science (in a way its own religion ;)), agnostics say of our own will... Who knows?

 

This will have been argued many times and I'm sure will be familiar to many but I'm surprised that no one has put forward in this thread that evolutionary science and God (not a rigid, institutionalised religious one, but just one based on a higher being working unseen hands) can co-exist in harmony. Is it not possible that God gave the spark and building blocks that started life while letting life as we know it continue evolving of its own course; and maybe, just maybe occasionally interfere in life's affairs? I myself am not even inclined to say that I believe in what is called God - I prefer to call that force nature - but I would emphatically agree that it is logical both may co-exist and compliment each other this way.

 

As has been debated and concluded by many scientists themselves: science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God - only "his creations" - while those bent on a fixed God will never be able to overturn all the evidence in support of science that lies around us... Yet there are those who cannot reconcile themselves with both these facts. Must strife again prevail? I'm not referring to the discussive tone of this site :), but time and again, human history has shown the path this kind of disagreement tends to take us- much blood has been shed before and probably will be shed again, though maybe in less obvious ways.

 

And whatever the case, whoever is "right" doesn't matter. Like Tifosi says (quoting Tifosi a lot ;) ), in the end all that remains of us will just be a speck of dust in the universe. If there is someone now who could travel into the future to that point in time when we no longer exist and reflect on the history of mankind, he/she would realise that anything we say/believe now won't matter... Not in the grand scheme of things (as all things end anyway), not to others, not to our egotistical selves. He/She would probably find that it is more important that we live life, appreciate it, and try to help (or at least not make life miserable for) others while we're still here...

 

Which brings me to my point: argue and debate for all the world - we all know it won't matter; but do not make life more hurtful for others than it already is since our actions are the one thing we can control and coz it is the NOW and also our interaction with the world around us that matters and makes life meaningful/important to ourselves. Sorry if I came across like a mod / your mother / too goddamn self-righteous - in addition to going some way off the topic of discussion. This post is far too long... Didn't mean to fingerpoint at anyone in particular but I just had to say what I had to say about name-calling and taking what is expressed here too seriously :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eloquently put. Humanity has a need to put a label on everything we percieve through our senses. Light/Dark, sweet/sour, danger/safe. It's the product of our evolutionary background and the fight for survival which is inherent in the development of any competing species. The natural world shows this in a multiple forms - 'nature red in tooth and claw'

 

The need for a belief system follows that patterm. It is unfortunately very naieve in its simplicity and it's need for polarisation of those labels... the conflict between religious groups bears that out.

 

The argument that science's search for truth (essentially the core definition for a religeon) has lead some (usually non-scientists) to term science as its own religeon, with the search for truth the belief system. With this they can say there's no difference between religeon and science, essentially science validating religion as a partner in that search. It's a politically correct thought which nullifies the debate.

 

I don't consider this valid. Faith is belief without evidence. Science doesn't deal in faith. The beliefs of science are the temporary hypotheses that scientific knowledge builds on.

 

Science deals in probabilities. For a scientific hypothesis to be accepted it must repeatable (by peers) bases on a technical specification (or experiment). Only by rigorous examination and a statistical significance can it be 'proved'. But then it is still only a significant probablility. That is the nature of science.

 

It is one the media hang on, who only deal in black and white, so when some experimental evidence comes out which has a high probability of statistical probability, there is always confision over whether it is 'fact' or not.

 

It's a dificult one, but I draw the line when the religeous right condemn scientists for 'playing God'. We're not, were just using the tools at out disposal to further the development of the human species.

 

Science and religeion aren't the flip side of the same coin.

 

Yes, I was quoting the work of Richard dawkins. I urge sceptics to read his works. They're hard going but will open your eyes. The works of Steve Jones, R Gould, Richard Sykes are also worth looking at.

 

Doctrinated religeon has been the glue that has held societies heirarchy in place. But globalisation and post-technological age we're living in today is driving society into a secular pattern, especially in first-world countries, which is leading to the fear of change pattern in first-world religeons (primarily christianity in its various forms) and the apostacy/heresy patterns of third-world religeons (primarily islam).

 

Religeon and politics are the bane of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. You've been quite succinct yourself ;)

 

I don't consider this valid. Faith is belief without evidence. Science doesn't deal in faith. The beliefs of science are the temporary hypotheses that scientific knowledge builds on.

 

While science isn't built on faith as strongly as most religions, faith does still deal its hand in science... 1) Whenceforth the hypotheses come if not from faith/belief in something that might be proven right (even if it's based on past findings/evidence)? 2) The toils of many scientists over many long years have often come to naught yet these people still continue their work. Faith there assuredly is, just not blind faith.

 

Science and religion aren't the flip side of the same coin.

 

In a way they are... Look deeper. Both serve to explain the meaning of life. The way they operate and the basics on which both are based on may differ vastly but us humans invented them so that we could explain and convince ourselves of our origins and purposes here. Both deal very strongly in belief based on what we can perceive - religion in witnessed miracles as well as the miracles of life; science in observations of phenomena. Both ascribe to expounding what is called "the truth" whether or not believers/non-believers subscribe to it - one can choose whether or not to believe, but "the truth" will still be true.

 

And from a societal point of view, both religion and science serve the same master to keep society in order: societies are made up of individuals and both fall into chaos when the individuals in it are discontent / fearful... Fear and discontent come when people lose their place and this is prevented via social hierarchies (in society) and by individuals gaining understanding of the nature of life thus finding purpose. Both science and religion attempt to explain our origins- so help keeping society in order although social heirarchy is consciously maintained by religion and not science. Even then, science may determine hierarchies when politics come into the mix and politicians use science for their own ends... Witness the eugenics movement.

 

Doctrinated religeon has been the glue that has held societies heirarchy in place. But globalisation and post-technological age we're living in today is driving society into a secular pattern, especially in first-world countries, which is leading to the fear of change pattern in first-world religeons (primarily christianity in its various forms) and the apostacy/heresy patterns of third-world religeons (primarily islam).

 

Religeon and politics are the bane of society.

 

I agree to a certain extent though I would argue that the real evil here is politics. Science is lucky in that so far it has been impervious to politics due to its impersonal nature of dealing with cold hard facts. There have been times when individuals misused these "facts" for their own agendas (eugenics again) and politics tangled with science but inevitably science always untangles itself from politics over time as observable trends in nature do not bow to the wills of individuals. Unfortunately for organised religion, politics and religion have always gone hand in hand... Where politics go, quest for power/control follow. Organised religion is an obvious target - by virtue of looking for the personal truth, the followers of organised religion are more susceptible to manipulation by others who purport to tell the truth.

 

As such, I would agree that politics (and by that extention- religion too since the association cannot be avoided) is the bane of society. On the other hand, individuals need something to believe in / hold on to (as you've said yourself). Thus that religion and politics will spill into societal affairs would be very hard to avoid. Awareness and a conscious will not to be manipulated would therefore do a world of good to followers of religions. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...