Religion, Darwinism, Creationism and cu20052003ism
- Thread starter cu20052003
- Start date
- Watchers 11
Quite often the short and simple posts say so much and make an awful lot of sense.
You are right yacarob1 I think one of the reasons it (religion) is here due to our fear about death, most of us humans are afraid of something that we know nothing about. We know nothing about death therefore most of us are afraid of it.
Ian Hunter (singer/songwriter) wrote a song called 'God Take One' which is about God talking to his mind and one of God's replies to him about religion said 'there's no religion, you did that, it helps to keep your little leaders fat'.
Never a truer word said, religion is also about money, power and control. If you give the people some sort of comfort about where they go when they die then you also have power over them, you have control over them and you in turn get rich from.
Nice post yacarob1, I agree if you don't fear death then I would guess most of us have no need for religion.
If you get comfort from religion then fine but I think it should be a private thing and we should all respect someone else's right to believe in whatever they want.
Unfortunately many religions do not accept other points of view and many also condone killing none believers. The Quran is probably the worst for this claiming that they should strike terror to all who disbelieve their faith which is utterly ridiculous.
Lastly many of these religions are all the same, they all purport to believe in the same story anyway so why should they bicker and fight about it. Numerous religions believe in a character (like Jesus) who was born on 25th December, a virgin birth, who lectured at the age of 13, performed miracles, had 12 disciples, died on the cross and rose after death. Egyption religions like Horas is almost identical to the Christian religion.
Visit Zeitgeist - The Movie and watch the video, very interesting stuff.
Be happy
Cofton
You are right yacarob1 I think one of the reasons it (religion) is here due to our fear about death, most of us humans are afraid of something that we know nothing about. We know nothing about death therefore most of us are afraid of it.
Ian Hunter (singer/songwriter) wrote a song called 'God Take One' which is about God talking to his mind and one of God's replies to him about religion said 'there's no religion, you did that, it helps to keep your little leaders fat'.
Never a truer word said, religion is also about money, power and control. If you give the people some sort of comfort about where they go when they die then you also have power over them, you have control over them and you in turn get rich from.
Nice post yacarob1, I agree if you don't fear death then I would guess most of us have no need for religion.
If you get comfort from religion then fine but I think it should be a private thing and we should all respect someone else's right to believe in whatever they want.
Unfortunately many religions do not accept other points of view and many also condone killing none believers. The Quran is probably the worst for this claiming that they should strike terror to all who disbelieve their faith which is utterly ridiculous.
Lastly many of these religions are all the same, they all purport to believe in the same story anyway so why should they bicker and fight about it. Numerous religions believe in a character (like Jesus) who was born on 25th December, a virgin birth, who lectured at the age of 13, performed miracles, had 12 disciples, died on the cross and rose after death. Egyption religions like Horas is almost identical to the Christian religion.
Visit Zeitgeist - The Movie and watch the video, very interesting stuff.
Be happy
Cofton
rawrschach
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,223
- Likes
- 277
Except that most Eastern philosophies (Shinto, Seikh, Buddhist etc) are based on the lack of fear and embracing death; I don't want to talk about the middle eastern ones 'cuz I don't understand them - there seems to a huge gulf between the organised face presented to the world and people that practice it privately.
To put it simply people live according to what the see/hear etc - these ways of life revolve around meditation etc - if they are getting these insights and ideas by this process and believing them and living them as the 'truth' doesn't make it any less true for them just because you dont believe it.
In the same way your lack of belief in these things doesn't make your life any less 'true' for you. I'd say that we live according to what we believe to be true fundamentally not what we tell ourselves we believe or what we would like to believe.
Regarding absolute truth - none of us knows sh*t.
temptrader
Well-known member
- Messages
- 393
- Likes
- 55
in the old days when man was a hunter gatherer he depended on crops and seasons, he kept records, did anything it took to survive. there were things that he could not understand so the tendency to put a "God" into the mix was there. Some societies still offer sacrifices to the "Gods" for a good harvest or a safe journey, things become ritualistic.
As mankind progressed technologically, his understanding of his world deepened, and hence more and more individuals called religion into question. There was no need to offer the explanation that the God were angry and that's why there were droughts this season, it's more that we know what the cause was and the mystery was gone.
AgentZ86, I challenge you to produce more evidence for this gene since it appears to me you know nothing about the basics of DNA. If this gene is what you claim, then a lot of scientists would be interested in harnessing it's power as a possible cure for cancer, since cancer is due to DNA being copied wrongly or messed up chemically or by radiation, sending rogue instructions in creation of cells. Even if this gene did what you say it does, it still cannot prevent DNA from mutating since Quantum Mechanical effects cause DNA mutations over time.
I heard that the Pope told Hawking not to examine/research what happened before the Big Bang since that was God's business. It's stuff like that, that makes me feel sorry for the human race. We get to where we are by questioning, by experimenting, by getting rid of things that simply are not true. If Quantum Mechanics, or Electrodynamics were contrary to religious texts, then these religions would be all over them like a bad rash.
I have an idea for a film/book along philosophical/psychological lines: We have a human who's religious and a God character, and during the whole film this God tries everything to prove to the human that he really is the one and only God. This God does everything, every miracle, every impossible stunt, etc. . . to try and convince the human. But the human is not convinced, because he has "faith" in something else and he see the God as another hoax . . . . that's the human condition, and I guarantee that's what most religious people would be like if their God turned out not to be their God but another religion's.
As mankind progressed technologically, his understanding of his world deepened, and hence more and more individuals called religion into question. There was no need to offer the explanation that the God were angry and that's why there were droughts this season, it's more that we know what the cause was and the mystery was gone.
AgentZ86, I challenge you to produce more evidence for this gene since it appears to me you know nothing about the basics of DNA. If this gene is what you claim, then a lot of scientists would be interested in harnessing it's power as a possible cure for cancer, since cancer is due to DNA being copied wrongly or messed up chemically or by radiation, sending rogue instructions in creation of cells. Even if this gene did what you say it does, it still cannot prevent DNA from mutating since Quantum Mechanical effects cause DNA mutations over time.
I heard that the Pope told Hawking not to examine/research what happened before the Big Bang since that was God's business. It's stuff like that, that makes me feel sorry for the human race. We get to where we are by questioning, by experimenting, by getting rid of things that simply are not true. If Quantum Mechanics, or Electrodynamics were contrary to religious texts, then these religions would be all over them like a bad rash.
I have an idea for a film/book along philosophical/psychological lines: We have a human who's religious and a God character, and during the whole film this God tries everything to prove to the human that he really is the one and only God. This God does everything, every miracle, every impossible stunt, etc. . . to try and convince the human. But the human is not convinced, because he has "faith" in something else and he see the God as another hoax . . . . that's the human condition, and I guarantee that's what most religious people would be like if their God turned out not to be their God but another religion's.
AgentZ86
Junior member
- Messages
- 42
- Likes
- 5
Funny how people seem to analize the topic of religion with no real logic to it at all, and others are thoughtful and do analize religion.
When it comes to evolution the talk appears to indicate in most cases, that it's the most logical reason and way of thinking But when you put evolution to the test and the reasons that they believe in this. You find that those reasons in many cases are easily rebutted.
Now let me contradict myself. I don't think that considering evolution is illogical, however when new evidence proves old evidence to be false I would say that to continue to use that old evidence as a talking point and continue to believe that old evidence without considering the new evidence is simply illogical.
Let me wrap this up.
People assume they understand the theory of evolution, then go on about how illogical it is to believe in creation sort of prompting a religious discussion. But in discussing what they know about evolution you find that they don't even know the actual theory of evolution as it stand. Then when point this out to them that there version of evolution is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution.They automatically believe that you are some creationist or some religious nut.
They are wrong their version of the theory of evolution and want to argue that their version of evolution is the widely accepted one.Yet any google search could show you different.Next they are wrong on the assumption that someone is a religious nut simply because they are pointing out their inconsistencies which shows they believer in a faith based evolution theory without even know the actual theory themself.Yet they are the ones suggesting that a person should be logical about things and to evaluate science without emotion etc.
Just from these forums alone it would appear that the emotional ones who believe in evolution yet many know nothing about it or very little and contradict that actual evolution theory;and have excepted it whole heartedly even without knowing.They appear to be the ones to lash out to criticize someone who believe in a designer/creator without even knowing the actual evolution theory them self. Why ? Why lash out if your version of evolution is not the actual version of evolution.
It's very ironic to have people indicate how illogical creation could be, then find out that they don't even know the details of their own believe in evolution them self.
I think if someone believes in evolution and they have good logical reasons for their belief is ok.Especially if it's the actual evolution theory as it stands and based on what is the actual theory of evolution.
And also if someone believes in creation being evident and have good logical reasons for their belief is also OK.
But if you have no reason at all for your belief and just simply belief in what you have been told; and simply go with the flow you are no qualified to criticize others on their belief or evaluation at all.
Simply put in defense of both the evolution theory and the intelligent design theory I would say that people should not assume they know something but should actually know something before they critisize.And don't try to continue to defend your belief if you have no basis for that belief other then something your high school teach told you, or perhaps you parents told you etc.
Even if that belief is widely accepted, you yourself know what you know and what you don't know and should be plainly stated that I've heard this or that but have not investigated any of it or that you simply are not sure. But they don't they speak as if they are the master of the subject with even knowing what their talking about.
Thats all I know.
Anyone who would like to challenge this who thinks they know something about evolutions and cares to prove it I would be happy evaluate it; and in most cases I would be happy to provide the science that would rebut it as it is available; and typically there is science available to rebut this.
Lets start with
Challenge number 1 ?
Any takers ?
When it comes to evolution the talk appears to indicate in most cases, that it's the most logical reason and way of thinking But when you put evolution to the test and the reasons that they believe in this. You find that those reasons in many cases are easily rebutted.
Now let me contradict myself. I don't think that considering evolution is illogical, however when new evidence proves old evidence to be false I would say that to continue to use that old evidence as a talking point and continue to believe that old evidence without considering the new evidence is simply illogical.
Let me wrap this up.
People assume they understand the theory of evolution, then go on about how illogical it is to believe in creation sort of prompting a religious discussion. But in discussing what they know about evolution you find that they don't even know the actual theory of evolution as it stand. Then when point this out to them that there version of evolution is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution.They automatically believe that you are some creationist or some religious nut.
They are wrong their version of the theory of evolution and want to argue that their version of evolution is the widely accepted one.Yet any google search could show you different.Next they are wrong on the assumption that someone is a religious nut simply because they are pointing out their inconsistencies which shows they believer in a faith based evolution theory without even know the actual theory themself.Yet they are the ones suggesting that a person should be logical about things and to evaluate science without emotion etc.
Just from these forums alone it would appear that the emotional ones who believe in evolution yet many know nothing about it or very little and contradict that actual evolution theory;and have excepted it whole heartedly even without knowing.They appear to be the ones to lash out to criticize someone who believe in a designer/creator without even knowing the actual evolution theory them self. Why ? Why lash out if your version of evolution is not the actual version of evolution.
It's very ironic to have people indicate how illogical creation could be, then find out that they don't even know the details of their own believe in evolution them self.
I think if someone believes in evolution and they have good logical reasons for their belief is ok.Especially if it's the actual evolution theory as it stands and based on what is the actual theory of evolution.
And also if someone believes in creation being evident and have good logical reasons for their belief is also OK.
But if you have no reason at all for your belief and just simply belief in what you have been told; and simply go with the flow you are no qualified to criticize others on their belief or evaluation at all.
Simply put in defense of both the evolution theory and the intelligent design theory I would say that people should not assume they know something but should actually know something before they critisize.And don't try to continue to defend your belief if you have no basis for that belief other then something your high school teach told you, or perhaps you parents told you etc.
Even if that belief is widely accepted, you yourself know what you know and what you don't know and should be plainly stated that I've heard this or that but have not investigated any of it or that you simply are not sure. But they don't they speak as if they are the master of the subject with even knowing what their talking about.
Thats all I know.
Anyone who would like to challenge this who thinks they know something about evolutions and cares to prove it I would be happy evaluate it; and in most cases I would be happy to provide the science that would rebut it as it is available; and typically there is science available to rebut this.
Lets start with
Challenge number 1 ?
Any takers ?
Very deep post that.
Isn't everyone entitled to their own opinion even if they are not an expert on the subject ?
It seems like you are suggesting that you have to know everything about a specific subject to be able to say you believe in a particular subject. This is clearly not practical for most people so most of read or learn or collate what we feel is enough information and then arrive at a decision to whether or not we believe in it or not.
I am not an expert on the Bible and I haven't read all of it but I know enough to know that (for me) it is not something which I could possibly believe, for me it just isn't feasible. I haven't read all of the Quran but the little bit I have read suggests to me that it is a violent and evil way to live my life.
Now as far as you suggesting that people do not understand the theory of evolution per se then you must realise that there are numerous versions of how evolution is understood and one can choose how they define evolution as their belief. People can also believe in parts of a subject and choose to deny the remainder. I think 'thou shall not kill' is a sensible phrase but if it was a choice of kill or be killed then thou shalt not kill is no longer an option.
Who are you to 'evaluate' anyone's 'challenge' ? What makes you qualified to evaluate someone else's opinion ?
You are just like the rest of us contributing to this discussion, we all have different views on it and for you to cast your own view on the subject does not mean you are correct and the rest of us are wrong.
None of us can be proved right or wrong and this is why I think it is a fascinating subject. Please do not fool yourself into believing that because you may have read many books on the subject of evolution that this makes you a master of it, the subject is so diverse, so enormous with so many variables that very few people would class themselves as an expert. As far as I am aware there are no BSc's in this subject and one can only form an opinion based on their level of interest.
Evolution is not something we can observe. If it's happening today, it's going too slow to observe. If it happened in the past, we can't return to the past. So it is indeed a theory and one has to decide if the theory stacks up to your own satisfaction or not. How do you feel about the evidence so far ? Does the idea sit comfortable in your mind rather than a God or whatever ?
Read, learn, study, listen to others, compare it to other theories and then make a choice. You will not be right and you will not be wrong, it is purely your call, your decision and no one can say you are wrong. They can say 'I do not think you are right because this and that....' but that is all. No one can categorically say you are wrong because no knows and probably no one will never know for certain.
Scientists and their studies can indeed give their opinion based on their findings and it is then up to us to decide if we think their results help us make an informed decision. Even then evolution will still have a question mark.
Be happy
Cofton
Isn't everyone entitled to their own opinion even if they are not an expert on the subject ?
It seems like you are suggesting that you have to know everything about a specific subject to be able to say you believe in a particular subject. This is clearly not practical for most people so most of read or learn or collate what we feel is enough information and then arrive at a decision to whether or not we believe in it or not.
I am not an expert on the Bible and I haven't read all of it but I know enough to know that (for me) it is not something which I could possibly believe, for me it just isn't feasible. I haven't read all of the Quran but the little bit I have read suggests to me that it is a violent and evil way to live my life.
Now as far as you suggesting that people do not understand the theory of evolution per se then you must realise that there are numerous versions of how evolution is understood and one can choose how they define evolution as their belief. People can also believe in parts of a subject and choose to deny the remainder. I think 'thou shall not kill' is a sensible phrase but if it was a choice of kill or be killed then thou shalt not kill is no longer an option.
Who are you to 'evaluate' anyone's 'challenge' ? What makes you qualified to evaluate someone else's opinion ?
You are just like the rest of us contributing to this discussion, we all have different views on it and for you to cast your own view on the subject does not mean you are correct and the rest of us are wrong.
None of us can be proved right or wrong and this is why I think it is a fascinating subject. Please do not fool yourself into believing that because you may have read many books on the subject of evolution that this makes you a master of it, the subject is so diverse, so enormous with so many variables that very few people would class themselves as an expert. As far as I am aware there are no BSc's in this subject and one can only form an opinion based on their level of interest.
Evolution is not something we can observe. If it's happening today, it's going too slow to observe. If it happened in the past, we can't return to the past. So it is indeed a theory and one has to decide if the theory stacks up to your own satisfaction or not. How do you feel about the evidence so far ? Does the idea sit comfortable in your mind rather than a God or whatever ?
Read, learn, study, listen to others, compare it to other theories and then make a choice. You will not be right and you will not be wrong, it is purely your call, your decision and no one can say you are wrong. They can say 'I do not think you are right because this and that....' but that is all. No one can categorically say you are wrong because no knows and probably no one will never know for certain.
Scientists and their studies can indeed give their opinion based on their findings and it is then up to us to decide if we think their results help us make an informed decision. Even then evolution will still have a question mark.
Be happy
Cofton
You have a good point, here. I think we agree with each other. I think that the whole thing is too complicated to even begin to understand so, if we can't get to the bottom of it---no problem! We, simply, try to live as our conscience dictates. That is the best that we can do in a world where we have not been given a lead. How can we blamed for being wrong?
I'm not a taker, there are too many unanswerable questions.
Split
What I understood agentz86 to say was that he would demonstrate to anyone who professes to be an expert on the subject that, really, he has limited knowledge. If that is so, such a person has no right to criticise another's beliefs because he, simply, does not know. This is a very human trait.
Split
temptrader
Well-known member
- Messages
- 393
- Likes
- 55
Let me be clear with you: Darwin NEVER wanted evolution to be true. In fact, those who understand it deepest don't want it to be true. And I can see clearly from your posts that you are not of that category.
The great scientists are great by their work, and not their personalities. Some of them never wanted their findings to come out the way they did. Some even started on a contrary view.
You think so, eh? If so, you may talk to the top scientists argue your point with them. And if your points and evidence are correct I will support your cause. And if you are right you will have a place in history.
But it appears that you are just talking for talking's sake, and nothing more. And I find it arrogant and insulting that you take such an off hand tone over such a subject as if it were some kind of popularity contest we have here.
Sorry, but you are wrong. There is ONE and only ONE theory of evolution, and that is the version that states the mechanism is by Natural Selection. The last two words have profound and subtle implications. It is not something that you can write in one page. Darwinian Natural Selection has been extended and expanded more and more as time went by - see Dawkins. I agree that the general population is not very well versed in it, but those that know, know. And those that don't, argue. But the sad truth is that the literature is available to anyone to peruse over, but few make the effort.
The thing that ANGERS the religious community is the fact that the process of Natural Selection does not require the intervention of a Supernatural Being in order for it to do what it does.
You seem to think that Natural Selection is just a by word, a simple concept. In many ways it is a simple concept, but it leads to many different ramifications and it's influence in the other sciences is still being felt.
Let's just say that the scientist know enough TO KNOW that religious intervention according to the religious texts is not required. We know enough to know that we descend from apes and a whole lot of other debunking that you don't want to accept.
No, it's you who haven't got a clue. You don't want to do your homework and expect other people to do it for you.
Take the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. It runs to a tad over 200 pages, plus the extra joint paper required to sort a gap in it out. What you just said is akin to someone saying that the proof is wrong, but he hasn't even bothered to look at the paper. You have to go through a lot of books to even understand the proof, and yet you claim what you claim without doing anything, without going over the requisite groundwork thoroughly enough. Is it any wonder that your post is comical and shows of someone of seriously low intelligence?
There is no controversy about evolution, all the evidence points to it. The scientists would welcome any piece of evidence to come forward to prove otherwise - none have been forthcoming. There is no brainwashing because you can check these things yourself, but you need to put a lot of work into it. Instead you prefer to pontificate what you pontificate.
Challenge you say? There is no challenge.It's you who have interpreted things to what you want them to be, and not what they are.
This forum is not a classroom, if you want proof go out and find it yourself. YOU have to find the proof, and make YOUR own conclusions. IF you are capable of thinking logically and intelligently you will arrive at the same conclusion Darwin did over 170 years ago.
The leading scientists will not do this work for you. That's why they live in ivory towers and belong to societies that don't just let anyone in. They rather engage in research and converse with other intelligent individuals than go over the same old ground again, and again, and again with ignorant upstarts who have nothing better to do with their lives.
nine
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,042
- Likes
- 509
dick_dastardly
Established member
- Messages
- 843
- Likes
- 152
But of course you can observe evolution. All you need to do is remove your shoe and sock. There you will see your foot that was once a hand like structure that will one day be something else.
We are a single freeze frame in this movie called evolution.
Yacarob1 and Split
Speaking of beer, I say life looks rosey through the bottom of a pint glass. :cheers:
and speaking of belief, it's my belief that if Osama and the boys
got the ale down em once in a while the towers of the WTC would still be standing to this day.dd
Last edited:
That is of course if you believe that Osama was responsible for the destruction of the WTC. But that is another story.......
But of course you can observe evolution. All you need to do is remove your shoe and sock. There you will see your foot that was once a hand like structure that will one day be something else.
We are a single freeze frame in this movie called evolution.
Yacarob1 and Split
Speaking of beer, I say life looks rosey through the bottom of a pint glass. :cheers:
and speaking of belief, it's my belief that if Osama and the boys
dd
temptrader
Well-known member
- Messages
- 393
- Likes
- 55
The point is nine, there is really NO debate. What there is, is people who don't know that they don't know, spouting rubbish because they feel qualified to do so.
I would NEVER tell/force anyone to believe in evolution - or anything for that matter. Scientists would never force people to believe in their works, because that's not how science works.
Our mobile phones, computers, fridges and all the other devices of the modern world work becomes some poor sods had to lay the groundwork to find the principles that made them possible. It was all a lot of work and stands as a testament to man's curiosity and ingenuity. Nowhere in these principles or the finding of them did "God" or whatever supernatural entity make an appearance.
It would be nice to call on Divine intervention to prove something, or fill in the gap, but I ask you: can I rely on Divine intervention to run my fridge, or start my washing machine, or control my fish tank? Can I rely on it when I write my thesis that will be refereed by an independent body, and can I replicate it again, and again, and again when I need to?
I say again, the Creationists put things in that are unfalsifiable. Of what use is that to any scientist who has to conduct research? How will that help understand the life cycles of certain dangerous bacteria, or behaviour patterns of animals, or rates of infections of certain viruses? By contrast the Darwinian theory has been very influential in the latter points.
The scientists aren't angry. On the contrary, it's the creationist who are getting emotional because so much of their power is taken away from them. They have no evidence, only unfalsifiable concepts. It would be like me going to the doctor asking him to advise me on what colour I should paint my house. Unless the paint or the colour of it seriously effects my health he just not going to give a damn. In the same sense people are allowed to entertain unfalsifiable beliefs, but if these beliefs are in direct contradiction to the evidence available one has a duty to oneself to question one's sanity.
AgentZ86
Junior member
- Messages
- 42
- Likes
- 5
Once again an assumption here
And so it continues another person assuming that I'm a creationist trying to do something that they are also wrong about.
And as far as the edges article goes why does anyone even need to contest the Darwin theory He denounced it himself as I've pointed out earlier.
Darwin himself said that evolution occurred by a designer.
I believe whatever the evidence is. And from the evidence I challenge you to the burden of proof.
You seem to think that the pursuit of the truth is somehow a lie.
I challenge you to provide proof of evolution or any evidence that shows one species that transformed into another, either by fossil record or some sort transitional form.
The burden of proof has always been on the evolutionist and that is why it's still just a theory because no evidence exists after all these years and wasted money trying to proof it.
Period end of discussion.
Put up or shut up.
I have no problem in believing evolution or creation either way makes no difference to me.Again this probably surprises you. But show proof of either thats all I say. Don't just go on talking about how logical it is the think this way or that way and how illogical it is to think this way or that way.Then going on about some other person who thinks like you who has other innuendo's etc.
I don't care about any of that just the facts, just the proof ?
I'll be waiting ?
And so it continues another person assuming that I'm a creationist trying to do something that they are also wrong about.
And as far as the edges article goes why does anyone even need to contest the Darwin theory He denounced it himself as I've pointed out earlier.
Darwin himself said that evolution occurred by a designer.
I believe whatever the evidence is. And from the evidence I challenge you to the burden of proof.
You seem to think that the pursuit of the truth is somehow a lie.
I challenge you to provide proof of evolution or any evidence that shows one species that transformed into another, either by fossil record or some sort transitional form.
The burden of proof has always been on the evolutionist and that is why it's still just a theory because no evidence exists after all these years and wasted money trying to proof it.
Period end of discussion.
Put up or shut up.
I have no problem in believing evolution or creation either way makes no difference to me.Again this probably surprises you. But show proof of either thats all I say. Don't just go on talking about how logical it is the think this way or that way and how illogical it is to think this way or that way.Then going on about some other person who thinks like you who has other innuendo's etc.
I don't care about any of that just the facts, just the proof ?
I'll be waiting ?
AgentZ86
Junior member
- Messages
- 42
- Likes
- 5
I agree
I completely agree with your statement as quoted here, and this is my point exactly.
And I've state no problems with either theory, however the proof must actually be real proof not fabricated or in the case with Lucy Man and Java Man must be eliminated from the theory as it was with the earth being flat. No different this would be insanity I agree.
I also agree that no one should be forced to believe anything, in fact it should be open for debate even in school and all sides of every story should be included in the debate when it comes to evolution, creation or even aliens for that matter.
Hi I do agree with most of you put here, except that the assumption about creationists providing unfalsifiable concepts. I especially agree with your statement below which is this kind of logic that prompted me to talk about the subject at all.
And in my examples I provided a subject that I happen to know about, which is the DNA testing of Lucy and Java man. This in itself does not prove creation, however when this DNA testing proved that Lucy and Java man have now been found to be fabricated or just completely wrong. This should be taken out of the loop, and yet it's still being taught completely as it has always been. As you have mentioned this would be insanity to now continue to believe the Lucy man and Java man are to be considered evidence or any sort of scientific proof of a link in the evolutionary chain.
I completely agree with your statement as quoted here, and this is my point exactly.
And I've state no problems with either theory, however the proof must actually be real proof not fabricated or in the case with Lucy Man and Java Man must be eliminated from the theory as it was with the earth being flat. No different this would be insanity I agree.
I also agree that no one should be forced to believe anything, in fact it should be open for debate even in school and all sides of every story should be included in the debate when it comes to evolution, creation or even aliens for that matter.
AgentZ86
Junior member
- Messages
- 42
- Likes
- 5
They did for me.
I bet they do when your on your knees worshiping in front of the porcelain throne
I bet they do when your on your knees worshiping in front of the porcelain throne
AgentZ86
Junior member
- Messages
- 42
- Likes
- 5
You confused a little
Hi your a little confused here I'll try to clarify.
Science is the pursuit of the truth, and if the conclusion is that there is a God and he created the universe etc. etc. so let that be the case, but if evolution is the truth then let that be the case.
I think your analogy works well with evolution also in fact just as perfect really.
You could have evolutionists where We have a human who's believe in evolution and a God character, and during the whole film this God tries everything to prove to the human that he really is the one and only God. This God does everything, every miracle, every impossible stunt, etc. . . to try and convince the human. But the human is not convinced, because he has "faith" in something else and he see the God as another hoax . .because he's been taught in school that there is no God . . that's the human condition, and I guarantee that's what most evolutionist people would be like if their Theory turned out not to be their True
Well I can't say that would be a good movie since thats sort of already happing in real life.
But anyhow I do agree with your concept that because there are so many religions that if God would reveal himself to many in a way that is contradictory to their current religion then perhaps they would not accept it. But I would also suggest that evolution is a religion just one with no God.
As far as the DNA goes I try dig this up again it's been a while but I would be happy to provide the documents.
This is a recent finding also just FYI
In addition regarding your topic about Quantum Mechanics, I believe with cancer it's the mutation caused by a shortage of a chromosome which causes a mutated cell, which then reproduces that mutated cell which has not real function other then growth out of control.
So the gene I'm talking about would not prevent a mutation of a micro level such as a cell becoming unstable. However the mutation of the cell does not because the DNA has changed the DNA of course would still be human and the type of drastic change for any evolution would still not have occurred or would never occur actually.But would most likely just mutate until the organism dies as with cancer. Which would appear to no allow any major transformation to occur even in this type of case.
Anyhow I'll dig up my old research on this subject further and also the new finding on the newly found gene.
And by the way scientists are interested in this, and it's currently being studied as we speak.
I'll get back with you on this I have to dig up my notes.
But that still does not address the fact that Lucy Man and Java man are proven false yet still taught as an evolutionary link in the chain ? Common knowledge that DNA testing was done on these and found to be false , bone from a bore and bones from a monkey and a man, not from some monkey man of part monkey and man. It was actually monkey bones and man bones found on 2 separate digs. But still being taught as fact. This should not be a need to fabricate anything if it's so logical and transparent.
But anyhow I'll get some more on the newly found gene and post back.
In the meantime I believe the burden of proof is still on the evolutionist since it's still in the theoretical stages with no real scientific proof and this point. No transitional forms. You would think after all all these suggested millions of years that all these transformation would be apparent in the fossil record if there was a slow transformation over millions of years there should be some evidence of this.
Thats all I know.
P.S I"m not a creationist or evolutionist, I just like to deal in facts and truth whatever that may be I'm able and available to handle it.I can't say that about most people but I think they should all be ready to deal with the facts whatever they are.Currently I would say I'm leaning towards the evidence being on the side of creation, however I could be convinced either way if the evidence is convincing enough
Here is a cool post here too, more of a creationist here, but interesting.
Evolution Irrefutably Proven False | BecauseIamDonnieDarko's Xanga Site - Weblog
and here:
The Little Engine That Could...Undo Darwinism | Evolution may be proven false very soon
Hi your a little confused here I'll try to clarify.
Science is the pursuit of the truth, and if the conclusion is that there is a God and he created the universe etc. etc. so let that be the case, but if evolution is the truth then let that be the case.
I think your analogy works well with evolution also in fact just as perfect really.
You could have evolutionists where We have a human who's believe in evolution and a God character, and during the whole film this God tries everything to prove to the human that he really is the one and only God. This God does everything, every miracle, every impossible stunt, etc. . . to try and convince the human. But the human is not convinced, because he has "faith" in something else and he see the God as another hoax . .because he's been taught in school that there is no God . . that's the human condition, and I guarantee that's what most evolutionist people would be like if their Theory turned out not to be their True
Well I can't say that would be a good movie since thats sort of already happing in real life.
But anyhow I do agree with your concept that because there are so many religions that if God would reveal himself to many in a way that is contradictory to their current religion then perhaps they would not accept it. But I would also suggest that evolution is a religion just one with no God.
As far as the DNA goes I try dig this up again it's been a while but I would be happy to provide the documents.
This is a recent finding also just FYI
In addition regarding your topic about Quantum Mechanics, I believe with cancer it's the mutation caused by a shortage of a chromosome which causes a mutated cell, which then reproduces that mutated cell which has not real function other then growth out of control.
So the gene I'm talking about would not prevent a mutation of a micro level such as a cell becoming unstable. However the mutation of the cell does not because the DNA has changed the DNA of course would still be human and the type of drastic change for any evolution would still not have occurred or would never occur actually.But would most likely just mutate until the organism dies as with cancer. Which would appear to no allow any major transformation to occur even in this type of case.
Anyhow I'll dig up my old research on this subject further and also the new finding on the newly found gene.
And by the way scientists are interested in this, and it's currently being studied as we speak.
I'll get back with you on this I have to dig up my notes.
But that still does not address the fact that Lucy Man and Java man are proven false yet still taught as an evolutionary link in the chain ? Common knowledge that DNA testing was done on these and found to be false , bone from a bore and bones from a monkey and a man, not from some monkey man of part monkey and man. It was actually monkey bones and man bones found on 2 separate digs. But still being taught as fact. This should not be a need to fabricate anything if it's so logical and transparent.
But anyhow I'll get some more on the newly found gene and post back.
In the meantime I believe the burden of proof is still on the evolutionist since it's still in the theoretical stages with no real scientific proof and this point. No transitional forms. You would think after all all these suggested millions of years that all these transformation would be apparent in the fossil record if there was a slow transformation over millions of years there should be some evidence of this.
Thats all I know.
P.S I"m not a creationist or evolutionist, I just like to deal in facts and truth whatever that may be I'm able and available to handle it.I can't say that about most people but I think they should all be ready to deal with the facts whatever they are.Currently I would say I'm leaning towards the evidence being on the side of creation, however I could be convinced either way if the evidence is convincing enough
Here is a cool post here too, more of a creationist here, but interesting.
Evolution Irrefutably Proven False | BecauseIamDonnieDarko's Xanga Site - Weblog
and here:
The Little Engine That Could...Undo Darwinism | Evolution may be proven false very soon
Last edited:
nine
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,042
- Likes
- 509
No 1 is crap. Simple stuff like "A design needs a designer" as proof of evolutions failure as a theory. You are a creationist if you even suspect this ****e could be true.
No 2 is more stuff from the religious right ... just check out the sidebar topics.
More bs from creationist science deniers.
No 2 is more stuff from the religious right ... just check out the sidebar topics.
More bs from creationist science deniers.
AgentZ86
Junior member
- Messages
- 42
- Likes
- 5
This is why?
I've said this many times throughout this thread, that I do agree that all evidence should be looked at and I am by no means the master of the subject.
Also I could care less what the facts or evidence actually points to evolution or creation it makes no difference to me.
But this post mostly started by someone saying how logical it was to believe in evolution and how illogical it was to believe in creation or how simply foolish it was.
And after much discussion it appears that as you have also agree that it's not so illogical or absolute after all.
Thats all I know.
I've said this many times throughout this thread, that I do agree that all evidence should be looked at and I am by no means the master of the subject.
Also I could care less what the facts or evidence actually points to evolution or creation it makes no difference to me.
But this post mostly started by someone saying how logical it was to believe in evolution and how illogical it was to believe in creation or how simply foolish it was.
And after much discussion it appears that as you have also agree that it's not so illogical or absolute after all.
Thats all I know.
Similar threads
