A webpage which I think might make any theist reconsider their beliefs

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: atom
Yeah, but there are some people in the world that do understand things like nuclear fission. And they can explicitly see and quantify those results. Can't say the same for evolution.

I can't see nuclear fission, but I certainly understand the process.

However, I can see evolution.

Every day, I see babies being born, people dying, and life continuing.

That's evolution. No more, no less. It just happens in such small increments that our minds, capable of truly only fathoming timelines which max out at 100 years, cannot comprehend the development of a species over millions of those segments.

 

[brigden]

Originally posted by: theNEOone

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: brigden
I'm agnostic when it comes to God, but I simply can't believe people still don't "believe" in evolution.

I don't believe in evolution. I accept it as the most plausible theory currently presented, seeing as how there really aren't any other sufficiently convincing ones backed by evidence and intelligent hypothesis.

Why don't you believe it? Because you can't see how a chimpanzee is related to a human being? I'm certain you don't understand the intricacies of nuclear fission, but I'm equally certain you believe in atom bombs.

umm, no need to attack him. he gave a perfectly good explanation. in all its entirety, the THEORY of evolution, still has some holes, as he pointed out. i accept evolution, but i also acknowledge the fact that the theory is not yet complete. revisions and reconsiderations are made daily. go to your school library and search all the research articles and journals dedicated to evolutionary biology and you'll understand what i'm talking about.

I wasn't attacking him whatsoever.

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: brigden
I'm agnostic when it comes to God, but I simply can't believe people still don't "believe" in evolution.

I don't believe in evolution. I accept it as the most plausible theory currently presented, seeing as how there really aren't any other sufficiently convincing ones backed by evidence and intelligent hypothesis.

anyone wanting to learn about evolution I urge to read this book:


evolution: the triumph of an idea

it can be picked up cheap used, I have just read the book and have yet to see the pbs series that goes along with it. really interesting read, unless you already know a lot about evolution.

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: brigden
I'm agnostic when it comes to God, but I simply can't believe people still don't "believe" in evolution.

I don't believe in evolution. I accept it as the most plausible theory currently presented, seeing as how there really aren't any other sufficiently convincing ones backed by evidence and intelligent hypothesis.

Why don't you believe it? Because you can't see how a chimpanzee is related to a human being? I'm certain you don't understand the intricacies of nuclear fission, but I'm equally certain you believe in atom bombs.

lol. You misunderstood me.

I specifically don't "believe" in evolution because I don't believe in "believing" something. If that makes any sense. To put it simply, I try to avoid the word "believe" because it has certain connotations I wish I eschew.

I find evolution to be the best theory to explain man's evolution from nothingness to sentience. Is that more clear?

I appreciate your reluctance to commit fully to believing in something. I am often like that myself.

I tend to view the creation of life and evolution as two seperate things. I can see how Creature Z evolves from Creature A, but how life got their in the first place is a wonderful mystery.

It won't be a mystery anymore if you read "The Selfish Gene." Two words: Primordial ooze. ;-)

 

[brigden]

Originally posted by: atom
Yeah, but there are some people in the world that do understand things like nuclear fission. And they can explicitly see and quantify those results. Can't say the same for evolution.

I was arguing the point that he doesn't fully understand atom bombs, much like he doesn't fully understand evolution. Thus, he's not in a position to dismiss the concept, yet he accepts the science of nuclear fission because our scientists have explained the process to us.

 

[rgwalt]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
That site is full of fluff.

It is all an intellectual argument, most of which doesn't make sense. Smoke and mirrors...

Ryan

 

[wyvrn]

And they haven't fully explained evolution because we don't have the evidence. I don't know of anyone who has shown an ape morph into a man with no substantial gaps. There are no gaps in our understanding of fission however, we can trace the process from beginning to end. The analogy was a bad one.

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: atom
Yeah, but there are some people in the world that do understand things like nuclear fission. And they can explicitly see and quantify those results. Can't say the same for evolution.

I was arguing the point that he doesn't fully understand atom bombs, much like he doesn't fully understand evolution. Thus, he's not in a position to dismiss the concept, yet he accepts the science of nuclear fission because our scientists have explained the process to us.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: wyvrn
Bingo. Evolution is the puzzle missing pieces. Nuclear Fission is a completed puzzle that some people just don't understand. Evolution may or may not be true, we simply don't have the evidence either way to say yet.

We sure do have enough evidence to say evolution is true. Just because there are missing pieces, doesn't mean the entire puzzle is some fabrication of God. The missing pieces aren't completely mysterious either... we know what to expect, we just haven't found the bones yet. In any court of law, evolution would easily be proven true beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[XZeroII]

Who are these religious people who are trying to shove their crappy beliefs down your throat? .01% of the religious population try to tell you about their beliefs and you assume that all religious people are bad? That's stereotyping. Maybe you can work that into your grand theories about life.



0.0000001% of the fish grew legs and walked out of the sea...thus we can conclude that all fish grew legs and walked out of the sea and created people

 

[Nitemare]

Can anyone explain to me dinosaur bones? I do not remember any references to dinosaurs in any holy books. Also, the genetic similarities between chimpanzees and humans...not to mention the appearance and disappearance of homo neandertalis and australopithecus boisei. Can they explain to me why the proof is on the side of science and the religious side has no physical evidence whatsoever?

Religion and faith was invented by man to explain the unknown and their existence.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Can anyone explain to me dinosaur bones? I do not remember any references to dinosaurs in any holy books. Also, the genetic similarities between chimpanzees and humans...not to mention the appearance and disappearance of homo neandertalis and australopithecus boisei. Can they explain to me why the proof is on the side of science and the religious side has no physical evidence whatsoever?

Religion and faith was invented by man to explain the unknown and their existence.

Chimps and man share about 98% of the same DNA. Man and birds share about 94% of the same DNA. What's your point? As for the pre-humans, you are accepting that the media is giving you 100% of the information on the subject...that all the evidence is laid out...that you can actually form a reasonable theory based on the evidence at hand. In reality, only a small sample of these pre-humans have been found and most theories on them are just that, theories. As for your physical evidence by religion...you need to learn more on the subject before I can explain. Religion has to do with the spiritual world, NOT the physical world. Why would there be physical evidence of the spiritual world? There is a fallacy name for the kind of question you asked, but I can't think of it right now.

 

[brigden]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Can anyone explain to me dinosaur bones? I do not remember any references to dinosaurs in any holy books. Also, the genetic similarities between chimpanzees and humans...not to mention the appearance and disappearance of homo neandertalis and australopithecus boisei. Can they explain to me why the proof is on the side of science and the religious side has no physical evidence whatsoever?

Religion and faith was invented by man to explain the unknown and their existence.

Chimps and man share about 98% of the same DNA. Man and birds share about 94% of the same DNA. What's your point? As for the pre-humans, you are accepting that the media is giving you 100% of the information on the subject...that all the evidence is laid out...that you can actually form a reasonable theory based on the evidence at hand. In reality, only a small sample of these pre-humans have been found and most theories on them are just that, theories. As for your physical evidence by religion...you need to learn more on the subject before I can explain. Religion has to do with the spiritual world, NOT the physical world. Why would there be physical evidence of the spiritual world? There is a fallacy name for the kind of question you asked, but I can't think of it right now.

You're right. God put dinosaur bones on earth to test our faith.

 

[wyvrn]

I am not arguing against evolution. I am saying it is in the theory stage. Having 99% of the process explained may work in court, but it does not a truth make. And we are not even to the 99% sure about evolution stage. I personally think there is much credibility in much of evolution theory, but it is still a THEORY until completely proven wrong or right.

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: wyvrn
Bingo. Evolution is the puzzle missing pieces. Nuclear Fission is a completed puzzle that some people just don't understand. Evolution may or may not be true, we simply don't have the evidence either way to say yet.

We sure do have enough evidence to say evolution is true. Just because there are missing pieces, doesn't mean the entire puzzle is some fabrication of God. The missing pieces aren't completely mysterious either... we know what to expect, we just haven't found the bones yet. In any court of law, evolution would easily be proven true beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[Looney]

Religion has to do with the spiritual world, NOT the physical world. Why would there be physical evidence of the spiritual world?

Because the bible is supposedly the word of God... if it is, then it's incorrect. The world is older than what the bible says. The world did not start from a man and a woman in a garden. The world did not get flooded, and a guy saved it by having a ship with 2 of every animal on board. etc etc.

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: wyvrn
And they haven't fully explained evolution because we don't have the evidence. I don't know of anyone who has shown an ape morph into a man with no substantial gaps. There are no gaps in our understanding of fission however, we can trace the process from beginning to end. The analogy was a bad one.

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: atom
Yeah, but there are some people in the world that do understand things like nuclear fission. And they can explicitly see and quantify those results. Can't say the same for evolution.

I was arguing the point that he doesn't fully understand atom bombs, much like he doesn't fully understand evolution. Thus, he's not in a position to dismiss the concept, yet he accepts the science of nuclear fission because our scientists have explained the process to us.

Please, no "transitional fossils" arguments. There is no such thing as a transitional fossil, because all fossils are transitional.

 

[Rapidskies]

Belief in God is often called a crutch for the weak, a mental prop to hoist our problems upon. I feel that couldn't be further from the truth. It's an easy out to say there is no God, after all , then you have no entity to answer to, no rules to follow, life in a faithless man's world is inheriently easier. I've also seen everything under the sun blamed on man's belief in God, wars, famine, hate, the list goes on and on. These problems aren't from God, but from man. These problems aren't from faith but from lack of it.

Do you think your thoughts are just a random occurance in a galaxy that sprang from nothingness? Everthing has to come from something, but you can't inherit something infinately, there has to be a creation point. There can be only one that "is". That creation point is God. I would recommend the book, A Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, it answers quite a few questions and it is a good basic book on Faith in God. Take care.

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Who are these religious people who are trying to shove their crappy beliefs down your throat? .01% of the religious population try to tell you about their beliefs and you assume that all religious people are bad? That's stereotyping. Maybe you can work that into your grand theories about life.



0.0000001% of the fish grew legs and walked out of the sea...thus we can conclude that all fish grew legs and walked out of the sea and created people

Nope. They're all over.

1. The people who want to legistlate their morality.
2. The people who stake out college campuses with pamphlets and annoy you until you take a copy of them.
3. The people on these forums that start threads like the one this is a response to.

I never said all religious people are bad. My Mom's religious; I don't hate her for it. There is a distinct sense of pity though.

 

[Looney]

Belief in God is often called a crutch for the weak, a mental prop to hoist our problems upon. I feel that couldn't be further from the truth. It's an easy out to say there is no God, after all , then you have no entity to answer to, no rules to follow, life in a faithless man's world is inheriently easier. I've also seen everything under the sun blamed on man's belief in God, wars, famine, hate, the list goes on and on. These problems aren't from God, but from man. These problems aren't from faith but from lack of it.

Baloney... Faith has historically always been a problem. Have you neglected your history in your study of your religion? Look at all the world wars around us... look at how many of them are faith based. Look at the discovery of technology and science that makes our life easier... what was religion's role in those? If we ever discover the cure for cancer, it's not going to be because of religion.

Do you think your thoughts are just a random occurance in a galaxy that sprang from nothingness? Everthing has to come from something, but you can't inherit something infinately, there has to be a creation point

And what makes your religion superior to any other? What makes your religion the truth whereas all others are false?

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: Whade
Belief in God is often called a crutch for the weak, a mental prop to hoist our problems upon. I feel that couldn't be further from the truth. It's an easy out to say there is no God, after all , then you have no entity to answer to, no rules to follow, life in a faithless man's world is inheriently easier. I've also seen everything under the sun blamed on man's belief in God, wars, famine, hate, the list goes on and on. These problems aren't from God, but from man. These problems aren't from faith but from lack of it.

Do you think your thoughts are just a random occurance in a galaxy that sprang from nothingness? Everthing has to come from something, but you can't inherit something infinately, there has to be a creation point. There can be only one that "is". That creation point is God. I would recommend the book, A Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, it answers quite a few questions and it is a good basic book on Faith in God. Take care.

Who created god?

Bollocks. It's harder to live a life of a nontheist/atheist/agnostic than it is to believe in a religion.

For one, you have to come to terms with the fact that upon death, you'll cease to exist. That's one of the biggest reasons religious people will never wake up from their stupor, it would require admitting to themself that there is NOTHING after death.

Secondly, you have to realize that morality doesn't exist. That too is difficult to fathom, because without morality, wouldn't there be utter chaos? The answer is no, ethics would take morality's place, and would be a much better system to govern ourselves on. I don't believe in good, evil, or moral and immoral actions. I ensure my actions are just, and avoid the unjust. I stay ethical and avoid unethical actions.

Finally, you have to deal with the realization that no one in government is there to protect your rights as an nontheist/atheist/agnostic. Both the right and the left are blessing this and blessing that, swearing on this holy document, and so on. Everyone seems to remember the great things religion has done, ignoring silly stuff like the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Dark Ages, and thousands of years of strife in the Cradle of Civilization.

It's sad, really. But it is reality.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Who are these religious people who are trying to shove their crappy beliefs down your throat? .01% of the religious population try to tell you about their beliefs and you assume that all religious people are bad? That's stereotyping. Maybe you can work that into your grand theories about life.



0.0000001% of the fish grew legs and walked out of the sea...thus we can conclude that all fish grew legs and walked out of the sea and created people

Nope. They're all over.

1. The people who want to legistlate their morality.
2. The people who stake out college campuses with pamphlets and annoy you until you take a copy of them.
3. The people on these forums that start threads like the one this is a response to.

I never said all religious people are bad. My Mom's religious; I don't hate her for it. There is a distinct sense of pity though.

Yes but in turn, there are people (like yourself, for instance) who go to the same opposite extreme. You are no better than what you are standing up against if you resort to tactics which you condemn.

I don't think "in your face" methods are beneficial to anyone, and that goes for both sides.

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Who are these religious people who are trying to shove their crappy beliefs down your throat? .01% of the religious population try to tell you about their beliefs and you assume that all religious people are bad? That's stereotyping. Maybe you can work that into your grand theories about life.



0.0000001% of the fish grew legs and walked out of the sea...thus we can conclude that all fish grew legs and walked out of the sea and created people

Nope. They're all over.

1. The people who want to legistlate their morality.
2. The people who stake out college campuses with pamphlets and annoy you until you take a copy of them.
3. The people on these forums that start threads like the one this is a response to.

I never said all religious people are bad. My Mom's religious; I don't hate her for it. There is a distinct sense of pity though.

Yes but in turn, there are people (like yourself, for instance) who go to the same opposite extreme. You are no better than what you are standing up against if you resort to tactics which you condemn.

I don't think "in your face" methods are beneficial to anyone, and that goes for both sides.

This thread would've never been created had the other one not have been.

I don't shove my science down anyone's throat unless they fire the first shot. After that, it's self-preservation.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: atom
Yeah, but there are some people in the world that do understand things like nuclear fission. And they can explicitly see and quantify those results. Can't say the same for evolution.

I can't see nuclear fission, but I certainly understand the process.

However, I can see evolution.

Every day, I see babies being born, people dying, and life continuing.

That's evolution. No more, no less. It just happens in such small increments that our minds, capable of truly only fathoming timelines which max out at 100 years, cannot comprehend the development of a species over millions of those segments.

Yes, you are able to observe what's denoted as "microevolution". That is, you are seeing evolution or adaptation within a species. The origination of new species over long periods of time, (ie evolution on a large scale--macroevolution), is not and has not ever been observed.

And your definition of what evolution is lacks a very important aspect that is often overlooked and yet exceedingly important. Evolution, by its nature, requires beneficial mutation of genes in an individual, while still allowing that individual to reproduce and pass along that gene. And, as one can guess, mutations are 99.99% of the time harmful to the host, resulting from radiation, or mistakes during meiosis in producing gametes.

So, what you observe is not "evolution" as most people understand it to be. It is merely the fluctuation of allele ratios in a gene pool of a species. No new alleles are arising.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Who are these religious people who are trying to shove their crappy beliefs down your throat? .01% of the religious population try to tell you about their beliefs and you assume that all religious people are bad? That's stereotyping. Maybe you can work that into your grand theories about life.



0.0000001% of the fish grew legs and walked out of the sea...thus we can conclude that all fish grew legs and walked out of the sea and created people

Nope. They're all over.

1. The people who want to legistlate their morality.
2. The people who stake out college campuses with pamphlets and annoy you until you take a copy of them.
3. The people on these forums that start threads like the one this is a response to.

I never said all religious people are bad. My Mom's religious; I don't hate her for it. There is a distinct sense of pity though.

Yes but in turn, there are people (like yourself, for instance) who go to the same opposite extreme. You are no better than what you are standing up against if you resort to tactics which you condemn.

I don't think "in your face" methods are beneficial to anyone, and that goes for both sides.

This thread would've never been created had the other one not have been.

I don't shove my science down anyone's throat unless they fire the first shot. After that, it's self-preservation.

Your comparison to someone posting a message on a forum on the internet to someone firing a gun is a gross exaggeration. The damage is hardly comparable.

And who is to say that the other poster intended to upset you? Perhaps he was merely bringing up an issues that he wanted to discuss in a non-hostile way. And yet you assumed that he wanted to convert you and was shoving his beliefs down your throat, and so you retaliated in a manner that you admit is one of intended hostility. I'm afraid to say that I do not follow your reasoning.

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: MachFive

Originally posted by: atom
Yeah, but there are some people in the world that do understand things like nuclear fission. And they can explicitly see and quantify those results. Can't say the same for evolution.

I can't see nuclear fission, but I certainly understand the process.

However, I can see evolution.

Every day, I see babies being born, people dying, and life continuing.

That's evolution. No more, no less. It just happens in such small increments that our minds, capable of truly only fathoming timelines which max out at 100 years, cannot comprehend the development of a species over millions of those segments.

Yes, you are able to observe what's denoted as "microevolution". That is, you are seeing evolution or adaptation within a species. The origination of new species over long periods of time, (ie evolution on a large scale--macroevolution), is not and has not ever been observed.

And your definition of what evolution is lacks a very important aspect that is often overlooked and yet exceedingly important. Evolution, by its nature, requires beneficial mutation of genes in an individual, while still allowing that individual to reproduce and pass along that gene. And, as one can guess, mutations are 99.99% of the time harmful to the host, resulting from radiation, or mistakes during meiosis in producing gametes.

So, what you observe is not "evolution" as most people understand it to be. It is merely the fluctuation of allele ratios in a gene pool of a species. No new alleles are arising.

I'm sorry, but youare the one who is misinformed.

The fact you even brought up the term macro and microevolution and used them as thus suggests that you are speaking about the theory of orthogenesis, a theory which hasn't had any supporters in the scientific community since the 1950's.

I will clarify: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MACROEVOLUTION.

Microevolution multiplied by 10000 IS Macroevolution. It's not that the effect has changed, but the time period over which the incremental effects has increased.