I think religious nuts have bought way too far into their religion, and take everything as literal when maybe it shouldn't be taken that way. I was watching this thing about religious people and this little 9 year old girl thought that anyone know didn't believe in god would automatically go to hell. First of all, I don't believe in hell, but from what I know about God (and I know enough, I went to a Catholic school), he wouldn't send someone to hell just for not believing in him. When I saw that, it just made me sad. Here she is, only 9, and already brainwashed into believing this garbage. People forget the bible was written by men, not god. It's not a perfect testiment to what god says or anything, just LOOSE guidelines. I also have a problem with people that are so into religion it affects their lives negatively. Going to church every week is one thing, but when you follow the bible to a tee it starts to get ridiculous. You cut out like half your life trying to follow that stuff. With all that being said, Christian religious "nuts" are NOTHING compared to Islamic religious nuts. Christian religious nuts try to live their lives as they think god wants, while Islamic religious morons look to kill innocent people and destroy lives. That is why I think Christianity is almost always good while Islam is an extremely negative influence on the Middle East. They can blame everything that happens on the USA and somehow justify their bullsh!t with the Koran. It's disgusting b/c Islam wasn't a religion like that, and doesn't teach violence.
I would like to share some thoughts on the resurgence of the POPULAR and non-scientific debate concerning evolution.
Within the scientific community the arguments concern "how,when and where" not "if". Why then the disparity between those most qualified to understand its mechanisms and the general public? Some factors I conceder most significant...
1) Inherited knowledge independent of the wisdom and perspective required to find it
2) Super-specialization in the scientific fields engaged at the forefront of the debate
3) Alienation from the process and products of science
Some basic and incomplete thoughts on each.
On Inherited knowledge among today?s younger generations.
-What portion remains of the lessons learned by those who built the atomic bomb for others to use?
J. Robert Oppenheimer --"Science is not everything, but science is very beautiful."
-The realities of War learned, in Vietnam, not just by those who served but those who sent them.
On super-specialisation.
-Our increasing specialization can create a sort of intellectual tunnel vision. Applicable relationships to unrelated fields of science and thought may never be considered let alone persued.
-The depth of knowledge required to work at the forefront of most any scientific field comes at considerable cost of BREDTH of knowledge.
For example Benjamin Franklin made significant contributions in fields unrelated to each other. To his credit...Mapping of the Gulf Stream, The lightning rod, bifocals, and the armonica to list a few. Do we have a modern corollary to such a master of varied trades?
On alienation between culture and science.
Richard Feynman (in 1964) describes a modern culture fractured from those that make our culture, scientifically, modern.
-"An interesting question of the relationship of science to modern society?s just that-why is it possible for people to stay so woefully ignorant and yet reasonably happy in modern society when so much knowledge is unavailable to them?"
-We can describe and measure the motion of planets orbiting distant stars AND YET...can you find a newspaper that doesn't print magical horoscopes? A well advertised psychic hotline can make hundreds of millions of dollars. Pat Robertson channels Jesus, daily, and heals viewers (via television) and no scorn is delivered unto him.
In closing (at long last) the above are incomplete and hasty thoughts I would appreciate your thoughts and criticism.
Within the scientific community the arguments concern "how,when and where" not "if". Why then the disparity between those most qualified to understand its mechanisms and the general public? Some factors I conceder most significant...
1) Inherited knowledge independent of the wisdom and perspective required to find it
2) Super-specialization in the scientific fields engaged at the forefront of the debate
3) Alienation from the process and products of science
Some basic and incomplete thoughts on each.
On Inherited knowledge among today?s younger generations.
-What portion remains of the lessons learned by those who built the atomic bomb for others to use?
J. Robert Oppenheimer --"Science is not everything, but science is very beautiful."
-The realities of War learned, in Vietnam, not just by those who served but those who sent them.
On super-specialisation.
-Our increasing specialization can create a sort of intellectual tunnel vision. Applicable relationships to unrelated fields of science and thought may never be considered let alone persued.
-The depth of knowledge required to work at the forefront of most any scientific field comes at considerable cost of BREDTH of knowledge.
For example Benjamin Franklin made significant contributions in fields unrelated to each other. To his credit...Mapping of the Gulf Stream, The lightning rod, bifocals, and the armonica to list a few. Do we have a modern corollary to such a master of varied trades?
On alienation between culture and science.
Richard Feynman (in 1964) describes a modern culture fractured from those that make our culture, scientifically, modern.
-"An interesting question of the relationship of science to modern society?s just that-why is it possible for people to stay so woefully ignorant and yet reasonably happy in modern society when so much knowledge is unavailable to them?"
-We can describe and measure the motion of planets orbiting distant stars AND YET...can you find a newspaper that doesn't print magical horoscopes? A well advertised psychic hotline can make hundreds of millions of dollars. Pat Robertson channels Jesus, daily, and heals viewers (via television) and no scorn is delivered unto him.
In closing (at long last) the above are incomplete and hasty thoughts I would appreciate your thoughts and criticism.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Then why when you refer to evolution do you always include the implication of the origin of life, or the idea that evolution somehow trumps all religion? Like how you have been all up in arms about the textbook sticker that simply said that evolution was theory in regard to the origin of life? When in fact evolution is barely even a theory with regard to abiogenesis.
Hypocrite, heal thyself.
Carl Sagan. 20 points, please.
The reality is that most people's view of God, even devout Christians but especially "atheists", is so flawed as to be tragic. The idea of the oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky is not even in the Bible (nor in any other scriptural text that I can think of, except the Book of Mormon, and that's a whole other can of worms). He ain't Morgan Freeman or George Burns either. All of that is beyond laughable.
If in fact God exists, then He is something beyond all human comprehension, and the only thing He actually ever asked us to do with our lives what to quit being such pricks to one another. Too much to ask I know...
edit: Oh yeah, I accept most of those points. Does it matter? No amount of medical advancement is ever going to forestall death indefinitely.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
When you felt that textbook sticker was an attack on evolution, then you did.
Your first response:
It seems you don't even understand the implications of your own posts. The purpose of the sticker was so that students did not misunderstand evolution to include abiogenesis, as many teachers (including mine way back when) like to teach it. Yet you took it as a threat to evolution. Yet one more hypocrite.
btw, nothing like a zealot calling other people zealots too. Once again you amuse me.
You are so impressive for trying to take the middle ground and look like the reasonable guy above the fray. :roll:
The sticker is an attack on evolution because of its motives, because it suggests evolution is a weaker theory than it really is, and because it confounds evolution with abiogenesis. You seem to be suggesting that because I take issue with its confusion that I espouse that confusion? Are you suggesting that anywone that fights such a sticker is inherently suggesting that evolution talks about the origins of life? Please. Alternatively, you give a naive and intellectually disingenuous interpretation of the sticker's purpose. Give me a break.
Since you suggest I'm a zealot, what is your definition of a zealot?
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I'm not taking the middle ground. I'm simply dislike the bickering. From my perspective, all modern evolution science has done is proven that God created the world through evolution, just like the Bible said He did, as a step-by-step process. And before you bring up a literal interpretation of book whose cover you've never opened, bear in mind that I'll what to know just whose literal interpretation you're talking about.
It is anti-God individuals like you and Conjur who always seek to confound evolution with abiogenesis. Everytime you discuss evolution it is as though it somehow proves irrefutably that God does not exist, which it most certainly does not (your protests are wonderful denial btw). Yes, I do believe that you are espousing confusion. You want people to believe exactly as you believe and no different, with all inconvenient contradictions to your beliefs simply swept under the rug. You think no one ever notices that you insult everyone who does believe exactly as you do (about almost everything)?
Naive interpretation of the sticker's purpose? Hardly. My high school biology teacher taught us that evolution proves that God didn't create the world. He said that right in class and the school textbook taught evolution and abiogenesis at the same without making the smallest distinction between them. Anectodal perhaps, but that was a very widely-used textbook as I recall.
My definition of a zealot? Hmm... how about "someone who believes strongly in beliefs that are not his own and insists that everyone believe the same thing in order to cover up his insecurities of those beliefs"? Yeah, that works. Covers just about everyone, both religious and not, who insists on beliefs that he never formed or reasoned by himself and is insecure of that fact.
edit: btw, giving you my definition of zealot is a courtesy as, despite the way you phrased it, it is you who began calling people zealots, not I. I simply turned "the mirror" back on you
Leave P&N then.
I've read the bible cover to cover several times, you pompous ignoramous. :laugh:
BS. You are projecting. Please find an example where I clearly lay out a connection between evolution and god not existing,
You have no evidence for this.
Anecdotal and furthermore unrelated to Conjur and I. Do you see all us "non-religious types" as sharing the same brains, arguements, and beliefs?
When did I insist everyone must share my beliefs? Another pathetic assumption.
I will assume you just don't have any responses.
If you want to imagine I'm a hardcore drug addict, I could care less. Apparently you can't even muster logical responses to a drug-addict.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
No. It's just that occasionally you amuse me, and other times you just bore me. I've had these same arguments so many times over that sometimes I just don't feel like typing the same thing all over again, only to hear the same rebuttals, and so on. Especially on the Friday afternoon before a 3 day weekend.Originally posted by: Infohawk
I will assume you just don't have any responses.
Suffice to say that everytime you attack religion while espousing evolution (and the 2 almost always go together for you), you are (in essense) confounding abiogenesis. Because otherwise evolution isn't contrary to religion so why should you think it is? But you got out of your way (see same thread I pulled the early quote from) to say that they are contrary to each other, conveniently mentioning only the extremist and opposing sides of these points of views.
Sorry, man, you're the one with the chip on your shoulder. I wish you could read your own posts through another's eyes. Think of the way that, when the merest hint of God enters a thread, Conjur suddenly erupts in insults and condemnations against God and anyone who dare to believe in anything so ridiculous. Everytime I read that I just think that he sure protests an awful lot (meaning I think he's insecure).
Anyway, I don't know how we got here and neither do you or anyone else. Trying to act like you actually know just irritates me. Middle ground? How about I'm not so stupid to claim I know something that actually none of us know jack sh!t about? Or to condemn the beliefs that comfort another person when none of us have any proof to the contrary of those beliefs?
I can only hope that little paragraph makes you feel better about your outlandish assumptions and undeserved arrogant attitude.
It is possible to espouse evolution and not attack religion. Another bizarre leap of logic on your part.
I don't think it's contrary to religion. Why do you think I think it is?
That's funny I seem to remember another poster saying _you_ were defensive.
I'll let Conjur respond to that.
Starting from when life came about evolution explains how we got here. I'm sorry that irritates you.
We know something about evolution and life on Earth. I'm sorry you think we don't know anything about it but I suggest you read up on evolution.
We have proof that creationism is completely unsupported. Maybe you should stop condeming others belief that it's okay to condemn wrong beliefs?
Originally posted by: Vic
No. It's just that occasionally you amuse me, and other times you just bore me. I've had these same arguments so many times over that sometimes I just don't feel like typing the same thing all over again, only to hear the same rebuttals, and so on. Especially on the Friday afternoon before a 3 day weekend.Originally posted by: Infohawk
I will assume you just don't have any responses.
Suffice to say that everytime you attack religion while espousing evolution (and the 2 almost always go together for you), you are (in essense) confounding abiogenesis. Because otherwise evolution isn't contrary to religion so why should you think it is? But you got out of your way (see same thread I pulled the early quote from) to say that they are contrary to each other, conveniently mentioning only the extremist and opposing sides of these points of views.
Sorry, man, you're the one with the chip on your shoulder. I wish you could read your own posts through another's eyes. Think of the way that, when the merest hint of God enters a thread, Conjur suddenly erupts in insults and condemnations against God and anyone who dare to believe in anything so ridiculous. Everytime I read that I just think that he sure protests an awful lot (meaning I think he's insecure).
Anyway, I don't know how we got here and neither do you or anyone else. Trying to act like you actually know just irritates me. Middle ground? How about I'm not so stupid to claim I know something that actually none of us know jack sh!t about? Or to condemn the beliefs that comfort another person when none of us have any proof to the contrary of those beliefs?
Nice post...I agree about the Chip on the shoulder thing. They're very arrogant, and I think if they saw their posts through another P.O.V. besides their own they might be suprised how disrepectful and not understanding of other P.O.V.'s they really are.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I want to point that my use of strawman was because the "How did we get here?" argument cannot be argued to a logical conclusion. We simply lack the knowledge (and if we didn't lack the knowledge, then there would be no argument). In the end, the argument must become personal because it simply is personal -- the individual's position on the subject represents a very personal way in which they view the world. It is what they claim to believe.
But... I must point out...
And I'm not condemning evolution, Infohawk, nor have I. I see nothing wrong with the theory in general, answered yes to the OP's questions (albeit with reservations to a couple), and if that is how God chose to operate, then who am I to argue? And if God does not exist and all this is random chance, then what does it matter?
You have tried to switch the tables around once again. I have not condemned your beliefs. Quite the contrary, I have rebuked you for condemning the beliefs of others (if someone believes in "literal" creationism and wants to teach it to their children, by what right do you think you can prevent them?). And your hypocracy for claiming that you have no beliefs or faith when you quite obviously do (in evolution and science).
But... I must point out...
... that you did it again.
And I'm not condemning evolution, Infohawk, nor have I. I see nothing wrong with the theory in general, answered yes to the OP's questions (albeit with reservations to a couple), and if that is how God chose to operate, then who am I to argue? And if God does not exist and all this is random chance, then what does it matter?
You have tried to switch the tables around once again. I have not condemned your beliefs. Quite the contrary, I have rebuked you for condemning the beliefs of others (if someone believes in "literal" creationism and wants to teach it to their children, by what right do you think you can prevent them?). And your hypocracy for claiming that you have no beliefs or faith when you quite obviously do (in evolution and science).
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
1. Do you accept that there exist complex molecules in the cells of living organisms which are known as "DNA?"
Yes.
2. Do you accept that, within these DNA, there are individual "genes?"
Yes.
3. Do you accept that there are naturally occuring factors, like radiation and toxins, that can alter the genes within a given cell?
Yes.
4. Do you accept that cells reproduce themselves within the organism?
Yes.
5. Do you accept that the genes of a cell that is reproducing will be duplicated to the new cell, even if changed by an external influence?
For the most part, if I understand the question correctly.
6. Do you accept that an offspring's genes are determined by the genes in the reproductive cells of both parents that were used to concieve the progeny?
Yes.
7. Do you accept that any changes that were made to the genes of one of the above reproductive cells will be passed on to the progeny?
Yes.
8. Do you accept that such changes can result in differences in how the organism appears, its capabilities, or to its level of intelligence?
Yes.
9. Do you accept that, if a change is entirely beneficial, the organism has a higher chance of surviving than the rest of its species?
For the most part. Some "Bad" traits are passed on from time to time. Some lessor adapted individuals still get the chance to procreate.
10. Do you accept that an organism that has a higher chance of surviving has a higher chance of reaching the age of sexual maturity?
Yes.
11. Do you accept that, if an organism has a higher chance of reaching sexual maturity, it has a higher chance of reproducing? (remember, we are assuming that said genetic difference is entirely beneficial)
Yes.
12. Do you accept that, as in the case with the organism's parents, it will pass on its genetic variation to its offspring?
Yes.
13. Do you accept that, if the organism produces progeny which have the same genetic difference, which has already been established as beneficial, that it is likely that this variation will eventually encompass greater and greater numbers of the species, until the entire population has changed (though not necessarily the entire species, as there may be geographical barriers separating the variation from mating with other populations of the same species)?
Yes.
14. Do you accept that, eventually, a population of organisms may become so radically different from the original that they lose the ability to reproduce with other populations of the original species (if any exist)?
Possibly. Points to Neanderthal, and Homo Sapien. (before Homo Sapien became Homo Sapien Sapien)
15. Do you accept that, given that scientific classification of organisms is based on genetic differences, the above population of organisms is a new species?
Somewhat. I guess we'd call them brothers, or possibly cousins.
Yes.
2. Do you accept that, within these DNA, there are individual "genes?"
Yes.
3. Do you accept that there are naturally occuring factors, like radiation and toxins, that can alter the genes within a given cell?
Yes.
4. Do you accept that cells reproduce themselves within the organism?
Yes.
5. Do you accept that the genes of a cell that is reproducing will be duplicated to the new cell, even if changed by an external influence?
For the most part, if I understand the question correctly.
6. Do you accept that an offspring's genes are determined by the genes in the reproductive cells of both parents that were used to concieve the progeny?
Yes.
7. Do you accept that any changes that were made to the genes of one of the above reproductive cells will be passed on to the progeny?
Yes.
8. Do you accept that such changes can result in differences in how the organism appears, its capabilities, or to its level of intelligence?
Yes.
9. Do you accept that, if a change is entirely beneficial, the organism has a higher chance of surviving than the rest of its species?
For the most part. Some "Bad" traits are passed on from time to time. Some lessor adapted individuals still get the chance to procreate.
10. Do you accept that an organism that has a higher chance of surviving has a higher chance of reaching the age of sexual maturity?
Yes.
11. Do you accept that, if an organism has a higher chance of reaching sexual maturity, it has a higher chance of reproducing? (remember, we are assuming that said genetic difference is entirely beneficial)
Yes.
12. Do you accept that, as in the case with the organism's parents, it will pass on its genetic variation to its offspring?
Yes.
13. Do you accept that, if the organism produces progeny which have the same genetic difference, which has already been established as beneficial, that it is likely that this variation will eventually encompass greater and greater numbers of the species, until the entire population has changed (though not necessarily the entire species, as there may be geographical barriers separating the variation from mating with other populations of the same species)?
Yes.
14. Do you accept that, eventually, a population of organisms may become so radically different from the original that they lose the ability to reproduce with other populations of the original species (if any exist)?
Possibly. Points to Neanderthal, and Homo Sapien. (before Homo Sapien became Homo Sapien Sapien)
15. Do you accept that, given that scientific classification of organisms is based on genetic differences, the above population of organisms is a new species?
Somewhat. I guess we'd call them brothers, or possibly cousins.
Macroevolution: Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing the origin of novel designs, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiation, and mass extinction.
And examples from primary literature:
Title: The rise of birds and mammals: are microevolutionary processes sufficient for macroevolution?
Source: Trends in ecology & evolution [0169-5347] Penny
yr: 2004 vol: 19 iss: 10 pg: 516
Title: Large extinctions in an evolutionary model: The role of innovation and keystone species
Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America [0027-8424] Jain
yr: 2002 vol: 99 iss: 4 pg: 2055
Title: Testing for microevolution in body size in three blue tit populations
Source: Journal of evolutionary biology [1010-061X] Charmantier
yr: 2004 vol: 17 iss: 4 pg: 732
Title: Mammalian microevolution in action: adaptive edaphic genomic divergence in blind subterranean mole-rats
Source: Proceedings. Biological sciences [0962-8452] Polyakov
yr: 2004 vol: 271 pg: 156
and my favorite.... mmm Candida albicans...
Title: Microevolution of Candida albicans Strains during Catheter-Related Candidemia
Source: Journal of clinical microbiology [0095-1137] Shin
yr: 2004 vol: 42 iss: 9 pg: 4025
Why are you so afraid of these words? The fact that they are scientific and you are afraid they weaken evolution demonstrate that you are a little shaky on the theory yourself. Not to mention that you obviously don't know what you are talking about. Perhaps reading some of these or at least knowing they exist in this context will ease your mind a little.
Creationism is just as supported as Abiogenesis, and abiogenesis is heavily taught along side the theory of evolution.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comparison, but are you suggesting that creationism is comparable to a scientific theory?
Im not a creationist. But truth be told, none of the ideas on how life began have any measureable scientific proof to make it a theory along the lines of the theory of evolution.
Also evolution doesnt exactly mean there wasnt a creator either unless you link abiogensis with it.
You can test and "prove" evolution.
You cannot test and "prove" creationism or abiogenesis, or panspermia, or any of the other ideas mislabeled as theories about how life started.
Have they made anything that reseambles life(the characteristics of life) from abiogensis.
You should be saying, going from DNA to living organisms with the theory of abiogenesis is somewhat of a harder task.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter