Thread: Evolution is a Religion!

How is disagreeing with your opinion cutting your throat? What about you respond to some points, or post some evidence to back up your claims, instead of complaining about it?

Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka
I'd kill to mod this section -- well, not kill because I believe murder is wrong. :sweat1:

Anyway, d-tamer, you're just being a mook, OK? And what the heck do you mean by \"Kimpossible has taken over more then one thread just to prove she or he is somthing\"? How many threads have you overtaken or created just to fill the place with xian fluff? We don't want your missionizing, never did. If you stop, Kim'll shut right up. It's win-win.

Didn't we all already come to the inarguable conclusion that in fact, Kim's use of the female symbol is justified? This has officially gotten ridiculous.

[ Insult removed. You're beginning to piss me off. Stop it. You're already getting one warning coming your way, when I get the time - Moderator ]

Originally posted by dreamtamer007
[ An insult that was removed - Moderator ]

LMAO

How old are you again? You sound increasingly puerile with every post, it's hilarious and yet disturbing.

You either immediately focus on the person posting instead of what the person posted, or launch into some barely relevant Biblical tangent, or something else scientifically flawed and non sequiteur -- thus turning everything into an insult-fest. Why don't you just leave here and go spend time at some evangelist forum where you and your sermonizing will be much more welcome? No, I'm serious.

Just KNOCK IT OFF. NOW.
[ I'm moving the off topic stuff soon. This is just a very awkward time - I'm moving house - Moderator ]

I find it very amusing that you start a topic called "Evolution is a Religion!" (obviously something that will spark controversy) and then play the "everyone is ganging up on me" card when we demonstrate how wrong you really are.

Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka
I'd kill to mod this section -- well, not kill because I believe murder is wrong. :sweat1:

If you were a mod, I'd consider giving it to you
Soon I'm gonna need a 'philosophy' break

Originally posted by kimpossible
I'm always amazed at how moronic a random sampling of people can be.

Loud BuZZZZZZZIng sound, in your mind, can drive you to illogical thoughts like faith?

huh?

Your disclaimer disavows you from taking a stand on anything of meaning, that is truly a shame, cause those who have strength of conviction will stand up to anyone, whom they believe to be wrong! That says a lot about you…

Why is it you respond to the insults in detail, but never bother to keep the discussion going and respond to people's points? It just gets a little bit pointless after a while, you just make statements and ignore it when people refute them

Originally posted by Awaken4e1

Loud BuZZZZZZZIng sound, in your mind, can drive you to illogical thoughts like faith?

huh?

Your disclaimer disavows you from taking a stand on anything of meaning, that is truly a shame, cause those who have strength of conviction will stand up to anyone, whom they believe to be wrong! That says a lot about you…

If you could read English you would find that it does no such thing.

But I'm not expecting miracles

Originally posted by spoon
Why is it you respond to the insults in detail, but never bother to keep the discussion going and respond to people's points? It just gets a little bit pointless after a while, you just make statements and ignore it when people refute them

In order to respond, one must maintain a common point of origin, but those can’t be maintained because you are unwilling to accept that the field I’m playing on exists. You would rather insult me because you can’t understand me.

Adaption is a natural function of any organic creature, and evolution is adaption in the context of the building block of humans (and animals and plants). It's a theory, probably not a religion, does not require any worshipping, only studying.

I read your longer reply back there, Brady. It's a decent simplification of evolution and a natural selection. I'm trying to think of questions that interest me....like how is the time for a certain evolution created? I certainly don't hope that putting people in different areas would make them evolve at a noticeable rate, of course we haven't seen that, aside from collective personality changes of a nation, but not biological. If anything, it's incredible subtle.

I can see how randomness may be predictable, but not purposely. Purpose pretty much implies a thinking mind behind it all, which crosses into the atmosphere of religion and spiritual. Not much wrong with that, but it is not often a part of scientific discussion.

I really wish this thread was dead, because I could just move the whole lot into the moderator section for discussion.
I'll be taking out all the childish crap soon, when I get the chance. Until then, could you ALL please refrain from the off topic personal bantering? THANK YOU.

Folks, Placebo and the other moderators have warned you repeatedly about personal attacks. This forum is for civilized debates, not hostile name calling.

Please keep this civil or I will lock this and begin handing out punishments.

Last warning.

[quote]
No Its a religion by virtue of one thinking that man arrived on this planet threw natural selection. A lot of the so-called evidence is falsely presented. I’m not going to go into any more detail because [ Attack removed. Despite not using names it's fairly obvious who you are referring to. I might send a PM later to discuss it - Moderator ]

(holding white flag, suggesting we both act like Jesus said we should...) What evidence is falsely presented? What are the "holes"?

>>[ For pete's sake, this isn't english school. We still know exactly who you are referring to, since dtamer was the one attacked for his use of english Now can BOTH of you stop it please. D-Tamer LAY OFF... This is a warning. I'll be PMing you soon. - Moderator ]

Sorry, I was talking about Spoon.

Spoon, I'm sorry I insulted you. It was wrong of me!

First off, let me say that this thread was a riot.

No Its a religion by virtue of one thinking that man arrived on this planet threw natural selection. A lot of the so-called evidence is falsely presented. I’m not going to go into any more detail because[/b]

This is a sure-fire way to lose any arguement.
Ok, what I see here is debate about creationism vs evolution (surprise surprise) and without adding my own bias to the debate, I'll offer this suggestion: if you're going to contest someone's philosophy, it is your Responsibility to "go into any more detail." I'm not calling you out, personally, dreamtamer, but this has become a larger problem than necessary.

Anyone who thinks Evolution is false, and that Creationism is the way things are done, put your EVIDENCE on the table to be compared and contrasted. I don't think the "It's true because I have faith its true" is the way to go about expressing your convictions when it comes to a topic that is obviously this controversial. I honestly don't see how so many Believers cannot see that this is the backbone of their side of the arguement, IMHO, and I think it is time for this variable to be addressed. Evolution has been studied for ages, there are many followers who can, at a moments notice, give reference to evidence that Evolution is a very distinct possibility. I do not think Creationism can boast such a claim. Though the following is vast, the existence of actual, observable, Evidence of Creationism is rare, to nonexistent, itself. If anyone who is argueing on the side of Creationism has Evidence that they would like to bring to the discussion, that would rival the Evidence that I'm pretty sure could be brought forth by the Evolutionists, I think those of us who are trying to get more than a laugh out of this thread would start to take it a little more seriously. By the way, I would have to say that Bible verses don't count. I don't think you could argue for existence of creationism by citing verses, unless you can provide evidence that the text is based on Facts. That is no easy task.

Just a suggestion from a neutral party. Carry on.

OK People, listen up

I have a serious problem with each and every arguement in this (and every other damn) thread.

no-one has the common courtesy to admit they could be wrong

no-one has the balls to just say
"I beleive this, for no other reason than it makes me happy when I wake up in the morning"

it was only 500 years ago that we thought the world was flat.

flat!

just one outstretched piece of land and if you sailed too far you'd fall off the edge.

flat!!

just a couple hundred years ago, when people complained of headaches doctors would make cuts in the persons head to allow the demons to escape...

Until 60 years ago, Scientists were sure that an aircraft could never fly faster then the speed of sound.

Every time An aircraft had ever approached the speed of sound, it would go out of control before breaking up in flight.

All of the scientific evidence up to that point proved that no aircraft could reach the speed of sound without going out of control and breaking up in flight.

What's my point?

Science has made great leaps through out the ages
changed our way of life
improved our standard of living
expanded our understanding of the universe

there have also been some fantastically wrong assumptions made by science
but science keeps fighting back (evolving - haha) in that there is always progress being made
theories been proven, and dis-proven
counter-theories popping up

it's a mistake to think that you are always right
and that sort of thinking is very un-scientific

Religious folk
you're next - lol
but first I need a fag break
see you in 5 mins for your lesson

I’ll look up the evidence and present it soon (Its been a wile since I was in school) but don’t forget you need to show evidence also. Not a 10 page copy from the net please.
Just something to think about. If someone started a thread about how Christianity was not right do you think all the Christians would get mean and insulting? No they would just present their case. Hard to believe but there has been many threads attacking the bible.

Right,

religious folk

the bible was written by men, over a very long period of time
it has been changed and edited so many times, is unbelievable (pun intended)
when the roman empire was in full swing, they edited the bible to suit their agenda

entire books were re-written or mis-translated to serve the good of Rome
the book of St. Thomas was completely ommitted (this still remains the case today)

you cannot logically say that the bible is the word of God
it's the word of man
it has been so corrupted, so bastadised, that I doubt if anything has been left with it's original meaning intact

belief is very powerful
those wanting power (or wanting to remain in power) knew this
editing the book to fit your goal was a simple, sure-fire way to keep the loyalty of the common people

"you burnt our village, raped our women and forced us into slavery !!!"

"yes, because the bible told us to - you beleive in God, don't you?"

"Yes, I do"

"Ever read the bible?"

"No, only noble-men are allowed to read and write, and you killed them all"

"Well, let me tell you what the bible says......"

"Gad zooks, we were heathen devil worshipers, and it took a big one-sided massacre for us to realise this"

"That's my boy, now go plow your field"

Originally posted by Ynot
OK People, listen up

I have a serious problem with each and every arguement in this (and every other damn) thread.

no-one has the common courtesy to admit they could be wrong

no-one has the balls to just say
\"I beleive this, for no other reason than it makes me happy when I wake up in the morning\"

it was only 500 years ago that we thought the world was flat.

flat!

just one outstretched piece of land and if you sailed too far you'd fall off the edge.

flat!!

just a couple hundred years ago, when people complained of headaches doctors would make cuts in the persons head to allow the demons to escape...

Until 60 years ago, Scientists were sure that an aircraft could never fly faster then the speed of sound.

Every time An aircraft had ever approached the speed of sound, it would go out of control before breaking up in flight.

All of the scientific evidence up to that point proved that no aircraft could reach the speed of sound without going out of control and breaking up in flight.

What's my point?

Science has made great leaps through out the ages
changed our way of life
improved our standard of living
expanded our understanding of the universe

there have also been some fantastically wrong assumptions made by science
but science keeps fighting back (evolving - haha) in that there is always progress being made
theories been proven, and dis-proven
counter-theories popping up

it's a mistake to think that you are always right
and that sort of thinking is very un-scientific

It's statements like this that really bother me.

Science is not and has never been a declaration of truth. Science is an estimation of what is most likely based on the analysis of the facts presented.

At one time, yes, the theory was that airplanes could not maintain control at mach speeds. However, this is not the end of the story. This is an example where science triumphed. Instead of giving up and saying, "well, that sucks" they carefully examined the data and said, "hey, maybe if we do this it'll work!!". So guess what, they formed new hypotheses, carried out new experiments, and what do you know? They figured it out.

Evolution, however, has been around for a fairly long time, and has been subject to endless study and criticism. And over all this time and examinations, its premises have only been strengthened.

Is it possible that the theory is completely and utterly back-asswards? Yep, but highly unlikely. About as likely as an albino elephant crashing through your ceiling and crushing you while you read this.
Is it possible that the theory is incomplete? Sure, details are being fleshed out all the time.

To paraphrase spoon (easily the most consistently intelligent and coherent poster on DV) , what is more likely to be wrong?

a) one's uninformed, unresearched and biased opinion on evolutionary theory, or
B) 50,000 detailed papers written on the subject by experts in their field.

Consider that before demanding a qualifier be attached to each person's post saying "This is all subject to change if we wake up in the twilight zone tomorrow."

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

It's statements like this that really bother me.

Science is not and has never been a declaration of truth. Science is an estimation of what is most likely based on the analysis of the facts presented.[/b]

Yes, but people on here (and elsewhere, for that matter, not just DV by any means)
do take science as absolute truth, casting aside religious beliefs as pure crap - that's my point

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
At one time, yes, the theory was that airplanes could not maintain control at mach speeds. However, this is not the end of the story. This is an example where science triumphed. Instead of giving up and saying, \"well, that sucks\" they carefully examined the data and said, \"hey, maybe if we do this it'll work!!\". So guess what, they formed new hypotheses, carried out new experiments, and what do you know? They figured it out.

exactly, proper science working in a proper way

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

Evolution, however, has been around for a fairly long time, and has been subject to endless study and criticism. And over all this time and examinations, its premises have only been strengthened.[/b]

but that doesn't make creationism wrong

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
Is it possible that the theory is incomplete? Sure, details are being fleshed out all the time.

To paraphrase spoon (easily the most consistently intelligent and coherent poster on DV) , what is more likely to be wrong?

a) one's uninformed, unresearched and biased opinion on evolutionary theory, or
B) 50,000 detailed papers written on the subject by experts in their field.

Consider that before demanding a qualifier be attached to each person's post saying \"This is all subject to change if we wake up in the twilight zone tomorrow.\"

My point is more the fact that
just because evolution is the most likely reason we have thumbs and the most complex mind on the planet, does not, by itself, rule out creationism or religion

I did swear I'd never do this again, after the "theory of evolution" thread
I'm in the enviable position of arguing both sides
making my wrong on two counts

My point is more the fact that just because evolution is the most likely reason we have thumbs and the most complex mind on the planet, does not, by itself, rule out creationism or religion[/b]

Agree, creationism and religion take themselves out of the equation with circular logic and general unfalsifiability anyways.

You all do realize I worded this thread to stir up some controversy. Well it worked. Ynot has made a lot of sense and it even makes me think. If I thought I was wrong in weighing evolution to creationism I would admit it. But what if someone came to you and said there is no such thing as Lucid Dreaming. It’s a figment of your imagination. Awake and Asleep at the same time. That’s a contradiction. I don’t think you would have to go far to find that argument. How many people have you told about LDing? If there close friends or family they are probably are just being tolerant. Not all people, there are exceptions. We hear about them here at DV. The ones that understand and believe in Lding and that have never hade the experience. That blows my mind or maybe I’m just jealous because I did not understand until the actual experience. Science and all the evidence related fascinate me today. Who would have ever thought that millions of communications are know practical threw a hair-sized piece of fiber (about 100,000,000 frequencies) with using light. My point is it’s fascinating when you look at all the scientific data that can present a case for where we came from. But like LDing I have had experiences and I think just like LDing it was due to faith and I guess you have to experience it for yourself.

LDing is a scientifically studied and accepted phenomenon.

Going further: Lucid Dreaming is also verifiable through many repeatable tests, such as having the observed lucid dreamer agree to execute a series of multi-directional eye movements while in REM sleep. Even those who don't believe in lucid dreaming don't stay nonbelievers for long after actually hearing the details behind how it works. Keep in mind that many of the people that give you the "deer-in-headlights" look when I tell them about LD's and don't believe, come back to me explaining how they've experienced their first one after I told them about it. Someone could say that don't believe in multiple pesonality disorder, either. I mean, how can more than one consciousness exist in one person? Or how can a single consciousness be split to actually fool itself into thinking it is many? Right? To the uninformed, these seem like they could be trojaned into the "Just a belief" catagory, but after knowing enough about the subject, one usually begins to find the "wait a minute, this isn't so far-fetched" that sits on the horizon.
Sure, it is easy to think that being Awake and Asleep at the same time aren't possible. However, this is only if you don't have adequate knowledge of how the mind works, and that the body is the only thing paralyzed while you sleep. A loud sound can wake you out of even the deepest sleep, which, in itself, is evidence that the conscious mind is still operative. This alone makes the "your mind can't be awake and asleep at the same time" fall much more on the side of "just a belief" and anyone that had good enough knowledge of the mind and some of its fuctions would have to counter that fact to give their side of the arguement credit. I'm not asking you to counter it, but you can if you want. I'm just saying that the LD/Religion analogy doesn't quite work, in my opinion.