Evolution: Are you being brainwashed?

[Squall7]

The thing about science is that it's completely objective. It has no agenda other than to understand (although there are some that are influenced by monetary value in science - especially those trying to prove something on behalf of companies/the government - like the effects of tobacco or Global Warming). It is free from trying to prove that we have a point to our existence and it is free from subjective thought - it is not science fact about supposed "superiority" in evolution, it's just people that use "facts" to justify things like racism, animal cruelty, sexism etc...

Religion however is subjective - it is perceived from a specific perspective and is equalled by other religions, all of whom fall into the same realms of "un-provable".

Whilst a religious person can take from science, what facts have to offer, to say that one's religious interpretations of fact are "the truth" is taking away from science fact itself. - Thus the flaw in coolsmile's first post.

One can believe in whatever one desires, but when scientific facts are used and abused, they are no longer facts, as they become subjective rather than objective.

/rant

 

[redwagon76]

I've always seen the flaws in the evolutionary theory but I'm a man of science. I believe in God but I don't think science can ever disprove the existance of a deity. Most of the world believes in some form of higher power whether they are Christian, Animistic, Islam, etc. Civilizations that were isolated for Millinea still worship a deity of sorts. I have a huge problem with evolution because of all the gaps and the willingness of people to follow it so blindly and then accuse believers of being gullable. I know that the earth was created, but I don't know how. I have a minor in geology and the earth is the more complex then most of us can begin to imagine. No one is going to be converted on a message board. But let's stop thinking anyone has nailed it and start thinking with open minds.

 

[n3gative3]

That is a very good and well thought out point Squall.

 

[Squall7]

I've always seen the flaws in the evolutionary theory but I'm a man of science. I believe in God but I don't think science can ever disprove the existance of a deity. Most of the world believes in some form of higher power whether they are Christian, Animistic, Islam, etc. Civilizations that were isolated for Millinea still worship a deity of sorts. I have a huge problem with evolution because of all the gaps and the willingness of people to follow it so blindly and then accuse believers of being gullable. I know that the earth was created, but I don't know how. I have a minor in geology and the earth is the more complex then most of us can begin to imagine. No one is going to be converted on a message board. But let's stop thinking anyone has nailed it and start thinking with open minds.

I don't believe science tries to disprove a deity - it's one's own thoughts that make them think "Maybe we don't need a supreme being to explain how we got here". Likewise, I do not believe the concept of "God" is a natural one. We all hear about God when we are young, whether we are forced to believe in one or not - If we didn't have that social influence in our lives, would we really come to the conclusion that there must be a supreme being that has created us?

Oh, also, I feel that a lot of the posters on here aren't really trying to convert others, just trying to get other's to think in a slightly different way - well that's what I feel I'm doing...

That is a very good and well thought out point Squall.

Thanx.

 

[n3gative3]

Or to put it in simple terms it could be called "de-conversion." Just a thought.
I agree though, I was brought up in a very objective environment where I was able to freely choose what I believed.

 

[kitkat_bar]

I don't believe science tries to disprove a deity - it's one's own thoughts that make them think "Maybe we don't need a supreme being to explain how we got here". Likewise, I do not believe the concept of "God" is a natural one. We all hear about God when we are young, whether we are forced to believe in one or not - If we didn't have that social influence in our lives, would we really come to the conclusion that there must be a supreme being that has created us?

Oh, also, I feel that a lot of the posters on here aren't really trying to convert others, just trying to get other's to think in a slightly different way - well that's what I feel I'm doing...


Thanx.

I agree. You can't make anyone believe what you do by telling then that what they believe is wrong or trying to use scientific "proof" to make them wrong/right. All you can do is hope that that person will keep an open mind. Keeping an open mind does not mean you are going against God. It's simply trying to understand what others believe as well, even if you don't believe it yourself. It doesn't make the other person wrong because when it really comes down to it...no one knows who is right and who isn't.

 

[RedProdigy]

You can not keep God out of science if you believe in God. Personally, i see science as a gift from God and to help explain how some of his creation works. The two tie in together for a religious person. For an atheist of course i will not, RedProdigy, why do you say to keep God out of science because thats very unfair and biased for a religious scientist. Not all scientists are atheists.

I think you misunderstood me. Dude, I never said anything about scientists having to be atheists! I merely said keep God out of science. You can be a scientist and be religious as well. But one has to keep his religion out of scientific research and experimentation because it is not objective.

Redwagon: All religions have fanatic followers that vilify the non-believers. So what's your point? The huge gaps are why evolution is only a theory. That doesn't stop people from supposing it's the truth. And really, I think evolution is logical.

 

[Brawny]

I don't believe science tries to disprove a deity - it's one's own thoughts that make them think "Maybe we don't need a supreme being to explain how we got here". Likewise, I do not believe the concept of "God" is a natural one. We all hear about God when we are young, whether we are forced to believe in one or not - If we didn't have that social influence in our lives, would we really come to the conclusion that there must be a supreme being that has created us?

Oh, also, I feel that a lot of the posters on here aren't really trying to convert others, just trying to get other's to think in a slightly different way - well that's what I feel I'm doing...


Thanx.

If this is true, how would religion ever come into being? Pair this with evolution from apes and that would make you think that Apes believe in a deity and they tell their children about it. There had to be a start somewhere.

Good point in second paragraph.

 

[I_Dont_Know859]

I think you misunderstood me. Dude, I never said anything about scientists having to be atheists! I merely said keep God out of science. You can be a scientist and be religious as well. But one has to keep his religion out of scientific research and experimentation because it is not objective.

i see what you mean, however i guess it all depends on the scenario like for example keeping God out of science when a scientist who believes in God and working with a scientist who doesnt. However, an the exception which i hope you will agree with me, is when both scientists share the same beliefs of God then there is nothing wrong with bringing God into science. So in some cases there is nothing wrong with bringing God into science. Your post earlier wasn't that clear if that is what you meant.

 

[Squall7]

If this is true, how would religion ever come into being? Pair this with evolution from apes and that would make you think that Apes believe in a deity and they tell their children about it. There had to be a start somewhere.

Well:
1. God is often thought of as a way for social control. It may have been crafted especially for this purpose.
2. "God" is often used to "explain the unexplainable". Likewise, even today, it's used as a form of "unpredictability". "Act of God" on an insurance form for example, is a blanket for many various improbable happenings, and a loophole for them not to pay out.

There's many other different ways that religion could have come into being. Many I haven't even thought of.

Good point in second paragraph.

Thank you.

 

[n3gative3]

i see what you mean, however i guess it all depends on the scenario like for example keeping God out of science when a scientist who believes in God and working with a scientist who doesnt. However, an the exception which i hope you will agree with me, is when both scientists share the same beliefs of God then there is nothing wrong with bringing God into science. So in some cases there is nothing wrong with bringing God into science. Your post earlier wasn't that clear if that is what you meant.

Regardless if two scientists believe in Yahweh or not that still doesn't change the fact that they should (here is the key word) objectively leave him out of their research as it is an unrelated thing. It would taint the findings so to speak.

 

[coolsmile]

The thing about science is that it's completely objective. It has no agenda other than to understand (although there are some that are influenced by monetary value in science - especially those trying to prove something on behalf of companies/the government - like the effects of tobacco or Global Warming). It is free from trying to prove that we have a point to our existence and it is free from subjective thought - it is not science fact about supposed "superiority" in evolution, it's just people that use "facts" to justify things like racism, animal cruelty, sexism etc...

Religion however is subjective - it is perceived from a specific perspective and is equalled by other religions, all of whom fall into the same realms of "un-provable".

Whilst a religious person can take from science, what facts have to offer, to say that one's religious interpretations of fact are "the truth" is taking away from science fact itself. - Thus the flaw in coolsmile's first post.

One can believe in whatever one desires, but when scientific facts are used and abused, they are no longer facts, as they become subjective rather than objective.

/rant

Just so you know, you cannot literally "prove" anything in science ^_^
But you of all people should know that

Funny thing that you say that I wasn't talking about fact. Fact is based off perception. Lets say an event in the past hapeend but you and no one remembered it. Technically, it never happened...
You should know that there is no fact that proves evolution. All I have to do is prove 1 part of evolution false, and it is all false. I'm a programmer and of all people, that is something im sure of.
Then again you say that religion is just an interperetation. Then again, everybody has a religion. So since I assume you are athiest, your interperitation of the truth is against god, not for science. Thus the flaw in your posts, not mine...

1. God is often thought of as a way for social control. It may have been crafted especially for this purpose.
2. "God" is often used to "explain the unexplainable". Likewise, even today, it's used as a form of "unpredictability". "Act of God" on an insurance form for example, is a blanket for many various improbable happenings, and a loophole for them not to pay out.

If you don't understand god, you should not make any comments about it. You must experience god to understand which you show very little knowledge of
Oh...
And there is about as much evidence for god than there is against god

 

[Squall7]

Just so you know, you cannot literally "prove" anything in science ^_^

Ye, that's completely incorrect there. Paper has an ignition temperature of 451 Degrees Fahrenheit. The test for that is relplicable. Every time, it will burn at that same temperature. By replicating that test, you literally "prove" the fact that it burns at 451 Degrees Farrenheit.

But you of all people should know that

Oh, and why is that? You speak to me as though you know me. You are mistaken.

Funny thing that you say that I wasn't talking about fact. Fact is based off perception.

Fact is based off of replicability. It's also based on certainty. Interpretation of those "facts" is what you're refering to.

Lets say an event in the past hapeend but you and no one remembered it. Technically, it never happened...

Actually it does. The universe and existence is not based on what people can "experience". You're mixing up the objective with the subjective. Just because it doesn't happen to you, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If a building caught alight when nobody is around, it still burns to the ground...

You should know that there is no fact that proves evolution.

Ye, you've already sung that one.

All I have to do is prove 1 part of evolution false, and it is all false.

Science doesn't work like that. If something is found to be false, science adapts to accomdate the new information. If anything, strict religion is like that (not saying religion in general, as the people on this forum have shown a willingness to adapt to new information and ideas).

I'm a programmer and of all people, that is something im sure of.

And you don't see any flaws in your comparison of programming to evolution? Like, they have no common basis...

Then again you say that religion is just an interperetation.

I didn't say it was "just" an interpretation. I said it was subjective, perceived from a particular perspective. Is this not correct? If so, then what about protestantism vs Catholicism vs Mormonism vs Evangelism vs etc...

Then again, everybody has a religion.

Not in such an "organised" way. Likewise, many do not use science for their own personal agenda's of "proving" their religion. Aetheists and Christians and Muslims and Hindus and Sihks and Jews etc... all leave their personal beliefs about God at the door when it comes to creating/finding out something in science.

So since I assume you are athiest, your interperitation of the truth is against god, not for science.

Wrong. I AM for science. However, when science gets in the way of aspects of the bible, I do take science's route.

Thus the flaw in your posts, not mine...

If I did have a flaw in my post, then there WOULD be one in yours also. Or do you assume you're exempt from the equation?

If you don't understand god, you should not make any comments about it.

Do YOU understand God? Do you understand why the world is the way it is, despite there being a "God"? Nobody can ever hope to "understand" God. We merely try to understand aspects of him/her, which is all we can do. I've learnt a different aspect from you. Also, this comment is merely a defence mechanism employed to devalue a non-religious arguement. I've seen it in many cases. However, it still does not disprove my point.

You must experience god to understand which you show very little knowledge of

"Experience"? If you have "experienced" God in the way you are talking, whether it actually be true (One assumes one's own "experience" be true, but once again, it is a subjective perspective), then you're likely to be biased AGAINST science, and for CHRISTIAN GOD. A Muslim would argue that YOU have not experienced the true Allah, and are therefore completely off-course.

Oh...
And there is about as much evidence for god than there is against god

Really? Any non-creationalist "evidence"? Also, it's widely established that "God" cannot be proven, just as much as No "God" can be proven. So in essence, you're correct. We get NO definitive evidence either way.

 

[RedProdigy]

If this is true, how would religion ever come into being? Pair this with evolution from apes and that would make you think that Apes believe in a deity and they tell their children about it. There had to be a start somewhere.

Good point in second paragraph.

You raise a very interesting point. Some studies have shown that there is perhaps a "religion gene" that drives us to worship. Think logically as well. Humans are the only animals that ever attempt to explain the world. Back in ancient times, people weren't able to explain nature and thus attributed natural occurances to deities. Religion thus may be a defense mechanism against the fear of the unknown (the other defense is to vilify the unknown).

In medieval times, life was unpleasant (a bit of an understatement really) for the peasants. Church was the only good things in their otherwise miserable lives. Religion comforted them and peasants coped with life by the promise of a great afterlife. Today, religion serves mainly as a source of stability and comfort. That is why religion is good. However, religion can be twisted to do horrible things but I would digress.

 

[Brawny]

Just the fact that there is such thing as a religion is reason for religion.

Why haven't apes, over the billions of years, had the need to explain things in the same way that we have?