Evolution: Are you being brainwashed?

[I_Dont_Know859]

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.

why would the creator be unrelated to the creations. Thats a really silly thing to say to someone who believes and God. Thats just the point of view from someone who doesn't believe there is a God, who doesn't have any right at all tell to someone who believes and devotes there life to God to leave him out. And you until you can disprove God, I wouldn't go so fall as to call the findings tainted. It you have an issue with it, just take the facts gathered from the findings and ignoring the parts mentioning God. Come on now:wtf:

 

[I_Dont_Know859]

hey brawny how come you can't accept private messages?

 

[n3gative3]

why would the creator be unrelated to the creations. Thats a really silly thing to say to someone who believes and God. Thats just the point of view from someone who doesn't believe there is a God, who doesn't have any right at all tell to someone who believes and devotes there life to God to leave him out. And you until you can disprove God, I wouldn't go so fall as to call the findings tainted. It you have an issue with it, just take the facts gathered from the findings and ignoring the parts mentioning God. Come on now:wtf:

What I mean is that there would be no point to fill in the gaps with God when writing your findings in a scientific journal. I doubt there are any legit documents in any of the scientific journals with God mentioned as a contributing force some how. That is an assumption which neither helps or hinders the findings so therefore should be irrelevant.

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?

Just because we took that route in the evolutionary chain does not mean that there has to be another to evolve consciousness. Asking why apes, who by the way seem to be doing just fine, should need to evolve a consciousness as we have is almost like asking why an Octopus, Dolphin, or any other "intelligent" animal hasn't.

 

[Squall7]

Just because we took that route in the evolutionary chain does not mean that there has to be another to evolve consciousness. Asking why apes, who by the way seem to be doing just fine, should need to evolve a consciousness as we have is almost like asking why an Octopus, Dolphin, or any other "intelligent" animal hasn't.

Good point there. Also, I'd like to expand on that and say that "intelligence" is cultrually based. This is also true in IQ tests. In my psychology class (years ago), we were taught an example of this. It goes:
What's the odd one out, Axe, saw, wood or rake.
Now, some people here would saw "Wood" as it is the only non-tool. However, somebody from a different culture may say "Rake" as this is the only word not involved in lumber.
Also, there is something called the B.I.T.C.H test (no seriously).
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cach...IQ+tests+*****+test&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=29&gl=uk

In an attempt to address the issue of cultural fairness, tests intentionally developed to reflect a Black culture bias (Dove, 1968; Williams, 1972; Boone & Adesso, 1974; ) were now included in textbook chapters. Robert Williams, in particular, designed the Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity (*****).

Today, religion serves mainly as a source of stability and comfort.

Only to oneself. Religion has also been the driving force behind many an internal conflict. In Pakistan, for example, the generations old Muslim vs Hindu battle is still raging. The wests demonises Islam in the media even now. There's many religous basis for conflicts. The only way in which organised religion is good, is on an individualistic level, not in a social level.

 

[n3gative3]

The only way in which organised religion is good, is on an individualistic level, not in a social level.

Couldn't agree with you more there.

 

[RedProdigy]

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?

AGHH! You're frustrating me! Apes have yet to develop the necessary mental functions that would cause them to start attempting to explain the world! Obviously, mental functions on the par of Homo Sapiens is needed for religion. Apes have just evolved their own way over millions (not billions lol) of years and have never needed higher mental functions. Again, if an ape actually did acquire more intelligence, then it would compete with humans and it would have no chance.

Squall: Yes, I know religion can be twisted into brainwashing people to blindly follow leaders. But religion is a big part of the US and it seldom causes physical strife. Hell, now Americans are more tolerant of other religions, except Islam because its radicalism is all we see.

 

[Squall7]

Squall: Yes, I know religion can be twisted into brainwashing people to blindly follow leaders. But religion is a big part of the US and it seldom causes physical strife. Hell, now Americans are more tolerant of other religions, except Islam because its radicalism is all we see.

Well, to be fair, there's a fair amount of ethnicity other than Christian in the US (also, being from the UK, I'm not really refering to solely the US unless otherwise stated). Also, I think you're generalising quite a bit there. Not all Americans are tolerant of other religions. I've known quite a few that aren't. Also, the radicalisation of a particular group does not excuse the fact that people are racist againsts Muslims. If anything it only proves where the Islamophobia comes from. Also, it's not just Muslims that are the victims of racism. Anyone whom actually looks middle-eastern are also victims, as people assume that they are Muslim.

 

[coolsmile]

"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.

I am not biased against science. Science goes perfectly along the bible. Evolution doesn't, and evolution isn't science so everything works out

 

[kitkat_bar]

I am not biased against science. Science goes perfectly along the bible. Evolution doesn't, and evolution isn't science so everything works out

Really? Show me a passage in the bible in where science prooved it correct. The only thing we seem to know is that a man named Jesus did live, but no "proof" that he is the son of God.

 

[RedProdigy]

I am not biased against science. Science goes perfectly along the bible. Evolution doesn't, and evolution isn't science so everything works out

Science does not and should not go along perfectly with the Bible, mainly because then you're discriminating against other religions and also the Bible isn't that scientific. According to you, atomic theory is not science because it's not in the bible.

Evolution IS SCIENCE. It was presented as science 150 years ago and it was eventually accepted as science. Obviously, to be accepted, evolutionists had to find indirect proof that supported evolution. But there can never be direct proof of evolution unless we build a time machine. But if you think because of that, evolution is not science, then that means all other theories of sciences are not science as well.

I just don't get why people object to evolution so much. It really doesn't conflict with the Bible (except about Earth being created in 4000 BC part) and this isn't the only theory in science that has been accepted.

 

[n3gative3]

Well that and the fact that it completely negates the Adam and Eve story. I do know of Christians who believe in evolution and somehow adapt it to their beliefs. I have had one go as far as to say that we did evolve from a common ancestor but that Adam and Eve were probably the first homo sapiens that came about... :tard:

If Adam and Eve were merely a fictional story like some moderates may believe (as well as Noah's Ark) then there was really no such thing as original sin because Eve never caused it and furthermore, Jesus would have then died for no reason at all. Martyrdom is a pretty stupid concept anyway.

 

[Squall7]

I am not biased against science. Science goes perfectly along the bible. Evolution doesn't, and evolution isn't science so everything works out

Your workings are incorrect. You assume that evolution is not part of science because it does not fit in with religion - as you assume both science and religion are correct, and evolution, as it opposes religion is incorrect.

Also, you ARE biased against science - the kind of science that doesn't adhere to the philosophies of the church. You accept other forms of science which don't even touch on religion, as they are thought by everyone to be automatically true.

Oh, and one more thing - Evolution IS an aspect of science. It's part of biology to be exact. :thumbsup:

 

[n3gative3]

Exactly, coolsmile (Don'tKnow, etc..), I think you are getting caught up in all the hype around this evolution/atheism vs. creation/Christianity (to be general) thing that has been growing momentum in this country (possibly in part due to YouTube, The Rational Response Squad, and creationism in schools).

It has become some odd crusade of sorts to try and debunk evolution because it doesn't fit with your beliefs. I don't see anyone attacking the Theory of Thermodynamics or even the Theory of Relativity and crying "foul" that they don't exist because they are "just theories."

 

[Brawny]

I myself don't see why creationism/intelligent design can't be at least mentioned in schools. I know that people would go crazy if they explained it, but why can't they at least say, "there is a large number of people that _____". My religions class teaches in depth other religions/atheism worldviews. That doesn't make me automatically want to hate my own.

This country is getting too weird. I am not allowed to say God on tv, but I am allowed to say Allah, Muhammad, Buddha, Visha, Brahma, etc. If people censored Islam or Judaism, it would be discrimination. Why does it happen to Christianity??

</rant>

 

[n3gative3]

It is mentioned in schools. We did a whole section on genesis myths in my senior sociology class. Everything from Greek to Sumerian to Judeo-Christian. There would be no harm mentioning it in that way but teaching it as science is absurd.

I do fully agree with your second point though. I despise political correctness just about as much as fundamental religion. I mean, it is already bad enough that we can't show naked human bodies on the television (hmm, I wonder where that idea came from...) and saying God or whatever other 'non curse word' is no different. Words are words and people just need to get the **** over it.