You just never went to a proper Natural History Museum so go to a proper one there are several one in Washington D.C. part of the Smithsonian Institution and another in New York and London's is quite good to then ask for a proper tour with a resident teacher who versed in the science will lead you through the long history of life supported by fossil evidence, DNA evidence and other sciences. If you need help have them explain it to you as they would children aged ten. Then come back and pick on the Theory of Evolution which still has nothing to challenge it Creation Science can't and I have yet to see a tangible theory stand up as well as it can. Its a complex theory and hard to understand I get that but what else is there - god did it isn't a THEORY OF SCIENCE. You need to take the evidence and have proper experts do a reasonable theory to put out there for debate. This prattling about there being holes in the science isn't anything more than we as a species will have our best minds hammering away to fill that gap in. It will take time that's all. But we are figuring out this puzzle more every year with greater and greater confirmations of its superiority as the biological process on the formation of life. And what if someday we find life of a different genetic path on other planets it would kind of end the debate of it being a unique process but common making the theory far stronger since life would be normally a natural event as long as certain factors are met with carbon based life and if we find silicon based life with that element. This is why science is so beautiful it explores and demands humans examine life and reality as it is in this case the beauty of life itself.
Why would you consider Atheism to be evil? I know that there have been many lethal organizations that have held Atheistic beliefs, but I don't see this as the direct motivation for groups as the two you mentioned. Many Theistic groups throughout history have also caused much death, though as it is with Atheists, not all Theists are malevolent. An Atheist who works as a secretary is not a threat, nor is a Theist who owns a small business. However a Theist who kills in the name of their religion, or an Atheist who commits war crimes, are both threats. It seems to me more that violent humans will justify their actions based on whatever it is they believe. Regarding my question, I only asked because the poster has said that the theory of evolution causes harm to humanity. Something that may in fact hold some truth. Yet I don't understand how ignoring the theory due to it being inconclusive, prevents humans from dehumanizing others.
The subject is "fallacies of creation." You cannot put together a single paragraph without changing the subject, to creation science or God or ET or something else - anything else so you don't have to face the subject, the FALLACIES OF EVOLUTION. YOU arrogantly dismiss others as the equivalent of "ten-year-olds". It is such an arrogant, condescending lie, but you never tire of repeating how stupid everyone else is who dissents from your archaic tautology, do you? It is horribly unintelligent and anti-intellectual of you and all your Darwinian friends to act so arrogantly. Here are some scientists who will lead YOU by the hand. I wouldn't dare call refer to you as the equivalent of a 10-year-old. That's your game. “To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity… Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?" - Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler and Adler, 1985), pp. 328,342 "Evolution can be thought of as sort of a magical religion. Magic is simply an effect without a cause, or at least a competent cause. 'Chance,' 'time,' and 'nature,' are the small gods enshrined at evolutionary temples. Yet these gods cannot explain the origin of life. These gods are impotent. Thus, evolution is left without competent cause and is, therefore, only a magical explanation for the existence of life..." (Dr. Randy L. Wysong, instructor of human anatomy and physiology, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, pg. 418.) "After chiding the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." (Dr. Loren Eiseley, anthropologist, The Immense Journey, pg. 144.) "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups." (Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist.) "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults." (Dr. Paul LeMoine, one of the most prestigious scientists in the world) "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.) "The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination." (Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain) "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination." (Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University) "We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes." (Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.) "The great cosmologic myth of the twentieth century." (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.) "Nine tenths of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view." (Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.) "We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as a fundamental fact." (Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University) "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?" (Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)
Why would other theories not interest you? Wouldn't you want to learn the truth about humanity's origins? You want to disprove the theory of evolution so strongly, which I admit can be seen as reasonable, yet you yourself have no interest in other theories, or have another theory of your own. I don't understand.
THE solution is this: You keep believing in Darwinian evolution. Others can have their beliefs, sort of like there are Catholics and there are Baptists and there are Jews. To each his own. Stop trying to shove YOUR insistence on having SOME "theory" down other people's throats. We reject yours and will not change. PERIOD. Sometimes we share, between ourselves, arguments for OUR opinions. We have already heard and read yours since junior high school. They were bad then, but we did not have the analytical capabilities and maturity to process those arguments in the same fashion that we now have. Let me make this suggestion: You start a thread FOR DARWINIAN EVOLUTIONISTS ONLY and chatter with each other to your heart's content. I would counsel all Non-Darwinists to stay away. FAR away. Please. You wouldn't have much to say, but... Were we to create its counterpart, FOR DARWINIAN DOUBTERS ONLY, say, there is not the SLIGHTEST DOUBT that atheists would intrude, beating their chests, claiming "freedom of speech" and "in the name of science." Take that to the bank. The mix always devolves into a pissing contest in which chest-beating *intellectual, rational scientists* proclaim themselves eternally virtuous, wise, and of course "the winners".... of the pissing contest.....
In what way has insisting a theory from those who do not believe in the theory of evolution "shoving anything down people's throats"? More on this later. Regarding beliefs, do you mean to say you will never change your opinion simply because you want what you believe to be correct? Despite any possible evidence that challenges your beliefs as fact? I have already stated evolution has the possibility of being incorrect. I have heard many rational viewpoints from both sides. I was curious as to what other possibilities any of you had in mind. However, if you already have it in your own minds that your personal beliefs are correct, why discuss anything amongst yourselves at all?
So your advice to everyone is not to go where the evidence takes you, but to follow your gut no matter what? Even if it means rejecting a useful theory for not having one at all?
No, you're not curious. We do not know and we have no way of knowing after 150 years of dabbling and fraud and conjecture and destruction and wasting billions of dollars chasing a meaningless tautology. Since you insist on meaningless repetition, I have no intention of reading anything more from you. To my Ignore List. ~ciao
I am curious. You haven't even provided an answer for any of my questions in my previous post. I will still try to ask again: Do you mean to say that you will never change your opinion simply because you want what you believe to be correct? Despite any possible evidence that challenges your beliefs as fact? Also, why should religions with no conclusive scientific evidence be the alternative when, as you've said, evolution should be dismissed due to not having conclusive scientific credibility? It is true we have no absolute, final way of knowing. But even if we did, would it change your mind? Or the minds of others who wish to only believe in the human origin they feel sounds more appealing?
Just as those of a Far Left conspiracy may promote evolution as an agenda, there are those of the Theistic Right who may have an agenda of their own. To undermine even the notion of their beliefs being false, for fear of a reality they will find unsatisfactory.
Disagree with him and/or start asking questions and he puts you on his ignore list. He can’t defend his opposing view of evolution. Debates within the scientific community are about specific mechanisms within evolution, not whether evolution occurred/occurs. No other credible alternative scientific theory exists.
Thank you Cosmo. This is what I was trying to ask everyone. If there were any other theories. The question now is, if there are no other theories, why do those who do not believe in evolution insist on not formulating alternative ones? Instead, some such as ChemEngineer suggest we believe whatever we like. That is in no way a scientific approach. Some others have even gone as far as claiming religions have the answers. ChemEngineer has said that evolution should be disregarded for having what he believes to be a lack of evidence, yet does not say the same of the world's religions, which also have a lack of scientifically explainable claims. ChemEngineer further goes on to suggest having a thread solely for anti-evolutionists. A place where different opinions and scrutiny are not welcome. Ironically, not unlike the "safe spaces" the Theistic Right rigidly opposes.
Actually, he has. I fear that ChemEngineer may be the type of person who does not like the theory of evolution simply because it contradicts a spiritual belief of some sort. ChemEngineer has even told me on the previous page that humans have different beliefs and that I should stop asking those who don't believe in evolution, to provide other scientific theories that explain human origins. Essentially, ChemEngineer may be like most in the Theistic Right. ChemEngineer does not care about science, but rather that evolution is disproven so that there is an excuse for faith rather than fact. I have already conceded the fact that evolution has absolute evidence for being true, and am open to other scientific explanations. Which those opposing evolution have not been able to provide yet.
Fundamentalist Christians were the first to promote safe spaces so they wouldn't be triggered by "sinful" words or actions.
Absolutely. This in fact was the case long before "mainstream" society began following liberal ideals. What the Theistic Right never wants to admit is that they too can be "triggered." For example, search for the social conservative's reaction to Starbucks not placing Christmas images on their coffee cups. While personally, I don't understand how anyone is offended by Christmas images and find the accommodation excessive, the Christian Right voiced their displeasure rather vehemently. Yet these same individuals advocate for the right of a bakery, a private businesses just as Starbucks is, to not have to make a cake for a wedding that violates the laws of their religious beliefs. Yet they blame Starbucks for having the audacity to make their own decision as a private businesses.
As Edmund Blackadder once said in the British Comedy "Blackadder the Third"..."Hope springs eternal Baldrick."
http://www.quotes.net/show-quote/9837 It's my way of expressing frustration at the fact that in spite of how many times I've given him and others a chance to refute evolution...no one has given an answer other than "God" or "Who the [bleep] cares?" using humor.
I see. That was very funny, thank you. And you are correct. I have seen the anti-evolution stance counter with religiously based human origin stories, which is ironic considering that they refute evolution claiming it lacks scientific credibility yet do not address the lack of scientific credibility in their religious explanations. Personally, I feel there is the possibility of an intelligent creator, yet even proof of this wouldn't necessarily discredit the theory of evolution. And yes, the other counter of course has unfortunately been simplistic by saying "who cares?"
Then your thinking is erroneous, because astrologers have found their predictions very useful indeed for relieving the gullible of their hard earned cash, just as the despotically inclined have found the ToE similarly useful in relieving the gullible masses of their God given rights. Actually I'm pretty sure that's the last thing in the world you want. The question is idiotic. You're welcome. That makes one of us. Which has nothing to do with anything I said, obviously. Wrong. All indications at present are that it would be a waste of effort. Anyone who needs a theory to understand that has a serious perceptual deficiency. Of course it does, since it makes the very idea of subhuman behavior exactly as meaningful as the idea of subcanine behavior, subporcine behavior, or subcockroach behavior. Congratulations on answering your own question. Request denied. The problem being...? Where did I say it would do that?
yguy, folks should be sipping on a cherry coke and muching popcorn as they read this gem you wrote. I have forty or fifty people on my Ignore List because their posts are the exact opposite of yours.
