Intelligent people = 'less likely to believe in God'

[Lionheart_0]

Locked, till I can figure this all out.

 

 

 

Ok sorry about that (I'm still getting used to the mod interfaces and stuff on here).

 

 

 

Ok, all of you behave blah blah blah, keep all your personal quarrels to pm's blah blah blah, Do not take stuff from one topic to another, especially if the comment has no meaning other then to attack that person.

 

 

 

If you have a problem with me posting in colours, turn off your monitor, now.

[Zonorhc]

Hey guys, Newton isn't exactly representative of the majority of religious people.

 

 

 

Just pointing it out, in case you forgot.

 

 

 

Bringing him up doesn't exactly disprove that intelligent people are less likely to believe.

[warri0r45]

Hey guys, Newton isn't exactly representative of the majority of religious people.

 

 

 

Just pointing it out, in case you forgot.

 

 

 

Bringing him up doesn't exactly disprove that intelligent people are less likely to believe.

 

 

 

I know, mate. Just disproving the idea that religious people necessarily reject science. Obviously Newton isn't representative of all believers, but that wasn't the point I made.

[dragoonson]

I agree wit that as well, and I was just poking a bit of fun at you.

 

 

 

By the way, as to the whole "free time" argument, how do you explain Muslims having been the leading scientific group in the Middle Ages, despite praying very often during their day? Sorta defuncts that idea.

Key word is Middle Ages, a time when not believing in god could be punishable with death, and a time where science wasn't advanced enough to contradict almost everything the Bible or Quaran says.

 

 

 

Oh and guess what else, it was also a period in Islamic history when people didn't blow themselves up for their beliefs.

 

 

That was not true.In fact,when the Egyptian Muslims were in control of Jerusalem they allowed the Christians to keep their churches and stuff (like the Holy Sepulchure).Hell,they even allowed pilgrims.And apparently,the prophet Muhammad did tell them not to perform atrocities on Christians and Jews,because they were "People of the Book" and believed in One God.

 

 

 

It was only when the Turks had been converted that the crusades (in a way) began.Let this be a history lesson to you.

[Barihawk]

Key word is Middle Ages, a time when not believing in god could be punishable with death, and a time where science wasn't advanced enough to contradict almost everything the Bible or Quaran says.

 

 

 

Oh and guess what else, it was also a period in Islamic history when people didn't blow themselves up for their beliefs.

 

 

 

It's also a time period when the Muslims were establishing the first ever Universities in the West. Not just for religious work, but for science as well. And anyone could go to them.

 

 

 

And I am sure that science still isn't advanced enough to contradict "almost everything" in either book.

[StrOwez]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=T27kB4BjbEg

 

 

 

good video to back up

[ThurinEthir]

 

Ignorance, nice presumption saying all religions reject science. In my religion, the growth of intellect is incouraged and so is challenging the existance of God because it leaves those who still truely believe yet have been educated.

 

 

 

Although I do strongly dislike when some idiot just follows a religion because their parents told them to, or they were brought up with it and that just stuck to them. Abortion is bad. Whys abortion bad? Because the Bible told me so. Why did it tell you? idk.

 

 

 

(Btw I'm Maronite Catholic, and just because you see Catholic, don't think Roman Catholic, its alooooooooooooot different).

 

 

 

I do believe in Evolution, science is a marvel, and I do believe in God and the power(and mystery) of what he created. Science and religion shouldn't fight, but be used hand-in-hand.

 

 

 

And just because people get smarter doesn't mean thats the reason why they refuse to believe in God.

 

Agreed, though I'm not exactly the same religion as you, I don't like the idea of "Faith versus science", but rather "Faith and science." There is no scientific theory stating "There is no God", nor is there any passage in the Bible, or any other religious text, stating that "Science is rubbish."

 

 

 

a time when not believing in god could be punishable with death

 

There is still no place where believing in God could be punishable with death. There are places where believing in a certain God is punishable with death, though there are no atheist countries where you can be killed for being religious. Faith =/= Christianity.

 

 

 

Basically, the lesson learned from this - Don't stereotype. How clichéd.

[chris20085]

 

Whilst ridding Iraq of Saddam, in principle, was a good thing, far more people will die simply due to the increase in terrorism that the invasion will create. The war there will take decades, in order to rid the country entirely of militia men who would simply hop into power if we removed our troops. Im pretty much as liberal as they come on most topics, but withdrawal of the troops is just RIDICULOUS. The invasion was a bad idea, but too many people dwell on that. If we want to stop the death, we need to solve the problem, and removing troops will just give the various militia groups chance to overthrow and take control - and that, we DONT want.

 

 

 

We should remove all the troops as soon as possible, if we stay in it'll just turn into a decades-long guerilla war with troops being picked off one by one. History shows (America in Vietnam, USSR in Afghanistan are two examples) that an outside force cannot create long-term stability in a country. If we stay in, more and more lives (not to mention money) will be wasted. The reason for being there is because of national interests (oil/strategic location), not to stop the violence which is happening there.

[insane]

Hey guys, Newton isn't exactly representative of the majority of religious people.

 

 

 

Just pointing it out, in case you forgot.

 

 

 

Bringing him up doesn't exactly disprove that intelligent people are less likely to believe.

 

 

 

I know, mate. Just disproving the idea that religious people necessarily reject science. Obviously Newton isn't representative of all believers, but that wasn't the point I made.

 

 

 

I think what happens is that as intelligence rises, tendency to see faith as valid drops. Just like as faith rises, tendency to see intelligence as valid drops. That might be why Christians (faith-believers) might be perceived as unintelligent and why scientists (knowledge-seekers) may be perceived as faithless.

 

 

 

What I don't agree with is scientists that reject faith when their entire system (the scientific method) is taken on faith. I also think Christians that reject science as unbiblical are in the wrong - the Bible has nothing to do with science or knowledge - it's a book describing the character of God, to be read as something else is erroneous.

 

 

 

So I would agree that intelligence decreases the chance of believing in God, but it's not because belief in God is unintelligent - I believe intelligence decreases belief because intelligent people tend to be more arrogant and are more likely to reject ideas that make themselves seem inferior.

 

 

 

 

 

What's also interesting to note is that while people often blame religion for wars and world turmoil, the 20th century, seeing a massive rise in atheism and secularism, was the bloodiest and most turmoil-filled century our history has ever seen. If religion caused the crusades (crusaders were religious), then Darwinism caused the holocaust (Nazis were Darwinists).

[Killy_the_Kid]

I've always wanted to do this.

 

 

 

This is the biggest argument in the world. Did the Universe create itself, or did SomeOne Else? I'm gonna try to make this as nuetral as possible, but a certain group may not favor this. If you wanted the ultimate proof that the Big Bang Theory is wrong, look at the name. It's a theory. But to be just a slight bit more "intelligent," we'll look at what it means.

 

The Big Bang. Bang. Eveything comes into existence. Dust becomes rocks, rocks become planets, planets get atmospheres. [insert how inorganics become organic] Life happens. Cells morph and divide and form sea creatures. Then, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, monkeys, apes, cavemen, humans. The universe is.

 

Faults:

 

1. Okay, the Big Bang. What banged? What exploded? I have seen an evolutionary documentary and apparently it was a superlikeultramega condensed particle of pure mass and energy that finally burst. Okay. Where'd that come from? Keep asking the previous question and you'll stump anyone.

 

2. After nothing exploded, the dust and particles formed rocks and planets, which created their own atmospheres. There's no way one particle can produce enough gravity to pull in and absorb other particles about the same size.

 

3. Here is the most set in stone argument period. Lifeless rock... becomes... life. There is a scientific law that states living things cannot form from nonliving things. A scientific law, people! That means it is tried and true, and no past or future evidence can disprove it! There you go!

 

4. Now evolution kicks in. That sea blob becomes a fish, and so on. It adapts to its environment to better survive. If that is so, wouldn't the mutant transitional forms be inaquate for the environment? Would the organism even survive long enough to change (which happanes over millions of years, when the environment can change in just decades)?

 

 

 

And that is my fight. Go ahead. Call me an "unintelligent" conservative fool. How bout you try reading the above words, using your feeble brain to comprehend and think, "Hmm, there's a teeny tiny possibility my evidenceless theory might just be wrong.

 

 

 

I just saved the human race. Your welcome. Nobel Prize, please.

[warri0r45]

Hey guys, Newton isn't exactly representative of the majority of religious people.

 

 

 

Just pointing it out, in case you forgot.

 

 

 

Bringing him up doesn't exactly disprove that intelligent people are less likely to believe.

 

 

 

I know, mate. Just disproving the idea that religious people necessarily reject science. Obviously Newton isn't representative of all believers, but that wasn't the point I made.

 

 

 

I think what happens is that as intelligence rises, tendency to see faith as valid drops. Just like as faith rises, tendency to see intelligence as valid drops. That might be why Christians (faith-believers) might be perceived as unintelligent and why scientists (knowledge-seekers) may be perceived as faithless.

 

 

 

(1) What I don't agree with is scientists that reject faith when their entire system (the scientific method) is taken on faith. I also think Christians that reject science as unbiblical are in the wrong - the Bible has nothing to do with science or knowledge - it's a book describing the character of God, to be read as something else is erroneous.

 

 

 

So I would agree that intelligence decreases the chance of believing in God, but it's not because belief in God is unintelligent - (2) I believe intelligence decreases belief because intelligent people tend to be more arrogant and are more likely to reject ideas that make themselves seem inferior.

 

 

 

 

 

(3) What's also interesting to note is that while people often blame religion for wars and world turmoil, the 20th century, seeing a massive rise in atheism and secularism, was the bloodiest and most turmoil-filled century our history has ever seen. If religion caused the crusades (crusaders were religious), then Darwinism caused the holocaust (Nazis were Darwinists).

 

 

 

(1) You could say that but I wouldn't equate religious faith to faith that science works. That's drawing a huge bow in my books. The scientific process is much more obvious and self-evident to me. I'd call it a truism.

 

 

 

(2) Sorry, I don't agree at all. I think it decreases belief because it makes people more critical in their thinking. To some of these people an anthropomorphic figure with qualities x, y, z simply doesn't make any sense.

 

 

 

(3) Yes, Social Darwinism. I think it's stupid too. I don't know what to make of the 20th century being the bloodiest and most violent. It sure seems that way but I've not looked over the stats, and I've heard suggestions that the trend that suggests (that we're getting more bloody and violent) isn't true.

 

 

 

Somehow I doubt that the continued rise in atheism/secularism will be matched by 2 more world wars in the 21st century. Who knows though, insane. Perhaps your hypothesis will be vindicated, but we can both hope that's not true, because to me, any atheist who is violent to anyone else is stupid.

 

 

 

I just saved the human race. Your welcome. Nobel Prize, please.

 

 

 

Damn, Killy, you've got me stumped. What, with the insatiable argument that "it's just a theory" and that the law of biogenesis subjugates any notion of self-replicating molecules or autocatalysis because it cant be disproven, I think you deserve the prize. I also like your modern synthesis treatment of Big Bang Theory to include evolution, during which transitional forms arent adapted to their environment yet only to some unknown future environment suited for the future, non-transitional form. Genius!

 

 

 

Practice your Swedish, Killy. Youre going to Hollywoo ah, I mean Stockholm!

[user1991]

You can't just call something a theory then act like it holds equal weight to every other theory simply because it is one.

 

 

 

My new theory:

 

 

 

Obama is an alien.

 

 

 

Wow, a theory. Now that I have labelled it a theory, I can act as if it suddenly makes sense/means anything. Yeh, because technically it is my theory, it actually holds equal weight with every other theory about Obama out there, simply cause the word "theory" is mentioned. I'm a genius.

 

 

 

 

 

I've been thinking about this topic, and I think the OP Should clarify what the Professor actually said. If someone believes in a God, but not a religion, I would say they are significantly smarter than someone who believes in a religion (generally, so shut it with your Newton stories.) Deism is still simply an assumption. Just because God COULD exist, doesn't mean he does. If I told you I could fly, you would wan't to see me do it before you believed me. But suddenly, with the idea of a God, just because it's possible, it must mean that he is. Yeh, great logic there.

 

 

 

Religions, are even worse, ESPECIALLY when people tie in the ideas of Deism with it. Because of religion's influence in society, and the unfortunate coincidence that the word "God" has two different meanings (the Christian God, or a general supreme being), people make these arguments for an existence of a God, then simply revert to their original religious beliefs, as if they're the default.

 

 

 

It's like when Christians use the cosmological argument. They say, well, everything must have had a cause, therefore I believe in God. BUT, the problem is, you don't. You believe in the CHRISTIAN God, which isn't the same thing. You don't just acknowledge that maybe, there could be A God, a supreme being of some kind, but no, because you assume existence has to have a cause, you assume that your CHRISTIAN God must be the cause, as if that's some kind of valid proof. Even if you could prove definitively that there was A GOD, some sort of higher power that created everything, there would still be arguments between religions. Atheists would live exactly the same, but simply say, okay, well there is a God. Even if there is, it doesn't prove there is an afterlife, or that Jesus Christ died for our sins, or that we actually have to worship it. That's another point, if a God did exist, why would you possibly need to praise it/pray to it. If it could grant you wishes, then why couldn't it end poverty. Unless, you want to get into one of these bs arguments like, well God hasn't granted you anything, it was in his plan, and that's how it always was. One question, why is God such a douche?

[insane]

You could say that but I wouldn't equate religious faith to faith that science works. That's drawing a huge bow in my books. The scientific process is much more obvious and self-evident to me. I'd call it a truism.

 

 

 

That's the thing though. You find the scientific method obvious. I find God obvious. You believe God needs to be proven. I believe the scientific method should be proven. Neither can be proven (you can't test the scientific method by the scientific method...). We're just different creatures, you and I.

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I don't agree at all. I think it decreases belief because it makes people more critical in their thinking. To some of these people an anthropomorphic figure with qualities x, y, z simply doesn't make any sense.

 

 

 

No apology necessary; in my experience I've found "intellectuals" (aka. atheists) to be extremely arrogant... I know if I didn't believe in God I'd probably think alot more highly of myself. Belief in God requires quite a bit of humility, wouldn't you agree? I think acknowledging that there is a higher purpose that you (science) can have no bearing or effect on would be extremely humbling. It's also interesting to note that you used the term *critical* thinking. Have you ever known a humble person to be critical?

[warri0r45]

You could say that but I wouldn't equate religious faith to faith that science works. That's drawing a huge bow in my books. The scientific process is much more obvious and self-evident to me. I'd call it a truism.

 

 

 

(1) That's the thing though. You find the scientific method obvious. I find God obvious. You believe God needs to be proven. I believe the scientific method should be proven. Neither can be proven (you can't test the scientific method by the scientific method...). We're just different creatures, you and I.

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I don't agree at all. I think it decreases belief because it makes people more critical in their thinking. To some of these people an anthropomorphic figure with qualities x, y, z simply doesn't make any sense.

 

 

 

(2) No apology necessary; in my experience I've found "intellectuals" (aka. atheists) to be extremely arrogant... I know if I didn't believe in God I'd probably think alot more highly of myself. Belief in God requires quite a bit of humility, wouldn't you agree? I think acknowledging that there is a higher purpose that you (science) can have no bearing or effect on would be extremely humbling. It's also interesting to note that you used the term *critical* thinking. Have you ever known a humble person to be critical?

 

 

 

(1) True.

 

 

 

(2) I've always found the strive to help other people a humbling thing, too. Other than that, a general respect for fellow people always helps in the humility stakes. Obviously I can only speak for myself and from my own experience and that is that I don't feel any more highly of myself just because I don't believe in god. As for the first question, it depends on the believer. The more moderate and generally decent the believer, the more humble they will be. Having said that, I've seen this apply to people in general. As for the last question, yes.

[Zonorhc]

That's the thing though. You find the scientific method obvious. I find God obvious. You believe God needs to be proven. I believe the scientific method should be proven. Neither can be proven (you can't test the scientific method by the scientific method...). We're just different creatures, you and I.

 

Except the scientific method is the way by which hypotheses or theories are proven or disproven, rather than the entity in question itself. Your comparison is flawed.

 

 

 

You might go further by equating scientific method with scriptural interpretation. Given the existence of various sects within religions, one could argue that the former is far more reliable an indicator of validity than the latter.

[demonfirzen]

[hide=]

I've always wanted to do this.

 

 

 

This is the biggest argument in the world. Did the Universe create itself, or did SomeOne Else? I'm gonna try to make this as nuetral as possible, but a certain group may not favor this. If you wanted the ultimate proof that the Big Bang Theory is wrong, look at the name. It's a theory. But to be just a slight bit more "intelligent," we'll look at what it means.

 

The Big Bang. Bang. Eveything comes into existence. Dust becomes rocks, rocks become planets, planets get atmospheres. [insert how inorganics become organic] Life happens. Cells morph and divide and form sea creatures. Then, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, monkeys, apes, cavemen, humans. The universe is.

 

Faults:

 

1. Okay, the Big Bang. What banged? What exploded? I have seen an evolutionary documentary and apparently it was a superlikeultramega condensed particle of pure mass and energy that finally burst. Okay. Where'd that come from? Keep asking the previous question and you'll stump anyone.

 

2. After nothing exploded, the dust and particles formed rocks and planets, which created their own atmospheres. There's no way one particle can produce enough gravity to pull in and absorb other particles about the same size.

 

3. Here is the most set in stone argument period. Lifeless rock... becomes... life. There is a scientific law that states living things cannot form from nonliving things. A scientific law, people! That means it is tried and true, and no past or future evidence can disprove it! There you go!

 

4. Now evolution kicks in. That sea blob becomes a fish, and so on. It adapts to its environment to better survive. If that is so, wouldn't the mutant transitional forms be inaquate for the environment? Would the organism even survive long enough to change (which happanes over millions of years, when the environment can change in just decades)?

 

 

 

And that is my fight. Go ahead. Call me an "unintelligent" conservative fool. How bout you try reading the above words, using your feeble brain to comprehend and think, "Hmm, there's a teeny tiny possibility my evidenceless theory might just be wrong.

 

 

 

I just saved the human race. Your welcome. Nobel Prize, please.

[/hide]

 

1. It was always there, time didn't exist yet.

 

2. From my understanding, the particles joined/collided, that mass brought in other particles and so on.

 

3. Now this is a decent question, there is much speculation on this. Some scientists believe the first forms of life came from a comet/meteor. I personally reckon it was a chemical reaction, much like a virus.

 

4. The transitional forms would be slightly better suited, they just have to last long enough to pass on those beneficial traits.

 

 

 

Also, back on topic: This is no surprise to me what-so-ever. If it wasn't painstakingly obvious before.. :wall:

[IGoddessI]

(3) What's also interesting to note is that while people often blame religion for wars and world turmoil, the 20th century, seeing a massive rise in atheism and secularism, was the bloodiest and most turmoil-filled century our history has ever seen.

 

 

 

Or is it because religion somehow got involved in politics? US in particular. Not only that, broadcasting religious, political views in the Middle East is offensive specifically to Muslims... lol

[Ginger_Warrior]

I'm not going to call you uneducated, although it is clear you've never done Biochemistry.

 

2. After nothing exploded, the dust and particles formed rocks and planets, which created their own atmospheres. There's no way one particle can produce enough gravity to pull in and absorb other particles about the same size.

 

That would be presuming all particles have the same mass - they don't. If you accept that an object's ability to draw other objects towards it (its gravity - which for the matter isn't 'produced' either) is relative to its mass, then a heavier particle will be able to attract a lighter particle dense-wise towards it. Particles can be anything from tiny, near-massless electrons to the relatively heavier neutron. Therefore, it is entirely plausible for one particle (a neutron) to have enough gravity to draw in another particle (an electron). I'm not saying that's what happened, but it disproves your argument nonetheless.

 

 

 

If particles couldn't pull in other particles towards it, atoms wouldn't exist, and life as we know it wouldn't either.

 

3. Here is the most set in stone argument period. Lifeless rock... becomes... life. There is a scientific law that states living things cannot form from nonliving things. A scientific law, people! That means it is tried and true, and no past or future evidence can disprove it! There you go!

 

No one's said life came from a rock. You're treating life as if it were some abstract force. This is science you're arguing with - not religion. :roll:

 

 

 

My knowledge would lead me to believe that nitrogen-containing compounds would eventually have developed into amino acids, which would in turn have reacted to form proteins. Mix this with the extreme conditions of the time, and you have a cocktail of chemicals which allows for the development of the very first cell. The cell reproduces through mitosis, and unicellular organisms develop.The unicellular organisms evolve and adapt to provide a higher chance of survival through natural selection. This is where life begins.

 

 

 

Compare that in-depth theory to religion's theory of "God put us here".

 

 

 

So there you go! Life does not come from a rock.

 

4. Now evolution kicks in. That sea blob becomes a fish, and so on. It adapts to its environment to better survive. If that is so, wouldn't the mutant transitional forms be inaquate for the environment? Would the organism even survive long enough to change (which happanes over millions of years, when the environment can change in just decades)?

 

Those species which do not develop a mutation to survive and pass on their alleles to the next generation will ultimately die out. The dinosaurs for instance. Congratulations on understanding evolution - here's your Dual Award Science GCSE! =D>

[Kiriyama]

I've always wanted to do this.

 

 

 

This is the biggest argument in the world. Did the Universe create itself, or did SomeOne Else? I'm gonna try to make this as nuetral as possible, but a certain group may not favor this. If you wanted the ultimate proof that the Big Bang Theory is wrong, look at the name. It's a theory. Faults:

 

1. Okay, the Big Bang. What banged? What exploded? I have seen an evolutionary documentary and apparently it was a superlikeultramega condensed particle of pure mass and energy that finally burst. Okay. Where'd that come from? Keep asking the previous question and you'll stump anyone.

 

 

 

And that is my fight. Go ahead. Call me an "unintelligent" conservative fool. How bout you try reading the above words, using your feeble brain to comprehend and think, "Hmm, there's a teeny tiny possibility my evidenceless theory might just be wrong.

 

 

 

I just saved the human race. Your welcome. Nobel Prize, please.

 

 

 

What is there to prove a higher entity exsists? Your so called omnipotent being?

 

 

 

1. (Since I'm only addressing this) What created your god then? Hmm? Did he appear out of nothingness? What created him? I used your logic there to [bleep] up what you are trying to get at.

 

 

 

You are an unintelligent conservative fool. How about you with your feeble brain, analyze all the veiws. You just made a fool out of yourself by using logic that can be reversed and used against you.

 

 

 

Besides, I believe there is some proof of the big bang somewhere in the universe. The universe is infintely expanding I believe, and with all the phenomenoms happening, we might never find this proof, we might never find out what happens inside a Black Hole. But hell, it doesn't stop us trying.

 

 

 

The ability to question things is one of humanity's traits.

 

 

 

I'll take that noble prize back and give you a swift kick in the nuts for trying to claim you saved humanity with false logic.

[Furah]

I've always wanted to do this.

 

 

 

This is the biggest argument in the world. Did the Universe create itself, or did SomeOne Else? I'm gonna try to make this as nuetral as possible, but a certain group may not favor this. If you wanted the ultimate proof that the Big Bang Theory is wrong, look at the name. It's a theory. But to be just a slight bit more "intelligent," we'll look at what it means.

 

The Big Bang. Bang. Eveything comes into existence. Dust becomes rocks, rocks become planets, planets get atmospheres. [insert how inorganics become organic] Life happens. Cells morph and divide and form sea creatures. Then, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, monkeys, apes, cavemen, humans. The universe is.

 

Faults:

 

1. Okay, the Big Bang. What banged? What exploded? I have seen an evolutionary documentary and apparently it was a superlikeultramega condensed particle of pure mass and energy that finally burst. Okay. Where'd that come from? Keep asking the previous question and you'll stump anyone.

 

2. After nothing exploded, the dust and particles formed rocks and planets, which created their own atmospheres. There's no way one particle can produce enough gravity to pull in and absorb other particles about the same size.

 

3. Here is the most set in stone argument period. Lifeless rock... becomes... life. There is a scientific law that states living things cannot form from nonliving things. A scientific law, people! That means it is tried and true, and no past or future evidence can disprove it! There you go!

 

4. Now evolution kicks in. That sea blob becomes a fish, and so on. It adapts to its environment to better survive. If that is so, wouldn't the mutant transitional forms be inaquate for the environment? Would the organism even survive long enough to change (which happanes over millions of years, when the environment can change in just decades)?

 

 

 

And that is my fight. Go ahead. Call me an "unintelligent" conservative fool. How bout you try reading the above words, using your feeble brain to comprehend and think, "Hmm, there's a teeny tiny possibility my evidenceless theory might just be wrong.

 

 

 

I just saved the human race. Your welcome. Nobel Prize, please.

 

 

 

thank you mate : I have tried and tried to phrase how evolution is wrong from a non-creationist point of view

[Zonorhc]

thank you mate : I have tried and tried to phrase how evolution is wrong from a non-creationist point of view

 

So you chose to quote an argument that, well... isn't one.

 

 

 

I'm not entirely sure if that was an astronomical exercise in irony on your part, or you were tragically serious.

[magekillr]

You can't just call something a theory then act like it holds equal weight to every other theory simply because it is one.

 

 

 

Obama is an alien.

 

 

 

Wow, a theory.

 

 

 

Steps to make a theory:

 

 

 

Hypothesis-->Experiment-->Repeat Experiment-->Submit for Peer review--> Editor writes back-->Revise-->Retest-->Resubmit for publishing (if it gets published, that is)-->If published scientists attack like vultures to disprove because science is essentially the art of disproving-->Scientists may accept it into the community--> THEORY!

 

 

 

Now that I have labelled it a theory, I can act as if it suddenly makes sense/means anything. Yeh, because technically it is my theory, it actually holds equal weight with every other theory about Obama out there, simp ly cause the word "theory" is mentioned. I'm a genius.

 

 

 

What do the other scientists think?

 

 

 

People outside the scientific realm blur the lines of context between a scientific theory and the everyday use of the word "theory".

 

 

 

(3) What's also interesting to note is that while people often blame religion for wars and world turmoil, the 20th century, seeing a massive rise in atheism and secularism, was the bloodiest and most turmoil-filled century our history has ever seen.

 

 

 

Or is it because religion somehow got involved in politics? US in particular. Not only that, broadcasting religious, political views in the Middle East is offensive specifically to Muslims... lol

 

 

 

Agreed. Americans have such a distorted view on their founding. We're taught that somehow these brave Puritans were being prosecuted of their religious freedom and forced to believe what the Church believed. To escape all this, they fled.

 

 

 

Rubbish, they were basically sent out because of how ridiculous their beliefs were...religious prosecution indeed. More like getting rid of the crazies lol.

[warri0r45]

I've always wanted to do this.

 

 

 

This is the biggest argument in the world. Did the Universe create itself, or did SomeOne Else? I'm gonna try to make this as nuetral as possible, but a certain group may not favor this. If you wanted the ultimate proof that the Big Bang Theory is wrong, look at the name. It's a theory. But to be just a slight bit more "intelligent," we'll look at what it means.

 

The Big Bang. Bang. Eveything comes into existence. Dust becomes rocks, rocks become planets, planets get atmospheres. [insert how inorganics become organic] Life happens. Cells morph and divide and form sea creatures. Then, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, monkeys, apes, cavemen, humans. The universe is.

 

Faults:

 

1. Okay, the Big Bang. What banged? What exploded? I have seen an evolutionary documentary and apparently it was a superlikeultramega condensed particle of pure mass and energy that finally burst. Okay. Where'd that come from? Keep asking the previous question and you'll stump anyone.

 

2. After nothing exploded, the dust and particles formed rocks and planets, which created their own atmospheres. There's no way one particle can produce enough gravity to pull in and absorb other particles about the same size.

 

3. Here is the most set in stone argument period. Lifeless rock... becomes... life. There is a scientific law that states living things cannot form from nonliving things. A scientific law, people! That means it is tried and true, and no past or future evidence can disprove it! There you go!

 

4. Now evolution kicks in. That sea blob becomes a fish, and so on. It adapts to its environment to better survive. If that is so, wouldn't the mutant transitional forms be inaquate for the environment? Would the organism even survive long enough to change (which happanes over millions of years, when the environment can change in just decades)?

 

 

 

And that is my fight. Go ahead. Call me an "unintelligent" conservative fool. How bout you try reading the above words, using your feeble brain to comprehend and think, "Hmm, there's a teeny tiny possibility my evidenceless theory might just be wrong.

 

 

 

I just saved the human race. Your welcome. Nobel Prize, please.

 

 

 

thank you mate : I have tried and tried to phrase how evolution is wrong from a non-creationist point of view

 

 

 

Mage, you need to understand that his analysis is severely lacking and at times full of blatant misrepresentations. It's a joke.

 

 

 

Firstly, he reverts to the most inane argument possible which demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of the most basic of scientific principles - "it's just a theory." Yes, it is a theory, a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a system of explanation incorporating empirical evidence, tested hypotheses, scientific principles and logic to generate an explanation for a set of related phenomena. It in no way necessarily means "guess or conjecture" like it does in every day use. It's not one step below being proven, either. Again, theory is a system of explanation - it helps us understand the facts. Take the germ theory of disease, for example. Its a real scientific theory and the fact that its a theory does nothing to tell us how sure we are that germs cause disease. Evidently we are pretty damn sure that germs play a role in the etiology of disease, so any weight that "it's just a theory" has is shot to pieces.

 

 

 

He then takes Big Bang cosmology to mean everything from t=0 to the emergence of life on earth. The Big Bang theory is a theory of cosmology and has nothing to do with biology. I cant believe that anyone could screw things up so badly.

 

 

 

On his first point, he fails to realize that Big Bang cosmology does not explain where the matter of the universe originally came from. This does nothing to suggest that the theory's explanation of the evolution of the universe from t=0 onwards is wrong.

 

 

 

On his second point, he wrongly states that nothing exploded. He directly contradicts the actual information he brought forth in his first point its NOT nothing that exploded, its something, namely the matter of the universe. I dont know enough about the science of gravity to comment further on this point.

 

 

 

On his third point, he makes a grossly shallow analysis of the hypothesis of abiogenesis, with no mention of how scientists suggest it probably happened. Any serious analysis would attempt to include the formation of amino acids, fatty acids, nucleic acids and simple sugars from a primitive atmosphere exposed to an energy source, autocatalysis of molecules like RNA (ribozymes), autopolymerisation of biopolymers on mineral surfaces, formation of lipid micelles on the surface of montmorillonite clay, etc. All he can come up with is life from rocks.

 

 

 

He also brings up biogenesis, which is a valid scientific law, but then he says that no past or future evidence can disprove it which, again, is utter nonsense and shows a severely lacking understanding of the fact that science is dynamic and can change its proposals based on the introduction of new evidence. Either way, biologists are perfectly capable of recognizing abiogenesis as completely distinct from biogenesis, which holds on todays earth, under present conditions (though it may not have under the conditions of a prebiotic earth).

 

 

 

Finally, on his fourth point he again gives a completely shallow analysis, yet to top it off he makes the assumption that transitional forms wont be adaptive to their environment, without even suggesting what these forms are transitioning into. You see, the concept of transition only makes sense when its in the context of actually transitioning into something.

 

 

 

Evolution is an undirected process its only goal is for suitability to the environment at the time. Indeed, many individuals are unable to survive and cope in changing environments. Hell, over 90% of species to have ever lived have died out, essentially stopping dead in the fossil record before this present day, but this in no way means that a change in conditions must mean every organism dies out. There is a concept of tolerance in homeostatic systems, you know. Check this out as an example link. It's an experiment thats been going since 1988 where E. coli has been grown on limited glucose resources. Did they die out? No, they managed to survive during their transition to utilize a food source previously of no use to them whatsoever citrate. If any slight environmental shift killed off all members of a species, then there would be no E.coli left today nor any life on earth today both would have died out long ago.

 

 

 

On top of all that, this guy has the nerve to tell the people of this thread to use your feeble brain to comprehend and think. Well I have used my brain to comprehend (which he clearly hasnt) and to think about the evidence in favor of a concept like evolution. Ive spent my fair share of research of peer reviewed journals scanning to see just how strong the case for evolution is, and I wasnt left in the lurch in terms of evidence, thats for damn sure. Of course, it's not like Killy brought up any of it at all. He seems to rather blatant misrepresentations and a complete lack of understanding of science to make his case.

[insane]

Or is it because religion somehow got involved in politics? US in particular. Not only that, broadcasting religious, political views in the Middle East is offensive specifically to Muslims... lol

 

 

 

I don't believe the US or religion had anything to do with the start of any of the major wars in the 20th century. All of the US vs. Muslim stuff has taken place in the 21st and is completely minuscule to the bloodshed occurring in the World Wars (which were secular in nature... World War 2 being started by atheist Darwinists, actually). Note that you left out my example of the holocaust and WW2... the bloodiest, most disgusting show of injustice the world has ever seen, justified by Darwinism.

[hoffman44]

Or is it because religion somehow got involved in politics? US in particular. Not only that, broadcasting religious, political views in the Middle East is offensive specifically to Muslims... lol

 

 

 

I don't believe the US or religion had anything to do with the start of any of the major wars in the 20th century. All of the US vs. Muslim stuff has taken place in the 21st and is completely minuscule to the bloodshed occurring in the World Wars (which were secular in nature... World War 2 being started by atheist Darwinists, actually). Note that you left out my example of the holocaust and WW2... the bloodiest, most disgusting show of injustice the world has ever seen, justified by Darwinism.

 

 

 

Social Darwinism is something completely different!!

 

Maybe you should get you facts straight before posting? We all know that the term Social Darwinism was made up to justify racism. We now know that Social Darwinism doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

 

 

 

World War 2 was NOT being started by atheist Social-Darwinists, it was started completely in whole by Adolf Hitler!