To all those who don't believe in God....

[old.Tohtori]

If you seriously are stupid enough not to believe in evolution then you should just be killed and help the human race.

So you're saying i should be killed, if i don't believe evolution is the only working factor in play?

 

[DocWolfe]

So you're saying i should be killed, if i don't believe evolution is the only working factor in play?

Pretty much... yes.

 

[Ctuchik]

Plus you get the ultimate 707 conundrum too.

the what?

 

[pikeh]

the what?

707 conundrum.

 

[swords]

Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I had an error messager earlier in the day, freudian slip! hehe

 

[old.Tohtori]

Pretty much... yes.

Then i can tell you to f*ck right off.

Because i don't believe evolution is the only single affecting factor in this whole thing.

It's just a theory anyway, so you wanting to kill everyone who isn't thinking like the "great DocWolfe", well, it's numbnuts bullsh*t. Stupidest thing i've heard in a long LONG while.

 

[swords]

You do realise that gravity is 'just a theory' right?

 

[kiliarien]

Tell you what, surely if there was a god, he's have made our smaller fella down there more grip-friendly than the banana to be nice to us. What a bastard.

You do realise that gravity is 'just a theory' right?

Well it's more of a proven phenomenon I think. It still hurts falling though, and people bomb others over their beliefs which could be classed as a theory. OMG, theories are DANGEROUS, ban them all, NOW!!

 

[old.Tohtori]

You do realise that gravity is 'just a theory' right?

Well i can "see" gravity working just fine, i can't however know for certain that "simple mishaps" created a species like us.

Bit of a nudge needed here and there.

But the point was, that DocWolfe with his "kill all who don't believe this" is no better then the common religious zealot who runs a plane to a building. And that is a FACT.

 

[Olgaline]

dude by that effect you'd have to embrace evolution as well.
because you can see evolution taking place all around you, at variouse and differential speeds sure, but never the less...

now as to the origion of species and or creation, well imo thats a different discussion,
and aflik all know my views on that by now, but still you cannot deny evolution. only how or why. and yes

Gravity and evolution as the same kind of "theories" infact most things we take for granted as facts are in all scientific purposes, theories

 

[swords]

Well i can "see" gravity working just fine, i can't however know for certain that "simple mishaps" created a species like us.

Bit of a nudge needed here and there.

But the point was, that DocWolfe with his "kill all who don't believe this" is no better then the common religious zealot who runs a plane to a building. And that is a FACT.

Emergence of bacterial populations resistant to antibiotics is an example of natural selection on a much smaller time-scale (years rather than hundreds of thousands or millions of years).

 

[old.Tohtori]

I wasn't saying "evolution isn't real" here

 

[Golena]

People here saying "evolution must be true" are just as idiotic as the guy with the banana.

 

[Olgaline]

People here saying "evolution must be true" are just as idiotic as the guy with the banana.

explain thy self !

or are you suffering from some form of split personality ?
or is it a simple new page flame bait ?

if A: Coool I want one to.!
if B: I aint biting, I R zmart trout only the finest powahbait 4 me!

 

[old.Tohtori]

explain thy self !

Well to be honest, if i got it right, there's a fair point.

Anyone claiming with 100% dedication and "certainty" how we got here, is a bit silly.

 

[Golena]

explain thy self !

Any scientist who actually should be listened to will always admit they could be wrong and that what they are actually proposing is the most likely theory based upon the evidence they have collected. Scientists once thought the sun orbited the earth, and that the earth was flat.

There was a great star trek episode where data crash landed on a planet and the scientists there believed that wood contained fire because it burned and burning it released the fire from it. Their thoughts actually made perfect sense given the evidence they saw in front of them, and were only obviously incorrect because we had gathered more information than them.

Evolution is currently the most likely theory given the evidence in front of us. When someone develops a better microscope and realises that the atom is made up of many more things than we actually thought it was evolution might well be blown completely out of the water.
Just because we haven't found the evidence that evolution hasn't happened doesn't mean we should dismiss it's existance. In fact the next genious will be the person who looks for why it isn't correct then finds that bit of evidence that disproves it. If you really think we know everything today, your simply the next generation of religious sheep.

 

[old.Tohtori]

What would be REALLY cool, is that if some day they develop a better microscope and notice that an atom, is actually constructed by smaller "atoms" and those atoms are mechanical

 

[swords]

Well i can "see" gravity working just fine, i can't however know for certain that "simple mishaps" created a species like us.

Bit of a nudge needed here and there.

But the point was, that DocWolfe with his "kill all who don't believe this" is no better then the common religious zealot who runs a plane to a building. And that is a FACT.

I agree that anyone who goes around declaring 'scientific war in the non-believers!' is just as much an ass-hat as someone who delcared 'holy war' for not believing in god/allah/Baal/Zeus or what have you.

I'd also like to clarify that you cannot be certain of 'anything' and so although we say something is a fact, that is not a rock solid unshakable thing and so called facts are disproven or shown not to encompass the whole truth/complexity.

The main difference between science and faith is that (at least in principal) science is a method which allows for constant modification and adaption of our understanding based on new evidence which arises. Faith does not bother with evidence as a general rule and instead explains everything with a single solution, god/diety/spiritual energy/whathaveyou.

Science is less resistant to change by comparisson. I am not saying that it is not resistant, there are many examples of ignorance of new information and a 'finger in ears lalalalala' approach which makes integration of new information and re-evaluation of it's consequences take longer than is ideal. But this is usually resolved when the indiduals blocking this die off or get debunked forcibly.

So while we (the collective we) thought the earth was flat, we now know it is spherical based on some pretty solid evidence. The probability that the earth is not flat is probably very very very minute, but hey one day someone might tell us we're actually some kind of hyper-sphere entangled within infinite branes blah blah random physics buzzwords no bugger understands.

I'd also like to point out that science in general goes through periods of expansion and contraction, where a problem is researched and appears to be very complex, gets increasingly so and then suddenly someone has an idea which seems to consolidate this complexity with some underlying structure which is more simple. The process then proceeds again with a new problem in an iterative fashion. Science is all about contradition resolution, re-evaluation and repeating until we are at a state of general consensus which strengthens with time and new supporting evidence.

Evolution has plenty of supporting evidence in that we can observe it over smaller time scales with fast-growing microbes such as E.coli (generation time 20 minutes and growth is exponential, compared with 9 months gestation and another 15 years or so until reproductively active for humans). Adjusting the environment to see how the population changes and adapts over time. It realy isn't so far fetched if you can see how small changes accumulate, like interest in your bank account. Imagine that interest accumulating over much larger time-scales and the number of 0's is going to increase rapidly until that number is so huge it's many 0's away from it's original ancestral number.
It's an elegant solution involving many components (random mutations, environmental intractions, competition from other species, co-operation and synergism with other species, etc). It is an example of a consolidating structure upon which you can support many other theories and observations which on their own would be complex and hard to explain together (without resorting to what I think is an intellectual cop-out, aka mystical creator).

In my mind us just 'being' here is as probable as a creator making us so I realy don't know on that respect which is correct, I can't say as there is NO evidence. I can say there is evidence of evolutionary change and say it is much more likely to occur and be real than a creator constantly tinkering and fucking about with everything.

That was quite a ramble, well done if you reached this bit, have a cookie (i'm not sure if god gave us the cookies or whether they appeared by chance and were selected for due to their deliciousness, but hey the cookie is the important bit right?).

 

[Chronictank]

So while we (the collective we) thought the earth was flat, we now know it is spherical based on some pretty solid evidence. The probability that the earth is not flat is probably very very very minute, but hey one day someone might tell us we're actually some kind of hyper-sphere entangled within infinite branes blah blah random physics buzzwords no bugger understands.

I know what you are saying but that is a very bad example,
It was actually a invention of medieval Christianity that thought the earth was flat, only a small group of scientists (only five in fact actually published material to this effect) catered theories to this and historians jumped onto the bandwagon and it became accepted as fact that they believed it was flat in the dark ages
The original theory was actually proposed by Washington Irving in the book "History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus", (most of this book being of little factual content)
Scientists within the church itself also refuted the earth is flat theory but the book


Most scholars and scientists believed the earth was a sphere, Arab sailors used latitude to plot courses and directions is testemant to this
And similarly the chinese used similar methods
Oddly enough the arab study of the earth and galaxy spanwed from passages in the qu'ran, and it was well established in the middle east that the earth was on a eliptical (egg shaped, if your read direct translation) orbit around the sun (look up Ibn al-Haytham), this is 600 years prior to Galileo proposing it and being accused of heresay

I'd also like to point out that science in general goes through periods of expansion and contraction, where a problem is researched and appears to be very complex, gets increasingly so and then suddenly someone has an idea which seems to consolidate this complexity with some underlying structure which is more simple. The process then proceeds again with a new problem in an iterative fashion. Science is all about contradition resolution, re-evaluation and repeating until we are at a state of general consensus which strengthens with time and new supporting evidence.

Which theory is factual was (and to an extent is) of very little concequence its which theory gets better publicised which is followed very neatly illustrated by "the earth is flat" theory

 

[swords]

I said the collective we... which is the general consensus, which is the most popular idea at the time.

There is also selective pressure to 'prove it'. Which 'theory' is now the dominant one? the earth is a sphere... Just because a theory is accepted does not make it correct, but since science is iterative, we accumulate knowledge based on evidence and reason. We are standing upon the shoulder of giants!
I wonder how much more we will know in 100 years time? I wonder whether we will be having this discussion by then? Probably, but there may be a new/more refined theory based upon new evidence.

 

[swords]

STARTLING PROOFS - Does God Really Exist? creation vs evolution darwin
[googlevid]-1760096128712631511[/googlevid]

Anyone else feel a little bit insulted by this? I do as i'm apparently just a 'guy who lives in a lab'.

 

[adoNix]

You'd be right


I found a diagram just for you Swords!

repped

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well i gotaz reply on the matter of "faith just ignores all" with this:

Faith these days, excluding the more zealot religions, is about finding your own message and meaning in the writings and such.

Also, ib my own personal case, it's guidelines to follow in life. Sure, i could have those same guidelines without and act the same, but they crystallize and make them in simple terms. So in a way, religion makes me put my feelings and ideas into words and faith kgives me an extra boost if needed(we all use some boost).

Also i do believe in te "spaghetti mosnter" as some might say, but, that's just personal and not going around forcing it onto people.

 

[swords]

I reckon the FSM is a scientific parody/perversion of faith and religion. Like-wise Intelligent design/creationism is a parody/perversion of science and rationality.
They are both damaging in their own way and I would like to distance myself from both of them.

I find it interesting to see the extent that hardcore religious types go to nuke evolutionary theory? Why is it such a threat? I always thought that you could simply explain anything by saying 'god did it'?

Evolution? oh that old thing, yeah god made that so he could have more time to answer your prayers and smite unbelievers.

I'd also like to add that good and evil are relative and non-exclusive. Religion can do great evil and so can science. Man does great good and great evil, whether you hold a supernatural being as your creator or not it simply does not matter. As Tohtori says, most religeous people don't go around murdering people who don't agree, alot help each other and their communities. Scientists and doctors, religious or not have done horrible things over the years, from experiments on prisoners, experimenting on animals for cosmetic testing (I do agree that medical testing is also controvertial but the benefits outweigh the negatives).

 

[old.Tohtori]

I think there's points in both.

I mean, evolution can't explain why we are so evolved that we think about a soul etc.
Religio can't explain, well, evolution and such.

If we were to take both, examine the good points in both, we could come up(i believe) in a system that is rationable AND fiting for both worlds.

 

[swords]

Well science cannot explain, but it is working towards it in a trial and error fashion. I find that organised religion is jumping the gun a bit in saying this is how it is and that's final. The fact there are so many organised religions and splinter groups suggests that if one is right a hell of a lot are wrong. Perhaps they may converge as other religions will arise over time, maybe religions evolve over time...

I realy hope that one day we will not be so inflexible and dogmatic that we cannot accept that there may not be one single solution, but many solutions (I think the probability of a single solution being achieved is very small, maybe the earth would not be habitable for long enough to solve that one).

I currently cannot accept that there is a scientific explanation for everything. I also cannot accept that there is a religeous explanation for everything. But at least I can see that science is a mechanism for chipping away at everything. Maybe I am satisfied that I cannot know everything but I do find knowing something exciting! I hope to find something new in my time, might not but hey, that's science

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well science cannot explain, but it is working towards it in a trial and error fashion. I find that organised religion is jumping the gun a bit in saying this is how it is and that's final. The fact there are so many organised religions and splinter groups suggests that if one is right a hell of a lot are wrong. Perhaps they may converge as other religions will arise over time, maybe religions evolve over time...

I realy hope that one day we will not be so inflexible and dogmatic that we cannot accept that there may not be one single solution, but many solutions (I think the probability of a single solution being achieved is very small, maybe the earth would not be habitable for long enough to solve that one).

I currently cannot accept that there is a scientific explanation for everything. I also cannot accept that there is a religeous explanation for everything. But at least I can see that science is a mechanism for chipping away at everything. Maybe I am satisfied that I cannot know everything but I do find knowing something exciting! I hope to find something new in my time, might not but hey, that's science

Well, on the point of religion(again) i can sy that i'm working on a unification work, well, sort of, which combines all the points in all religions and locks down on the key points that collerate with eachother.

It can't be, that for example, Odin, was a well known god in greece AND in scandinavia, which have complete different gods otherwise, when there was basically only killing between the two cultures etc etc etc....it's a big project, but hopefullly i make something of it.

I believe, that religion is a fuel to find out more and science is the tool for it

 

[swords]

I believe the fuel is curiosity and desire. But science is just a tool, it's a very good tool and I hope it can continue to give us nuggets of knowledge and wisdom in a sea of ignorance. We're all ignorant unless we strive learn more afterall.

 

[Raven]

Me too, so long as science produces something with less silly little buttons on it like the damn remote control and evil mobile phone. Can strip a PC down and repair it but can i fuck work out the sky remote or my mobile, can barely text without nearly throwing the damn thing against a wall.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I believe the fuel is curiosity and desire. But science is just a tool, it's a very good tool and I hope it can continue to give us nuggets of knowledge and wisdom in a sea of ignorance. We're all ignorant unless we strive learn more afterall.

But you have to admit, religion has helped in the aspect.

Especially in the early days, we wanted to get closer to god or gods and that pushed us forwards in science.