Evolution, It's only a theory

Religion is also a theory... you can not say that you know for a fact that religion is ture... cause if u can then sir u are utterly wrong.

Originally posted by Darlando
Religion is also a theory... you can not say that you know for a fact that religion is ture... cause if u can then sir u are utterly wrong.

Worse yet, everybody thinks THEIR religion is true and everybody else's is wrong. So it's a total soup sandwich, and they resolutely refuse to notice. The terror of "What if I'm wrong" puts them in a brain lock.

Originally posted by Darlando
Religion is also a theory... you can not say that you know for a fact that religion is ture... cause if u can then sir u are utterly wrong.

Religion a theory? Of course it is, it's called the theory of evolution.

Good luck finding someone believing it thinking it isn't true.

They say it's a FACT!

hehe

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by AermacchiReligion a theory? Of course it is, it's called the theory of evolution.

Good luck finding someone believing it thinking it isn't true.

They say it's a FACT!

hehe

You wish you could diss evolution, it's such a major problem for religions. All the creation myths go out the window. Sad, isn't it? And about time you folks started realizing you've been lied to your entire life.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Evolution in and of itself is a creation myth. We were not there to observe the beginning so thusly we can't be completely sure what happend, we can reconstruct based on available evidence, that being the incomplete fossil record. But in the end who is to know the exact "truth" of the matter? It is altogether possible some supernatural devil did place those fossils there to trip up the "pure" but I highly doubt it and label it as highly highly improbable, but in the end we just don't know because we weren't there.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

Evolution in and of itself is a creation myth. We were not there to observe the beginning so thusly we can't be completely sure what happend, we can reconstruct based on available evidence, that being the incomplete fossil record. But in the end who is to know the exact "truth" of the matter? It is altogether possible some supernatural devil did place those fossils there to trip up the "pure" but I highly doubt it and label it as highly highly improbable, but in the end we just don't know because we weren't there.

Choose the way you wish, the verified fossil record, or the Great Sky Fairy. You're call, just tell the rest of us what to believe once you've decided.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Don't take this the wrong way but, what I believe is none of your buisness so long as I don't make it your buisness sir. And you can childishly simplify the concept of a "god, higher power, prime mover, etc" into "Great Sky Fairy" all you wish, doesn't change the fact it is well within the realm of possibility regardless what anyone says. Or does mankind with his limited view and role of/in the cosmos dictate what is possible while I wasn't looking?

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

Don't take this the wrong way but, what I believe is none of your buisness so long as I don't make it your buisness sir. And you can childishly simplify the concept of a "god, higher power, prime mover, etc" into "Great Sky Fairy" all you wish, doesn't change the fact it is well within the realm of possibility regardless what anyone says. Or does mankind with his limited view and role of/in the cosmos dictate what is possible while I wasn't looking?

If you god-botherers weren't trying to sneak the Great Sky Fairy into our science classrooms I wouldn't be worried about you at all. You've just been a nuisance until now. But now you have problem, because you're being one.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Firstly, you are assuming I am as you put it a "god-botherer", I did not state my beliefs and will not be doing such so kindly keep your assumptions to yourself. Secondy, if you assume that science is inherently atheistic which you obviously seem to think it is you are correct. Too bad it isn't though and only ties into things our physical senses can detect with some enhancement from various devices. It is also worth noting that science has it's start from "god-botherers" as you put it seeking to know more about the world they believe their "god" created.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


SOME ancient scientists were god-botherers, some were astrologers, some were witch doctors. You imply religion was important to science, when in fact it retarded it, wasted time spent trying to reconcile the real world with the fantasy world of gods and monsters.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


In your narrow minded view perhaps and no, I certainly did not imply that, I was merely pointing out the history of the thing. You can choose to limit the possibilities of based on the politics and petty squabbles of who said what and believes what, the constant war of belief systems all you wish but don't expect others to do so as well.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Sorry, but I'm a historian, MA from Purdue, '06. I know the history well, and I know the damage done by religion to the world. Imagine if religious fanatics hadn't burned the Library of Alexandria, for instance. If the Church hadn't suppressed knowledge in the Dark Ages. It's just sad.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Then you should know that mankind did that, not religion. Regardless the excuses used for doing it. Causalities to mankind's need to control one another and what one another believes. And a MA doesn't impress me as it doesn't bestow impartial thinking upon it's holder, as nothing can.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

Then you should know that mankind did that, not religion. Regardless the excuses used for doing it. Causalities to mankind's need to control one another and what one another believes. And a MA doesn't impress me as it doesn't bestow impartial thinking upon it's holder, as nothing can.

Religion is a tool of mankind, nothing more. It's an excuse to do evil things. And it has been used in that manner a lot. People who buy the indoctrination are programmed to believe it's doing them some good even as it sucks them dry.

"a MA doesn't impress me"? I get that from people who don't have one.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


If you want to feel superior to me feel free. It's your failing not mine. I stated my well founded reasons as to why I said that, if you prefer your assumptions of which you make many it does not harm me. But it does make it obvious you are allowing your bias for your belief system taint your view of history. I do believe we are at an impasse here. Shall we simply agree to disagree?

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


If you'll agree to get religion out of the science classes you would never hear from me again.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Like I said, limit the posibilities based on petty human squabbles and sayings all you wish, just don't expect me or others to. Also it's worth noting that this is the internet and I could claim to hold a doctorate, doesn't make it so, just saying. Have a good evening sir.



[edit on 13-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

And just for the sake of argument and something a historian should know especially one with a MA, the Library of Alexandria first burned due to either a mistake or political BS. Not religion.

Generally thought to have been founded at the beginning of the third century BC, it was conceived and opened during the reign of Ptolemy I Soter, or that of his son Ptolemy II of Egypt. Plutarch (AD 46-120) wrote that Caesar accidentally burned the library down during his visit to Alexandria in 48 BC. However, this version is not confirmed in contemporary accounts of the visit. It has been reasonably established that the library or parts of the collection were destroyed on several occasions, but to this day the details of these destruction events remain a lively source of controversy based on inconclusive evidence.

Meaning, this:

[edit] Caesar's conquest in 48 BC
Plutarch's Parallel Lives, written at the end of the first or beginning of the second century, describes a battle in which Caesar was forced to burn his own ships:

“ when the enemy endeavored to cut off his communication by sea, he was forced to divert that danger by setting fire to his own ships, which, after burning the docks, thence spread on and destroyed the great library.[9] ”

William Cherf argued that this scenario had all the ingredients of a firestorm and in turn set fire to the docks and then the library, destroying it. This would have occurred in 48 BC, during the fighting between Caesar and Ptolemy XIII. In the second century AD, the Roman historian Aulus Gellius wrote in his book Attic Nights that the Royal Alexandrian Library was burned by mistake when some of Caesar’s soldiers started a fire. Furthermore, in the fourth century, both the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus and the Christian historian Orosius wrote that the Bibliotheca Alexandrina had been destroyed by Caesar's fire. The anonymous author of the Alexandrian Wars writes that the fires Caesar's soldiers had set to burn the Egyptian navy in the port of Alexandria went as far as burning a store full of papyri located near the port.[11] However, the geographical study of the location of the historical Bibliotheca Alexandrina in the neighborhood of Bruchion suggests that this store cannot have been the Great Library.[12] It is most probable here that these historians confused the two Greek words bibliothekas, which means “set of books”, with bibliotheka, which means library. As a result, they thought that what had been recorded earlier concerning the burning of some books stored near the port constituted the burning of the famous Alexandrian Library. In any case, whether the burned books were only some books found in storage or books found inside the library itself, the Roman stoic philosopher Seneca (c. 4 BC – AD 65) refers to 40,000 books having been burnt at Alexandria.[13] During Marcus Antonius' rule of the eastern part of the Empire (40-30 BC), he plundered the second largest library in the world (that at Pergamon) and presented the collection as a gift to Cleopatra as a replacement for the books lost to Caesar's fire.

Or this:

Attack of Aurelian, third century
The library seems to have been maintained and continued in existence until its contents were largely lost during the taking of the city by the Emperor Aurelian (270–275), who was suppressing a revolt by Queen Zenobia of Palmyra.[18] The smaller library located at the Serapeum survived, but part of its contents may have been taken to Constantinople to adorn the new capital in the course of the fourth century. However, Ammianus Marcellinus, writing around AD 378 seems to speak of the library in the Serapeum temple as a thing of the past, and he states that many of the Serapeum library's volumes were burnt when Caesar sacked Alexandria. As he says in Book 22.16.12-13:

“ Besides this there are many lofty temples, and especially one to Serapis, which, although no words can adequately describe it, we may yet say, from its splendid halls supported by pillars, and its beautiful statues and other embellishments, is so superbly decorated, that next to the Capitol, of which the ever-venerable Rome boasts, the whole world has nothing worthier of admiration. In it were libraries of inestimable value; and the concurrent testimony of ancient records affirm that 70,000 volumes, which had been collected by the anxious care of the Ptolemies, were burnt in the Alexandrian war when the city was sacked in the time of Caesar the Dictator. ”

Fifth century scroll which illustrates the destruction of the Serapeum by Theophilus.While Ammianus Marcellinus may be simply reiterating Plutarch's tradition about Caesar's destruction of the library, it is possible that his statement reflects his own empirical knowledge that the Serapeum library collection had either been seriously depleted or was no longer in existence in his own day.

SOURCE:en.wikipedia.org...

And I would have to argue that the first loss would be by far the worse, as far as knowledge lost.




[edit on 13-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Aermacchi

as a matter of fact I have and so did all these people
www.abovetopsecret.com...
who would have edited your wikie "stuff" if they boteherd to think it was worthy of serious review by serious people

LOL edit? So when I produce articles contrary to yours, my articles are simply wrong?. If you had actually read the article it says -

It was first recognized by George Gaylord Simpson in 1951 that the modern horse was not the "goal" of the entire lineage of equids, it is simply the only genus of the many horse lineages that has happened to survive.

Thus clearing up the horse fossil issue.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by andre18]

I learned this stuff when you were in diapers

LOL no you didn’t, if you did you wouldn’t have said “a follower of the ever lieing illusion of Darwinian evolution.” You absolutely no nothing about Lamarck and Alfred Wallace at all. Otherwise you wouldn’t have said ‘Darwin evolution.’

Alfred Wallace was considered the 19th century's leading expert on the geographical distribution of animal species and is sometimes called the "father of biogeography". Wallace was one of the leading evolutionary thinkers of the 19th century and made a number of other contributions to the development of evolutionary theory besides being co-discoverer of natural selection.

If you knew anything and didn’t spout atheist conspiracy bs against Christianity, you’d no evolution isn’t atheistic. The process of evolution was discovered by experts who knew what they were talking about.

And they have been trying to prove what "could have happened" ever since.

Ummm, we already have proved the process of evolution happens. A perfectly good example –

The German Shepherd is ….a relatively new breed of dog, whose origins date to 1899.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Process of evolution is real, life evolves whether you want to admit it or not. It is a scientific fact that life evolves – contrary to what you may believe it is real science.

anyone who doesn't believe it is a retarded religious person

Damn straight they are. If they can’t see life evolves they may be blind – so they most likely have a disability.

The plausible mechanism continues to be debunked nevertheless

No it doesn’t. Nothing is getting debunked, life evolves – you can’t debunk viruses becoming immune to anti-biotic, you can’t debunk these facts of life.

our Nations ratings in academics falling further behind as a result of this so called science.

I love this ‘so called science’ you keep mentioning. It’s really amusing, it really illustrates how little you know about the world…..how fun!

I'm pretty sure if God said he used the exact method of our existence that Darwin explains, You would reject that too merely because of its religious implications

If in the bible it said life naturally changes over time and man is apart of the ape family etc then there’d be reasons to give Christianity and the bible some interest – instead of lol, Eve was created from Adams rib. Not very plausible………………

I'm the Bible doesn't explain the details of poofing anything into existence.

Maybe you need to re-read it. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Doesn’t say how….just did it

“And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” Magic!!! Poofing light into existence out of nothing

It goes on like this……god poofs things into existence magically

as if when we say what is in the Bible we must be very stupid because saying God did it isn't science as if we think it is.

So you admit it to being magic…..ok just incase you didn’t know until now, magic doesn’t exist….yeah I know, it’s a lot to take in. Just take in a few breaths at a time.

The fact is I continue to debunk you everytime you brag about owning

I’m pretty sure I’ve owned you every single time – but think what you like, keep believing in magic if you want…..sigh

[edit on 14-4-2009 by andre18]