should "Evolution" be considered a sign of Ignorance ?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I admire the effort in trying to untie the colossal knot that is Cosmic Artifact. But, this person is a bible literalist. Clearly if this person believes bushes and snakes talk, demons cause disease, rainbows are a covenant and people rise from the dead.... they aren't going to understand nor accept any science which refutes the claims of the book they revere.

True, but responding to him makes him start a new anti-Darwin/evolution/atheist thread every single day...they're quite entertaining, a bit like Dilbert cartoons

The hilarious part in this thread is of course that he's claiming we're ignorant, all the while he's ignoring every single shred of evidence that contradicts his claims. The irony is strong in this one...

reply to post by MrXYZ


Yep, I can see that and often I have fun toying with these types. It is fun to watch them dig themselves into a hole. But at some point I realize that their hole is so deep that no rope or ladder will ever get them out of it. And this guy is half way to China.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


sorry i read the web-page still no actual proof, my quest goes on

Originally posted by jed001
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

sorry i read the web-page still no actual proof, my quest goes on

just never give up, if it takes putting oneself in the mindset of the people who believe in pink unicorns then so be it... if it takes learning another language, even the language of the blind, then so be it also... seek and you will find the truth.

keep an open-mind and be humble when asking of the knowledge from others as to not offend them when you seek their particular flavor of gnosis.

there are as many flavors of this knowledge of the truth as their are cultures on Earth...

in my opinion of course

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Yep, I can see that and often I have fun toying with these types. It is fun to watch them dig themselves into a hole. But at some point I realize that their hole is so deep that no rope or ladder will ever get them out of it. And this guy is half way to China.

I hope for his sake he doesn't end up in China. It's been estimated that there's upwards of 700 million atheists (full disclosure - the low side of the estimate is in the 100 million range) there and none of them are Caucasian. Sounds like his own personal version of hell.

reply to post by iterationzero


I wonder then where are these yellow-men ?

The ones that I know of here (which are many) have established their own house in my country all speaking and singing in tune with eachother... I can walk right into one of their homes and be accepted.

China possibly has the largest every thing when it comes to contrasting it against the population, so I will not even engage you in this or go searching for that truth.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by iterationzero

 

I wonder then where are these yellow-men ?

My guess would be China, duh!

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


As MrXYZ noted, they're in China. Another nation that is heavily atheist is...Vietnam.

Buddhist 9.3%, Catholic 6.7%, Hoa Hao 1.5%, Cao Dai 1.1%, Protestant 0.5%, Muslim 0.1%, none 80.8% (1999 census)

Source

And I thought evolution was the subject here.
I wonder, are these nations primarily ignorant?

The subject is Evolution. True indicates the response that evolution is true, false indicates the response that evolution is false, not sure is not sure.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/282f82c9a908.jpg[/atsimg]

Oh, another thing I'd like to ask you is my new question in my "Questions Cosmic.Artifact has yet to answer" series:

Question 12: In what way could "Evolution" be considered a sign of ignorance?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


well it looks like

Nothing is stronger than an idea whose time has come
Victor Hugo:

When people start talking anti evolution and anti abortion I automatically lump them into the ignorant group. This is wrong, I'm sure .0005% of them are just insane.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Pretty graph you show there,
but it is not found at the only source you've listed.

What do the true, not sure and false refer to?
Chocolate is made of chocolate? Water is wet? Atheists are not to be believed when they pretend to want to hear sincere answers to questions about god or belief?

reply to post by Kailassa


The same information, in a different format, can be found in the following article, as I can't seem to find the website I had originally had this (I've had this on my computer for ages).

The source is in the graph found here.

Thanks for pointing it out. I'll edit in the title and explanation.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

No, that's not the source. - Similar, but it doesn't include a "not sure" section.
And you missed the real point of my post.

It's annoying not being able to edit a post more than 2 hours later, but as it's a source and we must include sources, a mod should agree to do it for you.

By the way, I'm sure if the survey was done in Australia, the yeas would be well over 90%, despite the best efforts of the new brain-deading paedophile-founded Hillsong church.

I grew up in a family that moved around a lot, and went to churches everywhere, and never knew such a thing as creationism existed till I learned about American attitudes.


Edited to say I reread your above post, and see you already acknowledge it's not the original source.
Apologies. Must read more carefully.

I'm slightly ashamed at the Switzerland's result in that graph...would have guessed the figured to be a lot higher, especially if you exclude all the rednecks (yes, we have them too) in the center of the country

reply to post by Kailassa

Originally posted by Kailassa
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

No, that's not the source. - Similar, but it doesn't include a "not sure" section.

It's not the Original source, but it has a reference to the original source at the bottom of the graph. The numbers for 'true' still line up, so it's definitely the same source material. I've had the graph on my computer for ages though, so it's hard to find the original page.

And you missed the real point of my post.

Ah, now I get it. I'm too damned focus on being precise with my sources. Anyway, yeah, I can't be sincere. I'm an evildoing Darwinist atheist heroin addict ugly dude with an IQ below 85 a bone through my nose and a tramp stamp. How could I be sincere in my questioning?

It's annoying not being able to edit a post more than 2 hours later, but as it's a source and we must include sources, a mod should agree to do it for you.

Eh, you can always just provide a source later. And it lets me edit 4 hours later...maybe it's because of my W rating?

By the way, I'm sure if the survey was done in Australia, the yeas would be well over 90%, despite the best efforts of the new brain-deading paedophile-founded Hillsong church.

I grew up in a family that moved around a lot, and went to churches everywhere, and never knew such a thing as creationism existed till I learned about American attitudes.

Yeah, it's kind of sad. I grew up in the suburbs of St. Louis, so I had this nice mix of educated people who were both religious and accepted evolution, and affluent fundies. It was...unusual to say the least. I had to repeatedly restrain outbursts of scientific explanation when I would hear some of the girls in class say things like: "And then I have that evolution test, as if that stuff is real!"

Which was odd, because this was when I was in a public school. You see, I spent my first two years in a Jesuit (fade in: Camina Burana and conspiracy theories!) high school, never heard a positive word about creationism from my biology teacher...though my theology teacher was a bit of an idiot who said that sex with condoms left you with a 75% chance of pregnancy...higher than the fertility rate for couples that don't use protection or any other method of birth control. He also had 10 kids. I took biology there because the order of scientific study was biology, chemistry, physics. I did the first two, changed schools because I failed theology two semesters in a row and they had a strict academic standard. Oddly enough, I failed because I knew the Bible too well and didn't study the rosary and repeatedly made the teacher look stupid without meaning to.

Anyway. I'd not done any sciences in the public school, but my junior year everyone else was doing biology (I decided to do AP US history as an elective instead). So then there's a bunch of creationism controversy, but this was around the time of the Kansas school board decision....so I posted FSM material everywhere.

[/odd aside]

Edited to say I reread your above post, and see you already acknowledge it's not the original source.
Apologies. Must read more carefully.

S'okay. I didn't read your post clearly enough to see the great little jab in there.

reply to post by MrXYZ


I'm surprised Malta placed above you! That's just scary. I mean, we have nuns here telling children (including my girlfriend, who went to a nun-run school. Nun-run...nun-run...nunrunnunrunnunrun. Heh, feels funny in my mouth) that we didn't come from monkeys. And most people don't understand the basic precepts of science anyway.

And yet we still don't have divorce.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
It's not the Original source, but it has a reference to the original source at the bottom of the graph. The numbers for 'true' still line up, so it's definitely the same source material. I've had the graph on my computer for ages though, so it's hard to find the original page.

Sadly, I lose my computers faster than I lose my sources.
We do hand-me-downs. Computer whiz gets a new computer and the computers owned all get handed down another step, a bit like the Mad Hatter's tea party.
Arhhhg, must wash out mouth, said tea party.

Btw, I hope you'll excuse me answering with bunch of "one liners" and putting them all into one post instead of making 8 separate ones.

And you missed the real point of my post.

Ah, now I get it. I'm too damned focus on being precise with my sources. Anyway, yeah, I can't be sincere. I'm an evildoing Darwinist atheist heroin addict ugly dude with an IQ below 85 a bone through my nose and a tramp stamp. How could I be sincere in my questioning?

Well, "evildoing Darwinist atheist heroin addict ugly dude with an IQ below 85 a bone through the nose and a tramp stamp", you barely acknowledged my post in the "Are Atheists Arrogant" thread, and completely ignored my post in the "What Does God Add?" thread.
And that's my nose-bone and tramp-stamp.
They're all the rage for grandmothers these days, especially teenage ones.
Btw, did you know there's a replies section in your PM box that tracks replies to your posts? I only discovered that recently.

It's annoying not being able to edit a post more than 2 hours later, but as it's a source and we must include sources, a mod should agree to do it for you.

Eh, you can always just provide a source later. And it lets me edit 4 hours later...maybe it's because of my W rating?

Bah, stupid elitist forum. They are obviously acknowledging my brilliant superiority by putting me up to the 2 hour editing window level.

Yeah, it's kind of sad. I grew up in the suburbs of St. Louis, so I had this nice mix of educated people who were both religious and accepted evolution, and affluent fundies. It was...unusual to say the least. I had to repeatedly restrain outbursts of scientific explanation when I would hear some of the girls in class say things like: "And then I have that evolution test, as if that stuff is real!"

And then they take pride in being indoctrinated and passing it on to their children. Filling kids' heads with stultifying lies is on a level with FGM as far as I'm concerned.

Which was odd, because this was when I was in a public school. You see, I spent my first two years in a Jesuit (fade in: Camina Burana and conspiracy theories!) high school, never heard a positive word about creationism from my biology teacher...

I always liked Jesuits. The ones I've met are intelligent and logical. And they believe in "the lesser of two evils" instead of everything being black or white. - Which meant I could persuade a Jesuit priest to teach me the rhythm method when I was unmarried by explaining not teaching me would lead me to have abortions, which would be partly due to him. The poor guy cried, and then we spent all night at his manse discussing our religious beliefs. Possibly the only night the sweet man spent with a woman, and we spent it in separate chairs.

though my theology teacher was a bit of an idiot who said that sex with condoms left you with a 75% chance of pregnancy...higher than the fertility rate for couples that don't use protection or any other method of birth control. He also had 10 kids.

No doubt he was going on his own experience of doing it 12 times using a condom and making 9 babies. Perhaps his sex-ed teacher should have explained the condom doesn't really go on the carrot.

Going by averages, the tenth kid is probably someone else's.

There was a funny Christian guy online a few months ago who said he had 10 children. He also said you had to penetrate the woman's womb to make her pregnant.

I took biology there because the order of scientific study was biology, chemistry, physics. I did the first two, changed schools because I failed theology two semesters in a row and they had a strict academic standard. Oddly enough, I failed because I knew the Bible too well and didn't study the rosary and repeatedly made the teacher look stupid without meaning to.

Aren't the beads used for rosaries poisonous anyway?

Death by rosary bead 1.
.... rosary pea seeds contain the poison abrin. The seeds are only dangerous when the coating is broken -- swallowed whole, the rosary pea doesn't present any danger. But if the seed is scratched or damaged, it's deadly. The rosary pea poses greater danger to the jewelry maker than to the wearer. There are many reported cases of death when jewelry makers prick a finger while handling the rosary pea...

Death by rosary bead 2.
My family lore includes a tale of a long ago when one of my ancestors would not "forgive" a debt to the Bishop in the Hungarian Empire town of Bratislava. He was slowly choked to death by the rosary beads the bishop had been wearing as the bishop enjoyed a leasurly meal and watched. His orphaned children were given the beads as "payment" after the fact.

The most annoying thing about being considered a not-adult was being expected to know less than the idiots who were considered adults. Most tiresome.

Anyway. I'd not done any sciences in the public school, but my junior year everyone else was doing biology (I decided to do AP US history as an elective instead). So then there's a bunch of creationism controversy, but this was around the time of the Kansas school board decision....so I posted FSM material everywhere.

FSM, bah, why couldn't it be an octopus? It could swim in the Holy Sea and holy communion could be pickled octopus and champagne.

And yet we still don't have divorce.

I wonder, how many spouses (or should the plural be spice?) get murdered in no-divorce countries because it's the only way to get free of them?

Originally posted by MrXYZ
My guess would be China, duh!

oh gosh... how to not make this a one-liner response ?

thanks for that info

I believe true ignorance is in denying the possibility of anything. Why remain with the primitive thinking of duality and its polar opposites? Personally, I believe in both creation and evolution. If man could think of it, why wouldn't the creator, right? There is obviously some kind of conscious guidance in the progression of our reality, but it is also very obvious that all things change - constantly. I bet if you believe in a god, you could probably believe they are capable of creating evolving animals. Don't waste time arguing specifics, when you could be focused on 'becoming' in either creation or evolution (or possibly both).

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by MrXYZ
My guess would be China, duh!

oh gosh... how to not make this a one-liner response ?

thanks for that info

Well, stupid questions shouldn't need more than a 1-liner response

I want solid proof that any layman can understand in a youtube video or something, anything.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Well if you want some proof then here it is. I originally posted this on MIMS thread but think it is relevant to supply proof that you demand.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by ELahrairah
Ok I will make a go at it given some of the things I know about the natural world.

Evolution claims that at one point all animal life lived in the oceans or fresh water bodies and at some time moved on to land.
So one would guess that there are species that demonstrate a half way point between aquatic and land bassed existence.
Well the good news is there are species in the animal kingdom that do demonstrate this for example
the Christmas Island crab spends most of its life on land in the rainforest's of Christmas Island.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/70f993eb7933.jpg[/atsimg]

However this species of crab has not completely severed it's ties to it's aquatic ancestors it must still return to the ocean
to spawn. The larvae of the crab must still undergo part of their development in an aquatic environment.

Next up is Amphibians like frogs, salamanders, and newts. Each of these species begin their life cycle in the water where they are dependent on gills to breath only latter do they develop legs and eventually lungs to breath
on the land.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fb1b44be91dd.jpg[/atsimg]

Amphibians would seem to be at a midpoint between fish that spend there entire life in water and reptiles which spend their entire life on land and are not dependent on water for their developmental life cycle.

However some amphibians do not let go of their gills and keep them their entire life.
Like this little fellow the Axolotl
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0230809ac68d.jpg[/atsimg]

Last example the snakehead.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4eb2baa25f53.jpeg[/atsimg]

This fish is an invasive species yet it has an evolutionary advantage that gives it an edge.
It has a primitive lung and can live out of water for up to 3 days and move on land!

Just some examples that I think make a strong case for evolution.
cheers

edit on 28-12-2010 by ELahrairah because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-12-2010 by ELahrairah because: (no reason given)