"God" Does Not Care! Why Religion is False and Unscientific

reply to post by AlwaysStoned

because the evolution is just a theory with no scientific evidence

You're kidding right?

Gravity is just a theory, even it's effects that have been studied are all wrong, the maths is useless - it's just a theory. Quantam mechanics is just a theory, everything's just a theory isn't it? No evidence, just as good as the theory of God, with the evidence of a book written by man? Pah, what ignorance is this?

reply to post by awake_and_aware


What does evolution means?A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

Read more: www.answers.com...
I am sorry but there is no evidence of evolution on any living being,just adaption to certain elements of nature,and that is by far not the same thing.
Good topic btw

And just so you know i am very open minded to new theories that make sense,not some anti-darwin lunatic,eating the Bible for breakfast.Indeed i am familiar and agreed with many of the Darwin's findings,like natural selection

Peace brothers,David

reply to post by AlwaysStoned


Excellent, i'm open minded to new theories too, provided there is a reasonable cause for that theory, and that evidence is provided to go with it.

Peace

What does evolution means?A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

reply to post by AlwaysStoned


Evolution is "is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations". Wikipedia - Evolution

But even using your definition, evolution is fact. What is theory is which organisms evolved from/into which others.

The progressive resistance of bacteria to antibiotics is evolution in action.

Peppered moths is another example. Peppered moth evolution

reply to post by peacevic


Love the peppered moth example, was how we were introduced to the theory in Biology at school.

Thanks for your links and information.

reply to post by peacevic


Well you are partially wrong here,mate.See the moth example?That's called adapting to certain conditions not EVOLVING.If the moth was really evolving,he would have developed better senses,better wings,better brains to overcome the obstacles,but instead it choose to adapt to surroundings!Do you now understand what am i trying to imply?
And you obviously didn't read that article in wikipedia you just linked because it explains that pretty clear,please do,it is very informing.

Peace,David

reply to post by AlwaysStoned


Incorrect, the peppered moth is an example of natural selection due to mutation. A mutation that caused a change in colour that gave it an advantageous characteristic in relation to it's enviroment, the ability to hide from predators.

From the bonnie woodlands of the UK, to the dark industrial enviroment of modern britain, the peppered moth's dark colour due to mutation allowed it to blend in with the new environment.

This means that if this moths reproduces, it's offspring stands a really good chance at surviving and there for thriving and reproducing more offspring.

Well that is what i was going for,maybe i didn't make myself clear on the subject,since i am apparently very stoned,excuse me please. _javascript:icon('')
The main point i was trying to make is we have not evolved in terms of capabilities of our bodies and minds,we have just adapted ourselves to the required situations,by making spears,bows,cars,...asf.
I am sure there is a God.If it is a alien,or whatever.Everything is made this way,perfect.Have you read about the golden ratio?Please do because that's one of the PROOFS that God exist...You see what i did there?Yes,actually it is a proof since apparently numbers don't lie. xD

Peace,David

reply to post by AlwaysStoned


Of course, i've read about the Golden Ratio and the Fibonacci Sequence (or Spiral) - Even the mandelbrot set suggests the fractal nature of the universe, the mathematical nature of it, the infinite nature of the universe. But still i won't call this mathematics "GOD" or even suggest i know that the universe is infinite, i simply don't have evidence.

So you're stoned, so what? If you are unable to present a coherent case against our arguments while stoned, then don't do so.

What was your argument against the peppered moth, is this not "by definition" - Evolution?

Peace

I am just saying,while it is possible for everything on this planet to be evolved to mathematical perfection,it is highly improbable.

Peace out,David

reply to post by AlwaysStoned


While i agree somewhat, what do you base your "improbability " on? Does the mathematics of the universe mean that a "being" created it?

You say the mathematics is "perfect" but humans certainly have defects, we're not perfectly evolved species, Planets are destroyed, solar systems and gallaxies collide and consume each other.

I do, however, understand your point.

Which is why i think you're going to love this video:-

Nature by Numbers It includes the Golden ration (Fibonacci Sequence) you mentioned earlier.

Let me know what you think. It's good in a high state of mind

Peace

reply to post by awake_and_aware


That's some nice video,thanks very much,i am enjoying it right now xD
But let me get back to the subject,i see it this way:Creation is perfect.Without destruction there can be no creation,so apparently destruction is perfect too,its the circle of life as some call it.Something must die for something to live.
Well we have a nice discussion here,to say at least _javascript:icon('')

reply to post by AlwaysStoned


Not a problem; you're welcome

I see what you mean, like i said in the original post, I do think whilst the universe is "chaotic" there is still order amonst the chaos (The Golden Ratio, for example), the thus there is an inherent beauty to the mathematics and order of it.

I think we agree more than you think, but I refrain from presuming causation of reality is "GOD", I'd sooner call it an "Energy" or a "Force" (like in Star Wars!)

Anyway, good discussion.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by thegoodearth

 

If you won't agree that Agnositicism is humble, then we will never come to an agreement, i'm sorry.

We are the one's who ask for evidence before preaching it.

I am unsure where this conclusion was drawn from my post.

I do not attack others for believing in "nothing". I do not ridicule others for believing in "nothing", or
requiring scientific proof to believe in anything. Therefore, I don't understand this inference.

Humility is that which does not act contempuous, rude, or self seeking.
If you believe that you and your messages fit this standard of humble, that is fine with me-
I am not here to judge you, just to give my feelings on the matter of belief in God, knowing that they are mine and mine alone.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I know what you meant,but isn't it logical that someone or 'something' is channeling this energy or force(i cracked at this point .
For some obvious reasons i believe the days when we will find out the truth are near...I am not so much into all this conspiracy stuff,i am more of a Spock kind of person (''),the logical being.Many strange things are starting to happen and i think this God,mentioned in the Bible,is not some mythical being,i think that is a true description of something otherwordly that set us here for unknown reason,but these are just speculations of course.

Imagine the old shepherds describing someone coming from the sky in huge glowing ships,they tried their best to depict those beings with the means they had at that time.But in the end,it may be that my hope for love and goodness of mankind has deluded me.

Peace,David

reply to post by AlwaysStoned


I see, your views are that of the Pantheist and Deist - which i personally have no concerns with, and there is little to debate here - You believe the universe has to be divinely and intelligently caused, you believe a God is required for its creation, i don't. I'm agnostic but against thiesm.

You don't tell people what they should wear, what a sin his, what position to have sex in, that condoms are evil, that you cannot eat pork, that praying actually works. And that's what i like about you and the Deist/Pantheist position.

We are the same you and i, we are searching for the truth.

Peace

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Now that you mentioned the Kur'an,actually the thing about muslims not to eat pork is pretty logical,since they live in very hot areas,so the extra fat is not only to say unnecessary,but dangerous to their health.When you look it that way,all of these Gods rules in the religion books actually tells us very helpful information on how to live our lives,too bad the f****** popes,and the church twisted it greatly.I mean look at this;love your fellow man!!!That is some deep spiritual stuff,right here.

Look in to this stuff if you haven't already,and you will notice the only stupid and bad things in religion comes from people who twisted it for their own sake.

Peace bro,David

reply to post by AlwaysStoned

Well you are partially wrong here,mate.See the moth example?That's called adapting to certain conditions not EVOLVING.If the moth was really evolving,he would have developed better senses,better wings,better brains to overcome the obstacles,but instead it choose to adapt to surroundings!Do you now understand what am i trying to imply?
And you obviously didn't read that article in wikipedia you just linked because it explains that pretty clear,please do,it is very informing.

Actually I did read it. You are partially right :-) A single individual organism adapting to a condition is not evolution. Evolution is when a large population has changed over time, often as a result of adaptations to surroundings, and that change is passed on genetically.

Bacteria that have developed a resistance to bacteria and have passed that on have clearly developed something that is "better". Ditto with the moths - they developed "better" coloring. I fail to see why you think that better coloring is different than better wings, or what criteria you use to determine what "better" characteristic qualifies as evolution and what doesn't.

Hence, I go back to the definition - I'll even give you your definition (which, for the record, I think is incomplete in that it leaves out the stipulation that it needs to be populations vs individuals, and that the changes need to be passed on genetically) - "A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form." Both the bacteria example and the moth example fit the definition. If you disagree, please say specifically which part of the definition they don't meet (and please don't use the part that is preceded by "usually", which is unprovable, or "better", which is subjective).