This Is What Evolution Is

^ A vid that explains human evolution[from a person who studied it for decades, not some religious phony]

Second line

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Evolution is a religion, not a science.

Evolution cannot be a religion, it is actually true. I understand though, you're obviously upset that you can't disprove evolution so you resort to using comical 'insults'

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Wow, that was a downright ignorant comment...granted, it's from someone ignorant of science. So...can't be expected to be any different.

Evolution is not a religion. It is a synthesis of scientific conclusions derived from tireless questioning of the established ideas. Most of the time, that testing reveals that we're either on the money or close but we have to modify things here and there. And over 150 years the data set has supported the general idea and refined the details of it.

Please, show me a single thing that shows that evolution is a religion or that it is anything other than true.

By your standards gravity, circuits, and physics are religions too.

I couldn't care less about your hissy fit, sorry but Evolution is a religion.

And it's state supported.

P.S. save your personal attacks next time you speak to me, I'd hate for you to look like a raving hypocrite.

edit on 8-5-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Lol Uhuh.

Unlike your religion, evolution has evidence for it.
And Evolution doesn't support slavery like a lot of religious books do.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You seem to not understand science:

How

is

Evolution

a

religion?


Please, don't tell me it has anything to do with peanut butter or bananas, that would be a nightmare for me.

Just ignore him, he's dumb.
Second line.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Evolution = State Sponsored Religion.

Religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning by establishing symbols that relate humanity to beliefs and values.[1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

So I ask you to explain how evolution, a simple theory (well maybe not 'simple') regarding how the diveristy of the biosphere got the way it we observe it today in any way does the quoted above? Or better yet, here's the straight definition of the word:

re·li·gion/riˈlijən/Noun
1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.

It says nothing regarding a God or gods, merely the progression of species from what existed in the past to what we have today. There is nothing nor any one to worship.

Creationists just want to take a literal translation of a book written by Man almost 2 thousand years ago and decry anything they view as contradicting it in this literal fashion as being heretical. The main area of dispute is the fact that evolution requires long periods of time (generally) to evolve species from what we find in the fossil record to the life we see today which they view as contradicting the viewpoint of the Earth being only a few thousand years old tops.

They want Adam and Eve playing with little T-Rex in the Garden of Eden even though simple logic dictates that Rexxy would have devoured them in less than a few days since he was the greatest predator to live on this planet.

So they cry out it's religion because the evidence to support it seems to go against what their religion has told them. It would be a simple matter to adjust their thinking to use this to expand upon their beliefs, but they would rather stick with the literal wording of a religious document. Which can easily be seen that even disregarding the misconception they have about the source of the book, was not meant to be literal in the first place.

reply to post by Tephra


To do this again, as I'm being ignored...


I'm asking you once more. Convince me. I'm keeping an open mind. I would like you to show me where I am wrong. Please, try to provide the following as I've requested so far in this thread:


-A dozen holes in modern evolutionary theory.

-A single academic work that demonstrates a link between magnetic and/or solar cycles and evolution. A dozen if you can provide.

-Evidence that magnetic reversals kill magnetosphere protection. Obviously from a peer-reviewed work. Oh, and don't worry, I have access to all sorts of journals through my university.

-An explanation of how speciation within a Darwinian context would be an example of survival of the unfit rather than the fit.

-Evidence that radioactivity, black soot, and 'other anomalies' (please define) are found in the geologic record around all mass extinction events.

-"a plethora of evidence which shows magnetic reversals can cause a major influx in radioactivity and a variety of other anomalies." (to quote your claim). Also, please define these anomalies.

-Evidence that all marine life requires the magnetosphere to exist.

-Citations of countless works that support your claims, articles, etc that support your claims.


Please, can you (or maybe someone else) address these questions?

There comes a time in arguments like this that you just have to give up. It is frustrating for people who understand the scientific method. You can't discuss science because the scientific method is the ONLY framework for science and creationists just cannot comprehend how that works, and simply fall back on faith, no more thinking.

There are people who are self marginalizing in society and the willfully ignorant definitely go down that dead end (I just wish they wouldn't vote).

“Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig" Heinlein I believe.

Carry on. the topic here is dark and deep and there are pages and pages to go before this thread sleeps.

If people don't think science works.

I'd like to see someone go to the moon off prayer alone.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You seem to not understand science:

How

is

Evolution

a

religion?


Please, don't tell me it has anything to do with peanut butter or bananas, that would be a nightmare for me.

science is a religion. it is a beleif system that like magic cocreates our reality...

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Evolution is a religion, not a science.

Evolution cannot be a religion, it is actually true. I understand though, you're obviously upset that you can't disprove evolution so you resort to using comical 'insults'

and you cant disprove religion. really peeps you have no idea..to get any grasp on it, imagine breaking open a rock and finding a crystal. the crystal neither existed nor non existed before it was observed. think quantam collapse. now what make s you think a fossil is any different.
we are children and these are childish notions. nothing is set your actions affect the past and the future. science is a neo magic, ritualistic in nature. we are creating our reality.
a s for your evolutuion theory and remember it is only a theory. (science only works on falsification) adleast try and balance it...the ying and the yang.. competition? what about cooperation too..you cannot have one without the other..
and why do you give credence to a neomagic that cannot even prove the experience of self exists...

reply to post by purplemer


Wow, that is literally the most ridiculous interpretation if geology, evolution and quantum physics I've ever read. There's something inherently stupid about rubbishing something you have no grasp of.

reply to post by purplemer


Wow, that is literally the most ridiculous interpretation if geology, evolution and quantum physics I've ever read. There's something inherently stupid about rubbishing something you have no grasp of.

reply to post by purplemer

and you cant disprove religion.

This is true... you cannot disprove religion, as it lies outside the realm of the observable universe.

And since Science exists to tell us ABOUT the observable universe... then You cannot ever PROVE that religions are true either.

really peeps you have no idea..to get any grasp on it, imagine breaking open a rock and finding a crystal.

The subtlety of your metaphor, so far... Eludes me...

the crystal neither existed nor non existed before it was observed.

So, there both WAS and WAS NOT a crystal inside the rock....

It's a Magic Rock then?

think quantam collapse. now what make s you think a fossil is any different.

So.... you are saying that a Sorcerer of some sort.... is Transmuting the ground beneath our feet, into Fossils of various creatures...?

we are children and these are childish notions.

So.... you are saying that observing the UNIVERSE, REALITY, and EXISTENCE, and having the GALL to try to understand what we are seeing... instead of blaming it on MAGIC... Is ... Childish?

nothing is set your actions affect the past and the future.

Time travel is not possible.

Time is not a "Dimension", it is an abstraction of motion and forces interacting or in repeating cycles....

Like the Earth rotating to make the sun appear to move across the sky.

You can't "Move" backwards in time, anymore than you could stand on bafflement.

science is a neo magic, ritualistic in nature. we are creating our reality.

No, Science is not about understanding unobservable forces, and how they interact with our world....

Science is about understanding the properties of the things that we see.... like our clothes, Rocks, computer chips, gas thrust turbines, broadband routers, and power generating facilities.

Science is not about delving into the meaning of the metaphysical.... why we are here, who made us... None of that.

It is about finding out how hot you have to get silicon before it becomes a liquid.

It is about making detailed observations of the stars in the night sky to understand a pattern of movement.


It is about LEARNING about our reality... the one that you see with your EYES.

Yeah... right now.... THAT reality.



That is what science deals with.

Not God, Not Religion... just what we can see, touch, taste, smell and hear.


Physical.... Material.... Observable.... PROVABLE...


Science is not a Religion.


Science *IS* however... Helping us to change our world.

And that is a good thing.



We just have to use it wisely, is all.

Science... the cataloging of knowledge of the physical universe.

Technology... The specific application of knowledge of the physical universe.


It's a Tool.

It's a way of looking at the world.

a s for your evolutuion theory and remember it is only a theory.

Nothing in Science can EVER get past the Vaunted Position of "Theory."

And it takes BRUTAL scrutiny to even be promoted to that illustrious position.

Because it takes supporting evidence to even be considered.

And "Magic" is not a good enough explanation, because you can't explain how the magic works, so you're not even explaining anything.

(science only works on falsification)

I don't think you quite understand the concepts behind your statement.

Science is DONE, by looking at the world and asking... "Well, How do you suppose THAT works?"

And instead of saying "Twas MAGIC", you actually go FIND OUT.


You observe the shifting of the constellations at night, to see how long it takes for your planet to complete an orbit.

365.25 days.

You find out the distance from the earth to the sun, by calculating the orbit of Mercury and Venus (Their Barycenter) and their distance using radar (LOL)

So, the ratio of a Circles circumference to its diameter is the mathematical constant known as: Pi (3.14159)

So, Suns distance * 2 * Pi = 939,951,956 kilometers

939,951,956 kilometers divided by the days in a year = 2,573,448 kilometers in a Day.

Divide that by the amount of hours in a day and you get: 107,227 kilometers per hour.


How fast is the earth moving around the sun?

107,227 kilometers per hour.

Science.

It Works.

adleast try and balance it...the ying and the yang.. competition? what about cooperation too..you cannot have one without the other..

You mean to say.... that we should have a balance of Knowledge, and Ignorance?

That we cannot have Knowledge without ignorance?

Well, from a philosophical standpoint, Yes... I suppose that knowledge, and it's acquisition DOES require a state of ignorance prior to becoming knowledgeable... but that is a rather semantical and unconnected point....

But are you suggesting that we give up KNOWING things?

Like.... Ever?


Or just.. half the time, we remain ignorant?



Because that is what you want, and are asking for.... Ignorance.

and why do you give credence to a neomagic that cannot even prove the experience of self exists...

"I think, therefore, I am"
-"I" (also René Descartes)

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Evolution is a religion, not a science.

Evolution cannot be a religion, it is actually true. I understand though, you're obviously upset that you can't disprove evolution so you resort to using comical 'insults'

and you cant disprove religion. really peeps you have no idea..to get any grasp on it, imagine breaking open a rock and finding a crystal. the crystal neither existed nor non existed before it was observed. think quantam collapse. now what make s you think a fossil is any different.
we are children and these are childish notions. nothing is set your actions affect the past and the future. science is a neo magic, ritualistic in nature. we are creating our reality.
a s for your evolutuion theory and remember it is only a theory. (science only works on falsification) adleast try and balance it...the ying and the yang.. competition? what about cooperation too..you cannot have one without the other..
and why do you give credence to a neomagic that cannot even prove the experience of self exists...

this guy is a crackpot. the burden of proof lies with the one telling somebody something is real or true, not the one denying it.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


thank you for your reply...

This is true... you cannot disprove religion, as it lies outside the realm of the observable universe. And since Science exists to tell us ABOUT the observable universe... then You cannot ever PROVE that religions are true either.

remember science is a philosphy. it has by its nature limitations. it creates a model of the universe. try representing the universe in lego bricks and you will get the idea.

the crystal neither existed nor non existed before it was observed. So, there both WAS and WAS NOT a crystal inside the rock.... It's a Magic Rock then?

no it is what we make it... try looking at it this way... a rock is no different..

Schrödinger's Cat: A cat, along with a flask containing a poison and a radioactive source, is placed in a sealed box shielded against environmentally induced quantum decoherence. If an internal Geiger counter detects radiation, the flask is shattered, releasing the poison that kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when we look in the box, we see the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead.

en.wikipedia.org...'s_cat

So.... you are saying that a Sorcerer of some sort.... is Transmuting the ground beneath our feet, into Fossils of various creatures...?

no i am saying the act of observation creates our world... you want to understand the size of the universe, understand the size of mind. they are as infinite.

Time travel is not possible.

are you not traveling through time atm. has your perception of time ever changed. ever been in a slow motion car crash for example. some food for thought...

According to an experiment proposed by the physicist John Wheeler in 1978 and carried out by researchers in 2007, observing a particle now can change what happened to another one – in the past.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

S. Jay Olson and Timothy C. Ralph of Australia's University of Queensland, who have figured out a series of thought experiments about how to entangle particles across time.

science-wired.blogspot.com...

and for some real cake, read this

Time-Reversed EPR and the Choice of Histories in Quantum Mechanic

ics.org.ru...

and if you care to look there are prominent scientists that think we can affect our history, there are no laws even in classic science that state time reversal is not possible...

Time is not a "Dimension", it is an abstraction of motion and forces interacting or in repeating cycles.... Like the Earth rotating to make the sun appear to move across the sky. You can't "Move" backwards in time, anymore than you could stand on bafflement

time is a dimension and all dimensions are an epiphonoma of mind...

It is about LEARNING about our reality... the one that you see with your EYES

no it is not. do you see atoms with your eyes

That is what science deals with. Not God, Not Religion...

ofc, would you care to explain the difference between the moment before the big bang and a universe created by god. they both create something from nothing...

Science is not a Religion.

it is a beleif system too, just a different one. once you had the
spirit of gravity, now you have the theory of gravity, nothing in it

It's a Tool. It's a way of looking at the world

yep just like religion

And "Magic" is not a good enough explanation, because you can't explain how the magic works, so you're not even explaining anything.

and you cant explain why science works, so you're not even explaining anything.

adleast try and balance it...the ying and the yang.. competition? what about cooperation too..you cannot have one without the other.. You mean to say.... that we should have a balance of Knowledge, and Ignorance?

i meant were are the laws of co-operation to balance the laws of competition....nature gives

But are you suggesting that we give up KNOWING things?

knowledge is only one branch of understanding.

"I think, therefore, I am" -"I" (also René Descartes)

considering classic science works on a subject / object orintation could you please submit just one paper to me that proves the subject exists. cas you wont find any. a weak foundation for a house of cards..

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by purplemer

 

Wow, that is literally the most ridiculous interpretation if geology, evolution and quantum physics I've ever read. There's something inherently stupid about rubbishing something you have no grasp of.

two bachalors of science and a masters in env. science and i am the first to admit the above...

kx

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by purplemer

 

Wow, that is literally the most ridiculous interpretation if geology, evolution and quantum physics I've ever read. There's something inherently stupid about rubbishing something you have no grasp of.

two bachalors of science and a masters in env. science and i am the first to admit the above...

kx

Good for you, shame you're pig-ignorant about geology, evolution, quantum physics and scientific method, as you have clearly demonstrated.

reply to post by john_bmth

Good for you, shame you're pig-ignorant about geology, evolution, quantum physics and scientific method, as you have clearly demonstrated.

look bud im sharing my opinion about the topic, where as your sharing your opinion about me... why dont you try adding something of use.....

love
kx

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by purplemer

 

Wow, that is literally the most ridiculous interpretation if geology, evolution and quantum physics I've ever read. There's something inherently stupid about rubbishing something you have no grasp of.

yep i agree maybe you should try understanding what i wrote before non criticaly rubbishing it. stupidity does not far well on ats.
you could try explaining why you think its wrong with my perception. my guess is you dont like it cas its not what you learnt at school. try thinking for yourself, come up with your own opinion. the view i shared is in principle shared by some prominent quantam physicists.
but ofc i can tell by your eager mind and your amazingly thought out response that you know much more....

reply to post by purplemer


Well, first off, Religion isn't a tool in the same sense as one would typically think of a tool. It's a system of control both mentally and morally...it's most-tyically used to make people do what someone wants them to do or thinks is best for them to do. (whether that be their minister's interpretation of 2000 year old man-made text or what have you) It's the superstitions of primitive man made manifest by creating the grand 'catch-alls' of God and Satan which are themselves the personifications of the classic concepts of Good and Evil.

The question about the act observation and its effects on the natural world are speculative. Did the crystal exist in the rock before we broke it open and observed it being there? This is no different than asking if a tree fell in the woods and no one was around to hear it, if it would make a sound. The obvious answer to both is Yes. There can be philisophical twists to this when asked to prove it. Such as, if no living thing hears the vibrations in the air when the tree falls, then, by definition, it is not a sound. The simple fact is that with both scenarios, even though you do not witness it as it occurs, and therefore have no direct observation, you can witness the effect afterwards. The damage from the fallen tree, the rock itself, both are conclusive evidence of the test criteria without requiring direct observation.

In regards to direct observation, there are certain quantum experiments that seem to suggest that Direct observation affects the results, but this is at the quantum level only which is an area we are stilling studying with Science in order to better understand.

In order to attempt to equate Science with Religion, the simplest comparison is if we had no Religion and only Science...how would the world be changed? If we only had Religion and no Science, again, how would the world be different? You can't say that replacing one Religion with another would be fundamentally different as it would mostly only cause changes with how one practices their faith. Getting rid of Science and having only Religion would put us back in the literal dark ages both technologically and mentally with witch burnings and insane crusades due to slight differences in one group's Magical Man (though one could argue that we still do all that today...just not as obviously or often) Ditching Religion and having only Science would probably have us anywhere from 100 or more years ahead of where we are now technologically due to the lack of this sort of whining from the Religious side, but beyond that would be difficult to predict given that general nature of Man.

No one prays to Science...no one bases a spiritual belief system on Science...no one sets thier everyday moral compass by Science...no one sins by Science...Science creates no miracles...Science is neither Good nor Evil. Science is simply the name for what intelligent beings do when they learn about how things physically work and try to use that new knowledge to understand how things are the way they are and what this knowledge can be applied to accomplish. It does not say that thou shalt have no Method before me.