Is the theory of evolution responsible for a toxic society?

Originally posted by generik
i don't think the OP's "understanding" of evolution is really their point. whether the OP truly understands how it all works or not does not take away from what i think they are trying to say.

the POINT the OP seems to be bringing forth is that a lot of our currant sociological problems may be at least partially caused by this "theory", by removing things like morals and ethics.

one thing at least most religions have is some sort of code of conduct that is a part of it. and that not following this code of conduct has a negative impact for you somewhere down the line. be it the "christian hell", "karma" catching up with you with negative effects, or any other negative impact that a religious belief has in store for those who don't follow the "rules". this is a base for behavior that is expected, take the "ten commandments" as an example. they set the moral and ethical standards, for at least Christians and Jews. i expect that most if not all religions have similar things built into their beliefs that provides similar moral direction for them.

the belief in the theory of evolution or science does not have that set of moral standards at all. so there is nothing to give a base for moral standards. at the same time those that tend to believe in evolution and science in place of religion, also tend to deem all other religious beliefs as untrue. as such canceling out those values taught by religion yet putting nothing in their place.

why is "murder bad" for example? why shouldn't you kill someone who annoys you or is in your way?

i think this is the point the OP is trying to make.

What morals and ethics?

The point is that the OP's point is a fallacy. Life for the average human being is considerably better than it has ever been in the past. People live longer, have more "freedom" and access to social, political and criminal "justice." Kids with cancer live longer after diagnosis, and their quality of life is demonstrably better. Violent crime like rape, kidnapping and murder go down in inverse proportion to the average educational attainment of a society. If anything -- the morals and ethics of civilization and "science" have made the world a better place for a growing majority of its people.

There are no "good ol' days." There was no time when the family was closer, tighter, better informed and more "free." If you view the world through a fractured lens, everything you see is broken.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Some more about Hitler

Hitler emphasized that he attached the greatest importance to cooperation with the Catholic church and spoke of himself as a Catholic:
I am absolutely convinced of the great power and the deep significance of the Christian religion, and consequently will not permit any other founders of religion (Religionsstifter). Therefore I have turned against Ludendoriff and separated myself from him; therefore I reject Rosenberg's book. That book is written by a Protestant. It is not a party book. It is not written by him as a member of the party. The Protestants can settle matters with him.
My desire is that no confessional conflict arise. I must act correctly to both confessions. I will not tolerate a Kulturkampf.... I stand by my word. I will protect the rights and freedom of the church and will not permit them to be touched. You need have no apprehensions concerning the freedom of the church.


-Hitler [quoted from Helmreich, p.241]
t

Hitler's connection to the Catholic church further illustrates the role of the Catholic church in endtime prophecy and it is anything but healthy.

The Catholic church forbids it's priests to marry and yet...

1Timothy4:3

They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

The catholic church is in direct opposition to the bible when they forbid their priests to marry. The priests then do all sorts of heinous acts with little boys and girls.


If Hitler was influenced by the bible then I would like to see the copy of the bible that he was reading. The other alternative is that he deliberately disobeyed most of the commands within the bible. I lean towards the latter.

Listen not to what they say but rather watch what they do.

Well if you had looked at the link I provided or had you even read what I posted you would have found your answer as to what he read.

Fail on your part.

Also I am observing your actions so should I assume that you are not a Christian? You have been less than truthful here so are you not a Christian?

Strawman arguments and your dismissal of history have been less than Christian like.

Lol.

Who is producing the strawman argument?

Is This not what you said?

Listen not to what they say but rather watch what they do.

I am asking you because you seem to dismiss Hitlers religion based off of his actions. Do you not hold yourself to the same principles?

If you chose not to answer my questions past and present I can only assume.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


I did provide one direct source to evidence of macroevolution, as well as a page on Common Descent, which has 29 examples.

Macroevolution, in its current understanding, and within the scope of your arguments has been proven, it is not a fairy tale.

Your issue actually seems to be with Abiogenesis, not evolution (and a misunderstanding of the concept of macroevolution).

The mechanism for Abiogenesis, and how it leads to life as we know it is actually one of the final links that hasn't been found, and as a good peer-reviewed paper will state, there is room for many theories in that tiny gap... including Intelligent Design (ID). However, intelligent design is very far down he list of current plausible explanations.

The evidence suggests a much different reality than ID presents, and as of yet, there is no supporting evidence for ID (which is why it is so far down the list of viable theories)... ID is a complete hypothesis.

Here's a post which explains a little on our current understanding of Abiogenesis:

The Miller–Urey experiment (Miller-Urey Experiment) is the most well-known (there are many others) and successful demonstration showing the development of organic matter from in-organic matter. They did a range of different experiments showing how amino acids and other organic materials develop under different circumstances.

With current analytical processes many more organic materials were discovered in their early experiments than Miller originally reported (he first reported 5 amino acids, and with better detection techniques by himself and others, this increased to 22 amino acids, 5 amines and many hydroxylated molecules from his experiments mimicking volcano like environments, with conjecture that even better analysis will show as many as 30-40 amino acids), highlighting the even greater success of the experiments than was originally thought. Considering that all current known life only uses 20 amino acids, this is good evidence of how nature produced animate matter from inanimate matter.

The first of Miller's published experiments was in 1953, and since then there has been much development and research in this area (you can find just a few of the available sources in the wiki article I linked). His experiments show the initial stages of how "life" can be formed from in-organic material, providing the building blocks for proteins and DNA (which are polymers of the more simple molecules that have been found in his experiments).

There is very little research being done on this front any more, since it has categorically been proven. All the current research in this area is now focusing on the development of DNA and proteins from basic organic elements, trying to pinpoint which organic molecules developed first, and how they formed the first "life".

This field is called Abiogenesis, and it is currently a very active area of research.

In the end we will be searching for the origin of “everything”, most likely as long as our race exists, but as a species we are developing a complex picture that is able to describe most questions we have which is leaving “God” outside of our known universe. It is possible that “God” was the initiator of our universe, putting all the laws of our universe in place, but for a long time yet (and possibly forever) that will be pure philosophy, and as of yet there is no known evidence for deistic creation within our universe.

Cheers

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

I am not re-creating any of the scientific theories. I am exposing how it is scientifically impossible to prove the transition from one to another.

Perhaps I didn't express myself very clearly. What I mean is this: Scientific theories are models that we develop to describe and understand all the phenomena we see everyday, there is no Theory of Everything, because that in itself is a fallacy, that's why dogmatic, religious explanations are not explanations at all and are intrinsically flawed.
So, the ToE aims only to describe the process by which lifeforms adapt and change through time.
Nothing else.
The modern proposition of Abiogenesis is only one of the scientific models by which we try to understand how organic processes arise (dialectically speaking) from inorganic processes.
Nothing else.

If you are REALLY trying to find the truth you can't change what they are without surrendering your honesty.
(It's like making fun of Asians by saying they are too dark-skinned)

Those two propositions aim at explaining two clearly different phenomena: a) the fundamental transition from inorganic->organic and b) the mechanisms by which life changes and adapts.

Thus, the difficulty of "fusing" both scientific bodies cannot be logically blamed on any of those scientific bodies.
It means we haven't figured it out, yet. And current ignorance does not equate a cognitive impossibility.

Abiogenesis is the thorn in the side of every atheist that tries to explain our existence without a creator.

How come?
I don't know the details of how exactly happened. But we know our planet only showed inorganic processes for some time and later, organic processes arose from the already present ones. How it happened is what we are trying to unravel. Science is that cool.
(for what is worth, I'm not atheist, I'm non-theist, I don't feel the need to believe, because I can discover and understand, which is way more fun)

Honourable scientists will admit that they cannot prove the origins of biological life because they cannot prove abiogensis and they cannot prove macroevolution.

But the current failure to prove ONE proposed scientific theory doesn't mean we should abandon science and go worship Shiva, or whatever myth you choose. It means that either we haven't got the whole picture yet, or we need to take another approach to the subject.

The "creator" wildcard is not science. It's not an explanation, and thus, is irrelevant. (and not funny at all)
You are free to say "I don't know X so I will call it bananas and write down a morally comforting story to use instead of actual knowledge", but it is what it is.

Originally posted by wildtimes
What is your point, please?
You jumped in with vitriol, but haven't shared your reasons why.

My point is all the negativity on the first page
one liners saying "Fail" or "Didn't you do any research first" or those type of responses but no education.

Then facepalm images like "Hey I don't have anything to add to this thread but this useless facepalm image"

These are not intellectual responses, they should be looked down upon.
Why not just have a civil discussion no matter how much the thread is based on false assumptions.

reply to post by FaithandArms

If society was taught from the very beginning of civilization that we were merely slightly more advanced monkeys that had been bacteria that came to life because of cosmic coincedence would we still have selected the moral laws our societies on the planet follow now?

Saying moralities came from religion is conjecture at best. But since religions were devised by man, we can safely say that moralities were too.

If man was taught from the very beginning that he wasn't made in the image of God, he wasn't some fallen angel, he wasn't ment to spend the afterlife in the kingdom of God, or with 40 virgins, we'd be proud of the fact that we are "merely slightly more advanced monkeys." But since we've been inundated with thousands of years of lies, and we've become to believe those lies for so long, it seems we're a little more than disappointed with the truth, even so far as to willingly remain in ignorance of it.

Believing for so long that we are somehow special has led us to value nothings. During that time, we've been taught that our very physicality is worthless, our time on Earth is meaningless and salvation and happiness are found only in service to the supernatural.

Religion leads to nihilism and only promotes self-loathing, teaching us that without it, we are "merely slightly more advanced monkeys that had been bacteria that came to life because of cosmic [coincidence]." Feeling this way about humanity, its history and accomplishments is intellectually absurd. Men have been on the moon for crying out loud. Name another being that has accomplished that.

Religion has nothing to do with morality; being human does.

reply to post by ModernAcademia

These are not intellectual responses, they should be looked down upon.
Why not just have a civil discussion no matter how much the thread is based on false assumptions.

Those responses are reflective of the frustration that goes on in society at large.
I'm perfectly willing to engage in 'intellectual' and 'civil' discussion. The OP is making huge, unsound leaps, over and over again. Would a "sigh" be more appropriate?
Okay.
*sighs*

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
It teaches that we have macro levels of change and this has never been proven and never will be.

Right. So all those transitional fossils out there don't exist all of a sudden? OP, please do some research on this. The truth is indeed out there and it's in the form of a mountain of evidence.

Which transitional fossils?

I see a whole bunch of fossils that were once living creatures that died and were buried very quickly. What of them?

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by wildtimes
What is your point, please?
You jumped in with vitriol, but haven't shared your reasons why.

My point is all the negativity on the first page
one liners saying "Fail" or "Didn't you do any research first" or those type of responses but no education.

Then facepalm images like "Hey I don't have anything to add to this thread but this useless facepalm image"

These are not intellectual responses, they should be looked down upon.
Why not just have a civil discussion no matter how much the thread is based on false assumptions.

Please name the false assumptions that I am using that the evolusionist does not use.

Please note that when I refer to the evolusionist, I refer to someone that believes in the big bang, cosmic evolution & biological evolution.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

These are not intellectual responses, they should be looked down upon.
Why not just have a civil discussion no matter how much the thread is based on false assumptions.

Those responses are reflective of the frustration that goes on in society at large.
I'm perfectly willing to engage in 'intellectual' and 'civil' discussion. The OP is making huge, unsound leaps, over and over again. Would a "sigh" be more appropriate?
Okay.
*sighs*

Because the evolutionist never makes huge unsound leaps that require gigantic leaps of faith?

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


As opposed to someone who believes in Genesis. Right? If I'm wrong, please let me know.

Because the evolutionist never makes huge unsound leaps that require gigantic leaps of faith?

No.
They don't.

Originally posted by puzzlesphere
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

I did provide one direct source to evidence of macroevolution, as well as a page on Common Descent, which has 29 examples.

Macroevolution, in its current understanding, and within the scope of your arguments has been proven, it is not a fairy tale.

Your issue actually seems to be with Abiogenesis, not evolution (and a misunderstanding of the concept of macroevolution).

The mechanism for Abiogenesis, and how it leads to life as we know it is actually one of the final links that hasn't been found, and as a good peer-reviewed paper will state, there is room for many theories in that tiny gap... including Intelligent Design (ID). However, intelligent design is very far down he list of current plausible explanations.

The evidence suggests a much different reality than ID presents, and as of yet, there is no supporting evidence for ID (which is why it is so far down the list of viable theories)... ID is a complete hypothesis.

Here's a post which explains a little on our current understanding of Abiogenesis:

The Miller–Urey experiment (Miller-Urey Experiment) is the most well-known (there are many others) and successful demonstration showing the development of organic matter from in-organic matter. They did a range of different experiments showing how amino acids and other organic materials develop under different circumstances.

With current analytical processes many more organic materials were discovered in their early experiments than Miller originally reported (he first reported 5 amino acids, and with better detection techniques by himself and others, this increased to 22 amino acids, 5 amines and many hydroxylated molecules from his experiments mimicking volcano like environments, with conjecture that even better analysis will show as many as 30-40 amino acids), highlighting the even greater success of the experiments than was originally thought. Considering that all current known life only uses 20 amino acids, this is good evidence of how nature produced animate matter from inanimate matter.

The first of Miller's published experiments was in 1953, and since then there has been much development and research in this area (you can find just a few of the available sources in the wiki article I linked). His experiments show the initial stages of how "life" can be formed from in-organic material, providing the building blocks for proteins and DNA (which are polymers of the more simple molecules that have been found in his experiments).

There is very little research being done on this front any more, since it has categorically been proven. All the current research in this area is now focusing on the development of DNA and proteins from basic organic elements, trying to pinpoint which organic molecules developed first, and how they formed the first "life".

This field is called Abiogenesis, and it is currently a very active area of research.

In the end we will be searching for the origin of “everything”, most likely as long as our race exists, but as a species we are developing a complex picture that is able to describe most questions we have which is leaving “God” outside of our known universe. It is possible that “God” was the initiator of our universe, putting all the laws of our universe in place, but for a long time yet (and possibly forever) that will be pure philosophy, and as of yet there is no known evidence for deistic creation within our universe.

Cheers

No.

My issue is with both macroevolution and abiogenesis. They both require religious belief, macroevolution has never been proven it is only assumed.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

As opposed to someone who believes in Genesis. Right? If I'm wrong, please let me know.

I do beleieve in the Genesis account but it is a religious belief that requires faith, no different than your religious beleief in the big bang (unless you have another theory for our existence?). Maybe you have your own God?

I am prepared to say that I have a religious belief while you will try and claim that your religious belief is scientific fact.

Who is being deceitful?

I would say about 50% responsible. The other 50% from the official malarkey the church teaches.

I vote third party for everything. Duopoly is two sides of the same coin!

Whatever the government, bankers, media say is always 100% "truth" and what conspiracy theorist say is always 100% "lies". That is what the ptb want everyone to believe. I see some people on the boards almost 24/7 who hate CT so wtf are they doing here? If you don't like something but still remain then that means you are trolling?

I know why I joined ATS but it has become quite mainstream lately, in the negative sense.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

I do beleieve in the Genesis account but it is a religious belief that requires faith, no different than your religious beleief in the big bang (unless you have another theory for our existence?). Maybe you have your own God?

I am prepared to say that I have a religious belief while you will try and claim that your religious belief is scientific fact.

Who is being deceitful?

Erm, not me!
I've melded the two, quite successfully.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

I am prepared to say that I have a religious belief while you will try and claim that your religious belief is scientific fact.

Who is being deceitful?

Like the evolutionist and the theory of evolution, do you admit that Genesis too is a theory?

The incalculable lives lost in religious wars or crusades suggest otherwise...

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by FaithandArms

 

If society was taught from the very beginning of civilization that we were merely slightly more advanced monkeys that had been bacteria that came to life because of cosmic coincedence would we still have selected the moral laws our societies on the planet follow now?

Saying moralities came from religion is conjecture at best. But since religions were devised by man, we can safely say that moralities were too.

If man was taught from the very beginning that he wasn't made in the image of God, he wasn't some fallen angel, he wasn't ment to spend the afterlife in the kingdom of God, or with 40 virgins, we'd be proud of the fact that we are "merely slightly more advanced monkeys." But since we've been inundated with thousands of years of lies, and we've become to believe those lies for so long, it seems we're a little more than disappointed with the truth, even so far as to willingly remain in ignorance of it.

Believing for so long that we are somehow special has led us to value nothings. During that time, we've been taught that our very physicality is worthless, our time on Earth is meaningless and salvation and happiness are found only in service to the supernatural.

Religion leads to nihilism and only promotes self-loathing, teaching us that without it, we are "merely slightly more advanced monkeys that had been bacteria that came to life because of cosmic [coincidence]." Feeling this way about humanity, its history and accomplishments is intellectually absurd. Men have been on the moon for crying out loud. Name another being that has accomplished that.

Religion has nothing to do with morality; being human does.

Good post. I think though that this question is what the OP was originally trying to get at.

I don't honestly think we can answer the OP's intended question which was is belief in evolution (and therefore not in a creator) part of the decline of society. Throughout history our creation myths of "others" creating us are just too intwined to be able to answer that. It's still an interesting question to discuss though.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

I do beleieve in the Genesis account but it is a religious belief that requires faith, no different than your religious beleief in the big bang (unless you have another theory for our existence?). Maybe you have your own God?

I am prepared to say that I have a religious belief while you will try and claim that your religious belief is scientific fact.

Who is being deceitful?

Erm, not me!
I've melded the two, quite successfully.

Well done.

You have just admitted that you have a religious belief regarding the origins of our existence. My respect for you has just increased tenfold.

But I still disagree with you on a few things regarding our origins.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

You have just admitted that you have a religious belief regarding the origins of our existence. My respect for you has just increased tenfold.

Uhhh.
okay?
Thanks?

Oh, (edit), and to clarify, I believe there can be an "Ultimate Reality" that may possibly have set the whole universe in motion, but I do not believe the Genesis story. I believe that our world and everything it naturally contains is "God."

We are part of "It". All, sons and daughters of the "Creator".