Is the theory of evolution responsible for a toxic society?

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

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

Coffee, meet keyboard.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


You literally have no understanding of any of the points you are trying to make. You have horribly intertwined several different fields of study. You should start all over and read more books.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


Here's one of the many examples of an interactive (lots of fun to play with!) Tree of Life


In this portion, you can see where dogs and cats are related.

An even more detailed source is at www.timetree.org... (with links to sources and the fossils and sites associated with the information.. over hundreds of years we have collected a lot of information), which will show you time divergences of different species... from this you can see that cat/dog diverged approximately 50 million years ago based on known fossils. There are literally hundreds of thousands (probably more like millions) of fossils which fit into this tree.

Cheers

Originally posted by wildtimes
Those responses are reflective of the frustration that goes on in society at large.

That's not an excuse, no knee jerk responses in a moderated forum!

Originally posted by wildtimes
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?

Then educate him.
A sigh would absolutely not be more appropriate.
Education would, not nonsense posts.

Come on man, let's be adults.

Imagine if every post was done by children and parents saw the post.
What would parents say, they would say "That's not a nice thing to say".

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
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.

I understand what you are saying.
But when you talk about evolutionism you are not talking about Big Bang or Cosmic evolution.
You are only talking about biological evolution and your OP had little to do with that.

Originally posted by FaithandArms

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.

Absolutely.

I am glad that a few people have taken the time to read the OP and understand the intention of the thread.

I was always aware that debate regarding evolution vs creation would inevitably take place and I was not going to ignore it, in fact I welcome it.

There have been cultures throughout the ages that have practiced some strange rituals but I do believe that the massive genoicide of human beings under the rule of Stalin, Hitler & Mao Tse Tung is more of a modern phenomena that is heavily inlfuenced by the idea that there is no God and we are here purely by chance (A cosmic burp created us) so morals mean nothing.

I know that people have also done terrible things in the name of religion but I also think that the big bang theory has resulted in philosophies that have also led to mass carnage & a sick culture.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

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?

Oh dear, I see that you're not even trying to keep up. Very well then. Have fun being made to look like a poorly-informed idiot!

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
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.

I understand what you are saying.
But when you talk about evolutionism you are not talking about Big Bang or Cosmic evolution.
You are only talking about biological evolution and your OP had little to do with that.

Nope.

When I talk about evolution I am talking about:

The Big Bang
Cosmic evolution
& Biological evolution

It is just semantics.

What word would you like me to use that encompasses all three theories? Let me know so that I don't keep hearing these semantic arguments that misdirect the heart of the message.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I just composed a reply and it got lost on my 'toolbar'.
I was telling the OP that I believe that science and theology are best approached hand in hand.

I don't believe the Genesis story one tiny bit, but I don't discount the possibility that the "Creator" set it all in motion BILLIONS of years ago.

a la this:

reply to post by generik


Why do you think that religion has a monopoly on morals when religious people as well as atheists can show a complete lack of them. This is a highly biased remark.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
Oh dear, I see that you're not even trying to keep up. Very well then. Have fun being made to look like a poorly-informed idiot!

See it's posts like this that I dislike.
Useless negative posts.

You are just insulting your oponent and not providing any opinion in your post.

The OP started a thread with opinions based on false assumptions.
You are replying with a negative post without any opinion, just an insult.

The OP seems to be way more intelligent than you despite me completely disagreeing with him.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


Have you read my links, or looked into peer reviewed journal databases?... I can assure you that macroevolution has been shown, and there is a plethora of information related to it.

Abiogenesis hasn't totally been proven, but many aspects of it has, and in terms as a viable theory to fill the still existing gap in knowledge, Intelligent Design falls well short (considering there is no current evidence at all for it), and there are many better explanations that are coming extraordinarily close to describing the model accurately.

There will always be space for the idea of a "higher" being, but not in the area of evolution, and most likely not in Abiogenesis... maybe in the origin of the universe (the Big Bang), or outside the known universe?... anyone's guess.

Cheers

Originally posted by wildtimes
a la this:

It's a logical fallacy to attempt to prove an opinion is right by quoting ONE PERSON, and an appeal to portrayed authorities.

You did not give an opinion by posting that image.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

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?

Oh dear, I see that you're not even trying to keep up. Very well then. Have fun being made to look like a poorly-informed idiot!

I love it when the evolutionist gives up and finishes with:

"You don't understand evolution therefore you are an idiot, I understand evolution because I am smart".

I think that you are an intelligent person but don't be fooled into thinking that your belief is anything but religious.

Next please.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
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.

I understand what you are saying.
But when you talk about evolutionism you are not talking about Big Bang or Cosmic evolution.
You are only talking about biological evolution and your OP had little to do with that.

Nope.


When I talk about evolution I am talking about:

The Big Bang
Cosmic evolution
& Biological evolution

It is just semantics.

What word would you like me to use that encompasses all three theories? Let me know so that I don't keep hearing these semantic arguments that misdirect the heart of the message.

The big bang is cosmic origins

Cosmic evolution is cosmology

Biologic evolution is the only thing you should refer to as evolution.

Originally posted by puzzlesphere
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

Have you read my links, or looked into peer reviewed journal databases?... I can assure you that macroevolution has been shown, and there is a plethora of information related to it.

Abiogenesis hasn't totally been proven, but many aspects of it has, and in terms as a viable theory to fill the still existing gap in knowledge, Intelligent Design falls well short (considering there is no current evidence at all for it), and there are many better explanations that are coming extraordinarily close to describing the model accurately.

There will always be space for the idea of a "higher" being, but not in the area of evolution, and most likely not in Abiogenesis... maybe in the origin of the universe (the Big Bang), or outside the known universe?... anyone's guess.

Cheers

edit on 20-3-2013 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)

Only microevolution has been proven.

Give me just ONE example from a scientific journal of Macroevolution being observed.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
Nope.

When I talk about evolution I am talking about:

The Big Bang
Cosmic evolution
& Biological evolution

It is just semantics.

What word would you like me to use that encompasses all three theories? Let me know so that I don't keep hearing these semantic arguments that misdirect the heart of the message.

No it's not semantics at all.

Evolution and the big bang theory are two completely seperate theories.
You only think that they are the same because many evolutionists believe in the big bang theory.

What word would I like you to use.
No word can emcompass these opinions, seperate words are required.

The big bang theory is a theory on how everything started.
Evolution, despite how things started, is the theory on how we progressed.

These are not the same thing whatsoever and this should have been the first post in this uncivil thread.

reply to post by ModernAcademia

Oh, okay. You want my opinion. I give you:
You Wouldn't Believe How Fast Americans Are Losing Their Religion -- But the Fundamentalists Have a Plan
A thread I started earlier today.
There ya go - my opinion, naked and vulnerable.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

a la this:

Well, I humbly think "his holiness" is wrong about Buddhism.
I think the more important lesson to take from Buddhism is to free yourself from things like belief.
It's important to note however that the Dalai Lama represents the more ritualistic and institutionalized facets of buddhism, he's not the "buddhist pope" as many believe.

Originally posted by Tennessee77

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
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.

I understand what you are saying.
But when you talk about evolutionism you are not talking about Big Bang or Cosmic evolution.
You are only talking about biological evolution and your OP had little to do with that.

Nope.


When I talk about evolution I am talking about:

The Big Bang
Cosmic evolution
& Biological evolution

It is just semantics.

What word would you like me to use that encompasses all three theories? Let me know so that I don't keep hearing these semantic arguments that misdirect the heart of the message.

The big bang is cosmic origins

Cosmic evolution is cosmology

Biologic evolution is the only thing you should refer to as evolution.

Semantics.

I am sorry but I am not going to repeat all three when I am discussing all three.

To keep it simple I will call it evolution and when I am being specific I will use the terms:


Big bang

Cosmic evolution (or cosmology)

Macroevolution

Microevolution


For these to be scientific a line must be drawn between each one. Hence evolution.

If a line cannot be drawn from one to another then the whole theory is bunk (It is a belief and therefore religious).