What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Where does everyone stand in regards to...

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #221
oh, yah, that too
smile_l_32.gif
smile_m_32.gif
smile.gif
 
  • #222
[b said:
Quote[/b] (ktulu @ Dec. 30 2004,1:22)]you all seem to enjoy trashing the church with out realising with out it your oh so precious theory of evolution would not have ever come to be.

The church preserved the knowledge of the anicients during the middle ages, and it also was the cause of the Rennaissance, which first gave people the idea of questioning the church, this line of thinking led to the enlightenment, which is where you first see the thinkers that began to try ot explain the world around them with non-religous explainations.  This is where your theory of evolution comes from.

Also darwin was educated by the church, and if he had not been educated he likely would not have been able to document and support his ideas that helped to lead to the acceptance of the theory of evoultion.  and as a side note i would like to clear up darwin did not come up with teh theory of evolution, he merely found a tool that allowed evolution to occur.

And for all of you who like to point out the miss use of religion(cursades, inquistion, missionaries) the theory of evoution and darwinism has also been miss used.  It has often been used to justify allowing people to live in poverty and giving them no assitance, which being they are human beings is just wrong, at least the church calls for the people who believe in it to help those who are in a bad position, never heard evolutionist calling to help the people who are in a bad situtation.

Oh and to those who say that people who do not understand evolution are ignorant, konw this i have spent the last 3 years studying evolution as it relates to humans, and i still dont believe it because there are way too many problems with evolution, espceally since the theory is moving to punctuated evolution, which would mean that the way things are going species should have likely started changing rapidly to adapt to the alterations humans have made to the enviroment.  And to those of you who keep calling religion evil, i say you are the ignorant, evil people, since you do not respect peoples rights and can only site a few instances where religion has been misused to base your accusation on
Who do you think you are calling some people here ignorant and evil?
I have the darn right to think what I please, and so does every member on this forum.


What, are you going to DENY religion isnt responsible for those things? The people who destroyed the Twin Towers in the U.S.A were fuled(sp?) by religion.
Many people were tortured and killed because of religion.

And *I* am an evolutionist, and I give things ot charity, so do my family, including my stepdad, who doesnt believe in god.
Your precious church aint the only one who tries to help people in a bad position.
 
  • #223
because others here called religous people ignorent and evil, hae u forgotten?

please be respectfull of others ad not try to inflame the situation, and that goes for all of you, not just starman
 
  • #224
bloody hell.
Now we aren't arguing which is true, we're arguing which has better followers.
Atheists don't always have the same motivation as Christians to help others etc, leading to many criminals or selfish people. On the other hand, MOST atheists are very nice people and I have no problems with their conduct etc.
Religious people are sometimes like Bin-Laden (which BTW actually went AGAINST the teachings of Islam)... but he did it in the purpose of religion. The twin towers.. .result of his religious beliefs. On the other hand.. we can look at the many charities and fundraisers to help others from Churches, temples, etc. The majority of religion teaches kindness, unselfishness, etc.
 
  • #225
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]bloody hell.
Now we aren't arguing which is true, we're arguing which has better followers.

then you wont mind it if i leave, arguments like that are pointless, inflamitory, and really not very nice.
smile_t_32.gif
If Religous people and evolutionists didnt spend so much time trying to one-up the other on facts and just accepted eachothers veiws, reasons and opinions, wo would not have to have arguments like this thread in the first place and move on to better things.
 
  • #226
[b said:
Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Dec. 30 2004,12:33)]well... you know what they say... it's the thought that counts. The church was only supporting that to prove christianity.. which isn't very scientific as someone explained before.
Nobody said anything about any church anyway. What we said includes many religions (Ie. the middle east... it's mostly muslims vs. jews). don't be so paranoic.
and yes... Darwin even wanted to be a minister or something, but then found that science is better.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]and i still dont believe it because there are way too many problems with evolution, espceally since the theory is moving to punctuated evolution, which would mean that the way things are going species should have likely started changing rapidly to adapt to the alterations humans have made to the enviroment.
ok... give us problems.
so I guess organisms should evolve to be able to eat plastic?
and species are evolving because of humans.
Viruses (which are technically not alive) evolve very fast- SARS being an example.
Bacteria are becoming resistant to even the strongest antibiotics, dogs, cats, fish, PLANTS, have all been domesticated (well... changed into something not found in the wild anyway), pests like insects are becoming resistant to pesticides, etc...
What I've found amazing all along is most of you seem to speak on religion as if you were experts. Yet it is ovious most of you don't have a clue about much of anything, and are simply regurgitating what you have been spoon fed last semester. Passing off the teaching of others as you're own thought is essentially plagerism.

I've kept quiet because it was ovious you didn't understand what creationism even is. You don't know what it says, and oviously don't understant the different aspects of it.

Other than the usual inadequate emotion filled rebuttle if you care to dissagree with what I'm saying......I challange you to sucessfully compare and contrast evolution as you understand it. I say as you understant it because so far you're compared apples to oranges. I'll give you this to start with. Creationism starts BEFORE evolution begins. To make it even easier
Start Here

Have fun I hope to see some intelligent thought put in to this .
 
  • #227
Oh yeah Here.

This is from Berkeley, not some religious website. Like I said... Well I've said enough
smile.gif
 
  • #228
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]because others here called religous people ignorent and evil, hae u forgotten?
they have?
ZAK, I love your link! I wish I had known about that site long ago.
... just making sure... I never said religion and evolution can't coexist. It is creationism and evolution that can't....
 
  • #229
but... that site mentions nothing (not much anyway) about creationism...
ah... to explain creationism: (NOT same as religion)
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Most creationists and creationologists today are either conservative Christians or orthodox Jews who believe that the Bible (Christian), or the Torah (Jewish), is accurate in its description of God's creation of the world and of life. They therefore believe the Bible when it says that the world, the stars, planets, and life were created over a short time (six ordinary 24-hour days). They also believe the Bible when it says that the first living things were created fully formed (that means the chicken was created before the egg: Genesis 1:20-22).

Creationologists (including creation scientists) believe that most fossils are the result of the worldwide flood described in the book of Genesis, and that the earth's surface, mountains, and terrain we see today were basically shaped by that flood.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/begin1.html
That's from the only creatioinst site I know of that makes any sense. (not that I agree with them... obviously... but.. well you know what I mean)
 
  • #231
whoa! talk about a huge site!
especially if you go to home... there are many branches of it. (reminds me of taxonomy.... lol)
for example this one... 29+ evidences for macroevolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....ntogeny
I didn't know dandelion flowers were vestigial! holy cow!
smile_k_ani_32.gif
 
  • #232
I'm reading through the site about Creationism you mentioned (http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/begin1.html) and so far the site I posted seems to address most if not all of the flaws in evolution... on first glance anyway... don't really have time right now to cross-reference all this stuff.

It also mentions my dog breeding thing... d'oh. Thought I was being original... was just something I was thinking about, I don't think I ever read about it beforehand. Oh well.
 
  • #233
I can argue many of the points they make. But hey... as creationist sites go (the ones I've seen) this one's definately the best.
For example... saying that all mutations are bad.
If you have sickle cell anemia here in the US it may be bad, but It is good if you have sickle cell anemia in malaria-infested countries because the malaria protozoan (which by the way has a vestigial chloroplast... why the heck would you kneed a CHLOROPLAST inside a human? I mean c'mon... it's all dark in there and you can get the food from somewhere else) can't infect you as well if you have sickle cell anemia.
and there's proof... Many blacks in africa have sickle cell anemia because it gives you a greater chance for surviving.
 
  • #234
smile.gif
im glad this hasnnt degraded so i guess its ok for me to come back.

ZAK, facts do not have a copywright. if a wilsons magolia leaf is about 4 inches long, thats a fact. true, i learned it from somewhere, but you cant copywright that. if u did, everyone who did or didnt measer the leaf in person would need to ask the original person who stated that fact to re-state it.
 
  • #236
well not really, it is my 'job' sort of to fill all unlinked pages section by section, so i chose one to start with, magnolias. there pretty, but not particularlyy interesting
 
  • #237
but wanna know something that is and once u figure it out youll automaticly know its right, and if not, can be proven with this very thread?

and its not something dumb liike 'keyboards' ether
 
  • #238
LOL guess not
 
  • #239
oh... I was doing something else... sure. what?
 
  • #240
have you ever wonderd why group loyalty and hostility emerges with ridiculusly predictable ease?

people quickly form groups, favor those in their own group (countries, sports teams, sides of a debate, workers... etc) , and are ready to be agressive to outsiders.

its called

ingroup-outgroup bias

the process begins, says psycologists, with people categorizing, mentally putting people into a course and general class that ultimatly boils down to Us and Them. Next, peopke start to discriminate, favoring Us over Them, even when the basis for assortment is totally meaningless -- for example, weather a person overestimates or underestimates the # of donts on a screen. Finnaly, they stereotype. They say nice things about Us and nasty things about Them. Can you recall a instance in your own life where you or some other people have done this? be honest.

the ingroup-outgroup bias is often ethnic or race-based, but occurs with equil ease around other catigories, such as religeon, sex,age, or sports team. In striking contrast to many or most processes, psycologists describe this conplex as ineradicable. taken to the extreme, ingroup-outgrop bias efectivly dehumanizes Them and that therefore even ordinary and very moral people can do the most appaling things to Them with a clear concence. (Ex settelers in america to the natives, for example) often the ingrop-out group bias is brutal to the level of bazar absurdity, while others look ridiculusly trivial, like fights between children abitrarialy assinged different coulord cloths by the teacher.


it happens, wether its the holocaust or bushmen by boers to bosnic ethnic clensing: further examples need not be elaborated. this can be seen even in this very thread. if anyone wants a description of scientific experiments provingg this, PM me.

the info in this context was mostly writtenby the psycology proffeser at harvard unifersity, i do not claim in any way that this information is mine, altough some experiences could be called original reserch
I
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top