|
It's Darwin week, on the Guardian's website (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| miamitrance04 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
You should read more dude.
And I'm trying to figure out what angle you're even going at. Are you saying we havn't learned anything new of any value since 1776? |
I'm not sure how that excerpt proves or disproves that when religion is in the mix we regress instead of progress. and you said religion is holding our race back, right??? what i was trying to say that its ignorant to say religion is holding our race back.
and can I just say that religion is such a vague and broad word. I myself dont consider myself religious at all, in fact I try to stay away from anything that is religious. For the record christianity as Jesus intended it was not to be a religion furthermore I think that the kind of christianity that recieves attention in todays media is far far far from its original intent. |
|
|
| miamitrance04 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
um, have you actually read what some of the founding fathers thought of religion? i think it was jefferson (he's a father, yeah!?) was quite the atheist.
the whole separation of church and state was coz they realised it was (to paraphrase) a bunch of bollocks :p |
-if i said or sounded like i said that ALL the founding fathers were theists or christians that was not my intention. All i said was that i dont think saying "religion" is holding the race back is not a fair or accurate statement.
-For the whole separation of church and state issue i dont see that as a problem. Politics and "religion" dont mix. They are two totally different things. Even Jesus said give to Cesar what is due to Cesar and to God what is due to God. The historical evidence for the need for this separation is overwhelming. Looking back when the catholic church and the popes had tons of political control in Europe, that whole situation was an absolute disaster.
-I'm going to make a statement that may or not be fair but I believe the Catholic church is one of the main sources for such negativity towards God/Chrsitianity/Religion. They have screwed up BAD over and over and over and over.... |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by miamitrance04
I'm not sure how that excerpt proves or disproves that when religion is in the mix we regress instead of progress. and you said religion is holding our race back, right??? what i was trying to say that its ignorant to say religion is holding our race back.
and can I just say that religion is such a vague and broad word. I myself dont consider myself religious at all, in fact I try to stay away from anything that is religious. For the record christianity as Jesus intended it was not to be a religion furthermore I think that the kind of christianity that recieves attention in todays media is far far far from its original intent. |
Well think about what I mean when I say "religion is holding us back"
We have a proven scientific idea that millions are reluctant to believe in despite overwhelming concrete evidence because they'd rather believe in creationism and a text written about the same time people were figuring out that the world was not flat. In the 1700s I don't think it was doing as much damage. But the more we go on, and the more science collects this amazing knowledge base, the more religious doctrine gets in the way. |
|
|
| Lira |
| I'm glad I pointed out, in the first post, the fact that this thread had nothing to do with religion whatsoever :p |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I'm glad I pointed out, in the first post, the fact that this thread had nothing to do with religion whatsoever :p |
Good work buddy. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
Good work buddy. |
That wasn't aimed at anyone, Clovis, I just found it funny that I knew this was gonna happen, but still thought that remark could change the inevitable :p |
|
|
| miamitrance04 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
Well think about what I mean when I say "religion is holding us back"
We have a proven scientific idea that millions are reluctant to believe in despite overwhelming concrete evidence because they'd rather believe in creationism and a text written about the same time people were figuring out that the world was not flat. In the 1700s I don't think it was doing as much damage. But the more we go on, and the more science collects this amazing knowledge base, the more religious doctrine gets in the way. |
you do know that not just contemporary texts hold truth and value |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
Well think about what I mean when I say "religion is holding us back"
|
Could you elaborate?
At first I wanted to simply say "look at Stem Cell research as a perfect example of a technology thats just ripe for investment and research, but is being held back by Religious nuts"...but then I realized that these Religious nuts are only really holding back this technology in the States. Elsewhere in the world where Governments aren't run by clowns I'm sure this field is getting bigger and bigger every day. |
|
|
| placebo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
I have no problem with people believing in God. I have a problem with people who bury their heads in the sand when scientists infinitely more knowledgeable on complex subjects present pertinent information that clearly demonstrates how theres is no POSSIBLE other solution to human evolution than us evolving from monkeys. (I'm paraphrasing here and I am NOT an expert), but I read a fantastic article in which several scientists working on decoding the human genome successfully showed that humans suffered from the same diseases millions of years ago that certain primates had. The evidence is embedded into our DNA like a time line of diseases and subsequent immunities we evolved with over millions of years. It's just not possible that by a coincidence we also suffered from the same exact epidemics at the same exact time and developed the same exact immunities. Unless you just choose to say "well I think thats hearsay" in the face of people who have spent their entire lives on the subject.
I mean, it took a while for everyone to start agreeing that the world was in fact, NOT flat, but now where are we on that? There are so many clear, definitive, solid arguments in favor of evolution that it just really shocks certain people (like myself) when someone will just all over scientists who have spent years figuring out these amazing complexities just to say "Well I don't believe that", because I don't see it as a question of faith. Read the opinions of people who know more than you, I enjoy it, and I am much more inclined to believe scientists than the alternative. |
but clovis, dont you understand, we all came into existence at one time and the earth is only 3000 years old. that's why evolution isn't true! |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by placebo
but clovis, dont you understand, we all came into existence at one time and the earth is only 3000 years old. that's why evolution isn't true! |
Phew, for a moment I thought you were serious.
Well, can we get back to Darwin now? |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
Everybody is being idiotic.. all you guys are doing is bashing eachoter.. you guys remind me of myself in every otehr thread hahaha
anyways.. im sure darwin bleived that humans came from the primate order. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by RickyM
That always strikes me as strange...the creationist argues that a simple lifeform could not be created from nothing, yet they're prepared to accept that complex intelligence (i.e. God) was just 'there' at the start.
I got some gospel hall leaflet/brochure through my letterbox this morning. It argued that due to the complexity of the eye, it could not have evolved, and must have been designed/created. They then begged the question (obviously!) that it was God.
They were perfectly ok with the idea that God could just be there (infitely more complex than an eye...)but that an eye could not have evolved and therefore required design.
It just strikes me as odd, surely the idea of complex intelligence just 'being there' is harder to swallow than simple lifeforms evolving into more complex organisms.
The funniest part on the leaflet though was when they were explaining the complexity of the eye, and that flies have thousands of eyes.
They then stated that this is why it is so hard to swat a fly, as it can see whatever it is you're aiming at it, and thus fly away.
Doesn't really explain why it's very easy to kill a fly with a fly swatter though does it? Surely the fly should see the fly swatter coming ;). It seems these people will make up any old nonsense to support their 'argument'. |
Actually, human eyes and octopus eyes are analogous. This means that they evolved completely seperate from different with respect to embryo formation. These cells can be radioactively marked from zygote formation in order to tell if they share an evolutionary history (direct ancestor ) or not. |
|
|
|
|
