Can evolution be proven?.

[Huntingbear_grimbatol]

Science is really becoming a form of "religion". Just like people who will use religion to force their ways on people, people are doing very much the same with science.

Except science is the results of multiple tests that happened seconds or minutes after you OBSERVED them.
Religion is the written stories of some person/figure that may or may not have lived, however these stories have been retold and altered because these stories were written decades if not centuries after these "stories" happened.

As far as I'm considered Creationism is so wrong it should be ridiculed, there are hundreds of different fields of science and thousands of research results that have proven this religion to be fundamentally wrong.

[Slant]

I think you are missing the point. those very same people would have lived in peace anyway..religious or not. religion doesn`t make any peace. enlightenment, prosperity, and a culture of empathy and respect do however..

I don't know. All of the three monotheistic religions literally preach pieace, respect, love, curiousity and advancing yourself. But you're ignoring that based on the actions of their people. Okay, so when I point out that the majority of those people actually don't contribute to tragedy in human history, you tell me that they don't count.

The same way that religion doesn't make any peace, it doesn't make any war. I mean seriously, this goes both ways. And just going "Oh, I'm killing this dude cos I am a believer" doesn't necessarily make the religion better or worse. It just means you used religion as an argument why you just killed a man. If you remove religion from the equation, he probably would still have killed the man. Only now his reasoning would perhaps be "Oh, he was breathing my air" or "the sun just came up". You either need to separate religion from the believers, in which case all of them are shining examples of positive messages, or you have to actually take into account how the vast majority of their believers are not adding negatively to humanity.

Instead, you go and exclusively talk about the ones that do bad. Not sure if arguing with you makes any sense if that is how you argue.

- - - Updated - - -

No, he'd be above logic. Don't blame me for your faulty premise, please

So, above logic meaning illogical? Good. Still in agreement then.

[Skulltaker]

money/greed perhaps.. I'm not agreeing with you on the other two points however

So you think that an idea that easily transcends borders, oceans and races creates more difference then an actual border where you can literally say 'us over here and them over there'?

- - - Updated - - -

So, above logic meaning illogical? Good. Still in agreement then.

No, it doesn't. It means beyond logical and illogical. Uncomprehendable.

[wooters]

All of those can be part of religion which would make that religion something that "makes peace".

yeah ok lol.. those virtues are everywhere in both the koran and bible. and look how smooth that panned out

[Slant]

No, it doesn't. It means beyond logical and illogical. Uncomprehendable.

Full Definition of illogical
1
: not observing the principles of logic <an illogical argument>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illogical

I mean, I really want to give you points for trying, but you're right now trying to redefine language here. That's a bit cheeky. :P

[Skulltaker]

yeah ok lol.. those virtues are everywhere in both the koran and bible. and look how smooth that panned out

By that logic, and ruling out humans themselves as a factor, I'd say most misery is science's fault. How many of those conflicts would have been able without science?

Of course that's nonsense. In all conflict, science, religion, nationality and so on are nothing but tools for human nature.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illogical

I mean, I really want to give you points for trying, but you're right now trying to redefine language here. That's a bit cheeky. :P

No, I was trying to tell you what I meant with beyond logic, not trying to redefine what illogical means. Not on this or that side of logical or illogical, but... beyond.

[Kalis]

Science already has. Very contradictive statement however.

Watch this.

That is Young Earth Creationsim, creationism is just the view that "God did it", but what "it" is depends on the person.

God gave the "spark" of life and nature took over from there is creationism, intelligent design is creationism, the anti-scientific conspiracy-theory gibberish of Ken Ham is creationsim - it is very broad.

[thatmikeguy]

No, because evolution is simply "mutation". Mutations spring from many factors and can produce a good "overall outcome" over enough time. Dietary changes, climate, and many things that kill some and strengthen others. Fore example, take protein out of an animals diet for long enough and each generation will adapt to the point of not knowing what they originally liked to eat, even once available again. You can look back and see how this happened to many varieties of animals over time, because of their locations and available food.

Mutation is Fact, evolution is not.

[Slant]

By that logic, and ruling out humans themselves as a factor, I'd say most misery is science's fault. How many of those conflicts would have been able without science?

Of course that's nonsense. In all conflict, science, religion, nationality and so on are nothing but tools for human nature.

You're mixing up cause and effect here. Conflicts rarely happen because of religion or science. But religion is often used as an explanation or excuse to legitimise the conflict and science is used as a tool in those conflicts. Neither means that without them the conflict wouldn't have happened. Heck, bloody animals have conflicts all the time without religion or science. Simply because of instincts.

[want my Slimjim]

No, it doesn't exist atleast on the macro evolution scale.

[Deleted]

A good scienctist will never stop looking for new facts. And to boil down all religious poeple into one schematic is really narrowminded, you know.

And yet that conclusion is based on facts.

If u cant face facts then i suggest u retreat back into your religion. The real world is a harsh place for some people.

If u cannot see how a religious ideology has a fixed set of rules, biases and parameters then u really shouldnt get involved in this conversation.

[Osmeric]

No, because evolution is simply "mutation".

Um, no, it is not simply mutation. It's also recombination and selection.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it doesn't exist atleast on the macro evolution scale.

The evidence says otherwise.

[Slant]

No, I was trying to tell you what I meant with beyond logic, not trying to redefine what illogical means. Not on this or that side of logical or illogical, but... beyond.

There is no beyond. There is logic and there is illogic. You either have one or the other. I'm not saying that I don't trust illogical things to happen, why the hell not. I have an open mind. But you'll have to live with the label that your "solution" is illogical. That's how language works, mate. I know it sucks, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

[wooters]

By that logic, and ruling out humans themselves as a factor, I'd say most misery is science's fault. How many of those conflicts would have been able without science?

Of course that's nonsense. In all conflict, science, religion, nationality and so on are nothing but tools for human nature.

"I'd say most misery is science's fault" wow...just wow. is that even possible to state? I'm just..lol. you DO KNOW people used rocks and twigs to smash each others head in before science right? every conflict today on the same landmass would ofc be possible without science

[Skulltaker]

You're mixing up cause and effect here. Conflicts rarely happen because of religion or science. But religion is often used as an explanation or excuse to legitimise the conflict and science is used as a tool in those conflicts. Neither means that without them the conflict wouldn't have happened. Heck, bloody animals have conflicts all the time without religion or science. Simply because of instincts.

And you are taking the word tool to literate, as an excuse or (false) reason is also a tool. Something to be weaponized, if you whish. But I could have phrased that better.

[Deleted]

Wow I didn't realize the video had been taken down, sorry guys Ill put it back up from a different source.



Oh by the way there is a flash of light when the human egg is fertilized, just saw the story today.

Sick thread necro. Did you search hard to find a 4 month old thread to post your trash in? You must be desperate.

[wooters]

No, because evolution is simply "mutation". Mutations spring from many factors and can produce a good "overall outcome" over enough time. Dietary changes, climate, and many things that kill some and strengthen others. Fore example, take protein out of an animals diet for long enough and each generation will adapt to the point of not knowing what they originally liked to eat, even once available again. You can look back and see how this happened to many varieties of animals over time, because of their locations and available food.

Mutation is Fact, evolution is not.

mutation and evolution are basically the same goddamn thing. use your head

[Kalis]

The evidence says otherwise.

Some posters have no interest in evidence, they are purely interested in making sure their fake online character gets the attention they crave.

[Noradin]

So, above logic meaning illogical? Good. Still in agreement then.

You are being illogical, are you trying to prove you are god or are you just ignorant how logic works?

[Skulltaker]

"I'd say most misery is science's fault" wow...just wow. is that even possible to state? I'm just..lol. you DO KNOW people used rocks and twigs to smash each others head in before science right?

So using a rock to smash someones head in isn't science how? It's not very sophisticated, but still, a more refined way to transfer force and making use of the fact that rock beats bone. Hard stuff + force breaks softer stuff. (I know this is not generally aplicable and blatantly wrong in some cases)

There is no beyond. There is logic and there is illogic. You either have one or the other. I'm not saying that I don't trust illogical things to happen, why the hell not. I have an open mind. But you'll have to live with the label that your "solution" is illogical. That's how language works, mate. I know it sucks, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

No beyond that you (or any of us)can comprehend. That's the point. You are limiting yourself in your open mindedness by assuming there are only those two answers, one being logical, one everything else. Maybe illogical just sounds to negative.