sheic99: Why does an atheist have less faith than a creationist? The truth is, they don't.
I'm sorry, what?
It takes the same amount of faith to believe there is or isn't a god.
dragon_of_red: Well, i cant talk for any other religions other than my own, Christian by the way... may be able to do the Jewish one since its kind of the same story. If Evolution is right, it pretty much makes the Genesis and Garden Of Eden story, make no sense what so ever and pretty much ruins the core beliefs of 2 religions. Doesnt disprove him, just makes your God look like a little wuss who cant do as much and heaven will be a bust.
I assume you mean this post.
Or Genesis is the most that man could understand at the time when said deity revealed the story of life unto them. If God is as powerful as the bible states, then there is an innate possibility that the human consciousness cannot fully grasp the entirety of his powers. Continuing along this line of thinking, the six days of creation that is described in the bible, may have been six days for the supreme being, but for mortal like it could have been 6 million years. As such, evolution can be seen as an attempt to view the process of creation of life on Earth.
(I'm not making an argument against evolution. I happen to view it as fact)
I think there are three reasons for this phenomenon.
First, the method at which it was arrived is not, strictly speaking, the scientific method. In the scientific method, an hypothesis is formulated, then a test of that hypothesis is constructed to observe the variable in question, data is collected, and it is proven or disproven. Evolutionary biology works in the opposite direction. In evolutionary biology, data is collected and compiled, and an hypothesis is formulated afterwards. If subsequent data disprove this explanation, the explanation is revised, but there's no way to devise a controlled test, because you can't hold any of the environmental variables constant. For this reason, evolutionary biology would probably better be described as a "logic system" than a "science". This doesn't mean it's not true. It just means it isn't truly scientific. The same could be said for certain aspects of astrophysics, but enough is actually scientific that we can forgive them that.
Second, while several examples of microevolution have been found, virtually no examples of macroevolution have been observed in human history. Granted, we haven't been observing for very long, but that's not really an excuse. Here's why: We believe humans evolved from lower primates over the course of a period of time on the order of millions of years. There are bacteria with a generational time that is about 1/350400 of ours. After being aware of these bacteria for several decades, shouldn't we have seen an evolutionary innovation at least as significant as the primate/human transition by now?
Third, and this is the least-reasonable reason, but probably the most important one in terms of creating evolution deniers. The most publicly prominent evolutionary biologists in the world are militant atheist dickholes. I don't know of a single scientific discovery Richard Dawkins has made, but I know of a ton of books he's written about what a bunch of silly bitches the faithful are. If he's a dedicated scientist, why does he expend so much energy on philosophy? People are spiteful, and the best way to get them to refuse to listen to what you have to say is to spit in their face. No other scientific discipline feels the need to go on the attack this way. I think it's because every other science is a little more comfortable with their status as a "science" rather than a "logic system", or should I say a "belief system".
Serge A. Storms: I like how everyone's falling over each other declaring that this is going to be a flame war in 0.0000001 seconds, and the vast majority of the actual discussion on evolution v. religion so far has been between Atheists that are commenting because they saw "believe" and "evolution" in the thread title, and Christians that want people to know that science doesn't have any conflict at all with Christianity.
Yeah, we get that a lot these days. They're like the guys at the party who keep grabbing the boobs and butts of the girls because they were concerned the girls were going to 'fall' from being 'drunk'.
sheic99: Why does an atheist have less faith than a creationist? The truth is, they don't.
I'm sorry, what?
It takes the same amount of faith to believe there is or isn't a god.
For some bizarre reason, you used "Atheist" and "Creationist" as your two examples. A more appropriate one would have been atheist and theist, since that seems to be the comparison you're trying to make. It still makes no sense though. Only a strong atheists would say "I believe there is no God".
sneakypenguin: I personally think my faith(christianity) and science intersect pretty well, but arguing that here is like trying to argue with a twilight fan girl that edward is creepy. So why bother eh.
sneakypenguin: I personally think my faith(christianity) and science intersect pretty well, but arguing that here is like trying to argue with a twilight fan girl that edward is creepy. So why bother eh.
alot of people do actually, using the thought that god intended for us to evolve to what we are now.
but really, I see evolution as real, before I get flamed for it hear me out. Humans have come a long way since year one, we now have medicine, life expectancy is near 100 compared to 30-40, and we now no longer believe placing a biscuit in the corner and covering it with a rag will magically make a rat or mouse.
We as humans stopped evolving because we are able to adapt our surroundings to better fit our needs, tell me, if your cold do you turn on a heater?
the next step logically is gene manipulation or even merging with machines.
Or Genesis is the most that man could understand at the time when said deity revealed the story of life unto them. If God is as powerful as the bible states, then there is an innate possibility that the human consciousness cannot fully grasp the entirety of his powers. Continuing along this line of thinking, the six days of creation that is described in the bible, may have been six days for the supreme being, but for mortal like it could have been 6 million years. As such, evolution can be seen as an attempt to view the process of creation of life on Earth.
... touche
That was very well done.
Could be true, but i doubt that the first HomoSapiens to walk the earth thought about this enough to make that an actual possibility. Because we the nmust have in some time gone down a couple of notches.
Third, and this is the least-reasonable reason, but probably the most important one in terms of creating evolution deniers. The most publicly prominent evolutionary biologists in the world are militant atheist dickholes. I don't know of a single scientific discovery Richard Dawkins has made, but I know of a ton of books he's written about what a bunch of silly bitches the faithful are. If he's a dedicated scientist, why does he expend so much energy on philosophy?
A quick perusal of Dawkins Wikipedia entry shows me this list of Dawkins books:
# The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1976. ISBN 0-19-286092-5. # The Extended Phenotype. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1982. ISBN 0-19-288051-9. # The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. 1986. ISBN 0-393-31570-3. # River Out of Eden. New York: Basic Books. 1995. ISBN 0-465-06990-8. # Climbing Mount Improbable. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. 1996. ISBN 0-393-31682-3. # Unweaving the Rainbow. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 1998. ISBN 0-618-05673-4. # A Devil's Chaplain. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2003. ISBN 0-618-33540-4. # The Ancestor's Tale. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2004. ISBN 0-618-00583-8. # The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2006. ISBN 0-618-68000-4. # The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Free Press (United States), Transworld (United Kingdom and Commonwealth). 2009. ISBN 0-593-06173-X.
Of that list, only "The God Delusion" is primarily anti-religious. I haven't read "A Devil's Chaplain", but I assume it is at least partially anti-religious. However, the remainder of those books are primarily pro-biology. So, it would seem to me that the idea that Dawkins has spent his career attacking religion, not supporting biology, is primarily born out of the media (and the public) focusing on that aspect of his work. Also from the Wikipedia entry:
n 1995, Dawkins was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science in the University of Oxford, a position that had been endowed by Charles Simonyi with the express intention that the holder "be expected to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field".
So, it makes sense that he has done more in the way of attempting to popularize biology than he has to actually advance the field. Carl Sagan may not have been the greatest astronomer of our age, but he was the most publicly visible.
sheic99: Why does an atheist have less faith than a creationist? The truth is, they don't.
I'm sorry, what?
It takes the same amount of faith to believe there is or isn't a god.
For some bizarre reason, you used "Atheist" and "Creationist" as your two examples. A more appropriate one would have been atheist and theist, since that seems to be the comparison you're trying to make. It still makes no sense though. Only a strong atheists would say "I believe there is no God".
Actually, that's the definition of an atheist. If you believe that there is a possibility that there may be a God, then you are an agnostic.
sheic99: Why does an atheist have less faith than a creationist? The truth is, they don't.
I'm sorry, what?
It takes the same amount of faith to believe there is or isn't a god.
For some bizarre reason, you used "Atheist" and "Creationist" as your two examples. A more appropriate one would have been atheist and theist, since that seems to be the comparison you're trying to make. It still makes no sense though. Only a strong atheists would say "I believe there is no God".
Probably, not the best choice of words there, but everything is still a belief, as one can never now for certain.
Or Genesis is the most that man could understand at the time when said deity revealed the story of life unto them. If God is as powerful as the bible states, then there is an innate possibility that the human consciousness cannot fully grasp the entirety of his powers. Continuing along this line of thinking, the six days of creation that is described in the bible, may have been six days for the supreme being, but for mortal like it could have been 6 million years. As such, evolution can be seen as an attempt to view the process of creation of life on Earth.
... touche
That was very well done.
Could be true, but i doubt that the first HomoSapiens to walk the earth thought about this enough to make that an actual possibility. Because we the nmust have in some time gone down a couple of notches.
I have been known to have the occasional spout of logic coming out of me from time to time.
To OP: I believe the reason Evolution is 'attacked' much more then Germ theory, astrophysics, and geology is because most Atheist I know, use evolution as the stand point of their reasoning. Most of us in high school are taught about Darwanism and Evolution, while very few are taught about Germ theory, astrophysics, or geology to such a direct extent (or using their evidence to point to how the universe was created), thus we view evolution as the solution to how the world was created without a god.
Now to try and put forward my point (hopefully without starting a flamewar), evolution isn't a 100% garantee yet, there are still a few problems with it, such as the Cambrian Explosion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion for those who like Wikipedia ) Even Darwin himself stated that it was a huge barrier for his theory (but thought that future fossil records would disprove this)
As for the last point, is Science and God designed to fight each other? I would say no. Thinking logically, if there was a 'God', and he was a logical 'God' (which he would have to be), then shouldn't his creation also be logical, shouldn't it also have laws that it would follow? Could one not view science as a human attempt to find the laws 'God' put in place for the universe to abide by?
PhiMed: Actually, that's the definition of an atheist. If you believe that there is a possibility that there may be a God, then you are an agnostic.
That's just not the case.
An agnostic holds no sway in the belief or disbelief of a god. They are indifferent.
There are two types of atheists - strong and weak. A strong atheist asserts that there is no such thing as a god. A weak atheist does not believe in god because there lacks evidence, however, will believe in a god once evidence is presented.
This is the same as strong and weak theists as well. Strong theists and atheists are similar as they assert with certainty the unknown. Weak theists and atheists believe or disbelieve for various reasons (some find evidence or a lack thereof, some believe because of faith, etc.) but are willing to change their views if evidence is supported to prove them wrong.
It's a distinct difference that is very important when discussing things like this.
Well, the main reason religious groups that believe in Creationism try to dismissevolution theory as bullshit is because if you can prove that god never created us as it was told by the accounts we know, then god must not exist. And if god doesn't exist, then there's no reason for our moral structure to continue. Prohibition of murder is a religious concept.
I'm one of those people that belive both, that god created stuff and set evolution into motion. I'm an orthodox jew and have had discussions and read material written by quite intelligent rabbis that believe that evolution doesn't contradict creationism at all, that evolution and the processes of the natural world prove that it had to all have been made by something of a higher existence, cause a biosphere can't come into being of its own accord.
Third, and this is the least-reasonable reason, but probably the most important one in terms of creating evolution deniers. The most publicly prominent evolutionary biologists in the world are militant atheist dickholes. I don't know of a single scientific discovery Richard Dawkins has made, but I know of a ton of books he's written about what a bunch of silly bitches the faithful are. If he's a dedicated scientist, why does he expend so much energy on philosophy?
A quick perusal of Dawkins Wikipedia entry shows me this list of Dawkins books:
# The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1976. ISBN 0-19-286092-5. # The Extended Phenotype. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1982. ISBN 0-19-288051-9. # The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. 1986. ISBN 0-393-31570-3. # River Out of Eden. New York: Basic Books. 1995. ISBN 0-465-06990-8. # Climbing Mount Improbable. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. 1996. ISBN 0-393-31682-3. # Unweaving the Rainbow. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 1998. ISBN 0-618-05673-4. # A Devil's Chaplain. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2003. ISBN 0-618-33540-4. # The Ancestor's Tale. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2004. ISBN 0-618-00583-8. # The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2006. ISBN 0-618-68000-4. # The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Free Press (United States), Transworld (United Kingdom and Commonwealth). 2009. ISBN 0-593-06173-X.
Of that list, only "The God Delusion" is primarily anti-religious. I haven't read "A Devil's Chaplain", but I assume it is at least partially anti-religious. However, the remainder of those books are primarily pro-biology. So, it would seem to me that the idea that Dawkins has spent his career attacking religion, not supporting biology, is primarily born out of the media (and the public) focusing on that aspect of his work. Also from the Wikipedia entry:
n 1995, Dawkins was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science in the University of Oxford, a position that had been endowed by Charles Simonyi with the express intention that the holder "be expected to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field".
So, it makes sense that he has done more in the way of attempting to popularize biology than he has to actually advance the field. Carl Sagan may not have been the greatest astronomer of our age, but he was the most publicly visible.
I didn't say he'd never advocated biology, and I didn't say he'd spent his entire life espousing atheism. I said he'd expended a lot of energy advocating atheism. I stand by that statement. I think you unintentionally made my point, though. The most popular evolutionary biologist of our age is also one of the most vocal anti-theists (as in, not only does he not believe, but he thinks belief is destructive, and so he anti-evangelizes). Don't you think that can cause people of faith to view this scientific discipline with caution?
I don't think that we've stopped evolving, we just don't live long enough to notice the effects.
its possible, after all we were not built in a day [har har.]
but if you look at it in the long run, we might be in a rut. and its still a good possibility that the next evolutional step will be, yet like most everything, man made.
I don't think that we've stopped evolving, we just don't live long enough to notice the effects.
its possible, after all we were not built in a day [har har.]
but if you look at it in the long run, we might be in a rut. and its still a good possibility that the next evolutional step will be, yet like most everything, man made.
Religion and science can co-exist (at least I think they can), and I don't understand why religious groups feel so threatened by things like evolution. The whole "God created the Earth in 7 days thing" was written thousands of years ago by PEOPLE who had absoloutely no concept of science as we know it today. Seriously, you gotta take that bible with a grain of salt now and then.
Reading through the warnings of flame-wars and actual good discussion it's come to my attention no one has mentioned this.
Someone said that evolution could liberally be interpreted as the tool of gods will in "creating" us. Extrapolating I think it was meant that evolution is simply the means to the end and that it doesn't change anything.
However many mainstream religions make a point of viewing man as separate from animal. That god created this world for us to live in, paradise for us to go to later if we're nice and hell if we're not. The texts infer that everything in the earth was made for our use. I'm not saying that all Christians think we should burn the oil and take the earth down with us, this does seem to be one plausible origin of Western cultures disregard for expansion at a large cost to nature. Anyway evolution implies that we are no different from animals, if we were not created separate then who can say we're separate now?
Sonic Koala
Religion and science can co-exist (at least I think they can), and I don't understand why religious groups feel so threatened by things like evolution. The whole "God created the Earth in 7 days thing" was written thousands of years ago by PEOPLE who had absoloutely no concept of science as we know it today. Seriously, you gotta take that bible with a grain of salt now and then.
That's rather the point I guess, if you take it with a grain of salt who's to say you can't ignore any of the other stuff in the texts that may still be relevant? It's no good saying "this is the word of god... except for here, here and here. That was just made up." It makes a farce out of organised religion.
Well I'm an atheist, but what gets me is why religion and evolution have to be mutual exclusive. Anyone with any sense would realize that your scriptures are about 2000 years out of date (bear with me on this before you flame me), however that fact doesn't negate your faith. (see I told you to bear with me here) Maybe this "God" or whatever is responsible for evolution? Did anyone ever think of that?
PhiMed: First, the method at which it was arrived is not, strictly speaking, the scientific method. In the scientific method, an hypothesis is formulated, then a test of that hypothesis is constructed to observe the variable in question, data is collected, and it is proven or disproven. Evolutionary biology works in the opposite direction. In evolutionary biology, data is collected and compiled, and an hypothesis is formulated afterwards. If subsequent data disprove this explanation, the explanation is revised, but there's no way to devise a controlled test, because you can't hold any of the environmental variables constant. For this reason, evolutionary biology would probably better be described as a "logic system" than a "science". This doesn't mean it's not true. It just means it isn't truly scientific. The same could be said for certain aspects of astrophysics, but enough is actually scientific that we can forgive them that.
You're assuming that controlled experiments are the only 'truly-scientific' method of experimentation, and that's not true. Case studies, controlled experiments and systematic observation etc. are all part of the scientific method and all have their advantages and disadvantages. Granted, the lack of controlled experiments, as you correctly said, is a weakness of evolutionary biology, but the method is still scientific; hypotheses are still created from observational data, more data is collected that falisfies/supports this hypothesis, and the hypothesis is refined until a theory is developed. It's still the same process, just by different means. Also, you do not 'prove' a hypothesis - you support it; it is impossible to prove a hypothesis.
What I think is the reason behind people not believing in evolution is the word 'theory'. The scientist's definition of the word 'theory', and the layperson's definition of the word 'theory' are very different. We use 'theory' in everyday life to mean something we admit we have no evidence for, but that's what we think happens...but in science, it's quite the opposite. A scientific theory will have plenty of evidence to back it up. Ever heard the Creationist argument 'Evolution is only a theory'? That is what I'm getting at.
Apparently, there is so much evidence for Evolution that it outweighs any other scientific theory to date, and it should really be called the 'Law of Evolution'. That would solve this little problem with the word 'theory'.
couldn't be bothered reading the posts in this thread, so heres my say: Evolution has pretty much been proven and anyone who argues the fact should go burn a witch.
Did you know gravity is still a "theory". No ones disputing it, and thats pretty much been proven too. Also to the Christians, your religion thought the world was flat so STFU and GTFO. Trolling finished. Cheers.
FightThePower: You're assuming that controlled experiments are the only 'truly-scientific' method of experimentation, and that's not true. Case studies, controlled experiments and systematic observation etc. are all part of the scientific method and all have their advantages and disadvantages. Granted, the lack of controlled experiments, as you correctly said, is a weakness of evolutionary biology, but the method is still scientific; hypotheses are still created from observational data, more data is collected that falisfies/supports this hypothesis, and the hypothesis is refined until a theory is developed. It's still the same process, just by different means. Also, you do not 'prove' a hypothesis - you support it; it is impossible to prove a hypothesis.
What I think is the reason behind people not believing in evolution is the word 'theory'. The scientist's definition of the word 'theory', and the layperson's definition of the word 'theory' are very different. We use 'theory' in everyday life to mean something we admit we have no evidence for, but that's what we think happens...but in science, it's quite the opposite. A scientific theory will have plenty of evidence to back it up. Ever heard the Creationist argument 'Evolution is only a theory'? That is what I'm getting at.
Apparently, there is so much evidence for Evolution that it outweighs any other scientific theory to date, and it should really be called the 'Law of Evolution'. That would solve this little problem with the word 'theory'.
Evolution has long been proven. Micro evolution has been proven, and macroevolution is proven possible. To refuse to accept it means you are not a rational person. You are a person based of off a fantasy world.
Also law =/= theory. Law is a statement, for example, animals adapt to their environment; theory is a way of explain why, for example animals adapt to their environment because the weaker ones die. See the Laws of evolution:
Snack Cake: There is almost no area where the Abrahamic tradition makes a falsifiable claim about the nature of the universe, which isn't directly contradicted by modern science. Germ theory, astrophysics, and geology all differ sharply with holy books of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Evolution is no more scientifically controversial than any of these other topics. However, none of these areas of science are under constant attack by the religious community, the way that evolutionary biology is.
Why?
They look at the upper echelons of society and say "That's what I'm going to evolve into? Fuck that!"
SonicKoala: Religion and science can co-exist (at least I think they can), and I don't understand why religious groups feel so threatened by things like evolution. The whole "God created the Earth in 7 days thing" was written thousands of years ago by PEOPLE who had absoloutely no concept of science as we know it today. Seriously, you gotta take that bible with a grain of salt now and then.
Which is why the greatest clash science has is with literalists, like Creationists.
Well I'm an atheist, but what gets me is why religion and evolution have to be mutual exclusive. Anyone with any sense would realize that your scriptures are about 2000 years out of date (bear with me on this before you flame me), however that fact doesn't negate your faith. (see I told you to bear with me here) Maybe this "God" or whatever is responsible for evolution? Did anyone ever think of that?
See my earlier post (One up above yours) for one reason why some organised religions would still disapprove of god being responsible for evolution. Evolution opens up a whole new can of worms. Where does the soul come in with evolution? Could we have evolved a soul? If yes then could other animals evolve souls, or worse have already done so? Or did god reach down and zap us with one while we had only just stopped mucking about in trees? All of those questions seem fairly ridiculous, that's because it'd simply be religion "giving in" and saying that their account of events on such an important issue as the origin of humanity,is wrong.
Also sadly a few extreme religious people view anything that runs different to their holy books as threatening. (Same goes for staunch atheists) [even though according to Richard Dawkins they should be governed by reason, they can still easily be governed by passions]
Oh the reason why religions aren't hung up on the germ theory stuff is that it really doesn't matter. The origin of all life on earth however, does.
Snack Cake: There is almost no area where the Abrahamic tradition makes a falsifiable claim about the nature of the universe, which isn't directly contradicted by modern science. Germ theory, astrophysics, and geology all differ sharply with holy books of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Evolution is no more scientifically controversial than any of these other topics. However, none of these areas of science are under constant attack by the religious community, the way that evolutionary biology is.
Why?
Take a look at the fields you mention. They're involved in our every-day life, while evolution has only been suggested from studying man's past. For example, you can get concrete proof to support a geological theory when a volcano erupts. When a bacteria mutates, you can't say, "Ha! Evolution!"
Also, I think people have a natural ego problem with the thought of being related to feces-slinging baboons...
dragon_of_red: Well, beacuse we have faith my son, faith.
I need it, faith and hope are the only things keeping me from killing everyone I know because if I didn't believe in Jesus everyone would have to die, automatically, on the spot.
Now i dont really belive in the Evolutionary theory, or the the other creation/how we were made theories (because mine is right, what the fuck do muslims have, some old book? I call bull), and mainly Evolution is attacked because it pretty much destroys whatever faith/ideas the religioous(lol, I refuse to fix he spelling on that) communities have. If Evolution is ever 100% solved, then it would be a giant blowjob to the religooses of the world. It wouldnt disprove God, but would make it highley unlikley. Good thing it's only 90% proven. Otherwise god would become an improbability, and I don't think I could handle that! Also, I eat my poo own sometimes and I breathe butts, hence the name my parents gave me, buttimer J breathelton the great. (My friends just call me butt breather)
Alos(wut), this could turn bad.
How so good chum?
Sorry, couldn't resist, kinda drunk and felt like acting like a dick for the sake of comedy.
OT: Some people just can't help it. Religion has been hammered in so early on that it becomes pretty much second nature to them. They refuse to question it, no matter how absurd it may be or how much evidence contradicts it. Also, a lot of creationists don't even understand how evolution works.
ON WITH THE FLAME WAR! *Lights fire, swigs beer, pisses everywhere in a very indiscriminate manner*
Snack Cake: There is almost no area where the Abrahamic tradition makes a falsifiable claim about the nature of the universe, which isn't directly contradicted by modern science. Germ theory, astrophysics, and geology all differ sharply with holy books of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Evolution is no more scientifically controversial than any of these other topics. However, none of these areas of science are under constant attack by the religious community, the way that evolutionary biology is.
Why?
Take a look at the fields you mention. They're involved in our every-day life, while evolution has only been suggested from studying man's past. For example, you can get concrete proof to support a geological theory when a volcano erupts. When a bacteria mutates, you can't say, "Ha! Evolution!"
Also, I think people have a natural ego problem with the thought of being related to feces-slinging baboons...
I don't see why you can't... viruses and bacteria are prime examples of evolution or at least adaption. Bloody drug resistant little buggers... Anyway it gets much worse than Baboons... thanks to the whole common ancestor thing you'd be surprised what we're closely related too.
dragon_of_red: Well, beacuse we have faith my son, faith.
I need it, faith and hope are the only things keeping me from killing everyone I know because if I didn't believe in Jesus everyone would have to die, automatically, on the spot.
Now i dont really belive in the Evolutionary theory, or the the other creation/how we were made theories (because mine is right, what the fuck do muslims have, some old book? I call bull), and mainly Evolution is attacked because it pretty much destroys whatever faith/ideas the religioous(lol, I refuse to fix he spelling on that) communities have. If Evolution is ever 100% solved, then it would be a giant blowjob to the religooses of the world. It wouldnt disprove God, but would make it highley unlikley. Good thing it's only 90% proven. Otherwise god would become an improbability, and I don't think I could handle that! Also, I eat my poo own sometimes and I breathe butts, hence the name my parents gave me, buttimer J breathelton the great. (My friends just call me butt breather)
Alos(wut), this could turn bad.
How so good chum?
Sorry, couldn't resist, kinda drunk and felt like acting like a dick for the sake of comedy.
OT: Some people just can't help it. Religion has been hammered in so early on that it becomes pretty much second nature to them. They refuse to question it, no matter how absurd it may be or how much evidence contradicts it. Also, a lot of creationists don't even understand how evolution works.
ON WITH THE FLAME WAR! *Lights fire, swigs beer, pisses everywhere in a very indiscriminate manner*
It takes the same amount of faith to believe there is or isn't a god.
I assume you mean this post.
Or Genesis is the most that man could understand at the time when said deity revealed the story of life unto them. If God is as powerful as the bible states, then there is an innate possibility that the human consciousness cannot fully grasp the entirety of his powers. Continuing along this line of thinking, the six days of creation that is described in the bible, may have been six days for the supreme being, but for mortal like it could have been 6 million years. As such, evolution can be seen as an attempt to view the process of creation of life on Earth.