By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Do You Accept Evolution as a Fact?

 

Do you believe in evolution?

Yes 657 75.69%
 
Mostly, some things are questionable. 74 8.53%
 
No 99 11.41%
 
Not really, but some could be true. 38 4.38%
 
Total:868
Rogerioandrade said:

Some of those points would be debatable. Religion itself doesn´t hold equality or equity. The use that some people made of religion does - or even other things like politics or economy or even science can hold equality or equity.

It does erode equality and equity.

Homosexuality is attacked severely in the middle-eastern Abrahamic religions like Judaism, Islam and Christianity, the Bible, Torah and Quran even state that Homosexuals should be put to death.
The Bible also promotes and supports slavery... Is against divorce, believes women should serve men.

It undermines and attacks equality and equity and various moral values.

People then take what the Bible says and run with it.


Rogerioandrade said:

It doesn´t cure disease, but it helps patients have a better emotional control during harsh treatments . Religion is a big part of human nature, even if you don´t practice one.

There are avenues that provide far better emotional control during "harsh treatments" than what religion can provide.
It is only relevent to those who are indoctrinated, but even then it is still not required, those who aren't religions tend not to give a shit about religion.

Converesly... There are many conservative religious nutters who will refuse to seek medical treatment for themselves and their family and opt for "prayer" instead. (Which will do absolutely bugger all.)
Their ignorance has even resulted in death... As they believe disease/illness is the work of the devil.

https://richarddawkins.net/2016/04/letting-them-die-parents-refuse-medical-help-for-children-in-the-name-of-christ/
http://time.com/8750/faith-healing-parents-jailed-after-second-childs-death/
http://www.vocativ.com/culture/religion/faith-healing-deaths/?page=all

Just keep in mind that everyone is born Atheist... It is only later that you get indoctrinated/recruited into the Church.

Also something to keep in mind is that countries with a relatively large Atheist populations like Iceland, Australia and Japan also tend to rank highly in various health indexes.

 

Rogerioandrade said:

As I said before, it´s easier to be divisive than to search for tolerance and integration. Most religions preach that but people actually don´t practice. I, syself being a Christian, am a huge critic of how many churches handle the principles of christianity, and I know it´s not different with people form other religions.

I really don´t see why this idea is so alien for you guys, since many scientists today are adepts of religion like: Justin Barrett, John Lennox, John Charlton, Mohammad Hossain, Ibn Tufail , Syed Ziaur etc etc etc I´m sure none of them see it as an issue. 

Anyway... that´s how I approach both - science and religion - in my life and I´m glad I could find people around me who agree.


A vast majority of Christians hold more conservative, inequal values, because that is the rhetoric that typically resonates with the Bible and is what is propogated via various churches.

Of course there are various denominations that are more progressive, but for everyone of those... You have 10 more that are conservative and will attack those who seek equality, equity and the advancement of society in general.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network

My beef isn't with evolution it's with the idea of it (being the universe, life etc.) just.... poof... happening. I believe there's more to it than that, much more.



 

Pemalite said:

It does erode equality and equity.

Homosexuality is attacked severely in the middle-eastern Abrahamic religions like Judaism, Islam and Christianity, the Bible, Torah and Quran even state that Homosexuals should be put to death.
The Bible also promotes and supports slavery... Is against divorce, believes women should serve men.
It undermines and attacks equality and equity and various moral values.
People then take what the Bible says and run with it.

And here´s a clear example that people don´t understand the Bible at all. It may contain those things in the Old Testament, but they shouldn´t be applied because they were either covered or cancelled by the New Testament. Christianity don´t state the death of any human being for whatever reason, nor all the other implications you mentioned. I just see those on extremist muslims and some  border Chistianity groups.  The only thing the new Testament says is that homosexual sex shouldn´t be practiced, but it also says that people are free to live as they like ,as soon as they understand/believe the consequences.

There are avenues that provide far better emotional control during "harsh treatments" than what religion can provide.

It is only relevent to those who are indoctrinated, but even then it is still not required, those who aren't religions tend not to give a shit about religion.
Converesly... There are many conservative religious nutters who will refuse to seek medical treatment for themselves and their family and opt for "prayer" instead. (Which will do absolutely bugger all.)
Their ignorance has even resulted in death... As they believe disease/illness is the work of the devil.

That may be true in some cases but not all of them. People are different from each other and emotional treatment don´t work the same for everyone.

I don´t know any religion who incentivates the abolition of medical treatment. If someone is doing that, they´re just ignorant about their own beliefs.

Just keep in mind that everyone is born Atheist... It is only later that you get indoctrinated/recruited into the Church.

Also something to keep in mind is that countries with a relatively large Atheist populations like Iceland, Australia and Japan also tend to rank highly in various health indexes.

People aren´t born Atheist. People learn to be atheist as they grow up. I´d say that people are rather born with no conscience of what is spírituality, which they can develop as they grow. After all, "Atheism" is also something that people can be indoctrinated. Otherwise, there wouldn´t be so many books / studies / lectures / organizations defending and praising it. Some atheists even defend their ideas with more passion than many religious leaders! No kidding....

The last statement is not a staple.  Countries like China and Cuba have a huge % of atheists in their population and people don´t live very well there.

 

A vast majority of Christians hold more conservative, inequal values, because that is the rhetoric that typically resonates with the Bible and is what is propogated via various churches.

Of course there are various denominations that are more progressive, but for everyone of those... You have 10 more that are conservative and will attack those who seek equality, equity and the advancement of society in general.

That´s what I said before.... The problem is not the religion, but what people make of it. Thakfully, I´m not part of that group, neither any of my friends or family members. If there´s something I will always fight against, is extremism, and not only religious.



SpokenTruth said:
Rogerioandrade said:

A simple example is that, in a certain way, the history of the creation in the Bible is just a smaller version of the scientific evolutionary theory. I´m not mixing them, I´m just saying that there are certain ideas that are not opposite at all in both religion and science.

But that's arbitrary.  Simply saying there are parts that do not disagree does not imply anything.  You may as well say there are certain ideas that are not opposite at all in both video game development and religion.  While I have agreed that science and religion can coexist and that they are not directly opposite each other, it has little value to compare them.  As for the Bible being a smaller version of the scientific evolutionary theory, can you elaborate on that? 

In a very simple way, just compare the sequences that the Genesis story tells about the creation of the planet and its beings and the sequence that the scientific evolutionary theory tells. There´s a lot of parallels. Even the existence of dinosaurs (or the giant beasts) is mentioned in the Bible. 

I once did a loooong elaborated study about it when I was in a seminar, but I don´t see any need to go further on it here. One of my conclusions is that many people - Christians included - don´t understand  that the Genesis is not a literal telling of the creation. It´s a figurative one passed away from generations by oral tradition. What If I tell you that Adam and Eve were NOT the first man and woman? The Bible give clues that God created man and woman - i. e., they already existed in the planet - much before Adam and Eve. For many Christians this is nuts, but not for anyone who puts a deep thought on how and on which context he Bible was written. And of course it is not perfect at all.



SpokenTruth said:

Certainly Genesis is an allegory and I would hope most people understand that (creationists and Young Earthers apply it literally).  However, you are talkign about a process that simply couldn't have much deviation from that told by the Bible or via scientific theories.  Changing the order of things in the process would not have made any sense from any viewpoint.  You can't print the pages of a newspaper before the articles are witten.  An order to the process isn't enough to suggest anything more than logic.  Searching for parallels in the processes when both processes follow a logical order means very little. You can have 2 very different concepts about 2 very different products and still have orders in the process that are the same but it doesn't mean you have the same product.

I am intrigued by the pre-Adam/Eve humans though.  I thought 1 Corinthians 15:45 pretty much stated Adam was the first living being on Earth.

"Changing the order".... it´s not about changing any other, my friend. It´s about understand that both the scientific theory and the story are telling basically the same thing. Remember when I said that it´s necessary to put a deep thought on how and on which context the Bible was written? The Bible is not perfect but the evolutionary theory isn´t also. Both have a lot on unanswered questions, some of them that probably will never find an answer, but for different reasons.

As for Adam and Even, they were the first human beings to have conscience of God (or, we could say they were the first ones to have a "soul", figuratively speaking), but they were not the actual first humans  created by God. That´s the reason why the creation of mankind is told twice in the Genesis and why Caim found his wife when he left his family. But that´s only understandable if you read the Bible in its original languages, where sometimes words have a different meaning in their cultural context at the time they we written. I don´t remember now what was the exact word that Paul used in that specific verse, but I now that the New Testament has several different words for "human being" "love" "faith" and other terms.



Around the Network
Rogerioandrade said:
Pemalite said:

It does erode equality and equity.

Homosexuality is attacked severely in the middle-eastern Abrahamic religions like Judaism, Islam and Christianity, the Bible, Torah and Quran even state that Homosexuals should be put to death.
The Bible also promotes and supports slavery... Is against divorce, believes women should serve men.
It undermines and attacks equality and equity and various moral values.
People then take what the Bible says and run with it.

And here´s a clear example that people don´t understand the Bible at all. It may contain those things in the Old Testament, but they shouldn´t be applied because they were either covered or cancelled by the New Testament. Christianity don´t state the death of any human being for whatever reason, nor all the other implications you mentioned. I just see those on extremist muslims and some  border Chistianity groups.  The only thing the new Testament says is that homosexual sex shouldn´t be practiced, but it also says that people are free to live as they like ,as soon as they understand/believe the consequences.

The Bible reinforces the fact that the Old Testament does continue to apply.

Matthew 5:18-19: “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Luke 16:17: "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.”

Remember, the 10 commandments are also in the Old Testament which the vast majority of Christians follow. - And I am the one who doesn't understand the Bible at all? Please.

And that completely ignores the fact that the New Testament also supports slavery. Go figure.

And if you really wish to play semantics, the word "Homosexual" has only existed for roughly 100~ years, amazing how it ended up in a book that is supposedly thousands of years old isn't it?
Of course it was replaced with the word "Sodomy". - However Sodomy is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and God never specified the specific sin for the reason of his wrath in that story, thus it may not have been Homosexuality to begin with... And that is why some Church denominations believe that Homosexuality is not a sin.

But that is all pointless anyway, untill the religious can prove the claims in the Bible are factually accurate, then they should stop sprouting nonesense.

The fact that Bible cannot even get basic math like PI correct should be enough to justify it's inaccuracy.

Rogerioandrade said:

That may be true in some cases but not all of them. People are different from each other and emotional treatment don´t work the same for everyone.

I don´t know any religion who incentivates the abolition of medical treatment. If someone is doing that, they´re just ignorant about their own beliefs.

Okay. Lets look at it a different way.

What would happen to patients if Religion didn't exist? Nothing. There would be no increases in death and no increases in cures. It ultimately does nothing except maybe make someone feel better, but an Adam Sandler movie and Morphine could accomplish a similar thing anyway.

But what would happen if Science didn't exist? Death rates would be horrific. We wouldn't have houses, medicine, electricity, cars, roads, telecommunications, advanced farming techniques and the list goes on.

Rogerioandrade said:

People aren´t born Atheist. People learn to be atheist as they grow up. I´d say that people are rather born with no conscience of what is spírituality, which they can develop as they grow. After all, "Atheism" is also something that people can be indoctrinated. Otherwise, there wouldn´t be so many books / studies / lectures / organizations defending and praising it. Some atheists even defend their ideas with more passion than many religious leaders! No kidding....

The last statement is not a staple.  Countries like China and Cuba have a huge % of atheists in their population and people don´t live very well there.

I am yet to see an infant born mid-prayer. The fact that you fundamentally believe that Atheism is something learned is hilarious.

It is literally the default position. You have to learn/conned/indoctronited into a religion, that doesn't hold true with Atheism, Atheism isn't something you learn, it's not a disbelief or a belief in God, it is the fact that burden of proof hasn't been met, thus an Atheist will remain a skeptic of all the claims.

Again. That is the default position everyone has.

Rogerioandrade said:
The last statement is not a staple.  Countries like China and Cuba have a huge % of atheists in their population and people don´t live very well there.


China has a massive proportion who although may identify as "Atheist" in allot of statistics gathering... They actually believe in Folk Religion, which is also pushed by the state.

Cuba is 65% Christian, 17% Santeria, 0.4% as other. Thus 82.4% are religious.
The point is, you don't require religion to have a healthy population.

Rogerioandrade said:

In a very simple way, just compare the sequences that the Genesis story tells about the creation of the planet and its beings and the sequence that the scientific evolutionary theory tells. There´s a lot of parallels. Even the existence of dinosaurs (or the giant beasts) is mentioned in the Bible. 

I once did a loooong elaborated study about it when I was in a seminar, but I don´t see any need to go further on it here. One of my conclusions is that many people - Christians included - don´t understand  that the Genesis is not a literal telling of the creation. It´s a figurative one passed away from generations by oral tradition. What If I tell you that Adam and Eve were NOT the first man and woman? The Bible give clues that God created man and woman - i. e., they already existed in the planet - much before Adam and Eve. For many Christians this is nuts, but not for anyone who puts a deep thought on how and on which context he Bible was written. And of course it is not perfect at all.

Hilarious how Genesis moved from being a literal interpretation to one that became figuritive once evidence started to become indisputable that contradicted Genesis. (Nevermind the fact there are various denominations that believe in it's literal interpretation.)

Genesis is highly inaccurate at the best of times.
Science, Evolution, The Big Bang theory is what we have evidence in, is what should be pushed and followed.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
HollyGamer said:

which evidence?   to have evidence they need to gather all of the prove for all the missing link of evolution.   

No. You aren't required to have *every* piece of a puzzle to build the entire picture.

You only need to have *enough* pieces of the puzzle in order to build a model and fill the gaps in to build your theory.

Of course, as you get more pieces of the puzzle, the model and theory can and will change.

Who said that ??? You LMAO. 

It's science , is not economiuc class LMAO 



For the same reason that I accept gravity, why microwaves heat up my food and why the sky is blue. Besides I think evolution is overall easier to understand than something like gravity.



just make sure you accept jesus Christ as your lord and savior and repent of your sins so you don't burn in hell



LivingMetal said:
SvennoJ said:

There are plenty flighless birds, frogs start out as fish, caterpillars become butterflies. All species share a lot of the same DNA. DNA for a wing is very similar to DNA for a fins or a limb. There are plenty species that don't neatly fit into kindergarten classification. Species definition is a problem onto itself as there are no neat boundaries. For example Mesodinium chamaeleon crosses the boundary between plants and animals.

But they are still birds.  Was a frog really a fish, and did that "fish" matured into something else rather than a frog? And many insect are born as larve.  And there are similarities in regards to DNA.  That's doesn't mean I can sprout wings. 

Yes, by our defintion it was likely a fish that has the genetic composition to evolve into a frog. What you are talking about is a sudden, extreme mutation. It can happen, but usually mutations are minor and happen over time. There are plenty of species that we cannot define as land- or waterbased and that can be because they are in a transition between stages. Your argument would be the same in every stage of a evolution of a species since you don´t look at the bigger picture.

Look at it this way: when you look at grass on a meadow and just focus on one strain of grass, it´s really hard to see it grow in real time but we do know that it grows, right? If someone would say to you that you should prove that it grows because that person can´t see it, you would just say that the person could sit with you in front of this strain of grass for a couple of days and see the result occur. With evolution we are talking about sitting in the same spot, looking at one species for ten of thousands of years. That makes the challenge a bit more difficult =).

Cats and lions cant breed, are of different species but likely have the same ancestor. This happens for a very long time (likely millions of years) and is a good example of the same kind of creatures that have evolved in different directions.