| Kasz216 said: Something has to be proven first however before they change. They wouldn't just assume something was wrong if rabbits apeared then. Not most scientists anyway... they'd want a stone cold different reason. So they don't lose their grant money. I've read and seen way too many scientists and studies going on to believe your way of thinking of scientists. Scientists spend too much time and money to have their theories disproven... espiceally when it invalidates exactly what they got their degrees on. They would just mark it down as an unexplained descrpency possibly caused by something else, and keep rolling. |
To an extent I can totally agree with that. But alot of scientists actually have a shred of intellectual integrity. And second to look at the mounds of evidence from genetic fields and the fossil record and say "Man they are really trying hard to keep this evolution thing on life support, I guess they really need that meal ticket!" is frankly absurd and ignorant. If there is a better explanation as to the variety of life, every scientist would be scrambling to make a name for themself by finding it. Competition is always an incredible force for accomplishing things. And the alternative of "This really old book that clearly isn't accurate says an invisible man made all life individually and distinctly" isn't valid either scientifically or from a purely reasonable standpoint.
That is unless of course you want to do what religion is good at and take that as the obvious indisputable answer and then try to explain why the facts are either wrong and actually support that. God made the fossil record that way on purpose to test our faith. reusing genetic code was just more effecient, and there is no need to get rid of any of the old stuff, ect ect ect. Which anybody with an ounce of intellectual integrity is going to say is an absurd way to discern truth.
As for your second post, I'm not certain religion was necessary. If wars, corruption, ect weren't a result of religion but rather an inevitable thing that happen to involve religion, why can't rules and orginization also not be a result but an inevitablility that involved religion? Any society that didn't have rules, or governance would die out. You can't have society where anybody can kill anybody and take anything, that's anarchy. But if a powerful, charismatic, or cunningly intelligent individual could create rules and govern by them, why would an invisible all powerful being watching everyone and judging them be necessary? His civilization would survive and thrive, and spread the others would die out.
I think religion was inevitable, but not necessary. Man personifies everything, it's part of his psyche and has certain benefits, but also some major draw backs. My brother used to think the computer hated him because it would crash when he would use it, but not when I would (I just knew how to work the damn thing), people yell at their cars, get angry at the weather, we will plead with our cell phone, beg our TV to work, anything. Who hasn't been caught acting like an inanimate object is actually alive? Today we're smart enough to know that there is such a thing as cause and effect and most of nature and objects are completely indifferent and not actually alive. That wasn't the case long ago. We weren't that educated and not that smart. If an ancient tribe is experiencing a drought it wasn't just because of a cold front on some region was causing an unfortunately dry season, they assumed that the weather was alive and it was probably an elk...a big sky elk...that was angry...and then just make up the rest from there based on what made sense from a cultural perspective. Then tell their kids that they need to burn some fruit every other half moon or the sky elk won't make it rain, and viola a new religion is born. Without education, religion is inevitable. But much like war would've existed without religion, so would civilization.
And sense your so fond of quoting the statistic that religious people are more charitable, it's also statistically true that religious people aren't as educated. Statistically religion thrives in poorly educated areas. More educated areas become more secular.
You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.
