• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Does believing in Evolution say a lot about you

Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess you believe showing pictures from chihuahua to wolf fossils prove wolves came from chihuahua.
Again show me pics ( not imagined drawings) of the fossils above the cambrian layer that are remotely close to the multitude of fossils we find in cambrian later. Millions of steps remember.
As well as the fossils between monkey (common ancestor) and man
we have lot of man fossils and monkey fossils
where are the lots of fossils in the tiny stages in between evolution predicts
again, cleverly absent
Darwin held hopes they would turn up, not so much
Do you subscribe to punctuated equilibrium?
 
Last edited:
The ideas that one entity swooped down and waved a magic wand and created everything is ridiculous. I know that that us not the basis for all form of creationism but still. The simple fact that there are so many forms of creationism is also troubling. I mean damn you Christians can't even come to the conclusion or same ideas of denouncing evolution. Half you people don't even want to believe that dinosaurs existed. I firmly believe that religion equals to having a mental illness.
Click to expand...

You can't write off sex because some people get off on shitting on each other or fucking little kids. The fact that religion and creationism is so constant throughout different cultures, means - what - that the majority of the world is mentally ill?

Christians are not young earth creationists.

Half of Christians don't believe in dinosaurs? Really? Don't quote studies about people from the United States of America as proof, please. The U.S.A. is not the centre of the intellectual world and it doesn't make up for 10% of the Christian population... Having said all that, even YECs "believe" in dinosaurs. (See Ken Ham's apologetic young earth creationist museum, if you don't believe me.)

The absence of religion (atheism/agnosticism) is religion.

You believe that there is no creator, based on faith.

Creationists believe there is a creator, based on faith.

Neither can be proved.
 
Again show me pics ( not drawings) of the fossils above the cambrian layer that are remotely close to the multitude of fossils we find in cambrian later.
Click to expand...

It seems like you're not going to accept evolution, unless you literally see something evolve in front of your eyes which is impossible. I mean, if you believe in a creator (that you presumably haven't seen) then why do you need to see evolution in order to believe in it?

There is more hard evidence of evolution (a lot) than there is of creationism (none).

You should probably start saying "ape" instead of "monkey", if you want to be taken remotely seriously.
 
methamaniac said:
^^



Half of Christians don't believe in dinosaurs? Really? Don't quote studies about people from the United States of America as proof, please. The U.S.A. is not the centre of the intellectual world and it doesn't make up for 10% of the Christian population... Having said all that, even YECs "believe" in dinosaurs. (See Ken Ham's apologetic young earth creationist museum, if you don't believe me.)

The absence of religion (atheism/agnosticism) is religion.

You believe that there is no creator, based on faith.

Creationists believe there is a creator, based on faith.

Neither can be proved.
Click to expand...
I will buy that agnostcism is a religion. Atheism is not.
 
You could argue that the other way around.

Atheism is more of a religion than agnosticism. The former answers the unanswerable question, is there a God, thereby orienting itself (somewhere) on the religious spectrum. The latter does not presume to answer the question, therefore - arguably - it is not a religion.

Can you explain yourself a bit about how you differentiate agnosticism from atheism, in terms of their application to religion?

Also, please answer this question:
Do you believe that the majority of the world's population is mentally ill?

You implied this, and it seems a tad arrogant to me:
maybe they are not mentally ill;
maybe you're missing something?
 
I'll clarify
I accept drawings if it is depiction of fossil found
not imaginary pics of what a "supposed" transitional fossil is
Even so, showing a lager horse head and a smaller horse head and saying the smaller gave way to the larger cause its smaller doesn't make it so
Show fossils that show the progression of the leg bones angle and how the hip changed
something like that
not a pic of a monkey, an ape, a man and sayin
Presto evolution

Again dont dodge this one,
Specifically show fossils above the cambrian layer remotely resembling fossils IN the cambrian fossil layer
300 million years of evolution before cambrian explosion should have fossils
You think?
Also again,
DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM?
 
Bill Maher said, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position." What he should have said is: "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual orientation", which it is. (I'm not talking about heterosexuality versus homosexuality, here.) To argue that sexual abstinence has nothing to do with sex - which is the implication - is downright idiotic. But, hey Bill Maher is an idiot.

dont dodge this one
Click to expand...

How about you respond to this, rather than ignoring it, because it destroys your entire argument:

It seems like you're not going to accept evolution, unless you literally see something evolve in front of your eyes which is impossible. I mean, if you believe in a creator (that you presumably haven't seen) then why do you need to see evolution in order to believe in it?
Click to expand...

...

As for your question, you can't apply the sort of logic that you're applying to most fields of science. Evolution is a complex process and there are a number of factors that determine whether or not fossils from particular species, and eras, will be accessible. You keep saying "Cambrian layer", like it's debating gold or something.

Why do you think you know more about what evidence there should be to support evolution than all the scientists in the world?

Do you even have an undergrad in science?

Fossils are not the best method of monitoring evolution. You're demanding an enormous amount of evidence from thousands/millions of years ago. Evolution can be proven by different means, without fossils, so your argument is pointless.
 
I cant carry on a convo wiith a sock puppet/ or wanna be sock puppet

I gave you(whoever im talking to) two simple questions
you avoided both
Or
your answer of non answer means you cant
Answer
Good day
 
Last edited:
No, I can't/won't. You're asking unanswerable questions and demanding evidence that may or may not exist. Nobody will ever be able to answer the endless string of questions you're asking. Your terms cannot be met. That doesn't mean you win the debate. What it means is this: you will never accept any possible answer.

In the words of Louis CK,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf17rFDjMZw
 
ForEverAfter said:
You could argue that the other way around.

Atheism is more of a religion than agnosticism. The former answers the unanswerable question, is there a God, thereby orienting itself (somewhere) on the religious spectrum. The latter does not presume to answer the question, therefore - arguably - it is not a religion.

Can you explain yourself a bit about how you differentiate agnosticism from atheism, in terms of their application to religion?

Also, please answer this question:
Do you believe that the majority of the world's population is mentally ill?

You implied this, and it seems a tad arrogant to me:
maybe they are not mentally ill;
maybe you're missing something?
Click to expand...
Agnostics believe that a god can not be proved or disproved..
I believe that depending levels of belief that some religious people do show signs of religious illness. Religion is very compulsive. Very religious people usually double as ocd patients. Also not to mention if I told you that I speak to my dead grandmother and she responds,well you would be eve I was crazy. However when people say that talk to Jesus it is all good?
 
I firmly believe that religion equals to having a mental illness.
Click to expand...

You made an offensive, ignorant sweeping statement about all religious people.

Religion = Mental Illness.

Now you're changing it.

Varying degrees of religion may indeed indicate mental illness.
Varying degrees of fandom may also indicate mental illness.
Varying degrees of water consumption, too.
Varying degrees of pretty much anything.

Religion is very compulsive.
Click to expand...

Another sweeping statement. Please explain how adhering to a religion implies compulsivity.

when people say that talk to Jesus it is all good?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that it's good or bad, but it's certainly concerning if people talk to Jesus/Elvis/Bugs Bunny. I've never met anyone that talks to Jesus, before. To be fair to them, most Christians don't sit around having conversations with their saviour.
 
Dystopia,

Do you think religion equals compulsion?
Discipline yes, compulsion no.
sure someone with ocd would tend to make it an compulsion, they have a personality disorder goes with the territory.
 
I was simply trying to be nice. Do I believe that people that worship an invisible deity are mentally I'll? Yes I do. Religion replaces all rational thought. There is an inner logic people and unfortunately we are taught to stay far from it. This world uses religion to justify sickening atrocities around the world.
It puts people against each other because it creates arrogance. People fight over who's god is the right god. Which part of the bible should you beieve in. It kills innocent children that die everyday because of the beliefs their parents have. I think that anyone willing to submit to a book,diety,or church is most definitely ill. Oh and if they don't talk to jesus or the invisible god the who are they praying too?
 
Last edited:
Let me try an tackle punctuated equilibrium. PE was formulated not to overthrow Darwin's theory of natural selection but rather as a theory (based on actual study of a couple of species, not just thought experiment) on how speciation can occur given the "imperfections of the geological record."

Gradualism postulates that new species evolve from ancestral populations as a whole. The process is slow, quite constant and involves both large numbers of individuals and large geographic areas. From this view, we should see in the fossil record a long string of slightly graded forms and that any inconsistencies are not a problem with the theory, but rather flaws in the geological record itself.

PE states that speciation occurs when there is beneficial variation in a daughter species at the fringes of the territory of its mother species. Since the daughter population is relatively small and isolated, these adaptations are spread quickly, even to the point that the time it takes for the ancestral and daughter species not to be able to reproduce with one another is in a geological instant. This new, better adapted variant can then outcompete its ancestral line and quickly spread into its range. This is why it appears, at least on the species level, new species arise out of nothingness.

You must also consider that PE states that this form of speciation is by far more common than any other form but still a rare event. Perhaps a daughter species will arise once or twice in the whole time the ancestral species is alive. From this we can conclude that most species remain in "evolutionary stasis."

It must also be said that PE is only a theory involved at the species level of taxonomy. Gradualism is still perfectly suited to changes at higher levels of taxonomy and there is fossil evidence showing this.

I am not sure methamaniac if you are trying to say PE is valid or not. I do know that most creationists try to use it a refutation of evolution and to support a young Earth but nothing about PE suggests such things.

But dont take my word for it. Here is Stephen J Gould's (one of the co-founders of punctuated equilibrium) take on it.

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." (Gould 1983)
 
Dystopia, you're just "trying to be nice"? You come on a spirituality forum and call all people who adhere to religion mentally ill. That's positively lovely. You seem to have religion all worked out. Well done.

Oh and if they don't talk to jesus or the invisible god the who are they praying too?
Click to expand...

You can't equate prayer to having a conversation with something that "isn't there". Prayer/Meditation has a function. If you don't understand it, that's your failing.
 
[edit: methamaniac deleted a link/post, after I responded to it.]

^It is badly written.

All the underlining and red font stuff seriously discredits whatever argument is there in the first place. Decent sources don't have to resort to such gimmickry. Unsurprisingly, your source is shite. The quote at the bottom of the page is from a guy who lost is job, then failed to sue his employer on the grounds that - as an "evolutionist debunker" - he was being discriminated against.

On his website, creation.com, one of the featured articles refers to "Noah's flood"...
You have also referred to it, yet you say you aren't a YEC. I don't get it.

What, do you selectively believe that Bible stories are literal?
(You believe in Noah, but not Genesis?) If so, why?
 
Last edited:
ForEverAfter said:
Dystopia, you're just "trying to be nice"? You come on a spirituality forum and call all people who adhere to religion mentally ill. That's positively lovely. You seem to have religion all worked out. Well done.



You can't equate prayer to having a conversation with something that "isn't there". Prayer/Meditation has a function. If you don't understand it, that's your failing.
Click to expand...
Never claimed to have it all worked out. These are just observations and my opinion on the topic. Yes it is a spirituality and philosophy forum so I believe I am just fine in sharing my opinion here. Especially many philosophers were atheist.like I said before I am not trying to change anyone's mind on here like others are. That would make me no different than any other holy roller. Just expressing my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top