Jump to content
Itoero

Religion as evolutionary trait

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Johnnywong said:


The only answer to the origin of Life , be honest ,we don't know .
Just say we don't know .Don't use the silly evolution theory to fool the youths and laymen.

I really hate to enlighten someone as enlightened as you obviously think you are, but the theory of evolution is not a theory about the origin of life. It is a theory about how life evolved and is supported by loads of observational evidence and as certain as anyone could wish for. The origin of life is actually Abiogenesis and although as yet we have no evidence supporting it, it in reality is the only scientific explanation as to how life first arose within the universe....Panspermia may also have played a part but as yet no evidence. So please, in your own words, " stop poison the youths by saying most scientists believe in chemical evolution" they do...its called science. 

again though off topic!

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Johnnywong said:

stop poison the youths by saying most scientists believe in chemical evolution.

I never said that. I don’t even know if it is true. 

50 minutes ago, Johnnywong said:

1. What is the probability of formation of DNA from atoms random collisions ?

Who knows. But no one says that is how DNA is formed so it’s a stupid question. 

51 minutes ago, Johnnywong said:

3. Why there is no fossil records of the intermediate forms as suggested in evolution?

There are lots of intermediate forms. Arguably there are only intermediate forms. So this is another stupid and ignorant question.

53 minutes ago, Johnnywong said:

Don't use the silly evolution theory to fool the youths and laymen.

Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. Evolution is a fact: it happens. You can’t deny that. And we have a very good theory to explain how it happens. 

This theory is supported by large amounts of evidence. Unlike your ignorant rants. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 10:32 PM, Johnnywong said:

1. What is the probability of formation of DNA from atoms random collisions ?

The origin of DNA via natural means is not proven but it's very well understood. The collisions of atoms  you can call 'random'...but the molecules  that survive are not random.

Have a look at this paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

On ‎10‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 10:32 PM, Johnnywong said:

. Why there is no fossil records of the intermediate forms as suggested in evolution?

There is a massive amount. They are called 'transitional fossils'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Edited by Itoero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎13‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 4:09 AM, Itoero said:

This imo means religion is an evolutionary trait

Well, of course it is - every trait is the result of evolution!   ... at least, to anyone who believes in evolution, it is.   

Why do girls like pink?  Evolution.

Why do males like sport so much?  Evolution.

Why are some people smarter/dumber than others?  Evolution.

Why do people fall in love?  Evolution.

Why do humans play music?  Evolution.

Why are there different races?  Evolution.

Why ...  (fill in the blank) ... ?  Evolution.

Edited by Francis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Francis said:

Why do girls like pink?  Evolution.

Actually, no. This is cultural and, I think, goes back to the victorians. 

As you are so anti-science, why are you spending time on a science forum? Are you hoping that people will read your ignorant twaddle and think, "OMG, he's right, I must rush to my nearest church straightaway"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Strange said:

Actually, no. This is cultural and, I think, goes back to the victorians.

What do you mean by "cultural"? 

Besides that, anyone with a vivid imagination could think up an evolutionary explanation for why girls like pink.  The beauty of proferring evolutionary "explanations" is, no one has to prove anything - it just has to sound good.  Unfortunately, endless, empty talk isn't science.

22 minutes ago, Strange said:

As you are so anti-science

Excellent straw man.   I question evolutionary theory, therefore I am "anti-science'.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Francis said:

What do you mean by "cultural"? 

As in, driven by fashion, etc.

Quote
"If you go back to the 18th century, little boys and little girls of the upper classes both wore pink and blue and other colors uniformly," said Valerie Steele, director of the Museum at FIT, the Fashion Institute of Technology, in New York. 
In fact, pink was even considered to be a masculine color. In old catalogs and books, pink was the color for little boys, said Leatrice Eiseman, a color expert and executive director of the Pantone Color Institute.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/12/health/colorscope-pink-boy-girl-gender/index.html

1 hour ago, Francis said:

Besides that, anyone with a vivid imagination could think up an evolutionary explanation for why girls like pink. 

Why would you when we already have an explanation. 

1 hour ago, Francis said:

Excellent straw man.

I think you need to look up what a straw man argument is. That wasn't one.

1 hour ago, Francis said:

I question evolutionary theory, therefore I am "anti-science'.  

Close, but not quite. You deny there is evidence and therefore you are anti-science. You claim scientists make things up, therefore you are anti-science.

Basically, you are substituting ignorance and personal beliefs for understanding. I'm not sure your god would be very happy with that. And, by denying something that your church accepts, are you in danger of straying into heresy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Francis said:

Well, of course it is - every trait is the result of evolution!   … 

That's true, but many people think religion/religious thought had it's origin in our culture so then it's logic, for those people, not to call religion an evolutionary trait.

Evolution = change over time...you can call everything an evolutionary trait but why would you do that? You imo only call something an evolutionary trait when it's clear it evolved somehow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Strange said:

 You deny there is evidence and therefore you are anti-science. You claim scientists make things up, therefore you are anti-science.

 

- When did I say there is no evidence?  Evolution is the only explanation science has to account for the history of life on earth.  If the first life-forms were microbes and billions of years life ends up at human beings, evolution is a perfectly reasonable science theory for what happened.  But I don't believe the history of life is the result of purely natural forces - which helps to explain why evolutionary explanations for life's progression are often so lame and  inadequate.  

- When it comes to evolution, "scientists make things up" all the time ... 99.9999999999999999999% of which can't be tested.  So it's just worthless story-telling, not science.

 

16 hours ago, Strange said:

 

Basically, you are substituting ignorance and personal beliefs for understanding. I'm not sure your god would be very happy with that. And, by denying something that your church accepts, are you in danger of straying into heresy?

- An untestable theory is  "understanding"?  How does that work?   You seem to be conflating a belief with knowledge, truth and fact.

- How ironic that you mention "ignorance" ... you obviously know little about what the Catholic Church teaches.  Catholics are not obliged to believe that man evolved from some kind of ape, or in any kind of evolution at all.  They can believe the earth was created 6000 year ago if they want; or that the earth is flat and that the moon is made of cheese.  As far as I know, the only scientific fact Catholics are obliged to accept is that the universe had a beginning.

12 hours ago, Itoero said:

 

Evolution = change over time...you can call everything an evolutionary trait but why would you do that? You imo only call something an evolutionary trait when it's clear it evolved somehow

My point is, you could probably think of an evolutionary explanation for just about anything.  But so what?  Hypotheses that can't be tested are a pointless waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Francis said:

How ironic that you mention "ignorance" ... you obviously know little about what the Catholic Church teaches.  Catholics are not obliged to believe that man evolved from some kind of ape, or in any kind of evolution at all.  They can believe the earth was created 6000 year ago if they want; or that the earth is flat and that the moon is made of cheese.  As far as I know, the only scientific fact Catholics are obliged to accept is that the universe had a beginning.

Well said!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Strange said:

As in, driven by fashion, etc.

 

Maybe, but fashions come and go.  Pink never goes out fashion - in a thousand years time, girls will still like pink. 

How do you know females don't have a biological predilection for that colour?  Think "babies" ... maybe

Edited by Francis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Francis said:

  But I don't believe the history of life is the result of purely natural forces - which helps to explain why evolutionary explanations for life's progression are often so lame and  inadequate.  

The lame and inadequate tag you put on the forces of evolution are simply due to the brain washing you received in your younger years. You prefer a ridiculous myth encompassing some magical being to explain the natural forces which not only gave way to evolution, but also abiogenesis. Religion is no evolutionary trait, rather a lame explanation to explain that which ancient man could not explain.

Quote

 When it comes to evolution, "scientists make things up" all the time ... 99.9999999999999999999% of which can't be tested.  So it's just worthless story-telling, not science.

Claiming religion being an evolutionary trait is certainly made up nonsense, while the emotional 99.999999999999999999% you claim that cant be tested is simply false and a made up number due justifying  your emotional post.

Quote

 An untestable theory is  "understanding"?  How does that work?   You seem to be conflating a belief with knowledge, truth and fact.

Again, an emotional outburst, a result of fanatical belief in that which is nothing more then unsupported myth.

Quote

How ironic that you mention "ignorance"

Your fanatical posting of nonsense  ensures the general opinion of your scientific ignorance...

Quote

you obviously know little about what the Catholic Church teaches.  Catholics are not obliged to believe that man evolved from some kind of ape, or in any kind of evolution at all.

Being once a good Catholic boy and also a member of the Altar boys union until I was caught drinking the altar wine, the belief in the evolution of life and also the BB, has been deemed not to contradict Catholicism...which strangely makes a mockery of the bible.

 

Quote

They can believe the earth was created 6000 year ago if they want; or that the earth is flat and that the moon is made of cheese.  

The world is full of fools that may chose to believe such nonsense as you have mentioned above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beecee said:

Claiming religion being an evolutionary trait is certainly made up nonsense, while the emotional 99.999999999999999999% you claim that cant be tested is simply false and a made up number due justifying  your emotional post.

Some evolutionary explanations can be tested.  But what I had in mind were the pointless, banal discussions that evolutionists indulge in and are found on scientic forums like this one.  Eg, where did instincts come from?  My point is, what is the point of evolutionary hypotheses that can't ever be tested?  One may as well hypothesize about the colour of the Tooth Fairy's hair.  

1 hour ago, beecee said:

You prefer a ridiculous myth encompassing some magical being to explain the natural forces which not only gave way to evolution, but also abiogenesis.

Are you sure the God of the Bible is a ridiculous myth?

Regarding abiogenesis - when humans manage to get inanimate matter to give rise to a viable life-form, wake me up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Francis said:

Some evolutionary explanations can be tested.  But what I had in mind were the pointless, banal discussions that evolutionists indulge in and are found on scientic forums like this one.  

I'm more concerned with the pointless banal unsupported claims often made by god botherers and others on a science forum, with absolutely no evidence to support their myth.

Quote

Eg, where did instincts come from?  My point is, what is the point of evolutionary hypotheses that can't ever be tested?  One may as well hypothesize about the colour of the Tooth Fairy's hair.  

Unlike religious nonsense, science and scientists are the first to admit they do not as yet know it all. Not sure how many times you and your ilk have been informed of that, but its rather dishonest and insidious to use the blanks in scientific knowledge to attempt to deride all of it. Your god of the gaps argument is sunk.

Quote

Are you sure the God of the Bible is a ridiculous myth?

As sure as any scientific theory can be, yes. And of course as you have already been informed, the edict of the Catholic church in finding the evolution of life as acceptable and compatible with the Catholic doctrine, actually makes the bible a laughing stock.

Quote

Regarding abiogenesis - when humans manage to get inanimate matter to give rise to a viable life-form, wake me up.  

Considering the 10 billion years it has had with favourable conditions, its far easier to accept and understand then any magical spaghetti monster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beecee said:

As sure as any scientific theory can be, yes.

There is a "God doesn't exist" scientific theory? 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

And of course as you have already been informed, the edict of the Catholic church in finding the evolution of life as acceptable and compatible with the Catholic doctrine, actually makes the bible a laughing stock.

How so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Francis said:

There is a "God doesn't exist" scientific theory? 

It's not falsifiable, therefore whether a god exists or not is not a scientific question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Francis said:

How do you know females don't have a biological predilection for that colour?

Because early 20th ccentury the fashion was pink for boys and bluw for girls. It was thought pink was more manly than the blue.  That fashin changed in the 1940s and stuch around for most of the time since with a slight relaxation in the 1970s.  Some other countries and cultures have different colours to pink and ble - its just a culture or a retail thing - no 'biological predilection' there.

6 minutes ago, Francis said:

There is a "God doesn't exist" scientific theory? 

Well there isn't a 'God exists scientific theory.

6 minutes ago, Francis said:

How so?

Because the theory they are accepting as scientific fact completely contradicts chapter 1.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beecee said:

I'm more concerned with the pointless banal unsupported claims often made by god botherers and others on a science forum, with absolutely no evidence to support their myth.

The difference is, pointless banal religious claims don't pretend to be science.  Religious claims are usually based on faith; science is based on empirical evidence and the testing of theories - but someone forgot to tell evolutionists that.  Their idea of "science" and "understanding" and "knowledge" is endless hypotheses that can't ever be tested.

 

 

2 hours ago, beecee said:

its rather dishonest and insidious to use the blanks in scientific knowledge to attempt to deride all of it. 

Which theist has derided all scientific knowledge?

4 hours ago, beecee said:

Again, an emotional outburst, a result of fanatical belief in that which is nothing more then unsupported myth.

If this was meant to explain how an untestable theory qualifies as understanding, it failed.

30 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It's not falsifiable, therefore whether a god exists or not is not a scientific question. 

I know that.  I was trying to make sense of beecee's quizzical comment.

4 hours ago, beecee said:

The lame and inadequate tag you put on the forces of evolution are simply due to the brain washing you received in your younger years.

... which just goes to show how little you know about my younger years.

32 minutes ago, DrP said:

Because the theory they are accepting as scientific fact completely contradicts chapter 1

How so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Francis said:

The difference is, pointless banal religious claims don't pretend to be science.  Religious claims are usually based on faith; science is based on empirical evidence and the testing of theories - but someone forgot to tell evolutionists that.  Their idea of "science" and "understanding" and "knowledge" is endless hypotheses that can't ever be tested.

!

Moderator Note

Bashing evolution is off-topic.  Discussion here proceeds using the bast science available to us, i.e. that evolution is correct.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DrP said:

Because the theory they are accepting as scientific fact completely contradicts chapter 1.

Perhaps you're referring to the "six days" of creation - if so, the Catholic Church has never offered a definitive interpretation of the "six days" in Genesis 1, and has never obliged the faithful to accept that the "six days" are a literal six days or to accept any other interpretation of the "six days".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Francis said:

Perhaps you're referring to the "six days" of creation - if so, the Catholic Church has never offered a definitive interpretation of the "six days" in Genesis 1, and has never obliged the faithful to accept that the "six days" are a literal six days or to accept any other interpretation of the "six days".

Who cares what they say now? The people who WROTE the bible knew what they meant by a day, and they knew exactly what their audience of the time understood by a "day". 

The Catholic Church can perform it's present-day contortions to make things fit, but they can't change the obvious original meaning by the original authors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Who cares what they say now? The people who WROTE the bible knew what they meant by a day, and they knew exactly what their audience of the time understood by a "day". 

The Catholic Church can perform it's present-day contortions to make things fit, but they can't change the obvious original meaning by the original authors. 

Is 'art' what the artist intends or what the viewer interprets? If science can evolve, why can't religion? Is it not a step in the right direction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Is 'art' what the artist intends or what the viewer interprets? If science can evolve, why can't religion? Is it not a step in the right direction?

Science doesn't claim to be giving you the truth, just the latest and best working theories. 

Christianity relies on the truth of the Bible, because there's no other evidence for believing in a God or a Christ. When you start saying a day doesn't have to mean a day, where does that leave the rest of it? A God doesn't really mean a god? Rising from the dead doesn't really mean rising from the dead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mistermack said:

The Catholic Church can perform it's present-day contortions to make things fit, but they can't change the obvious original meaning by the original authors. 

1

They can accept the original authors used stories to convey meaning.

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Is it not a step in the right direction?

Obviously not for everyone. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

They can accept the original authors used stories to convey meaning.

18 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Is it not a step in the right direction?

Obviously not for everyone. :rolleyes:

Not for me. The whole intention is to preserve superstitious belief by constantly adapting it, as it begins to look silly with newer discoveries. 

A step in the right direction would be to accept that the original authors obviously made the story up, not that "a day doesn't have to mean a day". It's just adapting mysticism with more mysticism. Or piling bullshit on top of bullshit, would be my preferred description.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.