{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/18/2015 3:29:41 AM
32
There are only three reasons to deny evolution:
A lack of understanding, a fear of being proven wrong, or being too stubborn to acknowledge science and logic.
English
-
Edited by Allah: 7/20/2015 1:04:15 PMA fifth one is that evolution is bullshit created by extrapolation, misrepresentation and misdirection. You cannot deny that somewhere inside you, once you doubted evolution and that you chose to believe this is true because it allows you to do anything you want despite the mores and standards of our society. Evolution, when you understand it from a higher level, is just another religion used to control the masses. It allows people to feel okay about aborting(dismantling a human being that could, given our technology, survive outside the mother using scissors, crushing and sacking out the brains of a baby that's only got the head still in the birth canal) 1.25 million children, murdering, without having to feel bad about it. It allows people to go into churches and open fire on people without any conscience. It allows our youth to use drugs, join in on rioting, and řàpé without a problem because "we're all just monkeys anyway, I have nobody to answer to, who cares if I'm doing what I want to do". Sending our sons and daughters into war after war, into harms way for the almighty yuan, dollar, yen, whatever. Wake up people it's not where we came from, it's where we are going that matters. Heaven or Hell Blessing or cursing Life or death. Choose this day. Population control through ignorance.
-
You seem to fall under all three. I don't need religion to have morality. I once doubted evolution, but that was because I grew up a Christian. However, once evolution was explained to me, I realized that creationism is bullshit. You can live in your bubble and ignore science. As for where I'm going? Maybe it's Mars. Maybe it's the moon. Maybe it's an Earth where there's a cure for cancer. All things are possible to him who tests, observes, repeats, and learns. All things are possible through science. You want to pretend it's a conspiracy theory or some bullshit? That's fine. But it has mountains more supporting evidence than any ancient holy book. Enjoy your ignorance.
-
Yea see I have the advantage of being a chemist and geologist so when I said "an advanced" view of what evolution really is, I meant it. The real answers come from maths, not science actually. It would take more than 2.6 x 10^246 non-lethal mutations, which the vast majority of mutations are lethal(example is cancer). On top of that, half of that that compelling "evidence" you got spoon fed was extrapolated which is the bread and butter of the scientific method. You move your data points to fit the curve you were supposed to get. Science allows itself to use cyclical logic, where the data proves the theory and the theory provides the data. It's a flaw in the method which is controversial in way more than evolutionary debates. It sounds like what I said early was abrasive to you, and that was my intention which was to pick your conscience. Now you have to deal with the reality which is that if you're so sure then why did You get so upset? The cure.for cancer is a triple bonded double cyanide molecule with a configuration where in an acidic environment(extra electrons) the bonds are broken which releases the inert cyanide into actual cyanide whichbthen denies the cancerous cell of oxygen where it then dies. Don't expect to receive this cure if you don't have substantial wealth or fame. You're welcome!
-
I'd love to see your sources for all of this. But I can tell you that most mutations are not lethal. They are inconsequential.
-
A fourth is that it goes against their beliefs.
-
Science > beliefs
-
That's coming from an atheist. Everyone is going to have bias, and although atheists try to rely on evidence for their beliefs, they often ignore evidence for others' beliefs.
-
You assume I'm an atheist when I'm not. You don't have to believe science for it to be true. Often the evidence for other beliefs is falsified or meaningless.
-
That's true, but often times it's not. And the important thing is discerning whether or not it is, and using that knowledge when wondering what to believe.
-
Give me evidence of another belief that comes close to the level of the evidence for evolution. I'll give you some tips: 1) Testimonies don't count 2) Faith doesn't count 3) Give me a source
-
I'm not sure why testimonies don't count. Sure, they're not traditional evidence but they're hard to ignore. But if you want something: Bible prophecy. It's very accurate. A lot of people say "well it's so vague, of course something will happen that kind of fulfills it," but this is simply not true. If you think Bible prophecy is vague, you haven't looked at all of it. [url=http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible]link[/url]
-
Many people have been convicted of crimes based on eyewitness testimony, only to be released later because DNA evidence proved their innocence. Most of the witnesses believed what they were saying, too. The problem with testimony is that it comes from people, and people are idiots. As for these prophecies, I don't need to tell you that the bible has been significantly edited. And once again, the entire bible is based on testimony. Meanwhile, instead of trying to pull meaning for an ancient book, science can repeat observations and come to conclusions using the scientific method, which is infinitely more valuable than faith.
-
I can understand that first point. The bible has not been as edited as you think. The KJV is still very true to the original. This is [i]exactly[/i] what I was talking about earlier, how people who don't want to believe it come up with some excuse for why it's wrong. Don't let pride get in your way of the truth.
-
The council of Nicea heavily edited the Bible before that, though.
-
Do you have a source about that? Because I haven't heard they did but it'd definitely be something I want to know about.
-
All it takes is a [url=http://google.com]google[/url] search.
-
All I could find (though I didn't spend too much time on it) was that the Council voted on which books to include in the Bible, nothing about editing them. Although this is somewhat disturbing, considering the fact that the Bible says that what we read is God-breathed and such, I think God may have had influence on which books they chose to include.
-
You're making an unsubstantiated assumption that God had his hand in the work. Basically, the council of Nicea decided what stays and what goes in the Bible because people were having disputes about it.
-
That's fair. Unsubstantiated is true by a scientific perspective, though not by a Christian perspective. I know that means next to nothing to you, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
-
What does that even mean? Why deny scientific and logical terms?
-
What did I just say that denies science and logic?
-
[quote]Unsubstantiated is true by a scientific perspective, though not by a Christian perspective. [/quote]Unless if you're not a Christian...
-
I thought you were talking about something else when you said I was denying scientific and logical terms. Sorry for the confusion.
-
OK? Question: Are you a Christian?
-
