Evolution - is it real?
Discussion
M5-911 said:
durbster said:
I would suggest anyone who believes nature has been designed looks at how a dog drinks water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2DycN6dydg
There's no way that was planned. It's a ridiculous solution.
I would actually call it very ingenious and brilliant more than ridiculous.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2DycN6dydg
There's no way that was planned. It's a ridiculous solution.
Read this article:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/scien...
OK, that's pretty amazing.
However, I'm going bet that filling up a cup, picking it up and pouring it into your face is more efficient.
durbster said:
M5-911 said:
durbster said:
I would suggest anyone who believes nature has been designed looks at how a dog drinks water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2DycN6dydg
There's no way that was planned. It's a ridiculous solution.
I would actually call it very ingenious and brilliant more than ridiculous.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2DycN6dydg
There's no way that was planned. It's a ridiculous solution.
Read this article:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/scien...
OK, that's pretty amazing.
However, I'm going bet that filling up a cup, picking it up and pouring it into your face is more efficient.
67Dino said:
Although we had to wait until we had the skills to make cups for that, of course. For most of our existence as a species we were probably using cupped hands...
Given that some primates use tools to help them drink eg drinking sticks for some chimps https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-385...I would expect that tools have been used for a long time pre Homo Sapiens to facilitate drinking beyond relying on just cupped hands
Macroni18 said:
Science seems to be the new religion.
Resorting to attacks/insults only prove that you are insecure in your position.
Not really, it just gets boring when, after repeatedly showing your workings, some muppet still thinks the world is 6,000 years old. Resorting to attacks/insults only prove that you are insecure in your position.
I'm impressed by the patience of the scientific community in the face of wilful ignorance.
Science relies on evidence, religion relies on faith.
Castrol for a knave said:
Not really, it just gets boring when, after repeatedly showing your workings, some muppet still thinks the world is 6,000 years old.
I'm impressed by the patience of the scientific community in the face of wilful ignorance.
Science relies on evidence, religion relies on faith.
Many scientifics are believers (mainly Christians). Since the creation of the Nobel price of physics, 60% of the winners were (are) believers. I wouldn't call that lot ignorant! LolI'm impressed by the patience of the scientific community in the face of wilful ignorance.
Science relies on evidence, religion relies on faith.
M5-911 said:
Castrol for a knave said:
Not really, it just gets boring when, after repeatedly showing your workings, some muppet still thinks the world is 6,000 years old.
I'm impressed by the patience of the scientific community in the face of wilful ignorance.
Science relies on evidence, religion relies on faith.
Many scientifics are believers (mainly Christians). Since the creation of the Nobel price of physics, 60% of the winners were (are) believers. I wouldn't call that lot ignorant! LolI'm impressed by the patience of the scientific community in the face of wilful ignorance.
Science relies on evidence, religion relies on faith.
2) case of fact and degree
3) cognitive dissonance
4) social conditioning
My mate is a mudlogger - one of his lecturers was a young earth creationist (see 3 and 4).
M5-911 said:
Castrol for a knave said:
Not really, it just gets boring when, after repeatedly showing your workings, some muppet still thinks the world is 6,000 years old.
I'm impressed by the patience of the scientific community in the face of wilful ignorance.
Science relies on evidence, religion relies on faith.
Many scientifics are believers (mainly Christians). Since the creation of the Nobel price of physics, 60% of the winners were (are) believers. I wouldn't call that lot ignorant! LolI'm impressed by the patience of the scientific community in the face of wilful ignorance.
Science relies on evidence, religion relies on faith.
Come back when you can present evidence that those 60% actually have stated they disbelieve evolution.
Macroni18 said:
Science seems to be the new religion.
If you can point me to a religion where those at the top are quite happy to have others come forward with research to show why the existing ideas should be re-evaluated and new methods and ideas adopted, I might treat your remark with less contempt that otherwise is the case. Evolution theory is only a couple of hundred years old. Science has allowed you to post your nonsense on a smartphone or a laptop, unimaginable 50 years ago. Just think what a crap religion science would be if it refused to question what a bunch of semi literate nomads had come up with 2000 years ago.
..and just because sometimes it helps to do a little bit of research before glibly posting erroneous / ignorant stuff;
Here is a handy summary of major religion's views on the theory of evolution, which is generally along the lines of "Yes, it's accepted as that's how it happened, but religion is to do with the soul, not how we physically got here";
https://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-grou...
Here is a handy summary of major religion's views on the theory of evolution, which is generally along the lines of "Yes, it's accepted as that's how it happened, but religion is to do with the soul, not how we physically got here";
https://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-grou...
paulguitar said:
But all sensible Christians accept evolution, don't they?
Indeed Paulguitar (I am replying to the other poster as well).I honestly don't understand how hard core religious people can say that the earth is only 6 000 years old by reading the bible. I am a believer, maybe I am wrong in my interpretation of Genesis and I will not bother you about it but just reading Genesis 1 is very clear to me that earth not 6000 years old!
JonChalk said:
You're mistaking (distorting data) those with a declared Christian faith, with those who believe in creationism.
Come back when you can present evidence that those 60% actually have stated they disbelieve evolution.
I think that you completely miss read my post. Where on earth did I mention creationism or that they disbelieve evolution?Come back when you can present evidence that those 60% actually have stated they disbelieve evolution.
M5-911 said:
JonChalk said:
You're mistaking (distorting data) those with a declared Christian faith, with those who believe in creationism.
Come back when you can present evidence that those 60% actually have stated they disbelieve evolution.
I think that you completely miss read my post. Where on earth did I mention creationism or that they disbelieve evolution?Come back when you can present evidence that those 60% actually have stated they disbelieve evolution.
JonChalk said:
M5-911 said:
JonChalk said:
You're mistaking (distorting data) those with a declared Christian faith, with those who believe in creationism.
Come back when you can present evidence that those 60% actually have stated they disbelieve evolution.
I think that you completely miss read my post. Where on earth did I mention creationism or that they disbelieve evolution?Come back when you can present evidence that those 60% actually have stated they disbelieve evolution.
Nimby said:
M5-911 said:
Many scientifics are believers (mainly Christians). Since the creation of the Nobel price of physics, 60% of the winners were (are) believers. I wouldn't call that lot ignorant! Lol
Yet only one this century, and five in the last 70 years according to Wikipedia.In an estimate by Baruch Shalev, between 1901-2000 about 65.4% of Nobel prize winners were either Christians or had a Christian background.[1] Here is a non exhaustive list of some of the prize winners who publicly identified themselves as Christians.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If you can point me to a religion where those at the top are quite happy to have others come forward with research to show why the existing ideas should be re-evaluated and new methods and ideas adopted, I might treat your remark with less contempt that otherwise is the case.
Evolution theory is only a couple of hundred years old. Science has allowed you to post your nonsense on a smartphone or a laptop, unimaginable 50 years ago. Just think what a crap religion science would be if it refused to question what a bunch of semi literate nomads had come up with 2000 years ago.
Thanks for proving my point. Evolution theory is only a couple of hundred years old. Science has allowed you to post your nonsense on a smartphone or a laptop, unimaginable 50 years ago. Just think what a crap religion science would be if it refused to question what a bunch of semi literate nomads had come up with 2000 years ago.
Only if science could improve your comprehension skills
M5-911 said:
Nimby said:
M5-911 said:
Many scientifics are believers (mainly Christians). Since the creation of the Nobel price of physics, 60% of the winners were (are) believers. I wouldn't call that lot ignorant! Lol
Yet only one this century, and five in the last 70 years according to Wikipedia.In an estimate by Baruch Shalev, between 1901-2000 about 65.4% of Nobel prize winners were either Christians or had a Christian background.[1] Here is a non exhaustive list of some of the prize winners who publicly identified themselves as Christians.
Clearly the trend is that scientists are becoming less and less religious.
Edited by Nimby on Saturday 9th January 15:03
I have known scientists of faith, though the vast majority were atheists (the majority were also biologists who have a particular long standing beef with the god-botherers). Those who were religious were basically compartmentalising their belief systems and not dealing with the cognitive dissonance.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff