It is impossible to believe in Evolution and not be a racist

[Palem]

Ell, I think you're backtracking. You can't make a statement like this...

As long as there's even the slightest bit of doubt they're gonna grab a hold of that and blow it out of proportion.

and then hide behind a statement like this...

And again you're mistaking the meaning and definition of a fact, you're mistaking it for the definition of a mathematical fact which are absolute since mathematics is a formal science(as opposed to natural sciences) there can be absolutes. Or perhaps you're mistaking if for the everyday definition of a fact which is also perceived as an absolute and incontrovertible.
The definition of a scientific fact however is much less rigid, or as it's more usually called, a scientific proof(and here I'm going to quote wikipedia rather than bother to write a lengthy explanation saying the exact same thing. "Proof has other meanings as it descends from its Latin roots (provable, probable, probare(L)) meaning to test. In this sense a proof is an inference to the best or most parsimonious explanation through a publicly verifiable demonstration (a test) of the factual (i.e., observed) and causal evidence from carefully controlled experiments."

The "slightest bit of doubt" is where 100% of all scientific research lies. Bashing people for suggesting alternative theories and then hiding behind the lenient definition of a scientific fact which allows the possibility of being wrong is trying to have your cake and eat it too.'

You're either positive that our current theory of evolution is absolutely, objectively correct, or you believe that our current theories are wrong (even if it's just small parts). There is no middle ground. To believe that we have the theory 100% correct would be naive considering we don't have a 100% complete knowledge of the building blocks of Evolution (genetics, biology, ect). That's all I was trying to say and I'm pretty sure that's all chalsdk was trying to say.

And knock it off folle. Not everyone speaks English well.

[Elldallan]

Ell, I think you're backtracking. You can't make a statement like this...


and then hide behind a statement like this...


The "slightest bit of doubt" is where 100% of all scientific research lies. Bashing people for suggesting alternative theories and then hiding behind the lenient definition of a scientific fact which allows the possibility of being wrong is trying to have your cake and eat it too.'

I might have expressed myself badly but what I was trying to get across was that the religious(generally) people who usually makes those ridiculous challenges etc and sprouts those opinion(not saying that chals in particular is one of these) are pretty much always of the sort "we're right until you prove with 100% absolute infallible certainty that you are". That is my issue with those religious nutcases and their challenges, and frankly I despise them for it, they have the same obligation to prove their view as science does, in fact I'd say they have a bigger one because many of their claims goes against all sense and logic.

Instead of making those silly challenges(because the onus of proof is on the one with the least sensible explanation based the least in fact/science etc) they should start producing a fact based empirical theory of their own to substantiate their position, until then I think that religion has absolutely no place in education. And no, merely saying that "Science cannot explain this" is not producing evidence, that's just blowing hot air and whoever does that should be ridiculed. What it would involve is producing evidence for something that could not possibly be accomplished in any manner other than that of a higher deity etc(which is arguably as hard as proving evolution of course, but that's where they need to go).

But considering that the people in the west who is most hell bent on making those claims are the same people claiming that the earth is 4000 years old I guess coherent thought is too much to ask from them.

You're either positive that our current theory of evolution is absolutely, objectively correct, or you believe that our current theories are wrong (even if it's just small parts). There is no middle ground. To believe that we have the theory 100% correct would be naive considering we don't have a 100% complete knowledge of the building blocks of Evolution (genetics, biology, ect). That's all I was trying to say and I'm pretty sure that's all chalsdk was trying to say.

I would disagree and say that there is a middle ground, yes to believe that anything in a non formal science is 100% correct is pure folly because our knowledge of everything is incomplete and things might change as we gain more knowledge. However once something has been tested and studied enough it's usually referred to as a fact in science(in physics(which straddles the line between formal and natural sciences) this is usually considered to be when you've passed a 5Sigma error probability) in less formal sciences the process is less clear, usually it's a lot about peer reviewed preponderance studies etc.
But my point is that nobody goes around thinking they're wrong, but they're aware that there's always room for improvement and that that improvement might clash with established science, that's why the Large Hadron Collider was big deal(or as Word auto correction liked to correct it, The Large Hardon Collider :D ).

[Folle]

2nd.

Your english teacher really sucked. So did your danish teacher. Stop writing some words in large letters already, we dont use that in danish either.

[chalsdk]

2nd.

Your english teacher really sucked. So did your danish teacher. Stop writing some words in large letters already, we dont use that in danish either.

Stop being a ****

[chalsdk]

To just make a few things clear.

Elldallan & others - I never claimed I support Creative design - I think you mix stuf up, and its becourse your very American centric in your view. At any regard I dont. I support The Pure Version of it. AKA Creation. How that is done, Dunno. Can sceince give good hints, sure, Do I look for em, no.

About the Gravity argument I did bring up - and was recommented - I do always bring it up to show that we are Sky high on our selves - and our understanding is very limited.

The Claim about Galileo is a piss poor understanding of the time and the problem. The problem with him was an entire other thing. on this topic, Read your Quran, that is where the flat earth comes from.


About the bible and Gravity argument. As Palin allready said, Wunders by profets and like - or God own son, hardly a problem for a divine to act in our world. He did have the option to come down on hourses made of burning gold that is solid flying in the air, dumping Banas on us if he so desire.
Generelly there is no such claim the in the bible about Gravati. Its hardly up for debate, its ether there or not - and its not.

On this topic - let me remind some of you, since its seams like your burning with passion for this very topic - Basis religion states that its ALL true - as if one thing is wrong - as if jesus said, its perfectly okay to drink from lakes and walls with dead animals - And we can find out that is playing with death -> Then the entire religion is FALSE .-> IF - but IF! -> its states this is a a fact, and not up for debate.
However plenty of what jesus said, or paul, can be argued, what did he say and mean! - some of it is not up for debate, its just that. Like Can we prove jesus and paul was a thing - YES - can we prove jesus was God?s own son, no. Can we disprove it, no! Can we prove you might die if you drink of poluted water - yes!

Evolution is a teory - To claim otherwise is foolish. Poor understanding of the evolution. I can bring up 5 massive huge problems right here.
Creation is also a teory - It can not be proved OR disproved. I poor understanding of the bible argument will be 7 days created - but then, if there is no sun, how long is a day ?? and if time is null and void, why use this thing? And to explain ?ber complicated things to earthlings with no real understanding of time(that came with prayer horny monks) - you need explain it in a manor they can understand to some degree.
IF you don buy this then
--> scripture says one day for a man is 1000 years for God, and the other way around. God does not exist in time.

To return to the OP topic - IF evolution is abselute true - Why is right, right - or wrong wrong??

[khronosschoty]

To just make a few things clear.

Elldallan & others - I never claimed I support Creative design - I think you mix stuf up, and its becourse your very American centric in your view. At any regard I dont. I support The Pure Version of it. AKA Creation. How that is done, Dunno. Can sceince give good hints, sure, Do I look for em, no.

About the Gravity argument I did bring up - and was recommented - I do always bring it up to show that we are Sky high on our selves - and our understanding is very limited.

The Claim about Galileo is a piss poor understanding of the time and the problem. The problem with him was an entire other thing. on this topic, Read your Quran, that is where the flat earth comes from.


About the bible and Gravity argument. As Palin allready said, Wunders by profets and like - or God own son, hardly a problem for a divine to act in our world. He did have the option to come down on hourses made of burning gold that is solid flying in the air, dumping Banas on us if he so desire.
Generelly there is no such claim the in the bible about Gravati. Its hardly up for debate, its ether there or not - and its not.

On this topic - let me remind some of you, since its seams like your burning with passion for this very topic - Basis religion states that its ALL true - as if one thing is wrong - as if jesus said, its perfectly okay to drink from lakes and walls with dead animals - And we can find out that is playing with death -> Then the entire religion is FALSE .-> IF - but IF! -> its states this is a a fact, and not up for debate.
However plenty of what jesus said, or paul, can be argued, what did he say and mean! - some of it is not up for debate, its just that. Like Can we prove jesus and paul was a thing - YES - can we prove jesus was God?s own son, no. Can we disprove it, no! Can we prove you might die if you drink of poluted water - yes!

Evolution is a teory - To claim otherwise is foolish. Poor understanding of the evolution. I can bring up 5 massive huge problems right here.
Creation is also a teory - It can not be proved OR disproved. I poor understanding of the bible argument will be 7 days created - but then, if there is no sun, how long is a day ?? and if time is null and void, why use this thing? And to explain ?ber complicated things to earthlings with no real understanding of time(that came with prayer horny monks) - you need explain it in a manor they can understand to some degree.
IF you don buy this then
--> scripture says one day for a man is 1000 years for God, and the other way around. God does not exist in time.

To return to the OP topic - IF evolution is abselute true - Why is right, right - or wrong wrong??

Could hardly make heads or tails but agreed with much.

[Craigus]

Evolution is a teory - To claim otherwise is foolish. Poor understanding of the evolution. I can bring up 5 massive huge problems right here.
Creation is also a teory - It can not be proved OR disproved. I poor understanding of the bible argument will be 7 days created - but then, if there is no sun, how long is a day ?? and if time is null and void, why use this thing? And to explain ?ber complicated things to earthlings with no real understanding of time(that came with prayer horny monks) - you need explain it in a manor they can understand to some degree.
IF you don buy this then
--> scripture says one day for a man is 1000 years for God, and the other way around. God does not exist in time.

To return to the OP topic - IF evolution is abselute true - Why is right, right - or wrong wrong??

I think you need to understand what a Scientific Theory is my friend.

From Rational Wiki:
"A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested."

Evolution has been tested for over 150 years. It has made predictions which have been tested and confirmed. Predictions were made before DNA testing was invented and it was correct, predictions were made that a fossil will be found in Canada that provided the link between sea and land animals, this was found and named Tiktaalik. All the evidence and predictions have reinforced the idea that species have evolved over a very long time rather than one big creation event as explained in holy books.

Creation, aka Intelligent Design, is not a theory because it makes no predictions, it is not testable and there is way too much evidence that is against a one off creation event. Just to name a couple from the top of my head:

Kangaroos are found no where else in the world besides Australia, how can there be no fossils anywhere else in the world if all species were onboard Noahs Ark?

Not one fossil has been found that is outside its time zone, eg no rabbit fossils found amongst dinosaur bones.

Creation is just anti science. It does nothing but try and hold people back from accepting reality. It is based on a book written thousands of years ago by iron age peasants who didnt even know the Earth orbited the sun. It is humans very primitive attempt to explain the universe, and they were wrong.

You can find people who believe in witchcraft, unicorns or there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter. None can be proven wrong but they are just stupid to believe. Using your logic should we consider them theories as well?

[chalsdk]

I think you need to understand what a Scientific Theory is my friend.

I think your wrong, I know my stuf - I had my own prof. at university change his picking of words, simply becourse he did teach lies, and that these lies are quite commen and most dont care to look into em, just take em good faith. And I call them lies as the book we got Clearly said This is what we think we know,Our generel Idea - But he said THIS IS FACT! I did take me 90 ish days to make him eat it, and say our idea so far..

From Rational Wiki:
"A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested."

AND that you can explain why. And this is why Gravati is so key, We simply Got no key why things drop to the ground. We can tell they do, but dont know why. Even mundane things we got no clue on - Your point is this is pure Aurogant - and simply Your the one who do not look into things. Just take things out as they fit your world view.

Evolution has been tested for over 150 years. It has made predictions which have been tested and confirmed. Predictions were made before DNA testing was invented and it was correct, predictions were made that a fossil will be found in Canada that provided the link between sea and land animals, this was found and named Tiktaalik. All the evidence and predictions have reinforced the idea that species have evolved over a very long time rather than one big creation event as explained in holy books.

Has it? If so I got a Few things I like to have explained myself? Like why Females exist.(We come from bakterier, and where does the Genders come from?..) It makes no sence, and slows down and limits our race spreed. Also Why do these missing links always turn up to be frauds?
There is multi massive Gigantic holes in evolution. Like Genders or Darwinian Evolution has no fraktion of fact/prof.

Its an idea, A good one, and the best we have come up with jet, but still, only an idea, with no backing what so ever that is what you call Fact or sceince.

Creation, aka Intelligent Design, is not a theory because it makes no predictions, it is not testable and there is way too much evidence that is against a one off creation event. Just to name a couple from the top of my head:

No they are not the same. Plz come out of your predice and look things up. Intelegent Design AND creation is NO where the same. Intelegent disegn accept some evolution, and Creation does not, and says we where Created humies! Fall from Edan and all that jazz.

Kangaroos are found no where else in the world besides Australia, how can there be no fossils anywhere else in the world if all species were onboard Noahs Ark?

I dont know. Good point. Adaption comes to mind, but dont know.

Not one fossil has been found that is outside its time zone, eg no rabbit fossils found amongst dinosaur bones.

I can se why this can be a problem, but it dont have to be. Plenty of ways to get around it. How long is one day for God? that leads to why did they ever exist - I dont know, do I find it interesting topic, sure, but I dont know. Do I understand it ? No - but hey, sceince cant even explain everyday things, like Gravity.

Creation is just anti science. It does nothing but try and hold people back from accepting reality. It is based on a book written thousands of years ago by iron age peasants who didnt even know the Earth orbited the sun. It is humans very primitive attempt to explain the universe, and they were wrong.

Your point is ULTRA bias - and with a piss poor understand of alot of things, over 40% of american reaches belive in God - And I assume you can agree that American is the current sceince leader in the world.. If not, we got nothing to debate. Also, jews get WAY to many nobels prices in medicine and nature related stuf (like physics) - And they are hardly ALL hardcore belivers in evolution - very religius peaple.

You can find people who believe in witchcraft, unicorns or there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter. None can be proven wrong but they are just stupid to believe. Using your logic should we consider them theories as well?

Go back and Read it. Belive in the wind if you experince the wind. If you dont, you dont belive in it. And dont worship the Idea of an God, but have an relationship with the God-Dude AKA talk to him, and get a replay, just as you go outside and feel the wind!

[Craigus]

I think your wrong, I know my stuf - I had my own prof. at university change his picking of words, simply becourse he did teach lies, and that these lies are quite commen and most dont care to look into em, just take em good faith. And I call them lies as the book we got Clearly said This is what we think we know,Our generel Idea - But he said THIS IS FACT! I did take me 90 ish days to make him eat it, and say our idea so far..

Can you please explain? I am not sure what this is referring to?

AND that you can explain why. And this is why Gravati is so key, We simply Got no key why things drop to the ground. We can tell they do, but dont know why. Even mundane things we got no clue on - Your point is this is pure Aurogant - and simply Your the one who do not look into things. Just take things out as they fit your world view.

"Why" you ask? why implies there is a purpose for things being the way they are. You should be asking how? you need to look at the evidence to determine the most plausible solution to the problem.

My world view is shaped by the evidence, the evidence is not shaped by my world view.

Has it? If so I got a Few things I like to have explained myself? Like why Females exist.(We come from bakterier, and where does the Genders come from?..) It makes no sence, and slows down and limits our race spreed. Also Why do these missing links always turn up to be frauds?
There is multi massive Gigantic holes in evolution. Like Genders or Darwinian Evolution has no fraktion of fact/prof.
Its an idea, A good one, and the best we have come up with jet, but still, only an idea, with no backing what so ever that is what you call Fact or sceince.

Please explain these "Gigantic holes".

"Why females exist?" you are implying there is a purpose behind it. You should probably ask how males exist since the y chromosome contains very little of our genetic makeup so more than likely females came before Males.

Before Darwin, life was just a miracle. His "idea" has changed the world and could be the greatest discovery in human history.

No they are not the same. Plz come out of your predice and look things up. Intelegent Design AND creation is NO where the same. Intelegent disegn accept some evolution, and Creation does not, and says we where Created humies! Fall from Edan and all that jazz.

Look up the trials of Dover. They were attempting to teach Intelligent design in schools. During the trials they found many times that they forgot to replace the word "creation" with "intelligent design". Intelligent design is just a creationists attempt to sound scientific.

Here is a doco if you are interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI

I dont know. Good point. Adaption comes to mind, but dont know.

If me, a layman, can provide these points which contradict your story, then I suggest you look into the evidence for evolution with an open mind.

I can se why this can be a problem, but it dont have to be. Plenty of ways to get around it. How long is one day for God? that leads to why did they ever exist - I dont know, do I find it interesting topic, sure, but I dont know. Do I understand it ? No - but hey, sceince cant even explain everyday things, like Gravity.

Science cannot explain everything but science can obtain the most likely answers to our questions. The problem with creation is that it assumes the answer gained from the bible or Quran, then picks and chooses the evidence which supports their story while ignoring the contradictions. How does asking "how long is one day for god?" benefit anyone? you have to establish a god or gods exists before you can ask that question.

Your point is ULTRA bias - and with a piss poor understand of alot of things, over 40% of american reaches belive in God - And I assume you can agree that American is the current sceince leader in the world.. If not, we got nothing to debate. Also, jews get WAY to many nobels prices in medicine and nature related stuf (like physics) - And they are hardly ALL hardcore belivers in evolution - very religius peaple.

50% of Americans could not answer how long it takes for the Earth to orbit the sun. Should we take their word for it too? America has some great scientists, having great scientists doesn't automatically make the general population smarter. Many scientists identify themselves as Jewish while also being atheist. Lawrence Krauss is one of them. Well over 90% of scientists accept evolution, that figure is closer to 100 than it is 90.

Go back and Read it. Belive in the wind if you experince the wind. If you dont, you dont belive in it. And dont worship the Idea of an God, but have an relationship with the God-Dude AKA talk to him, and get a replay, just as you go outside and feel the wind!

I prayed when I was a kid, never got an answer. Wind has evidence which we can feel, explain and predict, none of the gods have evidence. With the thousands of gods in human history what makes you think that you were lucky enough to just so happen to be brought up with the teachings of the one true god. If you believe in a particular god, how did you dismiss all the other gods? God should be irrelevant in this conversation because we should only be looking at the evidence to find our answers. You can believe in or not believe in whatever god you like, all I ask is you look at what you can see in reality to determine the most probable answers.

[chalsdk]

"Lots of stuf to think over".

Give me a few days. Ill think it over

[chalsdk]

Can you please explain? I am not sure what this is referring to?
+
and these big holes..

Love to - Like Evolution is a fact, and that anyone who says otherwise is a fool. Ironic it acts as a religion in its own right. There is plenty of Big Gigantic holes in evolution. To take the FACT of evolution in good faith I have problems with - Just the same with religion, or another things.

Things that come to mind that is clearly problematic, "Why Female" - its simply not effective - and even more, how did one Gender pop up one day, and made kids? If it was so why is it not normal to have both sexes, or if you do, its only one part that is working.

so you got tiny bacteria that do not have genders.. and one day a female pub ups?? why? and even more, how does it mate?? The odds of finding a male is so small its none exist.

If Female happened later, its the same thing.

And since there is a Big bang/creation day in sceince - as a final date - I have read that there is a lack of time to randomly create life.. I can find link - dont have it right here. There is simply a lack of time to creative life by Random. -> Will find link.

I have been at university to be trained as a teacher in nature - and there I had a man who claimed that evolution is a fact, while our books had no such claims and it cant be made - that is what the book said, and I asked our teacher/prof to confirm to accept the brand new books we had! and so he did - in time. And my entire class was impressed. These wild wild lies are quite commen outside uni and other places becourse they are supported by the TV and others who dont care what they say, as long as its borderline true - why most TV today is crap - its not like the discovery channel is "Good & well backed knowede".

My world view is shaped by the evidence, the evidence is not shaped by my world view.

Thats awesome. As long as you keep an open eye out and an open mind.

Look up the trials of Dover. They were attempting to teach Intelligent design in schools. During the trials they found many times that they forgot to replace the word "creation" with "intelligent design". Intelligent design is just a creationists attempt to sound scientific.

Here is a doco if you are interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI

Some sum it up - Creation and int. design is not the same thing.
Good Created stuf VS God helped/Guide evolution.
Dont accept darvinian evolution VS Accept it to some degree.

If me, a layman, can provide these points which contradict your story, then I suggest you look into the evidence for evolution with an open mind.

You have not - you still going on with mixing up int. design and Creation.

Science cannot explain everything but science can obtain the most likely answers to our questions. The problem with creation is that it assumes the answer gained from the bible or Quran, then picks and chooses the evidence which supports their story while ignoring the contradictions. How does asking "how long is one day for god?" benefit anyone? you have to establish a god or gods exists before you can ask that question.

Well - The bible dont claim alot about sceince.. unlike The Quran - and I am not gona defend that as it can not be - like drinking of wells with dead animals is perfectly Good.
However what the bible do claim, no one have jet to disprove. And peaple work HARD on it.
There is no Contradictions in the bible.

And no you dont have to firstly accept that God is there or not. If you allready have stated he is, its not importent. And the very core of this that I am not trying to make a age of the earth - the integent design does. How long was adam and eve in the garden ? dunno.. HE named alot of things, then got a wife.. Migth have been a trillion years, or 1 secound. How long is a day if your outside time?? Does time exist in the garden? how big is it? There is ton a things we dont know, we can argue all day, but its gona be useless, we simply dont know what the bible says.

50% of Americans could not answer how long it takes for the Earth to orbit the sun. Should we take their word for it too? America has some great scientists, having great scientists doesn't automatically make the general population smarter. Many scientists identify themselves as Jewish while also being atheist. Lawrence Krauss is one of them. Well over 90% of scientists accept evolution, that figure is closer to 100 than it is 90.

Most americans are not at universites or doing reseach, and that was the ones I was talking about - ill even take that most theologians dont know, even most at university, its NICE to know, but hardly usefull. --> My point was about the peaple who did reasech, not generic murican.

I prayed when I was a kid, never got an answer. Wind has evidence which we can feel, explain and predict, none of the gods have evidence. With the thousands of gods in human history what makes you think that you were lucky enough to just so happen to be brought up with the teachings of the one true god. If you believe in a particular god, how did you dismiss all the other gods? God should be irrelevant in this conversation because we should only be looking at the evidence to find our answers. You can believe in or not believe in whatever god you like, all I ask is you look at what you can see in reality to determine the most probable answers.

What I noted when I did become a christian was that God did give me a lot or replays, but I did just not notise them becourse I did not wish to do so. And what makes me think I got the right **** - well I experince God, not just the Idea of God, but direkt.

And if we assume that there is no God, or alike - Why is something wrong? Why is suffering wrong?

[Elldallan]

Has it? If so I got a Few things I like to have explained myself? Like why Females exist.(We come from bakterier, and where does the Genders come from?..) It makes no sence, and slows down and limits our race spreed. Also Why do these missing links always turn up to be frauds?

Because people are greedy and want to cash in on the fame? Science isn't any more foolproof to idiots and nutcases than religion are. "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."

No they are not the same. Plz come out of your predice and look things up. Intelegent Design AND creation is NO where the same. Intelegent disegn accept some evolution, and Creation does not, and says we where Created humies! Fall from Edan and all that jazz.

Wrong, creationism is simply somebody who believes in a creation mythos, not neccessarily the specific Abrahmitic one(Christianity, Judaism, Islam) but any give creation mythos. or in more specific words Creationism is the belief that the Universe and Life originate "from specific acts of divine creation."

I dont know. Good point. Adaption comes to mind, but dont know.

Which is an integral part of the theory of evolution which you so cheerfully reject.

Your point is ULTRA bias - and with a piss poor understand of alot of things, over 40% of american reaches belive in God - And I assume you can agree that American is the current sceince leader in the world.. If not, we got nothing to debate. Also, jews get WAY to many nobels prices in medicine and nature related stuf (like physics) - And they are hardly ALL hardcore belivers in evolution - very religius peaple.

First of all Jew is both an ethnic group and a religious denomination, so an atheistic Jew would still refer to him/herself as a Jew.

As to whether US is the world leader in science depends entirely on how you define world leader, be it by investment per capita or just total amount of $? I can also say that I honestly have a lot to say about the way US universities handle research grants from corporations, that can sometimes clash with good empirical science and will very often go buried if the funding corporation didn't get exactly the result they were looking for" Also the way American Universities handle tenure means that there's an unfortunate bias on things that will have real world applications which means that there is little research into things that will further scientific understanding of our world but might not carry a real world application for decades or centuries.

But the claim you make is that a lot of these people are religious and not just atheists in a religious country, do you have any evidence for this whatsoever?.
The Statistics I've seen would seem to indicate that roughly 50% of Israel's population defines themselves as secular(non believer), and for the United States that figure is only 20% or so, so 80% of the US population defines itself as religious, not 40%.
And even if by God you men the Christian god then that's still wrong, ~73% of the US population define themselves as some variety of Christian.
Now as to what if any correlation this has to the religiosity of said nations scientists is still something you havn't established,though it is a well established statistical fact that Scientists in general in any nation is significantly less religious than the population in general, so even if 99.98% of a population defined themselves as religious 100% of the scientists could be atheists(unlikely because it's more likely that they would have all moved to a more enlightened place)

So you've as of yet produced absolutely zero evidence that there is a significant correlation between Nobel prices and religiosity.

Go back and Read it. Belive in the wind if you experince the wind. If you dont, you dont belive in it. And dont worship the Idea of an God, but have an relationship with the God-Dude AKA talk to him, and get a replay, just as you go outside and feel the wind!

Generally the people who talk to the voices in their head are considered mentally unstable and locked up in an institution... as long as you don't call the voice in your head "God", because then you're only locked up if he tells you to do stuff like harming other people, such as oh I don't know "If a man lieth with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13"

[Elldallan]

1. Isn't that what everyone does though? You're not going to believe that Evolution is wrong unless someone comes along and 100%, without a doubt, disproves it. Even if someone comes along with an equally plausible theory, I doubt you would believe that Evolution is wrong because there's a competing theory.

If somebody came up with a different theory that is more plausible, logical, has fewer assumptions, and is empirically founded then I'd have to re-evaluate my position. But until creationists can come up with such a theory then evolution still fulfils all of the points I mentioned, creationism doesn't.

2. Why do you despise them for encouraging science? Science by it's very nature is meant to be questioned and poked and prodded and have it's flaws called out and questioned. If there's something missing in a theory, not only is it their right to question it, it's the obligation of science to explore it and actually find the thing that's missing. Don't get me wrong, some questions and challenges are downright stupid, but if no one asks stupid things then no one learns. Even if the redneck hillybilly refuses to believe that God couldn't have created the Earth 4000 years ago because we have rocks and trees that are older than that currently on Earth, maybe his son will come to the realization that there's absolutely no way that adds up.

What they're doing is not encouraging science, the purported rewards pale next to the costs of most research. Yes Science should be poked, prodded and questioned in a rational, constructive and empirical way. Just stating I'm right and you're wrong contributes absolutely nothing.

Yes, everyone has the right to their opinion, if you want to believe that the earth is a flat disc borne up on the backs of 4 elephants situated on a giant turtle flying through space then that as ludicrous as it might be is their right and no more ludicrous than the abrahmitic creation myth, they're equally flunky. What annoys and sometimes offends me is the attempts to force these ludicrous views on our young in school, it is quite enough that they might have to suffer through it at home, if the creationists gets their intellectual design bull**** to be adopted as a valid education theory then that is a crime against humanity and a loss for all mankind because it decreases the chance that that redneck descendant ever discovers how ludicrous the dogma he's been brought up to believe is, we don't need to go back to the dark ages, Christianity has already done enough damage as it is.

I think you're being a little harsh. Yes, there are some things that are on that "You've got to be f'ing kidding me" level, but there are plenty of very smart people (scientists even) that believes god exists and plays/played a real practical role in the universe.

Yes undoubtedly there are actual scientists in the natural and formal sciences(as opposed to the humane sciences) that believe in the existence of a supreme being but is much much rarer than in the population at large.

You act like it's some sort of easy request to prove their theories or provide solid evidence. How do you prove that someone created something without an actual historical record of the time? Let's pretend that all of our records only date back to the 2000. How do you prove that Tim Berners-Lee invented the Internet in 1990 and have like actual, solid proof? Especially if no one believed your crazy theory just because you've been told that's who did it. I mean, I think I'm fairly clever and I honestly would have no idea where to begin. Stack on top of that, the fact that Berners-Lee is an actual person and not a divine being that a lot of people actually doubt the existence of in the first place. I'm not saying religious beliefs are above being proven, but understand that asking someone to prove that God created man and asking for proof that man evolved from a more primitive being are two completely different different tasks.

Two completely different tasks but not considerably more difficult when viewed from the opposition. Also historical records are unnecessary to the task and what more they're notoriously unreliable. What you need to do is find some phenomena or other that could not possibly be explained by any other means than through the existence of a supreme being. Now of course I believe that to be utterly impossible because I don't think there is such a thing. But for the religious minded person that is where they need to start, the concept is no harder to prove than it was for Darwin to prove evolution, it just lies in observation and detailed study, if there is such a thing as a supreme being then that evidence should eventually manifest itself in some manner that is incontrovertible or at least makes more sense than science.

Also, suggesting that using the argument that "science can not explain this" should be ridiculed is a bit of a blanket statement. Using that as a scape goat when you can't explain yourself any further is just arguing, but there are arguments that god created the universe that are sort of reliant on this. For example, during the Planck epoch, time doesn't necessarily function in a linear manner*, which means all concepts of "science" that we have ceases to exist for the first moments of the universe's existence and science truly can not tell us what is happening. We can only provide very rough theories for what may have been happening based on what was happening directly after that, but we really can't test anything from it.

That's not what I said, I said that anybody saying that because "science can not explain this" that means I'm right should be ridiculed. They should have the same onus to present a credible empirical theory as science before they're given space, at least in education That's something very difficult because there are indeed things that science cannot explain and some theories that are extremely vague because we currently lack the tools and/or knowledge to prove or disprove said theories, so for the moment they are our best explanation for something we know very little of, not unlike your argument about written history, because there is obviously no written history about the birth of the universe.

I'm a mathematical person. I studied math, so asking me to consider a fact as something that may not be 100% true is hard, especially when there are scientific stuff that we do actually know 100% about. Things like Hydrogen having 1 proton and 1 neutron, or that photons travel at the speed of light. I realize that these things seem sort of "true by definition", but if we ever find something wrong Evolution, we're just going rewrite the definition of evolution, so we're always going to have the "definition" of Evolution be right, unless we have a huge breakthrough and Evolution ends up being totally wrong lol.

The fact about photons travelling at the speed of light is a good example here, because scientists have proven that light can travel at speed lower than 299,792,458 m/s it has been slowed to the speed of roughly 38 miles/per hour (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html)

So I'm going to commit the ultimate sin of discussion and agree to disagree on this point :p. I'm mostly just tired of going back of forth on the definition of a scientific fact lol

That's fine, I can understand your position because in math as I said earlier a fact is a fact :)

They have plenty of passages that defy gravity like the parting of the seas, a magic man walking on water or rising from the grave. You would think they would attack Sir Isaac Newtons credibility to prove all these things can happen.

Walking on a fluid does not defy gravity, it is technically possible either by having a fluid with a high enough surface tension or a creature that distributes it's weight enough, or you could just walk on frozen water :P
Even the parting of the red sea or what might appear as such can in theory be explained by logic even though it's going to be pretty far fetched.
But then gravity isn't a central concept for religion and hence not an area of friction like evolution is, abrahmitic religions clearly state that man was created by god in his image, the claim that man was descended from a primordial goo would offend them because that'd mean that god is a puddle of primordial goo and that we've strayed from his image. :P

It's only a matter of time until they accept Darwin's theory of evolution. They did eventually come around to Galileo, just took a while. Just imagine the can of worms that will be opened when we turn chemistry into biology, that is after all their biggest gap they go to when it comes to evolution.

I seriously doubt that, people can be oh so hell bent on believing truly stupid things, this is absolutely not limited to religion. But thankfully the hardcore refuser's are growing fewer and fewer which is why the whole "intellectual design" bull**** is very worrying because it seems to aim to bring us back to the dark ages where religion is the one and only explanation for everything no matter how ludicrous the explanations are.

And sorry to tell you this but the area of biochemistry already exists :P We already know exactly what elements make up a strand of DNA, I can go on and make examples for several pages. It is actually a budding area of study in biology because so far when biologists deal with proteins, protein markers etc. they typically use a place holder descriptive image, we know it does this or that but until fairly recently we have not had the ability to exactly determine what chemical compounds makes up a protein, or how that impacts on a protein folds itself and thereby which atoms are exposed in the active site. This in combination with advanced 3D imaging techniques has the possibility to advance small scale biology by leaps and bounds exactly because you can trace the chemistry and exactly WHY something happens the way it does, not just knowing that it does.

To just make a few things clear.

Elldallan & others - I never claimed I support Creative design - I think you mix stuf up, and its becourse your very American centric in your view. At any regard I dont. I support The Pure Version of it. AKA Creation. How that is done, Dunno. Can sceince give good hints, sure, Do I look for em, no.

No I never meant to imply that you did, but as that's my biggest beef(and currently where most of the resistance comes from) with the religious view on evolution denial it naturally spilled over.

On this topic - let me remind some of you, since its seams like your burning with passion for this very topic - Basis religion states that its ALL true - as if one thing is wrong - as if jesus said, its perfectly okay to drink from lakes and walls with dead animals - And we can find out that is playing with death -> Then the entire religion is FALSE .-> IF - but IF! -> its states this is a a fact, and not up for debate.

No not really, the religion will just find a way to reinvent itself into a new direction, just like how Judaism reinvented itself into Christianity and later on Islam was reinvented from one of the two(not exactly sure which one but most likely Christianity since Islam admits the existence of Jesus which Judaism does not)
There we have three major world religions who have wildly differing views on pretty much everything and yet shares the same God, the Christian god, the Muslim god and the Jewish god are all the same "God", so this supposed "god" comes of as more than a little schizophrenic, and why if this god exists would there be so wildly separate opinions on what the **** he wants out of mankind.

Evolution is a teory - To claim otherwise is foolish. Poor understanding of the evolution. I can bring up 5 massive huge problems right here.

Yes evolution is a theory, it can also be considered a fact, your refusal to admit this is because of your limited understanding of such scientific terms. In science a theory is something much bigger and palpable than a theory in common tongue, and likewise a fact is less so than in common speech.
And secondly, your objections seems to lie mostly with the theory of a common descent, not evolution itself, they are absolutely not one and the same, sure the theory of a common descent was part of Darwin's theory but the study of evolution today is separate from it.

Creation is also a teory - It can not be proved OR disproved.

If there are actual wonders and miracles then it should be an easy thing to prove it, or at least to disprove or cast doubt on science. Because at least some of the supposed miracles cannot be explained in any other way than the complete rejection of everything science knows today, find one of those miracles and prove it's existence and you would disprove science, this is no harder to do than to find "the missing link" or any of the other issues with evolution that evolution rejectionists base their claims on.
And lastly, until creationism can present a more coherent, empirical and probable theory then science it has absolutely no place anywhere in our schools except in basic religious education(such as which the main faiths are and what they stand for)and thre only to provide education about them and not provide them as a different theory on life, the universe and everything. It is up to the individual to seek out his own answers but it is not something that should be taught as an explanation in school.

To return to the OP topic - IF evolution is abselute true - Why is right, right - or wrong wrong??

Again, nobody has claimed that evolution is absolute, Science never is, and the social/humane sciences are even less so than pretty much anything else.
Only religion ever claims to have an answer on why anything is right or wrong. The problem is that apparently that is not so immutable as what religion defines as right or wrong has changed over the years.

For example we don't generally execute "a man who sleeps with a man as with a woman" of "a man who lies with a beast"
Nor do we execute adulterers, or burn people who would sleep with a woman and her mother on a pyre.

And even most religious Christians or Jews would agree that killing someone for doing any of the above would be wrong.
Especially going as far as burning anybody on a pyre for any reason.

[chalsdk]

There we have three major world religions who have wildly differing views on pretty much everything and yet shares the same God, the Christian god, the Muslim god and the Jewish god are all the same "God", so this supposed "god" comes of as more than a little schizophrenic, and why if this god exists would there be so wildly separate opinions on what the **** he wants out of mankind.

What you say is here that you think that jesus and Hitler are the same person, just depens on how you look at it. I have read all of it, but your arguments our soo arogant I am not even gona bother trying to reason mr "Ateism Is my religion"

[Elldallan]

What you say is here that you think that jesus and Hitler are the same person, just depens on how you look at it. I have read all of it, but your arguments our soo arogant I am not even gona bother trying to reason mr "Ateism Is my religion"

And no, it's not the same as saying that Jesus and Hitler are both the same person.
Christianity admits it's roots in Judaism and even uses the Torah scrolls for part of the Bible(the old part), so it's the same god... And Islam recognizes Jesus and all the Jewish prophets as prophets, just not the final most important one. So again, same god. Even the religions themselves admit it(well at least Christianity and Islam does), Islam even have specific decrees that Christians & Jews should be treated better than other non-believers because they do share a faith in Allah or God Almighty, they're just havrn't been enlightened yet.
So it seems that they mostly squabble over who is more right on points of detail. All three share the ten commandments for example. So the God seems to be very much the same one, the difference lies in the interpretation of his wishes and whatnot.

So you mean that it's arrogant to say that people normally get declared mentally ill when they hear voices talk in their heads? Because you know what... they do.

And no, I wouldn't say I'm an Atheist, I lean more towards Agnosticism because while I don not believe in the existence of a higher being nor think it's particularly likely for one to exist if it was ever proven I would have to accept that proof.
Atheism is the flat out rejection of the possibility that there is a god, I just think that the likelihood of the existence of some sort of supreme being is infinitely small, but not non-existent.

If people choose to be religious then that's their choice and I will respect that, but I do think that that's a choice for an adult to make and therefore I think religion has no space in education outside religion classes.
But I'm sorry if it offends you but I if somebody thinks that they're having conversations with any sort of voices in their head then I do think that is uncomfortably close to mental unhealth whether that voice be God's(any variety of God or Gods), Donald Duck or George W. Bush they hear in their heads.