The Evolution Epiphany

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: WASTYT
a reply to: Barcs


I LOVE science and it pains me to see so many people wasting their energy attacking it when it makes our lives AWESOME compared to how they were just a hundred years back.

Science doesn't always make our lives awesome. Just ask the victims of war.


How many wars has science started?

How many times have humans resisted war, only to see science proceed with one?




posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   
off topic response deleted
edit on 29-6-2014 by drivers1492 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: drivers1492

I don't recall bringing up religion...

Why did you?



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: drivers1492


The exact number that religion has started, ZERO.

You canNOT be serious.

Are you aware of what is going on in Syria and Iraq?

Anyway, it's clear that religion was not the topic of this thread, and it's also clear that religion is a cancer.
I'm done for now.



Talk to you all later.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
off topic response deleted
edit on 29-6-2014 by drivers1492 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
off topic response deleted
edit on 29-6-2014 by drivers1492 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Post deleted. Sincere thanks to drivers1492.

edit on 29/6/14 by Astyanax because: no longer needed.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Astyanax I meant no disrespect to the thread I only responded to something, yes it was off topic, at the end of the thread. So that is my fault for responding to an off topic post, my apologies. I have deleted my responses in order to maintain thread integrity.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: reploid


Nope, it IS possible for one to perfectly understand evolution AND reject it.

Your reply to Krazysh0t suggests that you are speaking from personal experience, so let me ask you the question I put to my fellow-evolutionists in the OP. Was there a moment when it all fell into place and understanding suddenly dawned? Or, if the process was more gradual than that, what was it brought you to your understanding of evolution?

I'm hoping for a somewhat more detailed reply than 'reading books and web sites dedicated to teaching evolution'. Which books? Which sites? Which subjects and aspects of evolution?



"Was there a moment when it all fell into place and understanding suddenly dawned?"

There was nothing that had to "fall into place" for an understanding to "dawn" upon me. I just understood it the way I understood everything else taught in school. So I don't quite get why you say you had an "epiphany". You weren't mentally and emotionally invested into evolution, were you?

-------------------------------------------------


"Which books? Which sites? Which subjects and aspects of evolution?"

The books were the ones I had to read during my high school years. More importantly, I had good teachers to help me understand evolution. That was back then. It made no difference to my life, so I left it behind after I graduated.

However, my interest in the subject was rekindled only in the last 10 years or so.... after I heard about ideas presented by ID. That was when I first started scrutinizing the idea of evolution, because after all in the context of science, all ideas must be subjected to testing and scrutiny.

The websites were basically whatever came up on google searches like "evolution of whales" or "how did sex evolve" or "evolution of camouflage"... that included material from evolutionist sites AND sites skeptical of evolution. In other words, I read the arguments from BOTH sides of the matter, before coming to my conclusion that evolution can be safely rejected as conjecture on as to what happened hundreds of millions of years ago.


#37



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: reploid

I must admit I'm a bit disappointed by this response. I was hoping for something a bit more specific, to be honest.

Let's try it again...


I read the arguments from BOTH sides of the matter, before coming to my conclusion that evolution can be safely rejected as conjecture on as to what happened hundreds of millions of years ago.

What was the telling fact or insight that led you to that conclusion?



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: reploid


If you believe evolution is based on conjecture as to what happened hundreds of millions of years ago...
...You do not understand evolution, your understanding is corrupt.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Barcs

That's quite a story. Did you laugh when your friend showed you the Hovind video?


Part of me wishes I knew what I know now when I saw it, because I would have gone through it with him point by point, but yeah I definitely laughed at some of it. I'm pretty sure that's the first time I saw the "banana was designed for the hand" argument as well. After watching most of it, I knew it was wrong inside of my head, but was also curious because Hovind presented it as if it was fact. If his facts were actually facts he would have had a good argument, but now of course we know that isn't the case.
edit on 30-6-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: WASTYT
a reply to: Barcs


I LOVE science and it pains me to see so many people wasting their energy attacking it when it makes our lives AWESOME compared to how they were just a hundred years back.

Science doesn't always make our lives awesome. Just ask the victims of war.


Perhaps you should ask the victims of war prior to the scientific age and see if their thoughts are different. I mean, humans have been at war with one another for tens of thousands of years, science is just a tool. It's like blaming swords in the middle ages or guns today for violence. It's just a silly scapegoat. Humans are the ones that pump money into war research. Science is a method of fact gathering, you can't blame the method for the way it is implemented by humans.

Do you have a TV? A computer? A refrigerator? Are you vaccinated? Ever been to the doctor when sick? Taken cold medicine? Do you have lights that can be turned on or off? A car? A cell phone? The internet? Tell me those things don't make your life better.

And I'll take being shot to death or blown up by a bomb any day over being drawn and quartered, burned alive or any of the countless other torturous execution methods from back before science was prevalent.
edit on 30-6-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Science is a method of fact gathering, you can't blame the method for the way it is implemented by humans.

I'm not blaming the method. I'm saying that science isn't ALL AWESOME ALL THE TIME. It isn't always used for good and cool things.


Do you have a TV? A computer? A refrigerator? Are you vaccinated? Ever been to the doctor when sick? Taken cold medicine? Do you have lights that can be turned on or off? A car? A cell phone? The internet? Tell me those things don't make your life better.

You're getting defensive. And of course these things have mattered in my life in some way. But better is a completely subjective term. What's good for you is not necessarily so for anyone else. TV's are only good for reality shows and propaganda. Computers are used for nefarious acts all the time. Cold medicines dont always work. Lights are great as are fridges. Cars pollute. Cell phones cause cancer and are killing social skills. The internet ( see computer). etc etc.. Point is science can be used as a tool for not so awesome things. Or can have rather unsavory side effects, whether intended or not.

Nuclear, Bio, Chem weapons are all thanks to science and are all not that awesome.


And I'll take being shot to death or blown up by a bomb any day over being drawn and quartered, burned alive or any of the countless other torturous execution methods from back before science was prevalent.

So science makes us die better? Is that your justification?
edit on 6/30/2014 by WASTYT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: WASTYT
Nuclear, Bio, Chem weapons are all thanks to science and are all not that awesome.


Science is a methodology, nothing more. What people do with the produce of science is not the fault of the methodology, any more than it's the fault of carpentry if someone decides to whack someone else around the head with a chair.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Whatever it is. The point is the methodology doesn't always make our lives so awesome. The methodology exists for the use by humans, in whatever manner it may be. But the good that it does for many is not always available to others in worse off places. In these the products of science fall short or are used to make peoples lives not at all awesome.

So when someone proclaims - "Science is awesome because it makes our lives so great!" I say there are two sides to every coin. Sure it gives us cool things like the hubble, HD TV and even a cure for cancer, but you have to accept that just as it makes some lives great it can make just as many not so great.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: WASTYT


So when someone proclaims "Science is awesome because it makes our lives so great!" I say there are two sides to every coin. Sure it gives us cool things like the hubble, HD TV and even a cure for cancer, but you have to accept that just as it makes some lives great it can make just as many not so great.

Indeed. And this is true of every human invention. Inanimate objects are morally neutral; it is the purpose to which they are turned that must be judged benign or malign.

But inventions are not science; they are technology. Technology proceeds from science, but the two are different. Science, as GetHyped pointed out, is simply a methodology for investigating nature. It is a way of increasing our knowledge of the world about us. I think the search for knowledge is, in itself, an entirely benign activity, no matter what the uses to which the knowledge is later put.

Moreover, there's no real point in discussing the morality of inquiry, because it is unstoppable. Curiosity is an itch humans are born with, part of our evolutionary heritage.

What kinds of society forbid people to exercise their natural curiosity? Theocractic dictatorships, absolute monarchies, Stalinist dictatorships — the most evilly repressive societies in the world. That should tell us something.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: WASTYT

The knowledge gained from the science as a whole is good, because the more we understand, the more beneficial technology and medicine can arise from it, regardless of how it is used. For example nuclear energy is crucial for power distribution all across the country. Unfortunately it can also be used to make nuclear bombs. The knowledge itself makes our lives better. And who knows? One day knowledge obtained through bio weapons research could save us from some kind of new disease. Now the way humans USE this knowledge is a completely different subject, but yes the knowledge gained from science is precisely what makes our lives much much better and it is now he staple of modern society. So to sum it up, science by itself is not good or evil, but the knowledge gained is good. They say the human race will not become truly enlightened until they have the capability to destroy the world at the push of a button, but choose not to.





new topics
top topics
 
23
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join