Religious will be a global minority by 2025

reply to post by jonnywhite


Some places in the world are ahead of the curve

I remember cycling around where I lived one Sunday back in the eighties and going through one of the older villages in the area I passed a bunch of people actually going into a church, I was about 13 or 14 and it was the first time I ever saw such a thing

Where I lived nobody not friends or family or neighbours were religious or did church, so seeing some people actually doing it was astonishing to me


metro.co.uk...

I think what’s happening is that the kids just aren’t falling for the religious thing anymore and as the current crop of grannies die off so will religion

Originally posted by alienreality
reply to post by Barcs

 

According to a leading anthropologist, man didn't evolve from apes at all.. This doesn't mean that evolution didn't happen, but it didn't happen the way you think it did.. Nothing has ever been proven as far as absolutes..

New study refutes man from apes.

Another..another one..

This study isn't proven either, but then there never was any real proof of anything before either..

This does illustrate that everything you think you know, is probably wrong!

No offense but an anthropologist is probably the last person I'd consult in regards to biology and genetics. Unfortunately I cannot view the video at work, but I can see the science news link. Here's the issue with the ape argument from what I've seen. Humans did not evolve from apes. That is a common misconception. When you look at apes 7+ million years ago they were different. Humans and great apes share a common "ape-like" ancestor. It's not an ape and its not a human. It's something else. Humans didn't evolve from apes and apes certainly didn't evolve from humans. Humans didn't exist 7 million years ago, and neither did the 'homo' genus. To claim apes evolved from humans is silly. You could say a "human like" or "ape-like" ancestor, but to say one came from the other is not logical in the least. The homo genus has only been around for 2.5-3 million years tops.

In order to make a claim as that guy is, we would need to find fossils of 7 million year old homo sapiens (or even members of the homo genus). Unfortunately that is not the case, although it's really just semantics when you argue who evolved from who. The real answer is they share a common ancestor, regardless if it was more human like or ape like. Either way the theory of evolution is still sound.

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by Barcs

 

Evolution has not been proven . There is no such claim been made that Evolution is fact . Secondly I could care less what skulls are compared to another . The science community has not made the claim that evolution is a fact . And the claim that we evolved from a single celled amoeba would mean that we would have actually lost DNA data as man has a less intricate DNA structure . Where was the food source for that cell ?
This is a religion blog not a science quiz . Where did this evolving germ come from ? If you can't answer that you can't be sure about it evolving .

I just gave you a link with 29 separate proofs for evolution. Of course you instantly dismissed it without even reading, typical creationist tactics. Scientific theories are not made about imaginary concepts. If there is not enough evidence to suggest the concept exists, it will be a hypothesis. To become a scientific theory, there must be objective evidence behind it. Modern synthesis as a process is absolutely a fact. Evolution = genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. Which one of those is false? We may not know every single detail about every little thing and every single species to ever walk the earth, but the process in itself can be measured and gene changes can be tracked. We can map genomes and measure genetic mutations from parent to offspring. How do you think we linked Neanderthal DNA to our own? Genetic mutations are proven 100%. Natural selection has also been observed and experimented with. It is absolutely a verifiable fact of nature. If you are trying to suggest the science behind evolution is wrong, you need to address that science itself, instead if of speculating about stuff that is completely irrelevant. But in reality we all know you've never touched a real science book or done a ounce of research on evolution besides on lying creationist websites. How can you say that man has a less intricate cell structure than cells from 3 billion years ago when we don't have any evidence of ancient DNA / cell structure? That's a complete guess, and a completely illogical one at that. If life started simple and slowly became more complex over time, then it makes sense that the cellular structure would become more complex as well over time.

reply to post by Barcs


I think I found SimonPeter on you tube.
Here is a very accurate video on creation/evolution arguments. And the pain involved arguing with creationists.

reply to post by flyingfish




That was dead on. Ah man, I need to take a break from this so I can avoid bashing my head into the wall. I'm tired of being that guy on the right. At least the amount of people like this has indeed declined over the years. I give props to all the kids that can break the cycle of indoctrination. It's difficult to do when you have certain things pounded into your head as facts at young impressionable ages. The dark ages mentality with science should have ended in the dark ages. But heck, there are still people out there who believe the world is flat so se la vi.