I noticed a lot of Republicans or "conservatives" don't believe in evolution. Why is that? Is there anybody here that doesn't believe in evolution?
Evolution and Republicans.
- Thread starter Patrick R.
- Start date
schenkadere
Obey my dog!
I don't think anyone can deny evolution...being that there's physical evidence and that plant and animal species continue to evolve...I think it's more that they want to thump the Bible and not refute Creation and Adam and Eve.
Jurched
Ask&YoullBeSorry
I don't believe in evolution. Everything I've been reading in Scientific American and TIME and other newsstand magazines lends the theory to the rubbish bin of stupidity.
Evolution is the creation myth of the atheist. Its shoved down the throats of sane and intelligent scientists like so much propaganda. Anyone in the scientific field who dares not believe in this myth gets punished! They lose their jobs, fail to get published, are made pariahs.
There is no need for evolution in science.
Tell me what advances in gene therapy have their origins in evolution? Tell me how evolution improved the flat screen tv? Or guided a missile to its target? Or led to the discovery of a superheavy element? Or a hidden particle?
Evolution is just an industry. Millions of dollars in grant money get shitted into deep space every year, as evolution nutjobs who'd otherwise be unemployed get paid to write fantasy articles on how triassic reptiles became jurassic dinosaurs.
I swear, I can't think of a more pointless and wasteful section of science than paleontolgy. Useless frauds and quacks, the lot of them! Stupid hippies better suited to strumming guitars outside the unemployment office than wearing a lab coat!
Evolution is a waste of time. A waste of resources. A complete lie. A brainwashing tool. A propaganda machine. A vise into which every respectable scientist must place his balls for safekeeping...
Jurched
Evolution is the creation myth of the atheist. Its shoved down the throats of sane and intelligent scientists like so much propaganda. Anyone in the scientific field who dares not believe in this myth gets punished! They lose their jobs, fail to get published, are made pariahs.
There is no need for evolution in science.
Tell me what advances in gene therapy have their origins in evolution? Tell me how evolution improved the flat screen tv? Or guided a missile to its target? Or led to the discovery of a superheavy element? Or a hidden particle?
Evolution is just an industry. Millions of dollars in grant money get shitted into deep space every year, as evolution nutjobs who'd otherwise be unemployed get paid to write fantasy articles on how triassic reptiles became jurassic dinosaurs.
I swear, I can't think of a more pointless and wasteful section of science than paleontolgy. Useless frauds and quacks, the lot of them! Stupid hippies better suited to strumming guitars outside the unemployment office than wearing a lab coat!
Evolution is a waste of time. A waste of resources. A complete lie. A brainwashing tool. A propaganda machine. A vise into which every respectable scientist must place his balls for safekeeping...
Jurched
My earlobes look just like my great grandfathers. I cannot believe in evolution if I am not evolving.
Where ya been Patrick? Good to see you.
I really wonder if Jurched believes what he is saying, many professors across the Western world don't believe in evolution, and many of them keep their jobs. Especially in the southern states of America, these southern boys really believe in a creator, and they are hostile to evolution and sometimes evolutionist are hostile to creationist. Not believing in evolution is one thing, but trying to distort evolution is another.
Take a look at who discovered the three-dimensional structure of DNA, James Watson and Francis Crick...Francis Crick was an evolutionist when he was alive and James Watson is an evolutionist. Genes are sequences of DNA molecules that are transcribed into RNA molecules, these RNA molecules are translated into the amino acids that make up a protein. The genetic code is universal with minor variations, between all organisms on earth. From bacteria, ants, elephants, all the way to humans. The scientist who cracked the genetic code assumed that the genetic code was universal by using evolutionary thinking, more specifically, universal common descent. They also predicted minor variations of the genetic code. These scientist include Francis Crick, Sydney Brenner, George Gamow.
Hinegardner, T. T., and Engelberg, J. (1963) "Rationale for a Universal Genetic Code." Science 142: 1083-1085.
Crick, F. H. C., Barnett, L., Brenner, S., and Watts-Tobin, R. J. (1961) "General nature of the genetic code for proteins." Nature 192:1227-1232.
Crick, F. H. C. and Orgel, L. E. (1973) "Directed panspermia." Icarus 19:341-346.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/medicine/genetherapy.shtml
Understanding the evolution of virus's is crucial to gene therapy, considering the fact that the virus's will be used to insert genetic material, in this case "therapeutic" genes. Retroviruses, such as HIV, insert their genetic material into their host cells. If this happens to sperm and egg cells, then this genetic material will be passed down to feature generations. Indeed, 1% of the human genome is consist of past retrovirus insertions into germ line cells. The genetic material of the retrovirus was inherited for generations, all the way to humans.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10655035?dopt=Abstract
All of this is outside of biology and evolutionary theory.
Phylogenetics is used to construct evolutionary relationships between organisms, it is far from fantasy. How else to you explain the similarity in bone structure between humans, cats, whales, etc, despite different functions? The similarity in structure is due to common ancestry and modification of these structures. This explains why whales, aquatic mammals, have many characteristics of terrestrial mammals. Their ancestors were terrestrial mammals so therefore then inherited these traits. It would be an advantage if whales could have gills given the fact that they live in the water, but they couldn't evolve gills, they could only modify what they were given to them my heredity...that is why they breath air.
How is it pointless to observe the fossil record of living and extinct species? Not to mention these techniques are also incorporated into forensic science.
This is a very complex brainwashing tool. In any case, you can believe in god and evolution. I personally believe that there is a "higher power", but I have no evidence to support it, so therefore it isn't scientific.
Jurched
Ask&YoullBeSorry
Patrick, you're interested in explaining "why things evolve" and my point is, its not necessary to even start explaining. I truly BELIEVE that the explanation serves no purpose to humanity except 1. as an atheist creation myth and 2. to provide jobs for scientists who are perhaps too lazy to compete for real jobs in their field.
Paleontologists, Cosmologists, and to some extent Geologists are a waste. Geologists at least have a real world purpose of studying strata for the purpose of finding mineral resources or identifying safe building ground. But most of them find it easier to apply for grant money for some paper on supercontinent formation during the Pre-Cambrian Era.
And cosmologists? No, they have even less purpose than the paleontologist. At least the paleontologist reproduces interesting dinosaur fossils for the kiddie museums.
But we love those wacky Cosmos and their big black holes, don't we? Everyone swoons over the latest dark matter theory, as though it has a personal impact on their lives. The Big Bang is as emotional to modern man as God breathing life into Adam was for our ancestors.
Physicists have become the new philosophers, even though a physicist or mathematician knows less about the human condition than what goes into a cup of tea. It cracks me up to see books like "Einstein's Philosophy on Life" and "What would Einstein do?" or questions people ask of Stephen Hawking about personal relationships. I mean, Einstein is the last guy I'd ask about life's problems. But he is a prophet of our age, as is Hawking. Both of them are like high priests.
So evolution is the creation myth of modern man, the scientists are the lofty priests and guardians of this cult, and the peer review is like a college of cardinals who ensure that any new paper by a scientist closely adheres to the strict orthodoxy of the scientific community.
Jurched
Paleontologists, Cosmologists, and to some extent Geologists are a waste. Geologists at least have a real world purpose of studying strata for the purpose of finding mineral resources or identifying safe building ground. But most of them find it easier to apply for grant money for some paper on supercontinent formation during the Pre-Cambrian Era.
And cosmologists? No, they have even less purpose than the paleontologist. At least the paleontologist reproduces interesting dinosaur fossils for the kiddie museums.
But we love those wacky Cosmos and their big black holes, don't we? Everyone swoons over the latest dark matter theory, as though it has a personal impact on their lives. The Big Bang is as emotional to modern man as God breathing life into Adam was for our ancestors.
Physicists have become the new philosophers, even though a physicist or mathematician knows less about the human condition than what goes into a cup of tea. It cracks me up to see books like "Einstein's Philosophy on Life" and "What would Einstein do?" or questions people ask of Stephen Hawking about personal relationships. I mean, Einstein is the last guy I'd ask about life's problems. But he is a prophet of our age, as is Hawking. Both of them are like high priests.
So evolution is the creation myth of modern man, the scientists are the lofty priests and guardians of this cult, and the peer review is like a college of cardinals who ensure that any new paper by a scientist closely adheres to the strict orthodoxy of the scientific community.
Jurched
T_man357
Locked & Loaded
That's called "Blind Faith" and that's the way that GOD wants it..
I don't think there's too much science involved with most religion (I could be wrong) But I've never tied my belief/faith in GOD with anything other than history.. But that's just me
And in reference to your question... No I don't believe in evolution.. I find no need to be angry or hostile to anyone who does as personal opinion and preference plays a huge factor in questions of this nature.
Arg_Hamster
Not quite done yet...
johnnieCzech
Your favourite Czech
T_man357
Locked & Loaded
johnnieCzech
Your favourite Czech
Like how we've come here and why we are here. You can only trust or believe or think that you know. But everything is just a theory made up by man.
Jurched
Ask&YoullBeSorry
Which takes us back to the myth, of course!
I tell you, my brother gets himself angry at me over this. He works himself up, turns red, and flatly declares that evolution is proven, and there is no need for discussion on the matter. When I disagree, he refers to creationism as total religious stupidity, and its believers are blind idiots, even though I never mention creationism or its adherents. He simply assumes that disbelief in evolution means one is totally sold to Southern Baptist influence.
Kind of reminds me of Algore preaching to us: "The verdict is in. The discussion is over. There can be no more debate. Global warming is real. It is the truth. I am here to save you from yourselves. Worship me as a god, and don't question my findings, or I'll fucking slash your career in the scientific field."*
*Well, he didn't say that, but some of his followers have, and I get the gist of their message.
Jurched
It isn't the job of science to prove anything, science give overwhelming evidence in favor of certain ideas. Scientific theories must withstand evaluation. Sometimes theories are refuted, sometimes they aren't. The same applies to evolution and how populations of organisms evolve. Humans have the ability to figure things out, with the scientific method, developed by Karl Popper, this can help us with figure out natural phenomenon.
Jurched
Ask&YoullBeSorry
That's an idealistic portrayal of the scientific method, Patrick. My problem with modern science, at least the part that hinges on origins, is that orthodoxy counts for more than discovery. A great deal of scientists are as hard-headed as my nonscientist brother when it comes to things "being a certain way." I was criticising peer review earlier, and I've read some serious allegations by scientists who've found themselves either censored or outright blacklisted by their peers during the review process because their conclusions were not of the right "correctness." Meaning scientific PC, I guess. That sort of thing bothers me. Scientists always swear their field is forever changing and nothing is concrete, but they fight changes like its death itself. They fear that the last couple of articles they published in an unread journal will become obsolete before they die, I suppose!
Its not just in classic science, though. I've followed the tribulations of historical revisionists who attempted to fiddle with the carefully delineated timelines of ancient Egypt. Apparently, though, the fossils who guard Egyptian orthodoxy have blacklisted all attempts to correct many problems with Egypt's timeline, because presumably it would also make all theiressays and books obsolete.
In a nut shell, our intellectuals are more interested in defending their property than advancing the cause of science.
Jurched
Arg_Hamster
Not quite done yet...
amaranth24
Ya Yellow Rat Bastid!!!
We're all Aliens from another planet. And we're waiting for the spaceship to return, so we can be reunited with Elvis.
My answer is, I am not sure what to believe. I'm not a big believer in the bible, because it was written by man. And, how can scientists be so sure about what happened millions of years ago? I know scientists have made tons of discoveries and breakthroughs throughout the years, but who's to say that their concept of evolution won't change in 20, 30, 40, or even 50 years? My dad said when he was growing up during the 1950's & 60's, that scientists said we're headed for another Ice Age, now modern day scientists say we're in global warming.
My answer is, I am not sure what to believe. I'm not a big believer in the bible, because it was written by man. And, how can scientists be so sure about what happened millions of years ago? I know scientists have made tons of discoveries and breakthroughs throughout the years, but who's to say that their concept of evolution won't change in 20, 30, 40, or even 50 years? My dad said when he was growing up during the 1950's & 60's, that scientists said we're headed for another Ice Age, now modern day scientists say we're in global warming.
Arg_Hamster
Not quite done yet...
The evolution theory isn´t a finished and absolute truth. That´s what I like about it. It´s just a way to look at fossils and living creatures and figure out who came first and who could be related to who. Scientists are people too and I can understand someone gets upset when someone begs to differ, be it a scientist, journalist, priest, mullah or Chuck Norris. They have spent a couple of years trying their ideas and someone say they have wrong. In science people are supposed to question and think for themselves. Eaven the ones who doesn´t care for that particular theory at all. In the end the scientific theories are more interesting to me.
I´ve never liked blind faith but that´s what you must accept if you say you´re a follower of the abrahamitic religions. The word of your god (the truth) is in the book. Why did god leave so much out of it? Like Bill Hicks said "Dinosaur fossils? God put them here to test our faith."
Let´s face it, if I wrote the bible today and sent it to a publisher I would have been a big fucking joke. "Okay, what´s up with the Angry God Syndrome?", "So he kills egyptians who didn´t have anything to do with the slavery?", "Noah must have been a filthy fucker, or otherwise the crabs would have been extinct.", "Jonah was swallowed by a whale? He´s gonna need a bigger boat." They´d probably make a Jim Carrey-movie from it.
But I do like Hanuman. I hope he is god. Him or Mr. Jim -the international businessman.
I´ve never liked blind faith but that´s what you must accept if you say you´re a follower of the abrahamitic religions. The word of your god (the truth) is in the book. Why did god leave so much out of it? Like Bill Hicks said "Dinosaur fossils? God put them here to test our faith."
Let´s face it, if I wrote the bible today and sent it to a publisher I would have been a big fucking joke. "Okay, what´s up with the Angry God Syndrome?", "So he kills egyptians who didn´t have anything to do with the slavery?", "Noah must have been a filthy fucker, or otherwise the crabs would have been extinct.", "Jonah was swallowed by a whale? He´s gonna need a bigger boat." They´d probably make a Jim Carrey-movie from it.
But I do like Hanuman. I hope he is god. Him or Mr. Jim -the international businessman.
schenkadere
Obey my dog!
Similar threads
