Religion Has Done More Bad Than Good

D

dpjones

Well-Known Member
I heard an interesting question to ask a Christian.

What would it take for you to stop believing?

The fact is most Christians wont accept that there is anything that will prove them wrong and thus they will never truly go into any argument with an open mind. This entire thread is completely pointless.
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
how do you decide right from wrong
Click to expand...
The same way chimps do.

They have a clear sense of it. They did this study:http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1959414

To study chimpanzees' propensity for punitive behavior, Jensen et al. (9) devised an ingenious experimental protocol in which one chimpanzee was given the opportunity to respond to the loss or inaccessibility of valued food items by pulling a rope that caused a platform to collapse and the food to fall out of reach. This setup allowed the researchers to examine how chimpanzees responded when food was inaccessible or taken away from them, how they responded to disparities in outcomes between themselves and others, and their sensitivity to the role others played in their losses.
Click to expand...
When the researcher would pull the food away the chimp would do nothing but watch the other chimp eat its food, but when the other chimp would pull the rope and essentially steal it away, the first chimp would pull its rope to knock everything over so that nobody got their food.


See this is where religion hurts us.

If we were able as a society to put more emphasis on studies like this, we may be able to actually get to the bottom of why some humans (ie Charles Manson) seem to have no right or wrong responses.

The religious reasoning is just not good enough. We need to realize that the old devil/god dynamic is as outdated as believing that rain gods get angry and don't give you rain until you sacrifice something to them.
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
some people think its ok to rape, is that clear sense ok with you?

I think its ok to smoke and grow weed does that make it ok?:bigjoint:
Click to expand...
Nope, but that is why we should have science looking into why these things occur. Religion just cops out on these difficult questions and tosses a devil in the mix. We need to use science to figure out the why, but with all the religious people pulling the strings in the government these things get pushed aside as ungodly and false.
 
fish601

fish601

Active Member
A 94- to 90-million-year-old Sphaerodactylus gecko is one of the proofs that living things never underwent evolution.
pic bottom​




The living fossils reveal that living things did not descend from one another in stages, nor have they evolved in any way. The fossil record provides no examples of intermediate forms. Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution​
 
N

Nocturn3

Well-Known Member
fish601 said:
It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution
Click to expand...
No it doesn't.
The term was first coined by Charles Darwin in his The Origin of Species, when discussing Ornithorhynchus (the platypus) and Lepidosiren (the South American lungfish):

... All fresh-water basins, taken together, make a small area compared with that of the sea or of the land; and, consequently, the competition between fresh-water productions will have been less severe than elsewhere; new forms will have been more slowly formed, and old forms more slowly exterminated. And it is in fresh water that we find seven genera of Ganoid fishes, remnants of a once preponderant order: and in fresh water we find some of the most anomalous forms now known in the world, as the Ornithorhynchus and Lepidosiren, which, like fossils, connect to a certain extent orders now widely separated in the natural scale. These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition.
Click to expand...
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
Here's the rub.....

Even if...... even if tomorrow, evolution was totally disproved, science would not have a melt down. Science would simply test this new data and if it said something different, and was repeatably verifiable with outside independent testing..... the new "theory" would be adopted.

Take that same scenario and put it in with Religion. Complete and TOTAL meltdown of followers would ensue. You'd all have to be rounded up and locked away.
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
The living fossils reveal that living things did not descend from one another in stages, nor have they evolved in any way. The fossil record provides no examples of intermediate forms. Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution
Click to expand...
This still is accounted for in evolution and disproves nothing!

Animal "Ax" mutates, mates with Animal "A" That baby is still animal "A" but carries a resessive trait. there are plenty of Animal A's out there that don't have it.

So later Animal "A" with ressesive trait mates with another that has the trait, and it is now Animal "Ax". This does not mean that animal "A" no longer exists, it just means that a new animal has been created, and every time it mates with another of its kind that gene pool continues. Now the "A"s don't disapear, or get bred out.

It is like a off shoot of a river, or a offshoot of a plant. The main stem can still be there even if another branches out.

Think Low stress training. The main stalk doesn't HAVE to go away.
 
fish601

fish601

Active Member
hanimmal said:
This still is accounted for in evolution and disproves nothing!

Animal "Ax" mutates, mates with Animal "A" That baby is still animal "A" but carries a resessive trait. there are plenty of Animal A's out there that don't have it.

So later Animal "A" with ressesive trait mates with another that has the trait, and it is now Animal "Ax". This does not mean that animal "A" no longer exists, it just means that a new animal has been created, and every time it mates with another of its kind that gene pool continues. Now the "A"s don't disapear, or get bred out.

It is like a off shoot of a river, or a offshoot of a plant. The main stem can still be there even if another branches out.

Think Low stress training. The main stalk doesn't HAVE to go away.
Click to expand...
so evolution only works sometimes?
 
hanimmal

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
so evolution only works sometimes?
Click to expand...
Exactly!

This is not a successful mutation:




Evolution is just a name for the process, it is not some design. If it is benefitial it will continue to be passed down to the next family member, until a cross is made and a new form of that animal takes place. It is not that it 'works' or dont really. Just that it happens.

It is not the same as saying the intelligent designer was wrong, that can only happen if it is someone pulling the strings.
 
fish601

fish601

Active Member
hanimmal said:
Exactly!

This is not a successful mutation:




Evolution is just a name for the process, it is not some design. If it is benefitial it will continue to be passed down to the next family member, until a cross is made and a new form of that animal takes place. It is not that it 'works' or dont really. Just that it happens.

It is not the same as saying the intelligent designer was wrong, that can only happen if it is someone pulling the strings.
Click to expand...
my bad what i ment to say is does evolution only occur in some animals.

if its not benefitial but they still mate and have offspring will it pass the negative mutation?
 
fish601

fish601

Active Member
hanimmal said:
Exactly!

This is not a successful mutation:




Evolution is just a name for the process, it is not some design. If it is benefitial it will continue to be passed down to the next family member, until a cross is made and a new form of that animal takes place. It is not that it 'works' or dont really. Just that it happens.

It is not the same as saying the intelligent designer was wrong, that can only happen if it is someone pulling the strings.
Click to expand...

i was just searching around tell me what you think about this.... is this true?

Mutations (DNA replication errors) are the result of DNA that is replicated with damage that passes on to the offspring. Mutations are very rare because of DNA checking and repair. However, one in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule can result in a mutation (error). The mutation changes are random, unpredictable errors that cause crippling diseases, loss of function and the destruction of the host person or animal. Mutations destroy the species. They do not improve the species.
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
Here is a very modern day example of mutation in FAVOR of man. Lactose intolerance is a very real problem for a percentage of the worlds population. Far more ppl however are not lactose intolerant.
Now tens of thousands of years ago, before we domesticated the cow (or equivalent depending on location) everybody was lactose intolerant to dairy animals. BUT a mutation occurred along the way...... a lactose tolerance built up in some ppl. This gave these ppl a distinct advantage over the intolerant ppl. They could get nourishment from a cow many times over and THEN butcher it for its meat, where as the intolerant could only butcher the animal right off. This mutation improved the overall health of the "tolerant" population and allowed that mutation to overcome the original "intolerant" population.
All things being equal, the advantage goes to the lactose mutation.
 
fish601

fish601

Active Member
CrackerJax said:
Here is a very modern day example of mutation in FAVOR of man. .
Now tens of thousands of years ago, before we domesticated the cow everybody was lactose intolerant to dairy animals. BUT a mutation occurred along the way...... .
Click to expand...

tens of thousands of years ago.. everyone was lactos intolerant to dairy,
and how do you know that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top