The Delusional Question - Is It Necessary To Question the Origin of Life?

[GCT]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pew/63rejectdarwinstheoryofevolution;_ylt=An8rzCf84KVpYf08mAMFUO8DW7oF

After all of these years ... Perhaps what we are witnessing is the exhibition of " an evolutionary trait " deemed as common sense.

Really - why do some scientist believe that there is an urgent need for the people to believe in evolution?

If there really was a need to adopt Christianity or disbelieve it then all of the people that reject this would adopt evolution. The truth is that there is no such dilemna.

Do all people who do not believe in evolution adopt Christianity?

Perhaps - I claim - Believing in evolution is not necessary as much as believing in Christianity is not necessary.

To summarize elegantly ... what in the f*** is the big deal if people do not believe in evolution or even reject it? Are they going to become Christians?

Is it necessary to question the origin of life?

Science is not about believing , if people do not fully comprehend evolution there is no need to believe it and this includes everyone besides those that are continuously involved in its study e.g. People in other sciences do not need to believe in evolution. So why do some people claim that there is a need for the scientific community to more or less blindly support evolution?

 

[Evo]

There is no problem if a person does not understand or believe in evolution. When a group of people try to replace teaching the theory of evolution with something that has already been disproved, such as the Earth being 6 thousand years old, that all humans and animals just suddenly appeared as they are now, etc...etc...well, that is a problem because it simply isn't true.

 

[Cyrus]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pew/63rejectdarwinstheoryofevolution;_ylt=An8rzCf84KVpYf08mAMFUO8DW7oF

After all of these years ... Perhaps what we are witnessing is the exhibition of " an evolutionary trait " deemed as common sense.

Really - why do some scientist believe that there is an urgent need for the people to believe in evolution?

If there really was a need to adopt Christianity or disbelieve it then all of the people that reject this would adopt evolution. The truth is that there is no such dilemna.

Do all people who do not believe in evolution adopt Christianity?

Perhaps - I claim - Believing in evolution is not necessary as much as believing in Christianity is not necessary.

To summarize elegantly ... what in the f*** is the big deal if people do not believe in evolution or even reject it? Are they going to become Christians?

Is it necessary to question the origin of life?

Science is not about believing , if people do not fully comprehend evolution there is no need to believe it and this includes everyone besides those that are continuously involved in its study e.g. People in other sciences do not need to believe in evolution. So why do some people claim that there is a need for the scientific community to more or less blindly support evolution?

For a lack of a better word, this post is ignorant. How do you get a science award when posting such, well...garbage?

Your source is yahoo news...lovely.

 

[waht]

From sociology, and psychology people tend to get along with one another if have the same beliefs in anything. Even if it means going to through some arbitrary rituals, people will go great lengths to fit in, or will be fitted in by strong social pressure.

 

[Gokul43201]

Science is not about believing , if people do not fully comprehend evolution there is no need to believe it and this includes everyone besides those that are continuously involved in its study e.g. People in other sciences do not need to believe in evolution.

Too true. I've tried convincing the biologists in the neighboring building that they have no reason to believe in electronics and quantum mechanics. Heck, they are not continuously involved in the study of these fields. But I've had no luck so far. They seem to like their mass specs too much.

 

[GCT]

For a lack of a better word, this post is ignorant. How do you get a science award when posting such, well...garbage?

Your source is yahoo news...lovely.

Well be the " better man " by posting an explanation or shut the hell up. Why is it garbage? I got the science award for my share of appreciable advice given to the Chemistry subforum - do your research , criticize some of my actual scientific content ... stop criticizing the scientist as a layman.

My original post concerns all of the paranoia that people have about Christianity taking over if evolution does not become the " predominant theory ". My claim is that people are going to believe in Christianity regardless of anything else and that emphasizing evolution in comparison is simply going to make it worse. If you do not have the capability to understand this do not respond to this post ... you wretched syncophant.

 

[Cyrus]

Well be the " better man " by posting an explanation or shut the hell up. Why is it garbage? I got the science award for my share of appreciable advice given to the Chemistry subforum - do your research , criticize some of my actual scientific content ... stop criticizing the scientist as a layman.

My original post concerns all of the paranoia that people have about Christianity taking over if evolution does not become the " predominant theory ". My claim is that people are going to believe in Christianity regardless of anything else and that emphasizing evolution in comparison is simply going to make it worse. If you do not have the capability to understand this do not respond to this post ... you wretched syncophant.

Let me ask you this. Are you saying its ok for the populace to be ignorant on known scientific issues simply because they don't use it day-to-day? -That's how I interpreted what you wrote.

If this is the case, I would suggest you read the following book:

Science and Technology in World History. McClellan, Dorn.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801858690/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Now, you say the following:

Really - why do some scientist believe that there is an urgent need for the people to believe in evolution?

And in your link, it clearly states:

A similar Pew Research Center poll, released in August 2005, found that 64% of Americans support teaching creationism alongside evolution in the classroom.

How you do not see this as a problem is beyond me.

Additionally,

Really - why do some scientist believe that there is an urgent need for the people to believe in evolution?

Who are 'some scientists'? You provided no such names.

If there really was a need to adopt Christianity or disbelieve it then all of the people that reject this would adopt evolution. The truth is that there is no such dilemna.

'The truth is'? What truth did you demonstrate? I don't see any truth here.

My claim is that people are going to believe in Christianity regardless of anything else and that emphasizing evolution in comparison is simply going to make it worse.

I don't know what facts you have to back that claim. Do you have any?

In all honesty, this whole thread is knee jerk to a Yahoo article you read. Please present a real argument if you're going to complain. I said it once, and i'll say it again. This thread is a nonsense. Repost this thread after you have read the book.

 

[GCT]

There is no problem if a person does not understand or believe in evolution. When a group of people try to replace teaching the theory of evolution with something that has already been disproved, such as the Earth being 6 thousand years old, that all humans and animals just suddenly appeared as they are now, etc...etc...well, that is a problem because it simply isn't true.

You are right - it isn't true ... what evidence do they have for advocating for such a theory? They are not believing in it for the evidence , they have other incentives for believing. My claim is that the scientsts and the " evolutionists " are feeding their delusions since by countering they are merely connecting the Christian community and their theory to the possibility of scientific relevance.

 

[GCT]

Let me ask you this. Are you saying its ok for the populace to be ignorant on known scientific issues simply because they don't use it day-to-day? -That's how I interpreted what you wrote.

If this is the case, I would suggest you read the following book:

Science and Technology in World History. McClellan, Dorn.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801858690/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I'm going to read it.

What is the opposite of ignorance with respect to understanding evolution? Do all people who proclaim evolution have a full understanding of it? Would you deem these people as " not ignorant " ? People do not understand Quantum Mechanics - as Gokul mentioned - and for those who do not they choose not to proclaim it ... this is common sense. Is evolution such a simple topic that the majority are simply able to " choose " it and to " not be ignorant " of it?

People who randomly believe in evolution are endeavoring in the same pursuit as the Christians simply because they do not really understand what they believe. I just do not understand why Christians are able to influence some people into believing that they have the ability " erase " evolution.

 

[Cyrus]

Do all people who proclaim evolution have a full understanding of it?

Why does this matter?

Would you deem these people as " not ignorant " ?

Being informed by someone who is well respected in a field makes one have a conceptual understanding. They are not ignorant, but they are also not experts in that field. You as a chemist, should already know this basic principle.

People do not understand Quantum Mechanics - as Gokul mentioned - and for those who do not they choose not to proclaim it ... this is common sense. Is evolution such a simple topic that the majority are simply able to " choose " it and to " not be ignorant " of it?

What you did was switch two words. Proclaim and believe. I can proclaim to not understand quantum mechanics. That's not the same statement as saying I don't believe in it. I have no idea why you are using the two words interchangeably.

People who randomly believe in evolution are endeavoring in the same pursuit as the Christians simply because they do not really understand what they believe. I just do not understand why Christians are able to influence some people into believing that they have the ability " erase " evolution.

Define 'randomly', this is a meaningless statement.

 

[moe darklight]

Sorry Cyrus, but I think it's you who's being ridiculous. I've met plenty holier-than-thou evolution supporters who don't have the slightest understanding of what evolution is.

In that case, I'd rather people claim ignorance (and, in an ideal world, do some actual reading on the subject and make up their own mind). I find blind evolution-zombies as harmful (and, frankly, irritating) as creationists. They are just two sides of the same coin, and any sort of intelligent discussion of the subject is impossible with either.

The real solution is proper education; this leads people to understand evolution, not "believe" in evolution. That's just silly.

That the majority of Americans don't believe in evolution is not a sign that we need to go out there and bash them over the head with pro-evolution propaganda until they "believe" it. It's a sign that schools are not educating students properly, that people don't understand evolutionary principles; that's where the solution lies.

And yes, I say propaganda. I've seen plenty of pro-evolutionary spokesmen who treat the matter as if it's a freaking crusade... jees, great job! so you've turned a handful of uneducated creationists into a handful of uneducated darwin-zombies.
The irony of course, is that these are the types who tend to be the most hostile and arrogant, and end up turning a lot of people off science.

 

[rcgldr]

The origin of life on Earth, is a separate issue from evolution. Regarding the origin of life on earth, there doesn't seem to be any consensus on this, other than it appears that life was present relatively soon after the Earth cooled enough to allow life to exist.

One question seems to be the complexity of the simplest possible life form appearing, in an environment where life could be created and sustained (what did the first life forms use for food?), in the relatively short period of time.

Then again, the origin of the universe theories seems equally challenging, and yet we're here and now.

On the side topic of evolution, how can anyone know if it's random, something specific to living things in general, or pre-programmed? Embryology is a good example of how sophisticated the programming is, where a single cell multiplies and grows into a specific living thing, where the time and location of the events in the process are crictical, and yet rarely fail.

If a single embryonic cell can "evolve" into a complex organism, then couldn't it also be possible that every living species was the result of a pre-programmed sequence in the reproductive cycle of every living organism tracing back to some original "mother of all things" cell, or at least included programming in the nature of all living things that results in the creation of new species after so many cycles of reproduction?

Is evolution a flaw or a feature of living things? Would "feature" imply some sort of design, perhaps intelligent?

 

[w3390]

Questioning the origin of life is what allows us to make progress in science. Questioning is a sign of intrinsic motivation which is what is needed to make progress.

 

[w3390]

One question seems to be the complexity of the simplest possible life form appearing, in an environment where life could be created and sustained (what did the first life forms use for food?), in the relatively short period of time.

Then again, the origin of the universe theories seems equally challenging, and yet we're here and now.

What do you mean what did the first life forms use for food? Obviously these organisms were living there because the food they needed was there. It is not as if they introduced into an environment with no means of food. The simplest forms of life formed because of what was already there.

 

[rcgldr]

Obviously these organisms were living there because the food they needed was there. It is not as if they introduced into an environment with no means of food.

Why not? They simply would have been created and died, perhaps become the future food source for living things created later on.

 

[Cyrus]

Sorry Cyrus, but I think it's you who's being ridiculous. I've met plenty holier-than-thou evolution supporters who don't have the slightest understanding of what evolution is.

In that case, I'd rather people claim ignorance (and, in an ideal world, do some actual reading on the subject and make up their own mind). I find blind evolution-zombies as harmful (and, frankly, irritating) as creationists. They are just two sides of the same coin, and any sort of intelligent discussion of the subject is impossible with either.

The real solution is proper education; this leads people to understand evolution, not "believe" in evolution. That's just silly.

That the majority of Americans don't believe in evolution is not a sign that we need to go out there and bash them over the head with pro-evolution propaganda until they "believe" it. It's a sign that schools are not educating students properly, that people don't understand evolutionary principles; that's where the solution lies.

And yes, I say propaganda. I've seen plenty of pro-evolutionary spokesmen who treat the matter as if it's a freaking crusade... jees, great job! so you've turned a handful of uneducated creationists into a handful of uneducated darwin-zombies.
The irony of course, is that these are the types who tend to be the most hostile and arrogant, and end up turning a lot of people off science.

I don't disagree with anything you have said here. In fact, I said the same thing. If you notice the quote I made from the article provided in the first post, it says specifically americans wanting evolution and creationism taught side by side.

What is totally unacceptable, and hence my rude comment to the OP, is when a well-educated scientist makes a statement that it's ok for the general public to be ignorant on scientific issues. This is *not* ok, and it is exactly the problem. Most people don't understand basic science, and turn to hokus pokus misticism and holistic trash, creationism. The list goes on...

Essentially, what the book I linked to explains is that the *only* way societies have expanded, become more powerful and have enjoyed better living conditions is through the understanding and use of science and technology. Ignorance marks the death of a society -every time.

Don't want to learn about evolution? Don't worry...India, China, and Europe will learn about it. And given enough time and public support will outpace us in research. But hey, no one needs to use it. So, what does it matter anyways... The correct answer is the public needs to be well informed in the leading edge topics of science (all topics) and make and vote into legislation informed decisions so that things like Nuclear power don't become jaded thanks to hippie groups. So stem cell research isn't stopped by the religious right, creationism isn't taught in schools, global warming isn't a big myth, add more to the list you deem necessary (there are many).

your job is to inform the public and to make sure they stay well informed. I hold the same standards for people like Finance, Arts, Music. All things we don't see in our culture and are dying.