[Closed] Because it's been at least a week since the last religion thread...

I consider myself told. What though I am not sure. I'm still bummed the world is ending again this year....on my 30 th birthday

I'm still bummed the world is ending again this year....on my 30 th birthday

The world ends on everybody's 30th Birthday

Makes our state funded religious schools (CofE, Catholic etc) look positively benign doesn't it...

[edit]

[i]The world ends on everybody's 30th Birthday [/i]

or when you have children, whichever comes first.

American Fundamentalist Christians wouldn't be alone in not understanding evolution, most atheist rationalists don't understand it either.

But, given the massively overwhelming, peer reviewed evidence, we accept that it exists - I don't understand string theory, but it's a better hypothesis than 'fairies did it'.

This kind of shizzle always makes me think of Poe's Law.

"Any sufficiently advanced parody is indistinguishable from a genuine kook."

The world ends on everybody's 30th Birthday

I thought the common belief amongst scientists that veloceraptors evolved into chickens (I may not be absolutely on the right evolutionary path but you get the gist) so dinosaurs are all around us. Which means they are right, best get myself to chapel pdq!

But, given the evidence, we accept that it exists

I accept that it exists but I personally don't have any evidence for evolution, or rather that transmutation of species is driven by evolution or something similar to it. Within my lifetime I'm not aware that a new species has evolved, although I am aware of examples of variation, but then its not my business to know these things. For the vast majority of people all they require is a sufficient explanation for why things are how they are. 'Evolution did it' 'God did it', 'God did it using evolution' or 'Evolution did it, but I don't know what that is' are all sufficient if you don't happen to be an evolutionary biologist by trade.

But we do have evidence of evolution - the variation in species over recent generations is an undeniable fact. Google it, and have a read.
Even though it's not your business to know, or even be aware of these things, apparently.

Unlike the existence of any form of supernatural being or phenomena, for which no evidence has ever been provided.

Within my lifetime I'm not aware that a new species has evolved, but then its not my business to know these things.

I don't know how old you are, or what definition of species you are using, but certainly evolution has been recorded in some animals in my lifetime, including humans.

I don't think 'transmutation' is the right word here.

You don't need to be an evoultionary biologist to want a fuller explanation of that process. Look at how well books about evolution pitched at the scientific layman sell

certainly evolution has been recorded in some animals in my lifetime, including humans.

I liked the guy with the knives in his knuckles best.

I agree the variation happens, I'm just not aware of speciation occurring in our lifetime - variation where theres no reversion.

Google it, and have a read.

Google told me tap water is carcenogenic 🙂

The point is - I completely agree with you, I'm totally happy with evolution as a mechanism, even if I'm a bit dusty and out of date with my understanding. 'Evolution' is darwins trademark for his description for motor behind the Transmutation of species. I suspect if I was in the trade then I might not agree that the current science entirely matches his theory, I might theorise that collaboration, rathar than competition, was the drive, or that the environment, rather than its inhabitants drives transmutation. But I know I wouldn't understand the differences between Evolution as he described it and the current view.

Ah, the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide are well documented. Totally unrestricted compound yet the inhalation of even small quantities can cause death.

'Evolution' is darwins trademark for his description for motor behind the Transmutation of species

You're labouring under a common misconception here.

What Darwin described in 'On the Origin of Species' was the mechanism of evolution, namely natural selection.

You're right though to question that speciation is something that can be observed in human timescales.

[url= http://http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028184.300-lab-yeast-make-evolutionary-leap-to-multicellularity.html ]Umm evolution in the lab[/url]

To imply that evolution cannot be observed on the human timescale is demonstrably wrong. It may take many generations for a species to evolve but that doesn't mean that it takes a long time when compared with the human scale.

As for

American Fundamentalist Christians wouldn't be alone in not understanding evolution, most atheist rationalists don't understand it either.

Not understanding something is not the same as denying it. There are many physical phenomena that we don't fully understand (turbulent flow of liquid in pipes for example) but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen?

To imply that evolution cannot be observed on the human timescale is demonstrably wrong.

You'll note that I said speciation not evolution. Are these multi-cellular yeasts a new species? I'd imagine that's a moot point but happy to be corrected on that.

Religions only been around about a week right??

Examples of evolution are insects with natural resistance to insecticides, moving from a minor mutation within a species to the dominant group.

There are several examples of this happening in recent history.

To imply that evolution cannot be observed on the human timescale is demonstrably wrong. It may take many generations for a species to evolve but that doesn't mean that it takes a long time when compared with the human scale.

My point made for me - I believe it and don't understand. And it doesn't matter. It wouldn't matter more if I understood more and it wouldn't matter on the grand scale if I denied that it happens at all. I'm atheist and rational and it has no bearing on anything.

Examples of evolution are insects with natural resistance to insecticides, moving from a minor mutation within a species to the dominant group.

The classic example of evolution I was taught in school was the Peppered Moth and the industrial revolution - a minor mutation black variant becoming dominant on soot covered city trees. But with the clean air act the population has reverted.

If you remove the pesticide the population would revert and the resistance would revert to being a minor condition.

No it wouldn't, the genes that pass on the resistance are now dominant, there would have to be a reason to make them less able to survive.

The peppered moth didn't revert, it evolved again, clean air (or more accurately lack of black surfaces) meant the black variant was more visible to predators and therefore less likely to survive, the better camouflaged variant becomes dominant, evolution in action.

And you're certain that examples of the pre-industrial Pepper Moth, Industrial Peppered Moth and Post Industrial Peppered Moth couldn't interbreed?

the genes that pass on the resistance are now dominant

I don't think the black condition in moths was ever 'dominant' in the genetic sense, it was a recessive condition that existed prior to the industrial revolution.

There was mass use of DDT in the 40's and 50's to try and wipe out Malaria carrying mosquito's. It ended in the 60's, partly due to concerns over DDT, but mainly because mosquito's had become resistant to it. Mosquito's in the regions it was used are still resistant, 50 years later.

They evolved over 20 years, and have not reverted back. It takes something to push evolution, if there was a reason the resistance caused a weakness to another threat, it would die out.

For further information on this topic please read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Little or none god bashing involved, if that sort of thing bothers you.

Is that the autobiography of Mr Hunt?

No, Simmons..

Imagine my disappointment when I read 'Finnegan's Wake' and wasn't about Judy Finnegan and powerboats

I'm still bummed the world is ending again this year....on my 30 th birthday

Our local priest reckons everyone gets bummed on their birthday....

Anyone who thinks that there are still dinosaurs around should be thrown to the crocodil..

Never mind.

Move along here, nothing to see.

Yawn

1 out of 10, must try harder.

But, given the massively overwhelming, peer reviewed evidence, we accept that it exists - I don't understand string theory, but it's a better hypothesis than 'fairies did it'.

1)There's no evidence to support string theory either is there?
2) What do we not understand about turbulent flow in pipes?

Jesus was a Plesiosaur.

1)There's no evidence to support string theory either is there?

Anyone who believes in string theory must be as thick as two Planck lengths!

I'm staying out of this one, but I predict it'll go the usual way and end up with STW BH's slagging each other off after about three pages...

Have a nice day.

Arguing over religion is about as productive as believing in it....

This week I heard a friend's kid say 'Mummy, if god is so nice, why has he given me chicken pox?'

That's a tough one to answer!

It is hard to argue against evolution given the divergent evidence from multiple disciplines

It would require a leap of faith to do this

2) What do we not understand about turbulent flow in pipes?

We can't accurately model turbulent flow, only approximate it - there's currently no way to precisely predict when flow will change from laminar to turbulent, for example.

Arguing over religion is about as productive as believing in it....

Believing in it can be very productive - it can make people very happy. That is a good result. Of course it doesn't always, but there you go. Who was that philosopher who argued that things should be measured by how much happiness they brought to the most people?

EDIT: I am thinking of John Stuart Mill and utilitarianism

If we take away the suffering and death caused by religion from the sum of happiness do we get a positive or negative result?

Utilitarianism - John Sturat Mill and others

EDIT : Plagarist 😉

For clarity i answered his question and when i posted so had he

Taking heroin can make people very happy so can than the euphoria of Bio polar

No one is debating whether the followers like it and enjoy it but the issue is just whether it is true ...beleiveing in a lie is probably not helpful in th elong run given the impact religion has on your world view- see creationism for example

Good question RS. On the face of it, religion is responsible for many wars of course, but there are usually ethnic or territorial divisions as well. So even if both parties had the same religion there could have still been a conflict.

How many wars were fought on explicity theological grounds without any other factor? The English Civil War springs to mind. The oft-cited troubles in Northern Ireland do not qualify.

Taking heroin can make people very happy

Good example. It makes you very happy in the short term but it will most likely make you very unhappy indeed in the long run or even just when you are not currently high - plus it causes a lot of unhappiness for those around you. So the NET happiness of herion is almost certainly negative.

Religion, when not prosecuted by force, does not have these downsides.

beleiveing in a lie is probably not helpful in th elong run

Ooh, this is a good one. This is known as the blockbuster movie principle (in my head at least). That is, the assumption that truth is more important than anything else. Going back to the utilitarian principle, a 'white lie' might create a lot of happiness and if people continue to believe in it all their lives, have no real downside.