Evolution is a hoax

[scutfargus]

Because I am a conservative and a Christian, I have had several people accuse me of being brainwashed, unable to think for myself, and one who simply spouts whatever I am told (like there is some guy standing over my shoulder telling me what religious or conservative things to say).

I think it is quite the opposite. I think that many of those with liberal leanings are the ones who are the ones who are, in many cases (not all), brainwashed. It has already been shown that the majority of the televised news media has a liberal slant, so, it would make sense that is how many people would lean in their thinking. It is more of a matter of, they hear a point of view so often, that they just believe it, without questioning it.

For an example of this, let me offer evolution. I suspect that almost every person here believes in evolution (or a creation by God wherein God used evolution). This is not because you have studied the evidence but because you have heard it again and again and again from a very young age, so you simply believe it.

[eagle]

Because I am a conservative and a Christian, I have had several people accuse me of being brainwashed, unable to think for myself, and one who simply spouts whatever I am told (like there is some guy standing over my shoulder telling me what religious or conservative things to say).

I think it is quite the opposite. I think that many of those with liberal leanings are the ones who are the ones who are, in many cases (not all), brainwashed. It has already been shown that the majority of the televised news media has a liberal slant, so, it would make sense that is how many people would lean in their thinking. It is more of a matter of, they hear a point of view so often, that they just believe it, without questioning it.

For an example of this, let me offer evolution. I suspect that almost every person here believes in evolution (or a creation by God wherein God used evolution). This is not because you have studied the evidence but because you have heard it again and again and again from a very young age, so you simply believe it.

Not me !!!! I believe that man popped up all of a sudden cause god wanted to be amused at how stupid animals(humans are animals too ) can screw up a whole planet and Eco system. What a warped sense of humour for a creator being huh!! of course it just my opinion no scientific evidence just faith

[scutfargus]

[Not me !!!! I believe that man popped up all of a sudden cause god wanted to be amused at how stupid animals(humans are animals too ) can screw up a whole planet and Eco system. What a warped sense of humour for a creator being huh!! of course it just my opinion no scientific evidence just faith

I think I can handle a little sarcasm. So, you believe all of the scientific evidence is on the side of evolution? Can I safely state that is your position?

[funfarang]

GOD is an HOAX.

[eagle]

[Not me !!!! I believe that man popped up all of a sudden cause god wanted to be amused at how stupid animals(humans are animals too ) can screw up a whole planet and Eco system. What a warped sense of humour for a creator being huh!! of course it just my opinion no scientific evidence just faith

I think I can handle a little sarcasm. So, you believe all of the scientific evidence is on the side of evolution? Can I safely state that is your position?

I think man is too feeble to understand

especially the ones who write long books about it

[killerflix]

evolution do exist as an important natural phenomena, but hardly a rigid one-directional progress, neither is it applies to everything, everytime and certainly isn't the answer for all questions regarding biology. By the way the more you believe in evolution the more you should be wondering why so little of it pertain to humans.

[funfarang]

humans created what they call God , not the other way around .

[Laurence]

You are making basic mistakes. Evolution is a theory and as such can't be proven but supported by evidences. Moreover science is not about belief but about theories and hypothesis supported by evidences. As such you should not ask whether some of us believe in evolution but rather ask whether some of us agree or accept that life has been exisiting for billions of years, constantely changing over time. An interesting thought concern the definition of Evolution as such. Most of us are getting confused as they define the starting point of evolution from the Big Bang. Evolution begins with biological organisms but doesn't intend to explain how organic chemicals made the transition to what we classify as life.

Proper understanding of evolution theory helped solved huge biological problems such as diseases and viruses that impact your life and the life of your kids. It should be good enough for most of us.

As a conservative and a christian you might not be sastified with science since it goes against the basic principle of faith being an explanation to all phenomenom and an unquestionable proof of everything. I suggest you question the reason why your religion has been trying to lure humanity for centuries by saying the earth is flat and indulging physical and mental pain to those who dared to say otherwise eventhough they had supporting evidences.

[CiaranM]

For an example of this, let me offer evolution. I suspect that almost every person here believes in evolution (or a creation by God wherein God used evolution). This is not because you have studied the evidence but because you have heard it again and again and again from a very young age, so you simply believe it.

ok. u prove to me god exists and i'll prove the theory of evolution

[scutfargus]

If inculcation had been a factor in the formulation of my present theological belief system, I would surely believe in creationism. Your assertion, in my experience, is far better applied to doubters of evolution than it is to those who believe it to be fact. To claim that most people in any given group of religious proclivities unknown to you have arrived at their various beliefs by way of something other than personal discovery is like the pot calling the kettle black--high-handed zealotry in its blindest manifestation.

Had inculcation been a factor in what I believe, I would believe that God created man from primates, after a slow process.

[scutfargus]

Here is one place to begin. There is a fairly simple exponential equation which is used for population growth, and most high school students who have taken Algebra II or Pre-Calculus have been exposed to it.

Pt = Poe^(kt)

As soon as they built the library near my classroom, I taught my students how the mathematically solve this equations using natural logarithms and explained how this equation could go forward and backward in time. That is, we can use it to estimate when the world will reach a population of 10 billion (for instance) and we can also use it to go backwards in time in order to figure out when were there, say, 10 people on this earth.

The students could use world population figures from any time frame. The further apart the figures, the more accurate the estimation (as a myriad of population trends would be taken into consideration). Figures taken on both sides of the Dark Ages (which are, of course, estimations) would produce an abnormally long period of time for looking backward to our earliest ancestors.

I want you to know, first of all, I had no idea as to the outcome. As a teacher, I never felt I had to know the answer in order to ask the question (which some teachers believe is necessary). I let the chips fall where they may.

In maybe 15 years of doing this, with advanced students, we always came to the same results: man's population on this earth goes back anywhere from 2000 to 25,000 years (I told you, this would be an estimate).

I have, by manipulating the figures to get an extremely long view, can push this back, mathematically speaking, to 50,000 years (that would be the greatest period of time).

No way can we push back the population of man to 1,000,000 years, which is the estimation which evolutionists put on the age of man.

By the way, if you send me a private email, I can give a full document which explains this...but it won't make much sense unless you understand logarithms.

By the way, there is someone else who believes that man's time on this earth is relatively recent? I did not expect that.

[funfarang]

damn !! and you are teaching kids? thats indoctrinement .

let me tell you one thing , we didn't pop out of nowhere, one day in the garden of eden, Eve did not really come come Adam's rib and women do not give birth in pain because the ***** took a bite in the knowlege's apple .

its all symbolic , yet people like you who have no common sense take it for granted because its written ( in a book that has been written by people, not by god) . like if Jesus was the son of god and his mother a virgin? like if maria magdalena was really a prostitute and was not married with the christ.

jesus has been proclaimed son of god only 300 years after his death . he never claimed to be such. he was just the leader of a philosophic club.

yet your religion claims that it is all made from "GOD" , the bible is a pile of crap if you misinterpret it .

now look at a piece of cheese that you leave out of the fridge , when it turns blue with fongus , do you really think its because god snapped his fingers saying " fongus , appear now" ?

how can people be so gullible ? life on earth is not like a video game , its all about slow evolution

[scutfargus]

As a conservative and a christian you might not be sastified with science since it goes against the basic principle of faith being an explanation to all phenomenom and an unquestionable proof of everything. I suggest you question the reason why your religion has been trying to lure humanity for centuries by saying the earth is flat and indulging physical and mental pain to those who dared to say otherwise eventhough they had supporting evidences.

Let me disabuse you of some of your notions here. First, when Columbus sailed the ocean blue, it was because he believed the earth to be round, and not flat. He just had no idea just how large the world is.

In about 300 BC, not only did the Greeks know that the world was round, but they knew roughly the circumference of the earth. When I taught students about congruent alternate interior angles in geometry, I would show them just exactly how the Greeks made this calculation.

Isaiah, who was a prophet in the Old Testament, referred to the earth as a sphere and this would have been around 700 BC. Also, the earth is said to be hung upon nothing, which, if memory serves, comes from the psalms, written about 1000 BC.

Many of the world's great scientists were Christians, by the way. There is no dispute between science and Christianity; the problem is that evolution is not scientific in any sense.

[scutfargus]

damn !! and you are teaching kids? thats indoctrinement .

let me tell you one thing , we didn't pop out of nowhere, one day in the garden of eden, Eve did not really come come Adam's rib and women do not give birth in pain because the b*tch took a bite in the knowlege's apple .

its all symbolic , yet people like you who have no common sense take it for granted because its written ( in a book that has been written by people, not by god) . like if Jesus was the son of god and his mother a virgin? like if maria magdalena was really a prostitute and was not married with the christ.

jesus has been proclaimed son of god only 300 years after his death . he never claimed to be such. he was just the leader of a philosophic club.

yet your religion claims that it is all made from "GOD" , the bible is a pile of crap if you misinterpret it .

now look at a piece of cheese that you leave out of the fridge , when it turns blue with fongus , do you really think its because god snapped his fingers saying " fongus , appear now" ?

how can people be so gullible ? life on earth is not like a video game , its all about slow evolution

You sound awfully upset for a person who claims to be a funfarang. I'd hate to meet your brother, the slightlydisturbed and pissedofffarang.

At a later date, I'll correct you on your notions about Jesus; however, the problem was pretty much the opposite of what you described. Men of His era did not believe that He was fully man; we feel just the opposite today. But we will save your misconceptions about Jesus for another time.

There was a class held each semester at a California university (I believe in San Diego, but I am not positive). It was a class on origins taught by both evolutionists and those who believe in intelligent design. The evolutionists were given a few more classes to teach, because, of course, they were teaching science and the intelligent design teachers were just offering up a religious theory. However, when the class was completed, it turned out that more people believed in creationism at the end of the semester than at the beginning. Well, this is not the result that the university wanted, so over the next few years, the number of class periods given over to the creationists was reduced. In fact, in the final semester this class was offered, the creationists were given only two class periods to offer their evidence; the evolutionists were given all of the other class periods. End result? More people believed in creationism at the end of the semester than at the beginning. These are university students we are talking about.

Is everything you disagree with "indoctrination" ?

I guess you did not read what I told you about my students. I gave them the population equation, found in EVERY college algebra, EVERY Pre-Calculus, EVERY Calculus and EVERY Algebra 2 book, I showed them how to work it and how to solve it; I let them go to the library; I let THEM pick out their own figures from almanacs, the internet, or wherever; and I let THEM solve the equation. I guess that is indoctrination that they came up with a solution that you don't like?

And let me remind you...the first time I did this, I did not know what kinds of answers they would come up with. I didn't work it out before hand. I did that on occasion as it made my job more fun. Like the time I gave my students a math problem that two honors teachers could not solve. I did not have a solution for it either, prior to giving them the problem to work out. Does that sound like indoctrination to you? Sometime you will have to explain to me slowly how a math teacher indoctrinates his students. I'll take a few notes.

[scutfargus]

Maybe I was just a little too strong in my reply to you, funfarang; sorry about that; don't mean to offend.

Bear in mind, as I offer up evidence after evidence either against evolution or for intelligent design, my point is, most of you strongly believe in something that you have never really thought about. You have never looked at both sides of this issue.

Unfortunately, I realize that despite the fact that many of you are highly intelligent, algebra2 might be outside your reach. It's okay. I'll be offering up more than that...

[zeusbheld]

For an example of this, let me offer evolution. I suspect that almost every person here believes in evolution (or a creation by God wherein God used evolution). This is not because you have studied the evidence but because you have heard it again and again and again from a very young age, so you simply believe it.

no, actually, it IS because i have studied the evidence. actually studied it, without an agenda. speaking of evidence, there is no evidence that you did so.

this post is absurd propaganda. i'm not going to bother making a case, you can willfully beileve anything you want and maybe some people will get sucked in by this propaganda. good for you! that will be a good day for you then.

[zeusbheld]

If inculcation had been a factor in the formulation of my present theological belief system, I would surely believe in creationism. Your assertion, in my experience, is far better applied to doubters of evolution than it is to those who believe it to be fact. To claim that most people in any given group of religious proclivities unknown to you have arrived at their various beliefs by way of something other than personal discovery is like the pot calling the kettle black--high-handed zealotry in its blindest manifestation.

Had inculcation been a factor in what I believe, I would believe that God created man from primates, after a slow process.

ok, you're supposed to be a credible interpreter of the evidence yet evidence suggests you barely read what you respond to. clearly you didnt read what _rob said, HE WASNT TALKING ABOUT YOU. yet you still appear to be talking about him.

so much for your credibility, you are so entrenched in your position you cannot even be bothered to read without pre-interpreting.

[zeusbheld]

a simplistic version of how science works: equations are arrived at through inductive reasoning based on evidence in the natural world.

slapping an equation onto a natural phenomenon and insisting it is applicable is not science its a medicine show.

generally the size of a population depends on a lot of variables, and to my knowledge no credible scienttist (one who lets the natural evidence determine which equations are held to be true) believes your equation, or ones like it. or other simplistic modela of population growth in general.

smoke and mirrors through mathematics. neat trick. what nextt, pull a rabbit out of your hat?

Here is one place to begin. There is a fairly simple exponential equation which is used for population growth, and most high school students who have taken Algebra II or Pre-Calculus have been exposed to it.

Pt = Poe^(kt)

As soon as they built the library near my classroom, I taught my students how the mathematically solve this equations using natural logarithms and explained how this equation could go forward and backward in time. That is, we can use it to estimate when the world will reach a population of 10 billion (for instance) and we can also use it to go backwards in time in order to figure out when were there, say, 10 people on this earth.

The students could use world population figures from any time frame. The further apart the figures, the more accurate the estimation (as a myriad of population trends would be taken into consideration). Figures taken on both sides of the Dark Ages (which are, of course, estimations) would produce an abnormally long period of time for looking backward to our earliest ancestors.

I want you to know, first of all, I had no idea as to the outcome. As a teacher, I never felt I had to know the answer in order to ask the question (which some teachers believe is necessary). I let the chips fall where they may.

In maybe 15 years of doing this, with advanced students, we always came to the same results: man's population on this earth goes back anywhere from 2000 to 25,000 years (I told you, this would be an estimate).

I have, by manipulating the figures to get an extremely long view, can push this back, mathematically speaking, to 50,000 years (that would be the greatest period of time).

No way can we push back the population of man to 1,000,000 years, which is the estimation which evolutionists put on the age of man.

By the way, if you send me a private email, I can give a full document which explains this...but it won't make much sense unless you understand logarithms.

By the way, there is someone else who believes that man's time on this earth is relatively recent? I did not expect that.

[zeusbheld]

you are right about one thing--there should be no dispute between science and christianity: science, inherently, is descriptive not philosophical. it tells how, and tends to offer some reliable predictive capacity.

the canned flat earth speech is getting old, but i sympathize with your using it again since everyone seems to want to insist that christians think the world is flat. i have no idea where this assumption comes from, it isnt from a) the historical record or the mouths of educated christians. even most of the uneducated christians, many of whom believe some absurd things (wont go into detail but i've met enough of these people)

your math demo above isnt scientific in any sense. neither is your claim that evolution isnt scientific in any sense. if there is one thing that evolution is, it is an description arrived at through applying the scientific method to natural evidence. in the case of natural history, the evidence is primarily historical in nature, so you don't end up with a neat batch of equations like newtonian mechanics does, and never will.

incidentally according to classics professors at the university of north carolina, chapel hill, way back when i was an undergrad, and according to physics professors at nc state, the greeks were off in their measurement (not their method). therefore, they calculated the earth's circumference as being smaller than it is. this did not mean that the greeks were right and the earth was wrong.

As a conservative and a christian you might not be sastified with science since it goes against the basic principle of faith being an explanation to all phenomenom and an unquestionable proof of everything. I suggest you question the reason why your religion has been trying to lure humanity for centuries by saying the earth is flat and indulging physical and mental pain to those who dared to say otherwise eventhough they had supporting evidences.

Let me disabuse you of some of your notions here. First, when Columbus sailed the ocean blue, it was because he believed the earth to be round, and not flat. He just had no idea just how large the world is.

In about 300 BC, not only did the Greeks know that the world was round, but they knew roughly the circumference of the earth. When I taught students about congruent alternate interior angles in geometry, I would show them just exactly how the Greeks made this calculation.

Isaiah, who was a prophet in the Old Testament, referred to the earth as a sphere and this would have been around 700 BC. Also, the earth is said to be hung upon nothing, which, if memory serves, comes from the psalms, written about 1000 BC.

Many of the world's great scientists were Christians, by the way. There is no dispute between science and Christianity; the problem is that evolution is not scientific in any sense.

[zeusbheld]

a math teacher indoctrinates his students by begging the question of whether an equation describes nature and presenting it to students as if it does.

if you want i can type it slower.

I guess you did not read what I told you about my students. I gave them the population equation, found in EVERY college algebra, EVERY Pre-Calculus, EVERY Calculus and EVERY Algebra 2 book, I showed them how to work it and how to solve it; I let them go to the library; I let THEM pick out their own figures from almanacs, the internet, or wherever; and I let THEM solve the equation. I guess that is indoctrination that they came up with a solution that you don't like?

And let me remind you...the first time I did this, I did not know what kinds of answers they would come up with. I didn't work it out before hand. I did that on occasion as it made my job more fun. Like the time I gave my students a math problem that two honors teachers could not solve. I did not have a solution for it either, prior to giving them the problem to work out. Does that sound like indoctrination to you? Sometime you will have to explain to me slowly how a math teacher indoctrinates his students. I'll take a few notes.

[uarewotueat]

For an example of this, let me offer evolution. I suspect that almost every person here believes in evolution (or a creation by God wherein God used evolution). This is not because you have studied the evidence but because you have heard it again and again and again from a very young age, so you simply believe it.

i believe in the theory of evolution because there is scientific evidence to support the theory

wot evidence do u have to prove that "god" (any god) exists?

no offence mate, but i totally disagree with your (obviously brainwashed) opinon!

if your theroy about god is true then what did god evolve from?

he just appeared from the primordial soup?

ahhh no, wait, there must be a higher god who created your god, then another god above him who created that god ...and so on and so forth!

yeah as i thought its very hard to believe!

god was created by man, man was not created by god

ps. i heard that Al Qaeda are looking for easily manipulated minds....

[zeusbheld]

you havent offered up ANY evidence yet, and the burden of proof is on you.

also, evolution and intelligent design are not mutually exclusiive. science whether correct or incorrect only descibes. it doesnt philosoophize. thus the term "metaphysics".

algebra 2 might be outside many people's reach, but condescension is well within YOUR grasp apparently.

i doubt i'm going to dignify your medicine show with many more responses unless you raise the bar considerably in terms of the application of mathematics to natural phenomena, and raise your argument above propaganda.

yoou can believe what you want as a matter of faith, but you have demonstrated nothing. you havent even shown that you understand the theory (or collection of descriptive theories, really) of evolution. can't disprove what you aren't talking about.

Maybe I was just a little too strong in my reply to you, funfarang; sorry about that; don't mean to offend.

Bear in mind, as I offer up evidence after evidence either against evolution or for intelligent design, my point is, most of you strongly believe in something that you have never really thought about. You have never looked at both sides of this issue.

Unfortunately, I realize that despite the fact that many of you are highly intelligent, algebra2 might be outside your reach. It's okay. I'll be offering up more than that...

[zeusbheld]

Thanks for raising a topic beyond the scope of sex and relationships.

YES! seconded.

[scutfargus]

ok, you're supposed to be a credible interpreter of the evidence yet evidence suggests you barely read what you respond to. clearly you didnt read what _rob said, HE WASNT TALKING ABOUT YOU. yet you still appear to be talking about him.

so much for your credibility, you are so entrenched in your position you cannot even be bothered to read without pre-interpreting.

He offered me his experience; I offered him my experience. I believe I fully understood what he was saying.

[scutfargus]

a simplistic version of how science works: equations are arrived at through inductive reasoning based on evidence in the natural world.

slapping an equation onto a natural phenomenon and insisting it is applicable is not science its a medicine show.

generally the size of a population depends on a lot of variables, and to my knowledge no credible scienttist (one who lets the natural evidence determine which equations are held to be true) believes your equation, or ones like it. or other simplistic modela of population growth in general.

smoke and mirrors through mathematics. neat trick. what nextt, pull a rabbit out of your hat?

It is simple mathematics, and, as I pointed out, is an equation found in every math book which deals with the applications of logs. YOu can call it whatever names you want to call it. Yes, it is simplistic; exponential growth is fairly simplistic (not that many people here can mathematically work with it). However, and I emphasized this over and over again, this provides us with an estimation.

As I pointed out already, my students came up with numbers varying between 2000 years ago and 25,000 years ago. Estimations. The deal is this: this is so far out of whack with the idea of man being a million years old as to be incomprehensible. People often cannot deal with large numbers and cannot really differentiate 25,000 years from 1,000,000 years.

The problem must be that we need a more complex equation. Everything is way too simplistic. You have to believe that because, you don't get the answer you think you should. That is exactly how an evolutiionist thinks. You completely throw out what you don't like. It just can't be; it's smoke and mirrors; it's simplistic; it is pulling a rabbit out of your hat. Zeus, I've got a big hat here; I have only begun to pull rabbits out.

Let me break down the large numbers for you: 40x25,000 = 1,000,000; so, what would have to happen is, the population of the world would have to build up to today's population and then get almost completely wiped out...40 times.

I should add to this, if you want to throw out this equation, then you must throw out the equation for carbon and potassium-argon dating; it is the same equation, solved in the same way.