Evolution is a hoax

[scutfargus]

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.

Okay, so from now on I'll make sure to tell my students,

"Now, what you just worked out mathematically is only smoke and mirrors. It is too simplistic. It is a big mistake to find this equation in every math book. Since thiese results contradict current evolutionary theories, these results must be wrong."

Will that be good enough for you?

[scutfargus]

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

YES! seconded.

I do appreciate that, and I certainly do not mind that we disagree. Yeah, and I will have to give you that sometimes, I am condescending. It's a bad habit of mine.

Did you read about the college course offered in the university? No one commented on that yet.

Along the same lines, when I went to college, there were the semi-notorious "Evolution vs. Creation" debates. We had one at my college, and, unforutnately, I did not attend. However, the next day, I hitchiked to school (my mode of transport back then) and was picked up by an anthropology professor. I asked her how she felt the debate went, and she told me, "The creationists won the debate, but we still have a different opinion." (or words to that effect; this was a LONG time ago). I appreciated her honesty.

One more example (not dealing with evidence yet): one class held at a University by Lubenow (I think I have spelled his name right) starts out the same way. He gives each student 5 human or pre-human fossils (the names of them, to be precise) and asks them to write a 1 page paper on these fossils. They must classify the fossil and then put a date to it. They CANNOT use creationist literature. They may only use evolutionists as their source material. They can only assign a date to a fossil if they can find two evolutionists who agree on this date. Then, they put all of their fossils on a time line. The result? The fossils are all over the place. There are 100-150 fossils and they do not line up nicely or even kind of nicely. Pre-human fossils are in the wrong place, human fossils are too old; they do not resemble what we are taught about evolution. He says that he could teach this in about 5 minutes, but the students appreciate it when they have done all the research themselves and put the fossils on the time line themselves.

Now, I have a question for you guys: how many human fossils are there? One evolutionist, within the past 30 years, said we could stack all of them on a pool table. Now, do any of you actually know how many human fossils we have?

[scutfargus]

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....

You realize, of course, other than offering some in between ground for those who believe in creation but also believe in evolution, I have not really been discussing God. I am trying to confine my posts to evolution and creationism, and confine this to evidence and to experiences.

[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.

Okay, so from now on I'll make sure to tell my students,

"Now, what you just worked out mathematically is only smoke and mirrors. It is too simplistic. It is a big mistake to find this equation in every math book. Since thiese results contradict current evolutionary theories, these results must be wrong."

Will that be good enough for you?

last time i checked, mathematics was a) neutral and abstract.

as a person educated in mathematics perhaps you have also been educated in logic?

again: you are begging the question of whether this is the appropriate equation to predict the physical phenomenon in question.

the proof of this is in how effectively it does it job--in other words, before your estimate is meaningful, you have to demonstrate that the equation can consistently predicts growth in populations in real life, and in a real ecosystem (which tend to be semi-opoen, fruit flies in a lab are an inherently closed system ).

if you cantt provide evidence from the real world that population has been reasonably accurately predicted consistently using this formula, you are begging the question, and your argument is sophistry. smoke and mirrors.

[uarewotueat]

People often cannot deal with large numbers and cannot really differentiate 25,000 years from 1,000,000 years.

hmmm which simpletons have u been hangin out with? :roll:

[funfarang]

just a question then , since you seem to love maths and are believing in god as the only viable option:

what is your opinion about PHI ( 1,618 not Pi ) and the Fibonacci sequence ( 1 , 2 ,3, 5,8,13,21 etc etc) ?

i could go in your way but one again i think it is pure coincidence. if you don't know what i'm talking about , nevermind.

any thoughts on this i'm curious to hear your views ?

[Laurence]

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.

Let's keep on with desabusing people. I made a slight mistake by using a bridge. I reckon that Galileo's trial centred on whether the Earth orbited the sun rather than whether Earth was flat.

Either way I still got my point.

[zeusbheld]

Did you read about the college course offered in the university? No one commented on that yet.

i did read it, but i find it irrelevant. science is not a popularity contest.

i also, btw, believe a lone gunman killed kennedy until better evidence can be shown to indicate otherwise. tons and tons of very passionate people believe there was a conspiracy, yet the ballistics for a single gunman, and the timing of the shots fired, dont break any laws of physics.

Along the same lines, when I went to college, there were the semi-notorious "Evolution vs. Creation" debates.

which, like our discussions here, tend to be coffee shop talk.

it is not impossible to persuade me of just about anything. but the bar is high. science has the home fiedl advantage. what you'd have to offer, is a) a definition of scientific method we can agree on. an approach to interpreting the physical evidence (natural history) that we can agree on and then c) show that the physical evidence, when the scientific method is applied, suports your conclusion.

sophistry wins coffee shop debates. sophistry, and persistence.

give science the home field then i'll be interested.

by the way, the reason evolution is called a theory in scientific terms and not a law of nature, is that it is not inherently predictive. laws of nature are proven through testing the predictions against the physical world. some things relevant to natural history are testable (like predictive formulas for population growth, to a point) but the phsyical evidence is utterly and predominantly historical in nature. NO theory of how we got here can ever be more than a theory. history doesnt work that way.

evolution does not contradict God or creation necessarily, so i'm not sure why you are so steadfastly attacking evolution (if it is based on scientific evidence you have demonstrated none so far).

One more example (not dealing with evidence yet)

you can't disprove a scientific theory with anecdotes. attempting to do so is inherently anti-scientific..

again, you may persuade others with sophistry, but if it's not dealing with evidence then your mentioning it merely undermines your credibility with me. if you want to prove your'e right to yourself, i concede in advance. however, you have a slim window of opportunity (made a lot slimmer by your initial approach wihcih resembled sales more than science)

Now, I have a question for you guys: how many human fossils are there? One evolutionist, within the past 30 years, said we could stack all of them on a pool table. Now, do any of you actually know how many human fossils we have?

nature of the business. the evidence is scant. i'm not playing ball until you do a, b, and c above. if you believe that the methods used by natural history are flawed, present a scientifically valid approach to interpreting the same evidence that works better.

until then, i'm not reading any more. i'll go talk about something more appropriate to coffee shops, like art or film or pretty girls.

[uarewotueat]

You realize, of course, other than offering some in between ground for those who believe in creation but also believe in evolution, I have not really been discussing God. I am trying to confine my posts to evolution and creationism, and confine this to evidence and to experiences.

well maybe u should have left the "god" word out of your poll if you are not discussing god...

u have my evidence and experience...

[eagle]

until then, i'm not reading any more. i'll go talk about something more appropriate to coffee shops, like art or film or pretty girls.

We talking about creating pretty girls !! I appreciate their evolution !!

If I thought this thread was started to reach a point rather then evangelism I would have more interest. I know Jeses loves me cause the bible tells me so and thats enough for me. TY Jesus i was needed the love !!!

[zeusbheld]

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.

and i emphasized a bogus estimation, until you demonstrate that it has effectively and consistently predicted actual populations with a high degree of accuracy.

The problem must be that we need a more complex equation.

the problem is that you have not demonstated its predictive efficacy except by stating the equation can be found in math books. last i checked mathematics is a) abstract and neutral.

i have no problem wiith the equation, just that as a model it is a poor representation of the data.

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.

sophistry's fine if you want to persuade yourself you're right. you claimed in another thread you knew what it is like to be me. you've demonstrated an equal grasp of how evolutionists think---that is, ZERO.

i'm not interested in what rabbits you have, save it for the coffee shop. see my post below if your'e really interested in being persuasive to someone who has an actual interest in natural history.

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.

please take another swing at it, i want to see if you can miss my point any more. i dont care about the numbers, you havent demonstrated the equation's appropriateness. or any interest in scienfific method, or anything beyond sophistry for that matter.

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.

that is an utter fallacy and completely bogus and you will have to work very hard to even get me to read any more of the bollocks you post. if you dont agree that mathematics is a) abstract and neutral, then you have completely lost my attention.

applying the saem equation and solving it in the same way works for carbon dating, because the half-life of carbon is utterly predictable.

you're really gonna have to raise your game to get me to read any more of this swill, the carbon-dating claim is so bogus as to be offensive. argue against the actual views held in the scientific community rather than flogging straw men with sophistry.

boring and ridiculous.

[eagle]

You realize, of course, other than offering some in between ground for those who believe in creation but also believe in evolution, I have not really been discussing God. I am trying to confine my posts to evolution and creationism, and confine this to evidence and to experiences.

well maybe u should have left the "god" word out of your poll if you are not discussing god...

u have my evidence and experience...

Excuse me , thats cheaing using short logical responses

[scutfargus]

You realize, of course, other than offering some in between ground for those who believe in creation but also believe in evolution, I have not really been discussing God. I am trying to confine my posts to evolution and creationism, and confine this to evidence and to experiences.

well maybe u should have left the "god" word out of your poll if you are not discussing god...

u have my evidence and experience...

Excuse me , thats cheaing using short logical responses

My attempt was to offer as many options as I could, and still give everyone an option they could hang with. Many Christians believe that God created the world through evolution, so I wanted to offer that option. Excuse me.

[scutfargus]

Why do you think, when creationists and evolutions debate, the creationists usually win? Why do you think when classes are offered where both of these positions are presented that creationists bag the most converts? Why would that be?

Haven't heard any answers from my experts...how many human fossils do we have?

I'll give you another hint: Richard Leaky says that we have so many mistakes made in the fossil record (mistakes made by evolutionists) because, "I think this was inevitable by virtue of the fact we had so little material."

NewScientist; "The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table"

Science magazine: "The primary scientific evidecne is a pitifully small array of bones from which to construct man's evolutionary history."

So, how many hominid fossils do you think there are ?

[scutfargus]

i also, btw, believe a lone gunman killed kennedy until better evidence can be shown to indicate otherwise. tons and tons of very passionate people believe there was a conspiracy, yet the ballistics for a single gunman, and the timing of the shots fired, dont break any laws of physics.

I must admit that, for years, I thought it was a conspiracy. Then, I saw a film, and it answered every single question I had about the assasination; and so, Zeus, we are in agreement here. I know you might want to sit down for a moment and gather yourself after hearing that.

it is not impossible to persuade me of just about anything. but the bar is high. science has the home fiedl advantage. what you'd have to offer, is a) a definition of scientific method we can agree on. an approach to interpreting the physical evidence (natural history) that we can agree on and then c) show that the physical evidence, when the scientific method is applied, suports your conclusion.

We're moving in that direction. Remember, I said, I have a big hat. There is a lot of physical evidence.

by the way, the reason evolution is called a theory in scientific terms and not a law of nature, is that it is not inherently predictive. laws of nature are proven through testing the predictions against the physical world. some things relevant to natural history are testable (like predictive formulas for population growth, to a point) but the phsyical evidence is utterly and predominantly historical in nature. NO theory of how we got here can ever be more than a theory. history doesnt work that way.

Interesting point

evolution does not contradict God or creation necessarily, so i'm not sure why you are so steadfastly attacking evolution (if it is based on scientific evidence you have demonstrated none so far).

Actually, my point originally was, most of you (not as high of a percentage as I expected) believe in evolution simply because you have heard it over and over again.

And, I certainly provided the possibility that God created man through evolution. Most Catholics and a great many Christians believe that (as do those in other faiths).

you can't disprove a scientific theory with anecdotes. attempting to do so is inherently anti-scientific..

This is, of course, true. However, unless I am just flat out lying to you, it seems sort of odd that college students could be led so easily astray when they have evolutionists right there to set them straight.

Now, I have a question for you guys: how many human fossils are there? One evolutionist, within the past 30 years, said we could stack all of them on a pool table. Now, do any of you actually know how many human fossils we have?

nature of the business. the evidence is scant. i'm not playing ball until you do a, b, and c above. if you believe that the methods used by natural history are flawed, present a scientifically valid approach to interpreting the same evidence that works better.

I appreciate that; that was almost an answer to my question. Let me give you the answer...conservatively speaking, there are 4000-6500 hominid fossils.

Earlier, I offered 3 quotes from an evolutionist and 2 magazines which believe in evolution that, just like you say, claim that there is scant evidence available to us. This is said, even with 4000-6500 hominid fossils. But, these quotes are code. What they mean is, there is scant evidence when it comes to evolution. They don't have many fossils that "prove" evolution. There are tons of fossils, just not the ones they want.

[khun_lung]

Yawn.

Who cares? Evolution is accepted as a fact, not a theory and there are plenty of demonstrable instances. Did humans evolve from apes? There's no scientific evidence to prove it. Do organisms evolve? When bird flu can be transmitted from human to human, is that gonna end the debate?

[scutfargus]

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.

and i emphasized a bogus estimation, until you demonstrate that it has effectively and consistently predicted actual populations with a high degree of accuracy.

hmmm, how on earth will an equation which estimates population growth be shown to have a high degree of accuracy? Just can't be done.

The problem must be that we need a more complex equation.

the problem is that you have not demonstated its predictive efficacy except by stating the equation can be found in math books. last i checked mathematics is a) abstract and neutral.

i have no problem wiith the equation, just that as a model it is a poor representation of the data.

Excellent, you used that great word, neutral. That is what math is alright. Mathematics and this particular equation, although abstract, is used as a model to represent true human conditions. I've spent a considerable amount of time in college and have never once seen "a better equation" for population growth. I have only seen this one (there are slightly different forms, but the end result is the same--I used Euler's number as a base, but any base could be used).

If, by using world population figures, our estimations came up to be 500,000 years or 2,000,000 years, then I'd have to concede this point. However, no matter how you twist it, you will not get the numbers you want. So of course, we have to throw the equation out. Just can't be right if it does not agree with evolution.

Since no one has said this, let me offer at least one other argument which I have heard: maybe there was a flood in recent history. Since a flood is found in the mythology and history of just about every ancient nation there is, maybe that wiped out human kind. I could not argue that point. Might explain such a recent date. However, it would not explain human population prior to such a catastrophe. Wouldn't make sense for us to be able to predict population growth for 1% of the time, and then have a flat population growth for 99% of the time.

Btw, I wasn't kidding about the "being dropped here by space people." Some people believe that, and it is in keeping with the human fossil record and with world population studies. I was surprised that 2 people took that position however. I am curious if those two people were kidding or serious.

[scutfargus]

Yawn.

Who cares? Evolution is accepted as a fact, not a theory and there are plenty of demonstrable instances. Did humans evolve from apes? There's no scientific evidence to prove it. Do organisms evolve? When bird flu can be transmitted from human to human, is that gonna end the debate?

Okay, I am confused here. You believe that evolution is accepted as a fact, but not that humans evolved from primates (apes)?

And I did not get your last point either. You migh thave to type more slowly so I can understand your point. I did grasp the concept of "Yawn"

[khun_lung]

Yawn.

Who cares? Evolution is accepted as a fact, not a theory and there are plenty of demonstrable instances. Did humans evolve from apes? There's no scientific evidence to prove it. Do organisms evolve? When bird flu can be transmitted from human to human, is that gonna end the debate?

Okay, I am confused here. You believe that evolution is accepted as a fact, but not that humans evolved from primates (apes)?

And I did not get your last point either. You migh thave to type more slowly so I can understand your point. I did grasp the concept of "Yawn"

What I implied was that HUMAN evolution from primates has not been established. I am not a mathematician so I cannot quantify any agrument.

Crocodile fossils have shown thet they have NOT evolved, they ADAPTED. The same goes for cockroaches, ants, and you name it.

My point is that bird flu, a virus (and arguably not a life-form as we know it) has not only adapted, it has EVOLVED. It went from fowl-to-fowl, then fowl-to-animal (pigs, dogs), then animal to humans, and is predicted to EVOLVE into a virus that can be passed from human to human, thus causing a pandemic. And this evolution has happened not within a million years, or a thousand years, but within our own lifetimes in a single generation!

This is a classic example of what evolution is, as compared to adaptation. It exists. Accept it. And read your bible for answers as to why.

[scutfargus]

So far, no one has pressed this issue, but most creationists (all that I know of) believe in adaptation and limited change within a species (dog breeding is a good illustration of this).

The problem for some creationists (like myself), is that we do not believe that one species will ever evolve into another species. That is, no matter what you do to a dog, it will always be a dog, and never somehow morph into a cat. However, clearly humans adapt and experience some basic changes (as do animals). Who would ever administer a small pox vaccination is we believed that it would not bring about an inherent change and/or adaptation.

[zeusbheld]

i also, btw, believe a lone gunman killed kennedy until better evidence can be shown to indicate otherwise. tons and tons of very passionate people believe there was a conspiracy, yet the ballistics for a single gunman, and the timing of the shots fired, dont break any laws of physics.

I must admit that, for years, I thought it was a conspiracy. Then, I saw a film, and it answered every single question I had about the assasination; and so, Zeus, we are in agreement here. I know you might want to sit down for a moment and gather yourself after hearing that.

not surprised, if i thought you were a knee-jerk dogmatic christian, i would not have bothered reading this far. it would not be interesting at all to me if you were so deeply entrenched as to be completely rigid.

it is not impossible to persuade me of just about anything. but the bar is high. science has the home fiedl advantage. what you'd have to offer, is a) a definition of scientific method we can agree on. an approach to interpreting the physical evidence (natural history) that we can agree on and then c) show that the physical evidence, when the scientific method is applied, suports your conclusion.

We're moving in that direction. Remember, I said, I have a big hat. There is a lot of physical evidence.

holler when we get to the good stuff, your hat is as big as my attention span short. one fo the consequences of coffeeshops is coffee...

evolution does not contradict God or creation necessarily, so i'm not sure why you are so steadfastly attacking evolution (if it is based on scientific evidence you have demonstrated none so far).

Actually, my point originally was, most of you (not as high of a percentage as I expected) believe in evolution simply because you have heard it over and over again.

most people believe in God for the same reason. humans are disinclined to ask questions if it means work generally. the fact that people accept things blindly neither validates nor invalidates what they accept.

you can't disprove a scientific theory with anecdotes. attempting to do so is inherently anti-scientific..

This is, of course, true. However, unless I am just flat out lying to you, it seems sort of odd that college students could be led so easily astray when they have evolutionists right there to set them straight.

no it doesnt seem odd at all. i attended college. way too much of it actually. credible schools too, the kind that are difficult to get admitted to. it doesnt impress me at all.

that has more to do with persuasiveness than science. its more salesmanship than evidence, and thus is irrelevant to me. i used to annoy philosophy professors by deliberately adopting a bogus position and convincing the class i was right through salesmanship rather than logic. i was young, foolish and easily amused (and that was back when i hasd an attention span).

i've worked at universities as an administrator. faculty are hired for being good at their discipline not good teachers. most science teachers that i've met are appallingly bad at everything except their specialty. there arent many science teachers on the level of a stephen jay gould.

I appreciate that; that was almost an answer to my question. Let me give you the answer...conservatively speaking, there are 4000-6500 hominid fossils.

keep in mind my near-answer was provided in the context of saying that the question was not relevant to what would convince me of your case.

Earlier, I offered 3 quotes from an evolutionist and 2 magazines which believe in evolution that, just like you say, claim that there is scant evidence available to us. This is said, even with 4000-6500 hominid fossils. But, these quotes are code. What they mean is, there is scant evidence when it comes to evolution. They don't have many fossils that "prove" evolution. There are tons of fossils, just not the ones they want.

that is misleading. the ones they want are the ones that give new information, like the burgess shale. more of the same doesnt tell much. agaiin, not addressing the question in a way that is even remotely interesting to me.

state the scientific method in a way we can agree on, propose a meothodlogy, and if we can agree on that, that might be persuasive to me. also do it concisely as i am losing interest, you are not yet moving toward anything that would convince me, and this is, as i said, a coffee shop game.

wake me up when they find the grassy knoll gunman (so to speak ,not literally of course), or scientists stop speaking in codes. saying something is in code is just a warning to me that the quotes are being spun.

[khun_lung]

So far, no one has pressed this issue, but most creationists (all that I know of) believe in adaptation and limited change within a species (dog breeding is a good illustration of this).

The problem for some creationists (like myself), is that we do not believe that one species will ever evolve into another species. That is, no matter what you do to a dog, it will always be a dog, and never somehow morph into a cat. However, clearly humans adapt and experience some basic changes (as do animals). Who would ever administer a small pox vaccination is we believed that it would not bring about an inherent change and/or adaptation.

What is your point? I already addressed the issue of adaptation in my post. Your subject is evolution, and I addressed it and you conveniently seemed to have missed the point.

Look, let's keep this a friendly agrument and not make any enemies here. I'm just challenging you to think about what "evolution" is by definition, and in fact it exists. The subject was, "Evolution is a hoax". Indeed, it is not.

[funfarang]

GOD is an HOAX.

And so are you Monsieur "fun farang". :wink:

please define god in your own terms, what is god except a belief created by man to manipulate the masses. if god is not an hoax then it is what christians call satan , so many crimes have been commited in his name , if "god is love" god would never let this happen, if god existed he would intervene to stop the massacres. if you tell me that god can not and will not intervene , so why do all the gullible pray for him to help them?

god is the tranquiliser of the people who are too feeble in their head to take life in their own hands, thus they ressort to "god" .

pathetic , but one is free to believe what he wants as long as he don't try to endoctrinate simple minds such as kids that god is real or the only truth in this world. especially when menacing that non believers are gonna go to hell , its so stupid since the closest thing from hell such as described in the books , is the world we live in.

[zeusbheld]

Why do you think, when creationists and evolutions debate, the creationists usually win?

already answered that. as for the rest, you're trying to convince me, i am not trying to convince you. those questions are irrelevant to me. told you why already.

[khun_lung]

please define god in your own terms, what is god except a belief created by man to manipulate the masses. if god is not an hoax then it is what christians call satan , so many crimes have been commited in his name , if "god is love" god would never let this happen, if god existed he would intervene to stop the massacres. if you tell me that god can not and will not intervene , so why do all the gullible pray for him to help them?

god is the tranquiliser of the people who are too feeble in their head to take life in their own hands, thus they ressort to "god" .

pathetic , but one is free to believe what he wants as long as he don't try to endoctrinate simple minds such as kids that god is real or the only truth in this world. especially when menacing that non believers are gonna go to hell , its so stupid since the closest thing from hell such as described in the books , is the world we live in.

This is a discussion about evoultion, not about god. Can we please start a new forum thread about god?