Evolution theory turns colleges into hellholes of depression

[Desert Snake]

....it's not right.

You all make the huge effort to reject the obvious. And then the succes is that subjectivity is rejected, and colleges turn into hellholes of depression. That's the truth.

Are you sure they wouldn't be hellholes anyway?

 

[ScienceIsKnowledge]

Ah, you've used the old trick of "accusing the accuser". V is quite correct when saying that you don't verify your "facts" and that you use ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with you, which is the main reason why I normally prefer not to engage you in these discussions.

There is literally no point trying to get somebody who cannot accept the overwhelming body of evidence for evolution to suddenly see the truth. I mean we are talking about hundreds of thousands of lines of evidence that have to be ignored in order to believe that evolution is false. It is somewhat like trying to have an intelligent conversation with my 3 year old daughter.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Are you sure they wouldn't be hellholes anyway?

Very sure. All religion, all popular music and movies as well, even Oprah, point to it that acknowledging people's emotions makes all the difference in the world.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

There is literally no point trying to get somebody who cannot accept the overwhelming body of evidence for evolution to suddenly see the truth. I mean we are talking about hundreds of thousands of lines of evidence that have to be ignored in order to believe that evolution is false. It is somewhat like trying to have an intelligent conversation with my 3 year old daughter.

You ignore freedom, choosing. You refuse to consider if freedom is real and relevant in the universe.

 

[ScienceIsKnowledge]

You ignore freedom, choosing. You refuse to consider if freedom is real and relevant in the universe.

I am not at all refusing to consider freedom is real. I am simply stating that someone like you is nearly impossible to reason with. Look, evolution is not just a blind idea, it is a scientific theory based off of an overwhelming amount of evidence. (Similar to the theory of gravity).

Just because evolution is true does not mean your religion is false (although it definitely debunks a literal interpretation of the creation story told in Genesis).

The fact is, most people I know are religious AND accept evolution. These universities that teach evolution almost never mention it in context with God - the goal of teaching evolution is NOT to disprove God.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I am not at all refusing to consider freedom is real. I am simply stating that someone like you is nearly impossible to reason with. Look, evolution is not just a blind idea, it is a scientific theory based off of an overwhelming amount of evidence. (Similar to the theory of gravity).

Just because evolution is true does not mean your religion is false (although it definitely debunks a literal interpretation of the creation story told in Genesis).

The fact is, most people I know are religious AND accept evolution. These universities that teach evolution almost never mention it in context with God - the goal of teaching evolution is NOT to disprove God.

Sorry, that is not reality. Creationism / intelligent design theory is illegal to teach in public schools in the USA. Associations for biology teachers are against it. The scientific establishment is against it. All the facts about how anything is chosen in the universe are being systematically destroyed by science.

And subjectivity relies on these facts, because agency of decisions is the only subjective issue there is. There is no other subjectivity except in regards to agency. So it means subjectivity is thrown out as well together with the facts about how things are chosen.

And rejection of subjectivity is why the facts about how things are chosen are rejected. The facts are rejected, in order to reject subjectivity.

 

[ScienceIsKnowledge]

Sorry, that is not reality. Creationism / intelligent design theory is illegal to teach in public schools in the USA. Associations for biology teachers are against it. The scientific establishment is against it. All the facts about how anything is chosen in the universe are being systematically destroyed by science.

And subjectivity relies on these facts, because agency of decisions is the only subjective issue there is. There is no other subjectivity except in regards to agency. So it means subjectivity is thrown out as well together with the facts about how things are chosen.

And rejection of subjectivity is why the facts about how things are chosen are rejected. The facts are rejected, in order to reject subjectivity.

Evolution along with the scientific age of the earth does certainly debunk a literal translation of Creation as it is taught in Scripture. This is why creation stories are not (and should not) be taught in science classes.

Evolution is an explanation (again, supported with SO MUCH EVIDENCE) for how life went from simple to complex. It does NOT disprove God. It simply disproves a 6,000 year old earth, that all life was created in 6, 24hr days etc.

Answer me this, why couldn't God have created/guided the process of evolution on earth?

Also, have you even looked into why scientists all believe evolution is a valid theory? Do you really believe that earth is only thousands of years old?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Evolution along with the scientific age of the earth does certainly debunk a literal translation of Creation as it is taught in Scripture. This is why creation stories are not (and should not) be taught in science classes.

Evolution is an explanation (again, supported with SO MUCH EVIDENCE) for how life went from simple to complex. It does NOT disprove God. It simply disproves a 6,000 year old earth, that all life was created in 6, 24hr days etc.

Answer me this, why couldn't God have created/guided the process of evolution on earth?

Also, have you even looked into why scientists all believe evolution is a valid theory? Do you really believe that earth is only thousands of years old?

You are missing the big picture. It does not matter much which creationist theory is taught, it matters that is taught about how things are chosen in the universe. The best theory on those terms. 6000 or a million years are inconsequential to the big point that the fact that freedom is real is accepted.

And then subjectivity is accepted as valid in regards to agency of any decision. It means no more hellhole of depression.

 

[Deathbydefault]

You are missing the big picture. It does not matter much which creationist theory is taught, it matters that is taught about how things are chosen in the universe. The best theory on those terms. 6000 or a million years are inconsequential to the big point that the fact that freedom is real is accepted.

And then subjectivity is accepted as valid in regards to agency of any decision. It means no more hellhole of depression.

Sense.
You don't make any.

 

[metis]

It is enough verification that I demonstrate how subjectivity works technically by explaining how an opinion like "the painting is beautiful" is put together, and then show all the evolutionists rejecting it without any argument whatever.

There are no honest evolutionists, they simply do not do the subjectivity required for honesty.

See, proof that V was entirely correct about you.

 

[Demonslayer]

Sorry, that is not reality. Creationism / intelligent design theory is illegal to teach in public schools in the USA.

As well it should be, it's a steaming load of horse apples.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

See, proof that V was entirely correct about you.

That evolutionists are dishonest proves they have a problem with subjectivity. All subjective things like fairness, honesty, courage, they simply pay no mind to it.

 

[metis]

That evolutionists are dishonest proves they have a problem with subjectivity. All subjective things like fairness, honesty, courage, they simply pay no mind to it.

Keep digging the hole deeper, MNS.

 

[Desert Snake]

Keep digging the hole deeper, MNS.

You don't think that he has a point? Objectivly, he might have a point. Now, that does not mean, the entire argument is great, but so what, most arguments presented aren't perfect

 

[metis]

You don't think that he has a point? Objectivly, he might have a point. Now, that does not mean, the entire argument is great, but so what, most arguments presented aren't perfect

What point, may I ask?

 

[Desert Snake]

What point, may I ask?

Nevermind. I was wondering if you thought he might have a point,

//

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Keep digging the hole deeper, MNS.

And here it is demonstrated how it works that people can come to completely irrational conclusions because of science.

They just throw their smarts behind what proposed facts they like, and they throw a torrent of abuse over any proposed facts they don't like. Then they call their dislike skepticism, and call what they like applying the scientific method.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You don't think that he has a point? Objectivly, he might have a point. Now, that does not mean, the entire argument is great, but so what, most arguments presented aren't perfect

If subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept, then obviously it has merit that rejection of it leads to depression.

A rational discussion would then proceed by identifying the logic used in a common subjective statement like that the painting is beautiful.

I have given my account of how that statement is put together, demonstrating the creationist logic in it.

Evolutionists have no argument whatsoever. They don't like the conclusion, they don't do subjectivity to muster up any courage to explore something they don't like.

 

[ScienceIsKnowledge]

And here it is demonstrated how it works that people can come to completely irrational conclusions because of science.

They just throw their smarts behind what proposed facts they like, and they throw a torrent of abuse over any proposed facts they don't like. Then they call their dislike skepticism, and call what they like applying the scientific method.

Lol MSN. Creationism should not be taught in science class because it is not science! I am all for the freedom for people to believe whatever they choose, and I do think the creationist myth should be taught in schools, just not in science class.

If you think creation stories belong in science class, then why not include other creation stories? There are hundreds of different creation stories that stem from different religions. From Greek mythology, to the various tribes in Africa, to Buddhism, Hinduism, the list goes on and on. The reason all these stories do not belong in science class is because they are not science.

You keep talking about "subjectivity" as if this important to science, it is not. While I agree that there is much more to understanding humanity than objectivity, this is not the case in science. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, creation is not. Therefore creation does not belong in science class.

Finally, I will reiterate that evolution should NOT be considered as an opponent to religious beliefs. Evolution offers a beautiful explanation for how complex life can evolve from very simple beginnings but it does NOT claim to answer the question of the origin of life. Science does not yet have a well developed theory on the origin of life (i.e. where/how did life begin in the first place). All evolution tells us is how life has evolved after it already was here on earth. Trust me, as an atheist I wish that evolution could disprove God but the fact is that is doesn't.

 

[ScienceIsKnowledge]

If subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept, then obviously it has merit that rejection of it leads to depression.

A rational discussion would then proceed by identifying the logic used in a common subjective statement like that the painting is beautiful.

I have given my account of how that statement is put together, demonstrating the creationist logic in it.

Evolutionists have no argument whatsoever. They don't like the conclusion, they don't do subjectivity to muster up any courage to explore something they don't like.

This shows your compete lack of understanding for what science is. Also, it is ridiculous that you call us "evolutionists" as if "believing" in evolution is an ideology or something.

Additionally, anyone who understands and appreciates science would tell you that we DO question EVERYTHING!! (Including the theory of evolution!!) That is the entire point of science! If anyone could offer any evidence whatsoever that evolution did not exist they would win a Nobel prize! Scientific theories are meant to be questioned, retested, changed, otherwise the scientific method would not be so effective!

Seriously I don't even know why I bother. . .