Evolution derail from skeptic thread

[humbleman]

Yeah, but they are all skeptical about evolution and shit

All? Citation needed. Here's one for you: Acceptance of evolution by religious groups. And that only refers to the benighted nation of the US.

Also

Interesting.

Do you have a similar chart but the question: how many evolutionists believe in a god?

I'm skeptical, but not a phony one like many around here.

When I see religion anywhere I point it out.

I have found "scientific religion" inside the branch of science, I did my research and found it.

As skeptical, I won't accept any sh*t scientists say unless is not properly reviewed thru the scientific method from the very beginning of their statements. Something which in science is a "must do" step.

And, even when you argue and argue the best you can, reality is that in base on the genesis of the theory of evolution, this theory was born with the fixed idea that species appeared worst, simple and inferior. For this reason, this theory was idealized to explain how it comes that today species are "better, more complex and superior".However, it was discovered later that no species is more complex, neither better and less superior than their ancestors. So, the theory itself was false.

Here you have a confrontation: or recognition of the falsehood of the theory or, invent that the theory always was about "change", and for this motive, the theory must be "updated".

As I reviewer of the scientific method, theories found false can't be updated but discarded. You can only update theories which are valid.

The theory of evolution was erroneous since its very beginning when Kant and Schopenhauer idealized that humans came from Orangutans and chimpanzees, And caricatures were made of a chimpanzee with Darwin head. This one was made in 1874.



People in those times were mocking of Darwin because even when Darwin didn't write about orangutans and chimpanzees as our ancestors, but his ideas came from those men, whom together with many others thought that the proper name for the theory was "evolution" because such is what for them such was the rule for the steps of the species: "natural selection ruled solely by favorable steps".

Rather than recognizing they were wrong, the leaders of the theory of evolution made their worst mistake when they "changed" the total essence of their theory into a more modern view, where "evolution" is no more a change with a meaning of development but just "change" regardless how.

From what was an error in science, the theory of evolution became a religion. Every biology student in universities must accept the doctrines of evolution, it is an imposition, no student is allowed to question evolution, no essays are admitted reasoning the invalidity of evolution, students -if they want to obtain the degree- must blinded accept the doctrines of evolution and defend them.

Question is, defending the theory of evolution from whom?

Is the theory of evolution "competing" with religion?

Why? So far, science and religion are two separate subjects, one is not related by the another.... unless religion becomes science or the theory of evolution becomes a religion.

As far as I know, as an skeptical, the theory of evolution is desperately competing with traditional religion because the theory of evolution is a new religion.

There are no facts that species are superior, more complex and better than their former ancestors. No facts about it. Even bacteria becomes "stronger" after antibiotics treatment has been exposed to be false in another topic in these forums, the whole thing about evolution is just a belief.

So, you might consider yourself as skeptical, but watch out! You must review the current theories of science which are also religions rather than scientific approach based on facts. Otherwise you are free of one religion to become a slave of another religion. Lol.

 

[Hermit]

Yeah, but they are all skeptical about evolution and shit

All? Citation needed. Here's one for you: Acceptance of evolution by religious groups. And that only refers to the benighted nation of the US.

Also

Interesting.

Do you have a similar chart but the question: how many evolutionists believe in a god?

A good percentage of people in general who are convinced by the validity of the theory of evolution would simultaneously believe in the existence of a god. My parents, both practising catholics, were among them. Like other Christians they regarded the creation of Adam out of clay as one of the numerous biblical metaphors, the real meaning of which is that a supernatural being created life. No uncaused cause (except for the supernatural creator, of course,) and all that. It should not surprise anybody that scientists working in the field of evolution reason similarly and therefore see no conflict between their belief in a supernatural creator of life and the validity of the theory of evolution simultaneously, though one would expect scientists on the whole are less likely to believe in the existence of the latter than people without tertiary education. I have not found any surveys of evolutionary scientists, but the PEW Research Center has surveyed scientists generally and compared them with the beliefs of the general public. The survey, published under the title Scientists and Belief, is almost nine years old, so the figures are likely to be a bit different today.

The theory of evolution was erroneous since its very beginning when Kant and Schopenhauer idealized that humans came from Orangutans and chimpanzees, And caricatures were made of a chimpanzee with Darwin head. This one was made in 1874.

View attachment 14654

People in those times were mocking of Darwin because even when Darwin didn't write about orangutans and chimpanzees as our ancestors, but his ideas came from those men, whom together with many others thought that the proper name for the theory was "evolution"...

You need to stop claiming that Darwin's theory of evolution has monkeys as our direct ancestors. Not only, as you noted, did he not ever say any such thing, but equating his particular theory of evolution with the various theories of previous writers is about as idiotic as equating da Vinci's helicopter design, which could not possibly fly with Oehmichen's which actually did or Sikorski's, which gave the helicopter its present form. Yup, all of them were helicopters, but they differed from each other in important ways.

 

[Jobar]

 

[Underseer]

In my experience, people who complain about "scientism" (science as religion) are people who hold at least one anti-science view and are angry about the fact that the majority of experts in the relevant field disagree with them.