It does not seem like you know enough about science OR religion to make any claims about it.
Evidence of evolution does follow a logical train of thought. The biggest problem that some people have accepting evolution is the presentation - monkeys suddenly turned into humans. Evolution is a slow process of random trial to error to elimination to trial to success to propagation - all fueled through both random mutations which sometimes happen to result in adaptations to dynamic environments making survival necessary.
You can see the evidence when you look at a simple bacterium. If a person uses anti-biotics for an extended period of time, often, bacteria learn to adapt and overcome the treatment and become untreatable, super bacteria. Micro-evolution which provides credence to the idea of evolution overall.
The only "belief" here is belief in what is empirical, testable and falsifiable. Scientific fact and theory is held to an actual, real-world and measurable standard and when the standard is not met, the hypothesis is rejected or changed until the standard is met. If the scientist does not admit fault, despite being caught, not only is his "doctrine" thrown out but he is rejected from the scientific community.
There is little archaeological evidence of the vast majority of what is written in the Bible or any other religious text. Although there are bits and pieces of certain texts that are ahead of their time scientifically (the Quran had pregnancy separated into three trimesters and an accurate prediction of tidal activity before the rest of their society at large did), that is hardly justification to call those texts "divine truth".
In addition to that, God is not a testable concept. Most religions only have the most general view of what "God" is. Rarely has a religion thrown out doctrine and manuscripts upon realization of their error. In fact, religion generally REINFORCES whatever belief that science or society states is flawed. There is little change or progress and when challenged, they tend to tell the challenger that it is THEIR responsibility to provide proof that their religious beliefs are wrong. The burden of proof, however, is on the claimant.
Religion is based on faith and psychologically engineered so that knowing less is more faith and more faith makes you a better follower. Science is based on empirical evidence.
My only qualm with religion is that it can easily outwit individuals who think more emotionally than academically. Evolution can be a difficult concept to learn where I could explain creation in two sentences. People tend to believe that simpler means better and adds truth value and there's no possible way to debate with a person about the truth of evolution when they don't have the education to understand what the hell you're saying.
Religion puts you in a situation where you're with a group of like-minded individuals and discouraged from seeking answers and information elsewhere. It provides a false sense of security for people who see it necessary to live their daily lives. Religion alone is not responsible for brainwashing, fear of the unknown is.
Are people "brainwashed" for choosing religion over science?
← View full post
It does not seem like you know enough about science OR religion to make any claims about it.
Evidence of evolution does follow a logical train of thought. The biggest problem that some people have accepting evolution is the presentation - monkeys suddenly turned into humans. Evolution is a slow process of random trial to error to elimination to trial to success to propagation - all fueled through both random mutations which sometimes happen to result in adaptations to dynamic environments making survival necessary.
You can see the evidence when you look at a simple bacterium. If a person uses anti-biotics for an extended period of time, often, bacteria learn to adapt and overcome the treatment and become untreatable, super bacteria. Micro-evolution which provides credence to the idea of evolution overall.
The only "belief" here is belief in what is empirical, testable and falsifiable. Scientific fact and theory is held to an actual, real-world and measurable standard and when the standard is not met, the hypothesis is rejected or changed until the standard is met. If the scientist does not admit fault, despite being caught, not only is his "doctrine" thrown out but he is rejected from the scientific community.
There is little archaeological evidence of the vast majority of what is written in the Bible or any other religious text. Although there are bits and pieces of certain texts that are ahead of their time scientifically (the Quran had pregnancy separated into three trimesters and an accurate prediction of tidal activity before the rest of their society at large did), that is hardly justification to call those texts "divine truth".
In addition to that, God is not a testable concept. Most religions only have the most general view of what "God" is. Rarely has a religion thrown out doctrine and manuscripts upon realization of their error. In fact, religion generally REINFORCES whatever belief that science or society states is flawed. There is little change or progress and when challenged, they tend to tell the challenger that it is THEIR responsibility to provide proof that their religious beliefs are wrong. The burden of proof, however, is on the claimant.
Religion is based on faith and psychologically engineered so that knowing less is more faith and more faith makes you a better follower. Science is based on empirical evidence.
My only qualm with religion is that it can easily outwit individuals who think more emotionally than academically. Evolution can be a difficult concept to learn where I could explain creation in two sentences. People tend to believe that simpler means better and adds truth value and there's no possible way to debate with a person about the truth of evolution when they don't have the education to understand what the hell you're saying.
Religion puts you in a situation where you're with a group of like-minded individuals and discouraged from seeking answers and information elsewhere. It provides a false sense of security for people who see it necessary to live their daily lives. Religion alone is not responsible for brainwashing, fear of the unknown is.
--
Plastiek
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
That was an amazing read. Thank you kind sir.