Shared publicly  - 
 
Very true.
734
500
srinivasan v's profile photoBrandi Wright's profile photosuresh kumar's profile photoJean-Michel Leroy's profile photo
148 comments
 
It doesn't matter how lucky you are if a volcano erupts or a tree falls on you. Survival of the luckiest is prime, then those who can adapt to change, then intelligence, then brawn, then beauty. I had to get that last part in there... :-)
 
haha. I doubt a tree can kill a whole species unless we are talking about ants :D
 
All species have an Eve... She's the luckiest one of all... :-)
 
Does that mean that probably Neanderthals were actually smarter than us?
 
dis means dat dis theory will also die down soon. if it does not adapt itself. wht an irony.......
 
What he said is confusing. The adaptability is based on genetic mutation. It seems not relying on the will of a subject. Thus, a survivor still has nothing to do with the his/her adaptability. It is a in-deterministic world.
 
Something to think about, for sure.
 
always be ready to face changes head on, that's how you survive.
 
这是秘密,老人家别乱说
Translate
 
It defines reality of life in shortest term. Thanks for enlightening my thoughts.
 
I thought it was the ones that out-reproduced everyone else. Some of those kids will be a little off - and then when the volacno blows, it turns out they like the dry heat.
 
Attributed to Darwin—this is not a contemporary thought of his.
 
US isn't very adaptable - by and large the middle class want to keep the same job and benefits without learning technology and skills that are in demand.
 
This is false. We ddn't evolve... We were created in His Image. We were made for love!!! He died on a cross for us!!
 
because evolution takes hundreds of years. Now think about that for a second.
 
That doesn't mean we don't evolve and adapt to our environments...
 
and does 'his' image never change? are we born out of the foam as venus, fully formed? no, we are constantly in state of change and evolution, both within our lifetime and as a species.
 
everything dies. Darwin could not live forever
 
I agree, +Isaiah Ram, we were made in His image. But I also agree with +Emily Parker. I do recall Jesus telling us to: "Change and become..." We have to repent, yeah? Repent = to change.
 
PS- WIlliam F Touponce is either really a angry 12 year old girl, or he really doesn't realize how ignorant he is..
 
When a species as a whole is exposed to an environmental change, that is less optimal to it's survival, there must be some members of the population that can adapt through physical characteristics, mode of thought, instinct etc. They will form the new species.

When the environment is static, it is easy to see who will survive, but no one knows what the future will hold.
 
Darwin did say that Mike Olson. Read a book
 
Sure, most adaptable to change. But in an unchanging environment, the most successful are the ones who are the most prolific reproducers.

And when a species can alter its environment, then, fellow mankind, we've broken Darwin.
 
In Darwin's head "fittest" meant "most adaptable" not "biggest muscles."
 
Charles Darwin...
historic in English understanding...
my question...
what are her stories???
 
@ William F Touponce: special camps for those of less inteiligence? Like the Nazis had for Jews? You do realise that saying that in public is not very intelligent? You just became the first candidate for a special camp :)
 
@ Christina Matta.
Charles Darwin, I think.
 
Things kill other things. That is nature, it is also nature to grow old and die. So he would have died anyway William Touponce. Don't be a idiot.
 
ya thats quit true as observed till now..
darwin was best in natur analysis...
 
Smart man, that Darwin.
 
things that make us smarter than old farts like you.
 
Touponce was being wildly sarcastic, wasn't he? I was.
 
+Clayton Maier "Read a book"? Really? I could read everything Darwin ever wrote and not find that quote because HE DID NOT SAY IT. On the other hand, you could read the link I posted and see that it is misattributed to him. Here is another one for you:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Misattributed
You can argue that it is in the spirit of what Darwin wrote, or that he may have said things that imply that, and maybe I agree with you.

Besides, this quote is clearly being used as a condemnation of certain groups in this world, or perhaps the US specifically, that are resistant to change. I don't see how a 19th century biologist has any authority to comment on the political climate in 21st century America.
 
Darwin was talking 150 years ago about the development of species, and some fascist righties decide to interpret it as a contemporary political message and proof of a liberal conspiracy. We are so fucked.
(If you're going to call everyone on the left a communist then I get to call everyone on the right a fascist. That's how that works.)
 
Clayton who are you addressing as an old fart?
 
Mike Olson not everything on wikiquote.org is right. Learn how to use the internet and it will tell you that he came up with the theory of evolution and everything. Go back to school and learn something retard.
 
Darwin, when on his deathbed said " I never intended for my thoughts to denounce or take away from religion or our almighty God" Now, if you want to call PBS and the History channel liars, go ahead. He was also known to say that he didn't think all creatures evolved or had to. Take the alligator for example. The alligator is the same creature it was when dinosaurs roamed the earth. Why isn't it possible to assume that God wanted things to evolve? That's where I cant understand why science and religion cant mix. Science cant believe religion can exist with Science and religion can believe science can exist with religion. That is stupid on both parts. If God created man (just for the sake of this argument) then why, or why couldn't God have put evolutionary abilities in creatures so they could adopt to change? I think that in a way, that was what Darwin was saying when he was dieing.
 
really...one of my favorite quotes....(when taking Commercial Chickens as SPECIE)
 
Come on guys, you can't believe +William F Touponce is actually a real person.

As for the quote - it didn't come from Darwin. In fact, it's not even true. It is the "strongest" that survive when strength is a survival enhancing trait. It is the "intelligent" that survive when intelligence is a survival enhancing trait. And of course, it is the adaptable that survive in a frequently changing environment.
 
i think people on gplus are new to the idea of trolls.
 
+Jon Britton you are right. Supposedly, it is from Origin of Species. But it is not.
 
Statement rings very true in humans as well as disease/viruses. Inquiring minds (mine) want to know, which species will prevail?
 
what a true saying from this great man..........
 
I was just stating that evolution is in fact wrong, and not true.
 
+William F Touponce Just to ensure your "Education" is complete here is a little on Charles Robert Darwin FRS (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882), English naturalist:

He established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestry, and proposed the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection.

He published his theory with compelling evidence for evolution in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, overcoming scientific rejection of earlier concepts of transmutation of species.

By the 1870s the scientific community and much of the general public accepted evolution as a fact. However, with the emergence of the modern evolutionary synthesis from the 1930s to the 1950s a broad consensus developed that natural selection was the basic mechanism of evolution.
He died at Down House on 19 April 1882.
 
So is a wolf more evolved than a dog? Is a cow more evolved than an ox?
 
+Clayton Maier I know who Charles Darwin is. But just because he was among first scientists to propose natural selection does not me he said that exact quote. You're right that wikiquote is not necessarily reliable, but neither is some stupid internet meme on Google+. You can go on Project Gutenberg and search The Origin of Species and you will not find that quote.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2009/2009-h/2009-h.htm

That doesn't mean he didn't say it elsewhere, but read some excerpts from Origin of Species and then tell me that the above quote sounds like Darwin's writing style. It's in a modern vernacular. It reads like something that someone made up in recent times and attributed to Darwin because it kinda sorta refers to evolution.

Thirdly, the idea that "the one that is most adaptable to change" survives is not even really that Darwinian. Darwin believed in "survival of the fittest" (a term which he did not invent but is in Origin of Species), which means that the creatures survive which are most fit for their environment. If the environment changes, then the species that happen to be most fit for the new environment will survive. That may mean adaptability, or it may just be dumb luck that they happen to be able to survive in the new environment. The species themselves have no real say, it all has to do with the interaction between their genes and the environment.

In any case, the comparison between evolution and political reticence is really kind of stupid. The idea of darwinism is that changes in the environment will kill off any organisms that don't happen to have a way to deal with them. The ones that do survive and the ones with useful traits tend to survive longer. That's definitely not the same as saying, "Hey old man, everyone uses e-mail now, if you don't buy a computer you'll be left in the dust".
 
He was an evil liar who has fooled much of the world into not believing in our creator JESUS
 
I love this. This "debate" always lines up the same way. A bunch of people who believe the presence of everything is best explained by a story in a book of middle eastern fairytales calling the guys who think everything came from the same salamander crawling out of a primordial mud puddle liars!!!. Really, people? Really?
 
Even though I don't beleive in Charles Darwin's beliefs about evolution, that statement is very true.
Linda C
 
did not even look at the person who said it just the expression he said. sorry i like the saying but even more if it were some other person.
 
I don't miss that guy! He thought that we were all from a monkey! Who believes that stuff?
 
For all you people who think the earth is millions of years old:

The Sun is shrinking at a rate of 5 feet per hour; therefore, if the earth is really millions of years old, the sun would've been so big it would've incinerated up the earth and the moon as well.

Well, now lets assume that the earth didn't get burned up when the sun was this big. It's magnetic field is also decaying, and has decayed 10-15% over the last 150 years. If the earth is millions of years old, the magnetic field would've been so strong it would've exploded.
 
I see what you mean. Believing that we're all descended from a couple of mud dolls makes a crap load more sense......
 
I never realized how much he looks like an ape until now.
 
Shouts the man refusing to adapt?
 
This thread unambiguously establishes that it is not the most intelligent that survive.
 
In the modern world does "adaptable to change" synonymous with
"kiss-a$$?"
 
yes, evolution is just a theory.. kind of like gravity
 
he is the first Illuminati who spread his sickness of mind without any proofs in my opinion complete lunatic
 
+Saher Haider
Was that supposed to be an insult
All of science is theory, because scientists are ready to admit that knowledge changes over time as knowledge increases
 
Hmm...Gotta hand it to Cockroaches..!
 
Hopefully true! I'm not strong or intelligent,so there is still hope for me!
As changes are now for the first time in earth history going faster than the natural pace, all species are endangered to not survive!
Sara S
 
omg!!!It's awesome
 
Who says science is always correct??? The scientist. Are they always correct??? NO. I would say the One who made it all would have ALL of the correct answers to this life. And you can have access to it all in a book called the 'KJV HOLY BIBLE'.
 
I find it incredible how many individuals believe evolution means humans came from monkeys.... You OBVIOUSLY were not paying attention in class... that in fact is NOT the premise. The idea is that humans and apes at some point had a common ancestor. Same as humans and neanderthals, or dogs and wolves. Why is it that people can look and accept dogs evolved (or were breed) from wolves but not believe in the process of evolution. Which by the way says NOTHING about why it occurs or why environmental shifts occur causing some traits to be selected for and others are not.... divine presence maybe?
 
I am amazed at the lack of real thought and understanding in this thread. First, science has not proven Darwin's theory of evolution. If you understand the scientific method, then you understand how a theory becomes a law, such as the laws of thermodynamics or Newtonian physics. Simply put, Darwin's ideas are still nothing more than that...ideas. They are not laws proven by observation or empirical evidence. In fact, the scientific evidence of today points to the complete improbability that life was formed by chance (from non-life) in some primordial soup some millions of years ago.

Here are some facts for you:
In Darwin's time, the only technology available to him was a microscope that could magnify an object 200 to 300 times. He observed a single cell and described the main components as; A membrane, a nucleus and fluid in the nucleus. Since he didn't have much available to him in the way of technology, he stopped at those three components and theorized how life evolved from a single cell organism to the utterly complex human being we are today...and none of it has been proven.

Regarding what we know today about a single cell using the best microscopes available to use right now. For a single cell to come to life, 445 amino acids would have to accidentally line up perfectly, not just once, but 239 times to form 29 proteins that would make a living cell. The probability of having 10 pennies in your pocket, each one marked from 1-10 and then pulling them out in sequential order, 1, 2, 3, etc. is 1 in 10 billion! Even Carl Sagan believed that the probability of evolution occurring, life from non-life was 10 to the 2 billionth power!! Probability experts say that anything 10 to the 15th power is virtually impossible and anything 10 to the 50th power is impossible! If you are interested, ask me for the reference to this material.

Second - No fossil records or empirical evidence has shown evolution across species. The only evolution that has been observed in the fossil record is inter-species evolution. Not a single fossil found by scientists have identified an intra-species life form....NOT ONE. For Darwin's theory to be true, humans would have had to evolve across multiple species. So it's VERY DIFFICULT to believe the theory of evolution at all. He has some poignant quotes, but his ideas are in fact false.

I still cannot comprehend why his theories (false ideas) are continuing to be taught in schools today at any level....mind boggling.

Question of the day: If you cannot put your faith in Darwin, where do you put your faith?
 
If that's true, I'm in big trouble. I'm the least adaptable to change. I love my routine.
 
+Ed Gray Admittedly, in the last few millennia, records show great loss of life in childbirth. However, not dying in childbirth is rather commonplace for some cultures. And the western idea of lying down is apparently very dumb. A family friend had her 2nd child while in Africa in the Peace Corps, and the women of the village had her stand/squat, leaning on them of course, and push. She said the labor took about 20 minutes and was FAR easier than her other two.

Granted, that's a single data point, but I have to believe that if a significant portion of women died in childbirth throughout our history, our species wouldn't have survived to the point where we needed medicine to heal new mothers. There would be no one left to rear the young while the males hunted/protected.

I digress.

So in closing, to quote Randall Munroe:

"Science. It works, bitches."
 
The curious thing is that the belief in evolution or creation is simply culture. And, culture evolves almost the same way as genes do.

I wonder which religions (if any) will adapt to the postmodern age (and thus survive) or go extinct. I wonder if atheism and agnosticism will adapt to growing hostility from religious cultures and survive, or go extinct (probably after an Inquisition or war).

Isn't it fascinating how cultures are as informed by competition and interaction with others, as species that compete for a limited resource, and over many generations, advance?

In the end, all are answering the ultimate question...and are probably as clueless as to what it is as hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings would be.
 
See, the sad thing is, as humans we believe what is visible, what we can see. Whatever is simplest and makes some sort of sense we believe. If evolution is true then we are a product of chance, correct? If so then how can a product of chance contain meaning a purpose? And if we have no meaning and purpose then why are we here? If you look past simplicity and think, you'll see that there is no way that a product of chance could be so intricate, and not a little intricate, but amazingly intricate! We learn things in all sciences that boggle our minds, yet we think that these things were a product of chance. That by a random occurrence life was made. But take for instance this fact, "The stomach’s digestive acids are strong enough to dissolve zinc. Fortunately for us, the cells in the stomach lining renew so quickly that the acids don’t have time to dissolve it." So it's by pure chance that this happens? Look past the simple and see the beauty of God and His amazing creation.
 
Does anyone else see evolution as following a principle analogous to inertia?
 
+Ed Gray Also, regarding abiogenesis, that argument is based on the spontaneous orientation of amino acids. It's totally possible, and more likely, I think (though I have NO background in chemistry other than college freshman chem), that a set of "constructor" compounds spontaneously formed, which happened to grab nearby amino acids and accidentally put them into some formation to create proteins.
This actually seems to fit the idea of evolution more soundly: gradually increasing complexity.
 
+James Wohlever I agree. A burst of energy is all that was required of a god and everything else could have followed from there on. And it wouldn't make God, a lesser god either. But as is often the case, the argument invariably devolves into an exercise in futility of atheist vs theist. It then devolves further into the illusionary "left" vs "right" paradigm. Nevertheless, such instances are always a delightful treat for most skeptics and agnostics alike :)
 
So few people understand the scientific method. It is sad really. Human life is so much better, because of the advances of science, and the people who benefit, don't understand it, think it is a sham, or worse.
 
+Ed Gray I understand the differences between an hypothesis, theory and law...and the scientific method. You should check your own mistakes, my friend. You have completely contradicted yourself...I think you meant to say a theory doesn't explain WHY...

I disagree with your imagination of how birds and whales have evolved. Because a fossil record is similar to another doesn't prove evolution at all. It is one's imagination that creates the linkages... Quit talking about birds and mammals...show everyone here the fossil record of man's evolution. Where has it been found? Where does it exist in museums today?

Lastly, nice one trying to duck the mathematics of the probability that a single cell can be formed by chance....You cannot argue with the mathematics. Please try...I'd love to read your thoughts on that. Carl Sagan was one of the most thoughtful scientists and teachers of our time. He couldn't prove it mathematically.

Abiogenesis...give me a break. So you are saying that evolution only explains how life evolved but stops there and doesn't explain how life began? A practical and thoughtful person would then ask..."Ok, but how did life begin?"

I have read many books on the theory of evolution and the beginning of life. They all ask you to accept their ASSUMPTIONS to prove their ideas. Again...there is no real proof but a stack of ASSUMPTIONS you have to believe in order for the idea to hold true.
 
Here here!!! Everyday I complain about it but the crypto fascist are too busy stirring the cauldron and throwing in another bat to be bothered about the crap spewing forth -- we are on the doorstep of the information age and this is information and the distribution of said info -- I am sick of blocking it --- actually I am fed up w. big brother google in total -- they have ruined picasa with their tweaks -- the picasa page has slipped below the bottom icon strip + I do not know how to change it? Help! I do some nice things on picasa see http://zarafasartspot.blogspot.com/ one example- not just a photo juiced up -- the crypto's (hidden ones) are not artists not even creative (well maybe that's a bit rough!) they are bookkeepers -- ones and zeros -- If you reading into my comments -- disdain for these guys your not far off the mark -- they don't answer to queries in forums -- the simply do not respond its their way or the highway! They're in an impervious turret surrounded by a moat of boiling oil -- I am going to approach my Representative to have a congressional hearing to set some rules that goggles staff has to adhere to i.e. being responsible to the people who use their product -- to answer a question I am sorry if its too big get a call center --- and they would have all those free phone calls ---
Google uses the internet for free -- Google gets advertising revenue to compensate them for their effort -- giving out a few sheckles if YOU host some ad's -- we the people own the internet it belongs to the people, if I were Queen for a day the goog! Would have to watch its P's + Q's big time! So just waiting for March 1st when I believe all hell is guaranteed to let lose -- because no one has really told us whats in store -- the melding of your ours mine information -- that's one reason to follow EFF's advise and remove your history otherwise it will get jumbled up read "Google recently announced it was unifying its privacy policies and would be sharing the data it collects about users between all of its products, starting March 1st." Beware of the cryptos they operate under cover of darkness --- secretly changing the order of the the words on the tool bar --- moved 'search' from right to left and maps and youtube appeared + is centered oooow! six more days to go before chaos arrives :-)~------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------
 
Because being told to have blind faith in something you cant see/touch/study/understand isn't redundant?
 
+Ed Gray The numbers are not made up. They are simple calculations of the number of amino acids to form proteins and the number of proteins to form a cell...in the proper sequence mind you. Life from non-life is impossible. Get over it. The video you provided in the link to abiogensis states scientists have not argued spontaneous generation since 1668. That's a misrepresentation of the truth...http://books.google.com/books/about/At_home_in_the_universe.html?id=o-Owb5IDkSQC Kaufman published the above book in 1995...I have read this book and the ONLY way you can believe his ideas on the origin of life is to agree with EVERY assumption in the book. (I read this book one year after graduating from engineering school...I think I know a few things about science, mathematics and probabilities and ASSUMPTIONS in theories and ideas.)

Yes I am a Christian and have studied this at length. You say there are no assumptions in science...are you joking? Here's an assumption right off the page of the abiogenesis presentation..."all it shows is that early life could not have been as complex as modern cells." Really...you expect people to believe this crap. Almost every page in that presentation is filled with ASSUMPTIONS. I will not put my faith in the science of assumptions.

Like I said before, I have a degree in engineering. I understand the laws of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics and mathematics very well. But when it comes to life I put my belief in Our Father in Heaven.

My sources...The Holy Bible, Ken Hamm, Chip Ingram...look into their work.

Lastly, C.S. Lewis converted from atheism to Christianity after extensive research and came to the only logical conclusion. Jesus lived, died and lived again after 3 days.... The Bible is true.
 
So this is what Gplus is. Just another website with mildly amusing or interesting images and people arguing about them with trolls.
 
In terms of economic and security situation in Iran is upset because ofthreats to Israel and America on the pretext of a nuclear bomb ! Have traveled to Iran or not? But let's see here that God did not launch acampaign against it. Everything is quiet and not say things that the news. Whythe threat ? Why War? You can commenton your opponents in this part of the comments I do not think so & IF Oppositionand threats of war against our country are unreasonable . As a man and a scientist and an artist andan actor and as a researcher and whatever you are With the absurd and unreasonable WAR YOUR OPPOSITION announced .
 
+Brooke Yuresko Scientists do not claim that they are always right. Preachers do. Scientists do claim that science is the best tool we have for figuring out how the world works. The best religion can do is make wild guesses.
 
That's not a quote from Darwin. It also goes against the very fundamentals of his theory.
 
I'm impressed with how believers can't express themselves in any other way than insults. Have you ever heard of argumentation? Or is that too much scientific/atheist/satanic/comunist (choose one) for you?
 
I agree with Ed Gray. Erik Nordin does not know what he is talking about. Everything that Ed says can be proven and had been proven many times over. Erik is just saying things that he believes. Erik you theories have been proven wrong a long time ago. People use to think that flies came from rotting meat. That was proven wrong. People use to think that they made light from there eyes. That was proven wrong. People use to think that god made rainbows. That was proven wrong. If you want me to keep going I can. Erik get your facts straight, that engineering degree you have doesn't me crap.
 
+Ed Gray
I don't normally do this, but I can't resist as you have so easily set this up yourself.


"...the egyptians did not enslave the Jews, as ALL of the archaeological evidence shows..."
Wrong! Archaeologists, just this year in fact have said (Discovery Channel presentation, History Channel, PBS, Science Channel, I can go on) that the ONLY reason they had assumed that Egyptians didn't use slaves was because of the housing that was provided to these "workers" were of higher quality then they would have thought would be made for slaves. The other underlying reason, is because, to this DAY, No one, NO ONE knows how the Egyptians built the pyramids.
They have "Theories" Theories, as I learned in school are ideas that MIGHT <-- See that word? MIGHT explain how a process MAY be explained. Hence, as new science/evidence is found, a theory is discarded or changed in favor of the new evidence or discoveries. A Theory is just that, someone's best guess is to how they (and those who agree with them) think something might work. A theory is not a proven fact. Stop trying to trip people up over word play and I'll stop.

"or that the Earth is only 6,000 years old (seriously??!!!!!!)"
You show me where, in the Bible it says the earth is only 6,000 years old. In fact, this book you call a fairy tale, supports some of your science as in the first Chapter of Genesis it says "The Earth was a dark and covered with the waters of heaven" (In layman's term, at the time that God brought life to Earth, the Earth was already there, with WATER and was ready for life. Sounds a lot like what recent NASA finds of Mars and Jupiter's moons have suggested that instead of a hot, flaming dry planet, that our Earth may have had a LOT of water on it shortly after it was formed. The kicker? They can not explain how so much water got on the earth. The THEORY used to be that comets with water in them crashed into the earth and the ice and water contained in the comets slowly formed our wet atmosphere. However, once they tested water samples from comets in 2010 they found that the water molecules formation is not similar to Earths water molecules. Also, the amount of comets or other debris that would have to have brought water to Earth is such a high amount they don't think the Earth would have stayed intact. In fact, Of all the water samples tested in comets and other solar bodies, Earth's water molecules are formed 100% differently than any where else. So why would Earth be the only planet that has all this water, that could not have come from any of the sources that sciences THEORIES used to say?




"...or that Noah lived to 500 years old"
Again, science is actually helping prove the Bible right. They (When I say "They" I mean NASA and/or major Big Bang and Evolutionary scientists) said the earth is revolving slower and slower every year. Their theory is that 2000 years ago, a full day was only 20 hours long. Wow. So, if when Noah was on the Earth, I would bet that theory would say the earth was revolving even faster, so lets take a safe estimate and say that a full day then was only 16 hours. So if you do the math and multiply 16 hours x 365 (Oh wait, no, THEY also say that the movement around the sun was faster the further you go back, so I don't even have that number to add to the equation, but anyway, so lets assume just the basics. A full day we have now is a little over 24 hours. In a thousand years a full day might take 30+ hours. Anyway, if a man lived to be 500 years old back then, (A year being 365 days or one revolution around the sun) then those odds that Noah could have lived 500 "years" starts to look very plausible. Seeing how those that wrote the Bible didn't even use our current calendar or didn't have watches etc to track time, how can you even know how long a year back then was?
SCIENCE also says that people may have actually lived much longer than us back then due to very little disease or genetic mutations (Cancer etc) than we have now. These are YOUR people stating these THEORIES.



"...it's also littered with immorality, contradictions and outright lies."
Are you really the kind of person who, when reading a story with a moral gets hung up on every little detail and misses the POINT of the story? The Bible itself states that there are many parables (read: riddles/puzzles) in the Bible and those with WISDOM will know them. No, not intelligence. There is a big difference between wisdom and intelligence. I can go to any newspaper, book or publication about actual events and find many errors, contradictions and ideals that at the time where true but don't apply now.



"So you must believe the Earth is flat then? Because the Bible CLEARLY says this several times."
Really? Show me exactly where.

"If you question two entire fields, you should be questioning them all."
Really? So if one scientist tells me that my car has four wheels and one tells me that its color is blue.. Okay. My car has four wheels.. But its colored red. So once field of science was correct, one was wrong.


"So how do you feel about Atomic Theory? Any criticisms of that?"
Glad you asked. I can actually supply this one. In school I was taught that atoms have electrons that are spaced around the nucleus of an atom like planets in our solar system. The electrons were said to spin around the nucleus. Sounds familiar to most I hope.
That was the THEORY...then. Now, Science has discovered, that they were wrong. Because of Quantum physics they now say that electrons do not revolve around the atom. They very, very quickly appear and reappear at different places around the nucleus. In fact, they have found that sometimes, once electron can be in TWO DIFFERENT PLACES AT THE SAME TIME. Wow. Of course science isn't "exactly sure" how these electrons appear in two different places at the same time. They call it Quantum Physics and move on.
I'm sure someone, someday will come up with a good THEORY of how a photon of one atom can be 5 miles away and the other one can be 5 miles in other direction and yet, if you move one photon, the other photon, miles away, will instantly react as if the photons are somehow linked.... Some mysterious force that science can't explain. They mumble something about everything being made up of strings.. LOL Of course, that's another THEORY.
I'm you're aware of the phenomenon that if you try to measure the speed of one photon, that you can't measure the direction of the other. Mysteriously it's as if, under Quantum Physics, the photon actual knows your measuring it. Weird Cool Stuff that science just can not explain.



"It's because the scientific method WORKS."
Today it works, to a point., as Einstein found, that there is a big GAP in trying to explain Newton physics and Quantum Physics. Even Stephen Hawking has admitted that he can not explain how Newton physics and Quantum physics are tied together. He says they MUST be. MUST!
That wonderful "Theory of Everything" that science is always, but as of yet, have not found.
Of course, when they do find something they will change their theory.
The nice thing about the theories, as new science and knowledge is obtained, Theories can change, else we would all believe that the Earth was flat.
The nice thing about the Bible is that is does not change, and the rules that applied then, still apply now.


Last but no least, until science can show a real, 100% for sure half-human half-monkey fossil, then they can not PROVE that humans were ever anything other than humans.
Do we evolve? YES
Do creatures evolve? YES
SO why the argument?
Because I can believe that God had the WISDOM to foresee creatures and humans being presented with different environments that would require them to evolve in order to survive. That actually sounds just like something called a God would have the fore site to do.
Atheists want nothing but cold hard dead. Everything just dies. With Atheism, there is no soul. I really feel bad for you. To wake up every day and think that when you die that you, as a person, a soul,that all your thoughts, your dreams, your kindness, even your not so niceness meant absolutely nothing except for the survival of species. That sounds like a sad, depressing existence.
I'm not going to change your mind. But why do insist that I am stupid/ignorant just because I do believe in a higher power? I don't throw my beliefs in your face then call you stupid if you don't believe. All I do is hope that some day you do, for YOUR benefit, not mine.

Off my soapbox.
"There are no atheists in a foxhole" - Reverend William T. Cummings
 
I can see this is going to get us nowhere. As I said I have my sources of information and you have yours. So let's agree to disagree. This argument could go on forever. The only thing I have to ask is why do atheists always seem to get nasty with "believers" If you don't believe in anything, fine, that's your right, but why, as in the above response, do you have to resort to name calling? I do not feel superior to you so why do you and most other atheists I converse with take on this superior complex? Calling me "ungrateful", "uneducated garbage", etc. Why the hostility? As far as your slamming of organized religion, I actually agree with you. I told you before that most people would consider me an agnostic. I am not some inbred hick spouting verses from a book I do not understand. I do not go to church. However, just because of one little difference between you and I. The fact that I believe that there is a God (not of a particular religion) then you resort to thinking of me as ignorant and uneducated. I can't think of a worst way for someone to see your point of view. I'm done posting my side of this story and I'll do what I should have done, let others see both sides and make their own decision.
I wish you well
Signed "Uneducated, Ungrateful and Ignorant"
 
+Ed Gray +James Wohlever Guys...this argument went nowhere...glad I have a life beyond social networking. One of the things that I get frustrated with in today's society is the absolute commitment to science and our education system...there are too many people that take what they are told and don't question beyond that. Learning and exploration require all of us to ask basic questions and I am often amused at the assumptions that are required to hold certain theories together. Without questioning theories and their underlying assumptions, one doesn't truly understand our level of understanding of the natural world. I urge everyone to look beyond the headlines and question the assumptions of basic and advanced arguments...that's where and when real learning takes place.

Because I am a Christian, I am a target for agnostics and atheists...read the above stream of thoughts and you get the picture. This does not mean, as James put it, I am a dumb hick...quite the contrary...I believe you have to take your brain off autopilot to really understand the meaning of the Bible. It's so much more than a series of mysteries and morals pieced together by a series of human authors.

There has been a long history of skeptics questioning the accuracy of the bible, from historians, to scientists, to academics of all flavors. Over the course of this debate the skeptics pointed to the lost tribe of Dan as proof that the Biblical account of history was in fact not true or not completely accurate. Well, in 1994 archaeologists discovered the City of Tel Dan and subsequently unearthed the only known extra-biblical phrase, "House of David", among other important finds as well. This site is only 10% excavated and there is still much to learn from it. Where are the skeptics now in relation to this debate...?
http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/december-2011/article/archaeologists-excavate-legendary-city-of-dan

Again, I urge people to learn for themselves and not take any ideas, hypotheses, theories, etc. at face value. We all need to question everything, like a child, until we understand. No I am not a dumb, hick and I do have an engineering degree and an advanced degree beyond that. In fact, I have followed the experiments on the border of France and Switzerland of the LHC. I am interested to learn if the big bang THEORY can be PROVEN or not. I'm interested to see if the Higgs boson particle can actually be discovered...today it's considered to be hypothetical but is required (as an assumption) to make the standard model of particle physics hold true. It's interesting to me that scientists there said they had observed particles traveling faster than the speed of light, but what in fact turned out to be the case is that their system had a faulty cable.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/large-hadron-collider/9102355/Large-Hadron-Collider-at-CERN-Einstein-was-right-all-along.html
Also interesting to me is the informal name of the Higgs boson particle...the God particle. ;-)

The last thing I will say on all of this is that there has to be more to life and our existence than advancing science and acknowledging our comforts of modern society. Yes, I am thankful that I live today, with great automobiles, the ability to travel anywhere in the world in a matter of hours, the awe inspiring findings of astronauts in space and on the moon, the most incredible photos of outer space from the Hubble space telescope, the ability to communicate across the world via a mobile phone or the internet. However, when I take my brain off autopilot, and I ponder what really matters and the truth of the Bible, I realize we are all here to love one another, as Jesus urged us to do. It's that simple. There is more to life than our selfish ways lead us to behave. There is an after-life as well and I hope and pray that one day I get to experience it...regardless of my own failures and sins. I believe in our Father in Heaven and I hope more people come to know Him as well...it's the only truth that can answer the most difficult and important questions of why and how...and no, I don't put my faith solely in science...
 
Very well said +Erik Nordin

I hope you Realize I wasn't calling Christians "hicks". I was referring to a certain subset of our society who blindly repeat anything religious without really knowing what they are discussing.
A lot of people assume agnostics and atheists are in the same boat. That is far from the reality. I believe in God. I believe Jesus existed. I believe in the Bible to a point. In my view, since the original Bible has so many parts that were badly translated, changed to suit the Kings of the time, or parts hidden/removed by the Catholic church out of fear, I have a hard time believing that certain parts that are in the Bibles we have today are the exact original text or meaning. I take the Bible has a guide on life for someone wanting to live the way God intended. I do not subscribe to the thought that every part of the Bible was literal. As I said in my earlier post, many parts of the Bible were also riddles and how do I know that those who translated or intercepted sections do so in the proper way?
That is one of the reasons I do not do is subscribe to a set dogma. From my point of view, God is too much of a powerful force for one point of view or religion to contain. There are many religious beliefs in this world and as I see many valid points from many different beliefs I honestly can not say I'm this or that religion. I guess that since most people think agnostics are non-believers I should instead say I'm a spiritual person.
My personal reasons for not going to church or listening to one man's ideas of what I should believe (the preacher) is that I have my ideas of what God is to me. Two different people can read the same verse and come up with different ideas of what was meant. I think it was partly intended to be that way.
No, I don't pick and choose what to believe to suit myself, I listen openly to anyone's belief. If it sounds reasonable or something that I can honestly believe, then I can give it a chance.
Too many people through history have had absolute faith in their belief for only "one" to be "right". To say that just because someone chose the "wrong" religion to worship God and that therefor they are doomed to Hell etc is just to me, not how God would be.
If you can believe that your not the most superior creature in existence and that we humans are a long way from being a "God", and you honestly follow the golden rules "Do unto to others as they would do unto you" etc, then "I" think/hope that God will know my true heart and accept me for my failings.
Fighting between religions has been too brutal, caused more deaths than all the World Wars/Vietnam/Korea combined for me to look at someone who is a Methodist versus say a Jewish person and say, well he is wrong and this other guy is right. I'm not condemning organized religion either. I think for the people who want church in their life, then fine, there isn't harm in that. I personally have too many questions and other ideas for one religion to say "this is the absolute answer".
I hope you see my point of view and can understand what I am trying to say. The God I believe in would not punish an entire race or group of people just because they see God in a slightly different light.

Last thing to the group, I have known many "hardcore" atheists in my life, and the one thing I have witnessed time and again, is that when life is young and death/old age is far from the mind, the don't worry too much about beliefs. But when the reaper comes knocking (sickness, accidents, old age), a lot of them have a turn of heart. I'm not saying all you will "see the light" one day, but I hope you at least can give those that do a little respect for their beliefs instead of assuming they are ignorant/stupid simple folk. Belief is something very personal to each person and to ridicule them for that is akin to making fun of a person because they have green eyes instead of blue. When you believe something it doesn't make you any less intelligent than someone who doesn't or vice versa.
I LOVE science. The only channels I watch regularly on TV is the Science Channel, History, Nat Geo and channels like that. I've read "On The Shoulders Of Giants", quantum physics books, Einstein's theories of relativity and some of his lesser known theories. I find them great. Einstein, the one many believe to be one of the most intelligent people ever born, was quoted as saying that you couldn't look at the beauty and complexity of the Universe and not see God. So are you saying he was ignorant/stupid? I try to learn all I can. So why does one little thing like personal belief make you, the atheists, superior to me? It doesn't.

+Erik Nordin You sound like an intelligent person who is far from the type I was referring to as "hicks". Sorry if I didn't make that clear earlier.
 
+James Wohlever Thank you, James. I didn't take your comments on "the unintelligent" to mean that all Christians are backwards or "hicks." I appreciate you clarifying your points and was not offended by your posts at all. It's the comments of some of the other posts that I found rather offensive! They just showed that they cannot stoop to elementary school name calling. I agree that many people are persecuted once they claim to be a Christian in public. I believe it is part of the life of a Christian to experience this and it says in the bible that we will experience persecution just for our beliefs.

I also agree there has been too much bloodshed over faith in God, or not accepting the "right" God. There's a Christian pastor in Iran that has been sentenced to death for blasphemy and apostasy against the Muslim faith.
http://www.christiantelegraph.com/issue14030.html

I love science and mathematics too. When I graduated with my masters degree, Benoit Mandelbrot provided the commencement speech. I thought it was rather cool since I had studied "fractal math" during my undergraduate program and was impressed with his ability to reduce the complex into the simple and relate the math to nature...which hadn't been done by the mathematicians before him. I see repeating patterns in nature all the time after having been exposed to his thinking. Just take a look at a tree or a rose petal some time.

Any way, my point in all of this is that while the technology of our time is rather amazing, there is more to life and I find much inspiration in the Bible. The wisdom within it is always growing for me and I learn something new all the time. Check out Proverbs in the future.

Lastly, you don't have to belong to a particular sect or go to the "right" church in order to believe in God. Actually, regarding your comments on errors or omissions in the Bible, I will point you to some of the research of Chip Ingram. He has a series that explains how the Bible was passed from then to now and is a very good read / listen if you are interested.

Thanks again and God Bless.
 
Adaptability = Luck, after much consideration during my years on earth, I say NO! To adapt to situations the more baggage you carry the less adaptability you have. As Zen has taught me, LESS IS MORE always and no culture adapts as the Japanese do, they are very strong in spirit. If push came to shove can you leave the high rise and sleep close to the earth in a tent, would you know how or have you become too delicate?
 
Plants adapt, lady bugs adapt, dolphins speak sonar tells us, some household pests lived thousands of years, cave dwellers discovered flint and made fire but today we have luxuries and our skin has become thin and it's common fare.
 
Dolphin intelligence is being watched very closely, it makes sense that this kind of intelligence would come from the sea.They are adapting to the ways of man, it's a marvel of the 20th century.
 
达尔文是不是只说过这一句话?为什么我从小到大学到他就是适者生存涅?
Translate
Add a comment...