Alabama puts warnings on science books ?

[Conspirator.]

LOL! Are people on this site really this stupid? First of all, a "theory" in Science is not the same as a "theory" or "conjecture" you may concoct on the fly in your everyday life to try and explain spontaneous events. No, to have a "theory" acknowledged in Science requires hundreds upon hundreds of experiments, lab reports presenting all the evidence and numerous scientists reviewing the conclusion. The "Theory of Evolution" is all but a fact, and the evidence all points to it being true.

Now, this may not be the best example, but I'm sure you know all about how disease-causing organisms and bacteria evolve and eventually become "resistant" to various treatments? This impacts on the way we are treated and affects the way we go about making new medicine. That's just a rudimentary application of it-there's a lot more complex stuff about it that you can easily find online. The fact is, whether you want to accept it or not; there's far more evidence supporting the "Theory of Evolution" than believing in some all-powerful God who created everything on a whim.

OT: It's obviously really stupid for them to do that.

 

[~WastelandSociety~]

There is nothing against it. Literally nothing. Please don't be a moron and study things before running your mouth and making an idiot out of yourself

I'm not making myself look like an idiot.That's just a childish response by calling someone an idiot if they don't think the way you do.

I just posted a video about it in my last posts.
And you can simply look it up,which obviously you didn't.

Just have an open mind.

Edit:
A theory isn't something that's impossible to disprove.
All theories can change as new evidence is discovered. No theory is ever 100% proven or complete.

 

[SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO]

Sweet Home Alabama.

 

[Brother Numpsay]

I personally believe in evolution in a theistic view but:

The fact is, whether you want to accept it or not; there's far more evidence supporting the "Theory of Evolution" than believing in some all-powerful God who created everything on a whim.

How does this make sense. You cant add God in a "data" to use as a point to make a claim of having "more evidence" then the latter.

Knowing that evolution happen with evidence doesn't disprove or "show more" evidence of the existence of God. At all.

 

[Your Creepy Stalker]

Warning, this Science book contains Science!

Even from a religious point of view this is a ridiculous warning.

 

[PlatinumTitan]

I'm not making myself look like an idiot.That's just a childish response by calling someone an idiot if they don't think the way you do.

I just posted a video about it in my last posts.
And you can simply look it up,which obviously you didn't.

Just have an open mind.

Edit:
A theory isn't something that's impossible to disprove.
All theories can change as new evidence is discovered. No theory is ever 100% proven or complete.

Our point here is, it's still widely accepted by the scientific community, because there isn't any empirical evidence against evolution.
As you seem to think there is.

 

[Red Flag X Drake]

I'm not making myself look like an idiot.That's just a childish response by calling someone an idiot if they don't think the way you do.

I just posted a video about it in my last posts.
And you can simply look it up,which obviously you didn't.

Just have an open mind.

Edit:
A theory isn't something that's impossible to disprove.
All theories can change as new evidence is discovered. No theory is ever 100% proven or complete.

The video disproves nothing. No one has any real arguements against it. And no. I am not going to have an open mind because this isn't something to have an open mind about. And yes you look like an idiot.

 

[Wabbit]

Why don't we put warning on religious books, think about what we can put.

Warning! This book makes many claims which you are supposed to "believe" but not ask to question it or verify because God. If you are reading this book thinking you would go to heaven,nobody has seen that you will go to heaven if you follow this book. This book has taken many lives. This book can motivate you in bad ways turning you into becoming conservative maniac to a terrorist. Read at your own risk.

 

[Hattake Ryuzaki]

Which leads to new ways on how to kill

Actually science is producing new organs such as hearts and lungs, not to mention this thing called modern medicine that you most likely use when you are sick. If anything it is leading on new ways to save lives and prolong them you ignorant fen sucked dewberry.

 

[Zexion~]

Alabama has literally just put up a sign saying "We're dumb asses"

 

[The Dreamer]

I'm religious but I don't believe in Adam and Eve, I think God is much more creative than putting two naked people in a field and waiting for magic to happen. God created nature, balance. People say, what does God do about all the terrible things that go on in the world, well he creates good people to battle it, why is there horror in the world, so that people learn, we all know what happens to human beings who live carefree, luxury lives, they turn into butt holes.

And the big ball of dust, where did it come from? God, that's where, I believe there is a space between religion and science that neither scientist nor religious person wants to see.

Exactly. Religion and science aren't contradictory. The reason people think they are is because of their lack of understanding either of them. For instance a lot of people (both theists and atheists) take the biblibical book of creation literally. The book is written in a symbolic way.

OT: That's a pretty dumb thing to do. Not only does it make Alabama look iliterate but it is also a futile attempt since people who want to read scientific books will read them anyway, unless they plan to shut down the internet.

 

[Babadook]

The video disproves nothing. No one has any real arguements against it. And no. I am not going to have an open mind because this isn't something to have an open mind about. And yes you look like an idiot.

The video is wrongly titled, it indeed doesn't disprove evolution, it is not even intended to. It only argues that evolution can't fully explain life as it is, and that design is evident from the microbiological systems of organisms.
I, personally, think it is not any less logical to infer design from the dna sequence than it is to infer an author from a book we stumble upon. Unless you claim that letters could have arranged themselves into a meaningful text through natural selection. Or maybe I'm missing something...I've read an article that organisms could have taken the information from their surroundings, so there is no need for an intelligent agent- but there was no detailed explanation as to how exactly this happened. Besides, I still find it interesting that such information exists at all. Why is the structure of the world such that contains just the necessary information for conscious, selfreflective creatures to exist in the first place? Can we argue that it's just there, that's how it happened, there is nothing more to it?
In any case, to me it is possible to logically reach the conclusion of design, but I recognize that others may not find the same logic convincing.

 

[Red Flag X Drake]

The video is wrongly titled, it indeed doesn't disprove evolution, it is not even intended to. It only argues that evolution can't fully explain life as it is, and that design is evident from the microbiological systems of organisms.
I, personally, think it is not any less logical to infer design from the dna sequence than it is to infer an author from a book we stumble upon. Unless you claim that letters could have arranged themselves into a meaningful text through natural selection. Or maybe I'm missing something...I've read an article that organisms could have taken the information from their surroundings, so there is no need for an intelligent agent- but there was no detailed explanation as to how exactly this happened. Besides, I still find it interesting that such information exists at all. Why is the structure of the world such that contains just the necessary information for conscious, selfreflective creatures to exist in the first place? Can we argue that it's just there, that's how it happened, there is nothing more to it?
In any case, to me it is possible to logically reach the conclusion of design, but I recognize that others may not find the same logic convincing.

Yes they could have. You see life is just a mutation. It was all by chance. On the trillions of planets ours just happened to be one that had a certain mutation as a result from radioactivity under the sea from volcanoes, or other things like that. They reacted differently and most didn't actually turn into what we call life. Then those without proper structure died. Those small perect that got lucky become single cell organisms. Also I don't believe I explained that clearly so you shpuld look that up to get the full jist of what I am saying

 

[RasenUchihaChaos]

Actually science is producing new organs such as hearts and lungs, not to mention this thing called modern medicine that you most likely use when you are sick. If anything it is leading on new ways to save lives and prolong them you ignorant fen sucked dewberry.

Was I supposed to be offended ???

And plz enlighten me on who will get these new ways without having wait on a list that will never come their way unless they are filthy rich .

Also that alleged insult you used is a disgrace Floki would have come up with a better. Line then that

You being great shame to him he would kill you for that nonsense

 

[Babadook]

Yes they could have. You see life is just a mutation. It was all by chance. On the trillions of planets ours just happened to be one that had a certain mutation as a result from radioactivity under the sea from volcanoes, or other things like that. They reacted differently and most didn't actually turn into what we call life. Then those without proper structure died. Those small perect that got lucky become single cell organisms. Also I don't believe I explained that clearly so you shpuld look that up to get the full jist of what I am saying

I'm well aware of what you are saying- but did you get my point? I'm fine with you attributing this to chance: but how is it less logical to infer design? And noone has every explained in details, or proved beyond doubt how exactly "radioactivity under the sea from volcanoes or other things like that reacted differently and ...some became single cell organisms". Premordial soup is just another theory.

 

[Hattake Ryuzaki]

-snip-

Im sorry what was that? Oh ya nothing of significant worth to support your idiotic argument that science is leading to death.

 

[RasenUchihaChaos]

Im sorry what was that? Oh ya nothing of significant worth to support your idiotic argument that science is leading to death.

Let me help you to offend me


Here is the list

1. Be a grammar nazi

2. Waste food

3. Be boring

4. Abuse animals or kids

5. Mistreat a book

6. Be a bully

7. Talk with food in your mouth

8. Support sentinel over Atlas

9. Support the Empire over the Stormcloaks

10. shoot the last dodo

11. Wank Dazni shimbuya here put your grammar nazi skills to use

12. Littering

13. Jaywalking

14. Political calls

15. Bother me at the mall about your phone plans

16. Teasing the monkeys at the zoo

17. Racism

18. Pants on the ground

19. Broccoli

20. Sneezing

21. Saying your a joker

22. Being a dis race to Floki the real joker

23. Hmmmmmmmm need to think some more

 

[YowYan]

Let me help you to offend me


Here is the list

1. Be a grammar nazi

2. Waste food

3. Be boring

4. Abuse animals or kids

5. Mistreat a book

6. Be a bully

7. Talk with food in your mouth

8. Support sentinel over Atlas

9. Support the Empire over the Stormcloaks

10. shoot the last dodo

11. Wank Dazni shimbuya here put your grammar nazi skills to use

12. Littering

13. Jaywalking

14. Political calls

15. Bother me at the mall about your phone plans

16. Teasing the monkeys at the zoo

17. Racism

18. Pants on the ground

19. Broccoli

20. Sneezing

21. Saying your a joker


22. Being a dis race to Floki the real joker

23. Hmmmmmmmm need to think some more

You remind me of my father. He's a gullible christian and whenever he's losing an argument against me he starts throwing in things that are completely irrelevant and somehow convinces himself it makes sense so because I'm younger than him, I must be gullible.


OT: Evolution hasn't been disproven at all. Simpletons just want to debunk it as it undermines their religious claims. Noone wants their little bubble to be popped so they try find ways to discredit evolution. I'm sure there are some legitimate thoughts to point out it's flaws but no direct scientific research to back it up.

As for creationist logic: 'God' is a word that is used to answer universal questions to which you don't really have an answer for but you'd like to think so. 'Holyness' is: Here is a notion that you can't say anything bad about. Why? Because you're not. You'll 'offend' them. < as you see here, religious logic holds down progress and chains the mind.

'Where there is no vision, the people perish.'

 

[Babadook]

Simpletons just want to debunk it as it undermines their religious claims. Noone wants their little bubble to be popped so they try find ways to discredit evolution.

There are scientists as well who have doubts about certain aspects of evolution- are they simpletons too? There are also non religious people who have doubts about evolution.

Besides, the same could be said about some atheists/scientists. They just don't want to believe, so they'll keep chanting 'evolution, evolution, evolution' like a mantra, as if evolution somehow excluded the possibility of the existence of god.

As for creationist logic: 'God' is a word that is used to answer universal questions to which you don't really have an answer for but you'd like to think so.

It's called abduction. Science has its limits, therefore it will never be able to answer certain questions- ignoring science's limits and having faith that it can answer everything: that's not much better than religious faith. Once you're aware that evolution can't account for the origins of life, and you are left to choose between theories that may never be proven, or that there may be a Creator: then it's not illogical to infer intelligence that actually explains the phenomenon. It is the best available answer. You may argue that this idea would hinder further research to uncover the mysteries of life: but that's not true. Many scientists throughout history were actually motivated by faith, because they wanted to understand the creation of god.
Crick, who, along with Watson, discovered the double helix structure of the dna, said that biologists must keep in mind when they research, that those organisms were evolved, not designed. (Not that the two exclude each other in the first place). Now such thinking also inhibits being open minded and reaching correct conclusions. When you see a sequence of signs with semantic meaning: you automatically infer an author. That may not be the case, but that's still the best answer. It won't stop you from trying to decode the message, though. Actually, it may be through research and decoding that you realize that something is indeed designed.

'Holyness' is: Here is a notion that you can't say anything bad about. Why? Because you're not. You'll 'offend' them. < as you see here, religious logic holds down progress and chains the mind.

Yet, ironically, evolution has become a sacred theory that noone can challenge- or else the person will be ostracized and ridiculed by the scientific communiuty. Noone would risk their careeers- so they fit in.

 

[YowYan]

There are scientists as well who have doubts about certain aspects of evolution- are they simpletons too? There are also non religious people who have doubts about evolution.

Besides, the same could be said about some atheists/scientists. They just don't want to believe, so they'll keep chanting 'evolution, evolution, evolution' like a mantra, as if evolution somehow excluded the possibility of the existence of god.


It's called abduction. Science has its limits, therefore it will never be able to answer certain questions- ignoring science's limits and having faith that it can answer everything: that's not much better than religious faith. Once you're aware that evolution can't account for the origins of life, and you are left to choose between theories that may never be proven, or that there may be a Creator: then it's not illogical to infer intelligence that actually explains the phenomenon. It is the best available answer. You may argue that this idea would hinder further research to uncover the mysteries of life: but that's not true. Many scientists throughout history were actually motivated by faith, because they wanted to understand the creation of god.
Crick, who, along with Watson, discovered the double helix structure of the dna, said that biologists must keep in mind when they research, that those organisms were evolved, not designed. (Not that the two exclude each other in the first place). Now such thinking also inhibits being open minded and reaching correct conclusions. When you see a sequence of signs with semantic meaning: you automatically infer an author. That may not be the case, but that's still the best answer. It won't stop you from trying to decode the message, though. Actually, it may be through research and decoding that you realize that something is indeed designed.


Yet, ironically, evolution has become a sacred theory that noone can challenge- or else the person will be ostracized and ridiculed by the scientific communiuty. Noone would risk their careeers- so they fit in.

Like I said; '' I'm sure there are some legitimate thoughts to point out it's flaws but no direct scientific research to back it up.''
I'm not even saying that evolution is 100% irrefutable. I'm saying that people would like to debunk it for the wrong reasons and come up with the degenerate arguments as to defend their delusions. Scientists do factual research but with the right intent. Which is the progress of universal knowledge without bias. Ofcourse there are scientists that are individuals of faith but atleast they stick to science to back up their statements and not holy claims.

Personally I don't even have a problem with the possibility of intelligent design. But I think it makes more sense if it's more of a perpetual mathemetical sequence of creation with no conscious deity bringing anything to life in a poof. The way a flower grows and blooms through the fibonacci sequence and how a human hand is formed the same way..it's all mathematically measurable and perceivable as a matrix of nature. It's just that the religious logic part that gets non-theist's jimmies rustled. It's annoying to see simple-minded folks make big claims backed up by a religious script they cannot even fathom to understand.

Science has no limits as the depth of the universe has no boundaries as far as we know. If our species cannot answer a universal question as of yet, it's accepted as such in the scientific community. The religious community on the other hand uses that awfully abused and twisted word; 'faith'. And that word puts a halt to wonder and development of rational thought and consideration. Other than that; I have to point out that there is thing called 'individuality' and not all people of faith are that gullible.

Critics aren't ridiculed for proposing a theory that disregards evolution as much as they are ridiculed for not having any factual research to back up those claims. It's a very complex situation really..evolution can't be presented in a moment as it's a process that takes thousands to millions of years to show actual change in an organism. Yet, there are plenty of facts to back it up.