for example: you know the pictures of embryos of different animals? they look very much alike, supporting the theory of evolution. i've heard that people are accusing others of making them look alike just to support evolution. this makes NO sense whatsoever, seeing as millions of scientists around the world have noticed this, and they have nothing to gain from forging them. the only people who have something to lose are those religous people, who will have their beliefs shattered, so they make up those false accusations. is that not a sin, to lie?
anyway, who says we need a god to keep us in line, or a hell to scare us into being good? would we not have it within ourselves to be in the right of our own free will? i would like all of you to answer, those who are religous or otherwise.
2006-07-27
04:55:33
·
17 answers
·
asked by
kThanks.
3
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
if i seem to stereotype religeos people, and it's such a bad thing, then why don't you, if i may say, "practice what you preach?" i never said what i thought. i simply asked a frank question, but everyone assumes i'm totally anti-religion. Stick to answering the question and not attacking someone else's "beliefs"
2006-07-27
05:10:52 ·
update #1
Religious people refuse to believe facts because they surrendered their right to use freewill and common sense when they joined their religion. They are being mind-controlled and are prohibited from believing anything NOT sanctioned by their officials tenets. Religion is the opposite of freewill; religion tells people what to think and feel at all times. They can NOT choose for themselves and are obligated to believe what they are told by their religious doctrine, which is why they refuse to believe facts. Some people choose blindfaith (religion) over freewill (common sense), which has led to the misery and deaths of millions of innocent people. It's a shame.
2006-07-27 05:09:09
·
answer #1
·
answered by retardica 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
Are you the person who spends all their spare time boiling up bones and burying them around the world to make it look like something "evolved"? (j/k)
How did the duck billed platypus come about? What makes some animals return to a certain place, season after season, even though the individual animal may have never seen it before? Why are there so many flood myths?
Science can't answer any of these questions, so far as I am aware.
Hun, so far, science has not proven that there is no God. I don't believe it ever will. Evolution is rather a small deal to me. Doesn't matter one way or the other, not nearly as important as gravity, or why the earth isn't perfectly round after all, or what in the heck is the asteroid belt, anyhow...
Why is it so important to force me and people who believe as I do that evolution is some sort of "proof" that there is no God, when you know good and well it is no such thing?
2006-07-27 05:06:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nowhere does it say that there is no evolution in the Bible. Now, there are some problems with DARWINIAN evolution, and they are being looked at. But no one could say there is no evolution. All sorts of things evolve. All that we lack evidence for is MACROevolution, that of a dinosaur becoming a bird, rat becoming a dog, etc. No transitional forms have been found yet. This brings me to another statement: that Darwinianism is as much a religion as Christianity, and that "Creationism" is not a religion. It is a statement that we believe that the world cannot exist without something to initiate it. Why do Darwinists, humanists, or whatever they call themselves believe that you have only two choices in life, those of Science and Belief? Let's not forget that it was a Christian ethic and curiosity that spurred the Rennasiance, not pagan rock worshipping.
2006-07-27 05:43:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by ian_eadgbe 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't see why a religous person would ignore or try to disprove this. This is a very shallow and ambiguous evidence, it can also be turned around and used as evidence the same creator so it really just ends in a stale mate of evolution vs. creation to use this evidence. There are far better pieces of evidence such as DNA, which is necessary for cellular reproduction and evolution, yet evolution is completely incapable of generating DNA or showing any evidence of increasingly advanced DNA.
2006-07-27 05:06:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by derajer 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Those pictures of embryos were faked. Ernst Haekel wanted support for his false theory of evolution, so he added 'gill slits' to some animals and moved the eyes to make them appear alike.
The belief in embryonic recapitulation has been debunked; advanced biology textbooks admit it, but high school and undergrad books still use them to try to convince people that evolution is correct. If the truth doesn't teach evolution, perhaps a lie will.
2006-07-27 05:06:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by flyersbiblepreacher 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Actually I don't think religion was designed to "keep us in line" - cooperation is something basically ingrained in all of us anyway (granted, some more than others!). Rather, I think religion uses morality as a means to something else - that is, to address fears of death. When a species becomes conscious of its own mortality, what thought could be more comforting than an afterlife? Eternal pleasure if you act a certain way. And there's that Hell thing too, but don't worry, Jesus forgives all!
2006-07-27 05:03:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
First of all, i think you are stereotyping religious people because i know for a fact that most don't ignore any sorta facts. And second, religious people should have nothing to fear because, i believe, science will only provide more evidence that God exists. It seems those who believe in evolution have more scientific facts against them than anyone else.
2006-07-27 05:02:03
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
First, i do not imagine everybody truly cares concerning to the Lobbyist promise. particular, it seems undesirable and all, besides the undeniable fact that the theory that the administration ought to extra ideal reflect the voter's needs if no lobbyists were contained in the White condominium is naive. the single payer ingredient? Obama isn't hiding from that, he's purely admitting defeat and compromising. After the previous twelve months, it type of feels doubtful that alterations are going to get "slipped in" without persons noticing or arguing about it. the purely attitude we are able to get a unmarried payer health care attitude is for very nearly all of human beings to choose it. And global Warming? clinical expertise is hard. It certain feels like there is something to it to me, yet i'm certain peer evaluation and all will carry issues type of straightforward. per chance i'm in denial about that, yet isn't it juat as likely that the denyers are?
2016-10-15 06:35:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Even the evolution buffs out there are beginning to look at the beginning. The law of conservation of energy says that there shouldn't have been one. Ergo, the beginning was caused by an unforseen force, that which others have taken to calling God, Yahyeh, ME, what have you.
2006-07-27 05:01:56
·
answer #9
·
answered by carldooley 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Religious people ignore facts because they don't want stop believeing in what they like to believe. Take an example. You believe that the people you are living with are your parents. Suddenly someone comes performs a dna test and says they are not. It's just like that. However true it is, you just don't want to accept it.
2006-07-27 05:01:36
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋