Terror raids (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

Yes, but what you are talking about is Social Darwinism..

The term "Social Darwinism" is most closely associated with the writings of Herbert Spencer (who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest") and William Graham Sumner. Regardless of how scholars of Spencer interpret his relation to Darwin, Spencer proved to be an incredibly popular figure in the 1870s, particularly in the United States. Authors such as Edward Youmans, William Graham Sumner, John Fiske, John W. Burgess, and other thinkers of the gilded age all developed theories of Social Darwinism as a result of their exposure to Spencer (as well as Darwin).

Social Darwinism enjoyed widespread popularity in some European circles, particularly among ruling elites during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During this period the global recession of the 1870s encouraged a view of the world which saw societies or nations in competition with one another for survival in a hostile world. This attitude encouraged increasing militarization and the division of the world into colonial spheres of influence. The interpretation of Social Darwinism then emphasized competition between species and races rather than cooperation. In the time since then, evolutionary theory has de-emphasized inter-species competition as well as the importance of violent confrontation in general. Advances in both the social and natural sciences, therefore, have discredited many of the assumptions on which Social Darwinist theories were built.

 

[veterandoggy]

The fact is that:
a) they produced molecules
b) they did it in a few weeks
c) the earth had a billion years.

it was a punctuated experiment, no doubt the results wouldnt need billions of years to obtain. and the experiment showed that the conditions needed to be continuous.

 

[veterandoggy]

Yes, but what you are talking about is Social Darwinism..

well, they do have a relation between each other, and i think evolution caused social darwinism, so indirectly, evolution is the cause of many nation acts of racism.

 

[SashatheMan]

well, they do have a relation between each other, and i think evolution caused social darwinism, so indirectly, evolution is the cause of many nation acts of racism.

same can be argued for religion. The cause of all the hatered for the people of other religious comes dirrectly from people preaching how good and only their particular religion is. Each religion thinks they are the best and the one that is right , and that others should be hated for persuing a differnt god.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Racism etc existed long before the theory of evolution, or social darwinism... there are examples of it (arguably) in the bible and many people of faith have made claims to god's favour of their race.

 

[SashatheMan]

something i dont get, you god worshipper dont use logic when clear, physical evidence of evolution is shown to you.
scientists discovered early human bones, which completely go against the idea that man was just created in one go by god. There is also great evidence of early humans migrating from africa and spreading across Europe and asia, and then later crossing to north america and going to Australia, when the continenets where joined with ice sheets. DNA has been used to clearly map out exaclty how humans migrated. There is evidence of all that. But your gonna rejects all this evidence and still believe an alternative theory? Why dont you then reject all scientific discoveries. Earth is still plat, the sun rotated around us, the deadly flue virus is just an act of your god, who wants you to prey harder to him. Its ridiculous to just egnore the evidence that is present with evalution just becuase it doesnt go with your completely un proved belief.

 

[SashatheMan]

Further, as there was no free oxygen to form an ozone (O3) layer to protect the earth from the harsh ultra-violet radiation (UV Rays) from the sun. Also, there where incredibly violent electrical storms, which where more violent than any which occur today.
.
.
he then past an electrical discharge, simulating the UV Rays and violent electrical storms present in the early atmosphere.

UV light was continous as you might figure.
And earth wasnt like it is at present time, as the article states there was much more electrical strom activity.

Given the fact he produced organic components and amino acids, in a week, and earth had billions of earth. (think about this number billions) its so much larger then a week and the chance of this occuring is very likely.
Anyway this basicly answers your question on how life is formed. So there is absolutely no justification for god creating it.

 

[physician]

something i dont get, you god worshipper dont use logic when clear, physical evidence of evolution is shown to you.
scientists discovered early human bones, which completely go against the idea that man was just created in one go by god. There is also great evidence of early humans migrating from africa and spreading across Europe and asia, and then later crossing to north america and going to Australia, when the continenets where joined with ice sheets. DNA has been used to clearly map out exaclty how humans migrated. There is evidence of all that. But your gonna rejects all this evidence and still believe an alternative theory? Why dont you then reject all scientific discoveries. Earth is still plat, the sun rotated around us, the deadly flue virus is just an act of your god, who wants you to prey harder to him. Its ridiculous to just egnore the evidence that is present with evalution just becuase it doesnt go with your completely un proved belief.

But thats exactly the issue, there isnt a sufficient/clear amount of scientific, physical evidence to support the theory, almost every single 'proof' or physical evidnece that has been provided by scientists to support the theory, has been refuted by Harun Yahya, and many other scientists, scholars... Both believers, and non-believers alike!

If the physical evdience was beyond reasonable doubt correct, then why is evolution still not considered as a scientific fact??? why is it still a scientific theory???

As for the 'completely un proved belief', there is proof, and its been presented in many threads before including the 'Does God exists' thread, Alot of this proof was presneted by using 'LOGIC' and simple reasoning, yet it was ignored.

I have read books, refuting darwinism and evolution, and have read books proving the existance of a devine creator, I have also read the Quran a few times, both in english and arabic, Ive done some research (In, fact im working on a new time dilation formula backed up by verses from the Quran)... I will continue to study about the theory of evolution... but up until now, Im just not convinced!... as for creationism, I remain to be convinced beyond doubt that a God exists!...

 

[Not-That-Bright]

But thats exactly the issue, there isnt a sufficient/clear amount of scientific, physical evidence to support the theory, almost every single 'proof' or physical evidnece that has been provided by scientists to support the theory, has been refuted by Harun Yahya, and many other scientists, scholars... Both believers, and non-believers alike!

Not true what so ever, there has been extensive evidence for evolution, and yet to be a 'silver bullet' that I talked about earlier to disprove it.

If the physical evdience was beyond reasonable doubt correct, then why is evolution still not considered as a scientific fact??? why is it still a scientific theory???

Posts such as these show that you simply have no clue.

Types of theories

There are two uses of the word theory; a supposition which is not backed by observation is known as a conjecture, and if backed by observation it is a hypothesis. Most theory evolves from hypotheses, but the reverse is not true: many hypotheses turn out to be false and so do not evolve into theory.

A theory is different from a theorem. The former is a model of physical events and cannot be proved from basic axioms. The latter is a statement of mathematical fact which logically follows from a set of axioms. A theory is also different from a physical law in that the former is a model of reality whereas the latter is a statement of what has been observed.

Theories can become accepted if they are able to make correct predictions and avoid incorrect ones. Theories which are simpler, and more mathematically elegant, tend to be accepted over theories which are complex. Theories are more likely to be accepted if they connect a wide range of phenomena. The process of accepting theories, or of extending existing theory, is part of the scientific method.
[edit]

Further explanation of a scientific theory

As noted above, in common usage a theory is defined as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory is not considered fact or infallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data.

Theories start out with empirical observations such as "sometimes water turns into ice." At some point, there is a need or curiosity to find out why this is, which leads to a theoretical/scientific phase. In scientific theories, this then leads to research, in combination with auxiliary and other hypotheses (see scientific method), which may then eventually lead to a theory. Some scientific theories (such as the theory of gravity) are so widely accepted that they are often seen as laws. This, however, rests on a mistaken assumption of what theories and laws are. Theories and laws are not rungs in a ladder of truth, but different sets of data. A law is a general statement based on observations.

A canonical example of a disproven theory is the geocentric model of the universe proposed by Ptolemy. Evidence, in the form of Galileo's observation of the phases of Venus in 1610, was produced which was completely incompatible with the predictions set forth by the theory. This falsification, though, did not necessarily mean that only one alternative theory was necessarily the "correct" replacement — both the Copernican system and the Tychonian system predicted the phases of Venus.

Can you please get over that stupid point now?

As for the 'completely un proved belief', there is proof, and its been presented in many threads before including the 'Does God exists' thread, Alot of this proof was presneted by using 'LOGIC' and simple reasoning, yet it was ignored.

I highly doubt it was ignored... MLS, Neo and myself in the "does god exist?" thread were very thorough in examining all of your claims the best we could - we would not ignore a substantiated claim such as that.

I have read books, refuting darwinism and evolution, and have read books proving the existance of a devine creator, I have also read the Quran a few times, both in english and arabic, Ive done some research (In, fact im working on a new time dilation formula backed up by verses from the Quran)... I will continue to study about the theory of evolution... but up until now, Im just not convinced!... as for creationism, I remain to be convinced beyond doubt that a God exists!...

And even with all your reading on this topic you still don't understand what a 'scientific theory' actually is? I think your reading is extremely limited in scope and probably only from whacko religious websites.

 

[veterandoggy]

UV light was continous as you might figure.
And earth wasnt like it is at present time, as the article states there was much more electrical strom activity.

Given the fact he produced organic components and amino acids, in a week, and earth had billions of earth. (think about this number billions) its so much larger then a week and the chance of this occuring is very likely.
Anyway this basicly answers your question on how life is formed. So there is absolutely no justification for god creating it.

sorry, out of context (but so is all this babbling), but are amino acids and such able to stay without decaying on their ownselves? if so, how long will it take before it decays? i dont know, and am hoping someone posts the life span of organic materials as such, but from what i can guess, even if earth had billions of years to create a cell, its components wouldnt have been able to build up over these years. and according to the pre atmospheric environment, wouldnt the cell have been destroyed before it had a chance to live (UV rays)? and if this holds true, then when the atmosphere formed, how could this environment be upheld to make more cells, with the removal of alot of UV light? just out of my mind, so dont ask for a quoting, but now that i read over it, it makes sense, and isnt gibberish, before any of you say so.

 

[Sonic]

something i dont get, you god worshipper dont use logic when clear, physical evidence of evolution is shown to you.
scientists discovered early human bones, which completely go against the idea that man was just created in one go by god. There is also great evidence of early humans migrating from africa and spreading across Europe and asia, and then later crossing to north america and going to Australia, when the continenets where joined with ice sheets. DNA has been used to clearly map out exaclty how humans migrated. There is evidence of all that. But your gonna rejects all this evidence and still believe an alternative theory? Why dont you then reject all scientific discoveries. Earth is still plat, the sun rotated around us, the deadly flue virus is just an act of your god, who wants you to prey harder to him. Its ridiculous to just egnore the evidence that is present with evalution just becuase it doesnt go with your completely un proved belief.

i don't know if u realised that if GOD did create humans it still is possible that they migrated therefore your post is not really that suggestive..... Also another theory being presnted currenty is the "INTELLIGENT DESIGN" theory.. Which claims that an intellegent being created humans and their landforms"""" e.t.c how does this appeal to everyone??

religious and non-religious??

 

[MoonlightSonata]

This thread is about the terror raids. Please keep dicussion relevant to the thread.

There is a thread on intelligent design theory here.