Pytanie #1:
As an atheist, I think it's wrong to subject small children to such nonsense. It stunts their thinking and puts crazy ideas into their impressionable little minds. It stops them from learning and understanding the truth about the world, like evolution (which is not a theory, it's fact, fyi).
So, if religion was kept in the home where it should be, do you think we'd have less children growing up to be cult going believers in a sky daddy?
@Evan Gragg: There are still apes because we don't share the exact same DNA as they do. Just like there are different breeds of apes, humans went in a different direction. If you actually did some research and learned about evolution (too bad it's not taught in school), you'd know the answer.
@Cork: Actually, I was forced to suffer through religion classes for 12 years. Hated every second of it.
@Ɠaliene♫: Scientists HAVE already proven it, which just shows how uneducated you are on the subject. Try knowing what you're talking about before you comment.
Pytanie #2:
Christians assume that evolution means there was no god to create everything, when in actuality evolution has nothing to say about god. Are religious knowledge and scientific knowledge inversely proportional to each other?
I'm an atheist (former christian) double majoring in philosophy and religion, but I was just baffled at the lack of scientific knowledge.
I'm an atheist (former christian) double majoring in philosophy and religion, but I was just baffled at the lack of scientific knowledge.
Really? Being a former Christian I would probably put the percentage of Christians that can truly define evolution and understand that it is fact at far below 50%
Pytanie #3:
A.) mutations.
B.) changes in individuals within their lifetimes.
C.) variation in traits within a population.
D.) environmental change.
E.) inheritance of traits.
Pytanie #4:
Evolution is sometimes described as the change from preexisting life-forms to modern-day organisms. What actually changes, in every case of evolution, is the:
A.) ability of organisms to respond to external stimuli.
B.) species' physical appearance
C.) energy and nutritional demands of the organism.
D.) genetic makeup of the species.
E.) rate of reproduction.
Letters A-E are my only options. Thank you for your response though!
Pytanie #5:
Ok so i'm a Christian, but i'm not a hypocrite. i understand how ya'll think most Christians are hypocrites. i do too. but some aren't. i mean i believe in science. i believe in evolution. i just like to live by faith and not evidence all the time. does this make me a hypocrite, or are ya'll ok with my religion? as long as i dont shove it in ya'lls faces, ya'll are fine with it, right? or do Atheists just not like any Christians at all? how does it work? i'm just trying to learn. i'm not trying to start an argument. just explain to me how Atheism works. please? thank u & God Bless. best answer gets the big "10" of course.
Jesus loves Atheists too
Dreamstuff Entity. no i just say God Bless to be nice. i dont mean anything bad by it.
yeah guys i agree that religion does nothing but cause trouble in the world. like wars. religion scares and confuses people. i get it. i'm not against Atheists.
thank u all for being so nice. i just like to use my imagination sometimes. like if i die, i like to hope that i live with Jesus Christ. thats all. i dont go around telling people they're going to Hell, and that they cant live with Jesus Christ. thats just wrong. lol. just know that i really love learning. Science is my favorite subject. I just love to use my imagination too. i think it's fun. thanks everybody. all answers were good.
Pytanie #6:
why hasn't it eliminated homosexuallity?
Pytanie #7:
The Bible, which is the divine word of God and therefore cannot be disputed, disproves your entire worldview with one short sentence. So tell me, atheists, how does it feel knowing that there is now ample evidence against your religion (evolution)?
Genesis 1:1 (New International Version)
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Pytanie #8:
I've often seen the religious (creationists in particular) claim that parts of science that don't fit in with their agenda are in fact not science at all, but actually a form of religion - usually evolution.
Is this because they tacitly recognise the authority and power of science as something they can't argue with and so have to attempt to reduce the bits they don't like into a much weaker ideology such as religion?
Are they vicariously admitting that religion per se is fundamentally flawed?
@AnnieMac - Good point.
@AnnieMac - pretty much yeah.
Pytanie #9:
Pink Floyd - Dark Side Of The Moon
Led Zeppelin - Physical Graffitti
Rush - A Farewell To Kings
Golden Earring - Moontan
Journey - Evolution
Santana - Abraxas
Neil Young - Rust Never Sleeps
Hawkwind - Quark Strangeness & Charm
Jefferson Starship - Modern Times
Blue Oyster Cult - Secret Treaties
What's on your list?
Interesting list GESM
**Dies of shock at Jerry's first two picks and has to be resuscitated
I'd not yell atchu Smooch
In Absentia, nice pick Baron
Oh feel free to list as many as you wish
Pytanie #10:
who is operating globally, preventing billions of people from having insight?
The bible speaks of the father of the lie, Satan, who is roaming the the earth, invisibly, busying himself by preventing people from understanding the word of God. He feed them something to carry on with to justify their belief's e.g. Evolution, Atheism, Then he gives them a mouth to speak e'g. They ridicule everyone who challenge their illogicality. Then, he promotes his ideas by use of the media. Yes! Satan is the Managing Director of the world wide media. Test it out for yourself. Where did you first learn about Atheism and Evolution? Where do you get your updates?
2 Corinthians 4:4.
Part of his trick is to first of all stop people from believing he exists in the first place. Think of the Mafia, isn't their tactic copied from the father of the lie? Both lurk behind a cleverly disguised front so that they can uninterruptedly carry out their cunning deeds.
Pytanie #11:
Christians who believe in Creationism? Because I live in the UK and with the rare exception of one or two, all the Christians I know believe in Evolution and take Genesis as metaphorical for God's creation of the planet.
When I was a Catholic I also followed this belief, along with that none of the Bible up to Isiah could to be taken as historical fact.
I'm merely curious as to know if other Christian countries, maybe even the UK included mainly follow the belief in Creationism.
I hope not to offend anyone and wish that you respect my beliefs as I endevour to respect yours.
Daver, to clear things up Creationism to me is believing in the Creation story which is in the Bible. Believing that God created the world for us etc etc is intelligent design which I'm sure all Christian believe.
Pytanie #12:
Yes! they are religions. The word is defined as: a belief or attitude of overwhelming importance to a person.
Having settled that objection, do they believe different things about the origin of man or are their belief's the same?
Pytanie #13:
I have undeniable evidence that evolution, is, in fact, real.
If you care to observe the nature of the average "Religion and Spirituality" Christian "poster", they all seem to be exhibiting recurring traits inherited from their wolf ancestors.
Pytanie #14:
Indeed, The Earth may have the appearance of great age(4.5 Billion years), but it is not nearly as old as it looks to the human eye. Adam and Eve were created by God as living adults not infants. They would not have survived had the first human beings emerged as infants on the earth. The ideal of Evolution is absurd! God created the earth in a very mature state. There was no other way life could have sustained itself.
Radiometric dating is not reliable to prove the actual age of the Earth given that the earth was created initially as a very mature Planet at the hands of the Creator. Their is also a whole wide range of contamination issues that these Scientists fail to admit to support their false theories.
Charles Darwin was fully aware of the problem and openly admitted to it in his Origen of Species, stating, " Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Darwin then attributed the problem to the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record.
The Holy Bible does a much better Job filling in these missing links and huge gaps. The fossil record is more consistent with the Biblical record than a theory that needs to make up for these gaps by adding on millions and billions of years.
The fact remains that these layers were laid down by the great flood described in the Bible. There is impressive evidence that fossil deposits and rock strata were formed catastrophically. There are many indications that there were not millions of years, or even thousands, between various rock units.
The evidence for these fossil remains more and more point back to the Holy Bible proving to be totally consistent with the biblical record of Creation in six days and a global catastrophic Flood.
**************************************…
Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth."
**************************************…
Pytanie #15:
Based on evolution, did all species of animals on earth start from the same ancestor ?
I have not researched evolution yet, I will research it next. But my assumption is that all animals started at the same level of ancestor and then because we moved to different parts of the Earth, lived in different environments and did different things. We evolved into how we have.
But I'm sure I could be wrong, so how exactly did it work?
Pytanie #16:
This question has been puzzling me for awhile.
I wouldn't waste a cent paying someone to put my physical remains in fluid to preserve me for the eventuality I might be re-animated at a future date when science conquers death...if it ever can!
Let the worm and the maggot have me for I shall return back to nature.
However as many Atheists postulate on the theory of evolution and depend on empirical science to validate their claims there is no God or spirit within would an Atheist or are there Atheists who would consider if they could afford it doing a Disney.
This is a serous question of a metaphysical nature and please no trolls.
I would like some debate on this if it's possible.
Thank You.
No name:I stand corrected how selfish of me to let the worm and the maggot consume.
I will be selfless and go today to my local hospital and sign the documentation for my body to be used to let people live.
Thre will be no distinction between believer and non-believer each shall receive their measure.
Thank you for putting me on the right direction.
Rebecca Laurie:That was a brilliant answer and I totally agree with it.
Pytanie #17:
Pytanie #18:
Pytanie #19:
From a guy's point of view, girls don't fart. What is the reason for this? Here's a possible theory:
In the caveman days there were 2 types of girls - farting and non-farting.
But the farting ones turned men off too much, so they never reproduced. So their farting DNA was not passed on.
The non-farting ones did attract men, reproduced, so passed on their non-farting DNA.
It's survival of the fittest/non-fartiest.
Pytanie #20:
Based on the answers of 2 previous questions, I can see a strong trend to the effect that Atheist and Believers really don't mix when it comes to dating/marry.
That being said and keeping in mind that atheists are often smarter than religious people, do you think we should observe the emergence of a speciation based on the intelligence trait (as in the island theory where geological obstacles are replaced by belief obstacles) ?
Pytanie #21:
I go with Islam. Yes, both religions are terrible but many Christians are much more modernized than their muslim counterparts. At least christians don't stone people to death or behead them. Christians also have a better understanding of birth control than muslims, although not by much. Also, all the countries in the world that execute gay people are muslim. Christian tend to believe evolution more than muslims do (probably because most christians are catholic).
Which do you think is a bigger threat and why?
Pytanie #22:
I play pokemon platinum and i was wondering if you stop a Pokemon's evolution can it evolve on a later level?
Pytanie #23:
If God indeed created all life at the same time, and the Garden of Eden was free of illness, then did God adjust our immune systems to make it possible for us to be sick? If all of the disease causing microorganisms were present at creation, then He must have given us a perfect immune system to keep us healthy. It seems that the only logical explanation, other than evolution, is that he changed our immune system to make us suffer more.
I notice the Bible makes no mention of this, so I wonder how you believers feel
Pytanie #24:
If evolution exists, how do you explain monkeys that are still around?
So how many Americans do you think believe this is a good argument?
Pytanie #25:
Click Here
Pytanie #26:
Why can a Mexican producer make a film as blatantly racist and anti-white as MACHETE, but we can't make a film showing black or Mexican violence and racism against us in poor neighborhoods and make it so people can cheer when we kill the racists? Are Mexicans and blacks so weak they need our hands tied behind our backs by the media and politically correct crowd so they won't get clobbered? I think its time whites become just as racist as the anti whites. Lets let evolution decide who wins.
Isis rogue:
Click Here
Go to the movie and pretend the races are reversed and whites are killing illegals in retribution for illegals murdering Americans.
Pytanie #27:
Do You find this of Interest
Click Here
Jehovah’s first creation was his “only-begotten Son” (Joh 3:16), “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Re 3:14) This one, “the firstborn of all creation,” was used by Jehovah in creating all other things, those in the heavens and those upon the earth, “the things visible and the things invisible.” (Col 1:15-17) John’s inspired testimony concerning this Son, the Word, is that “all things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence,” and the apostle identifies the Word as Jesus Christ, who had become flesh. (Joh 1:1-4, 10, 14, 17) As wisdom personified, this One is represented as saying, “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way,” and he tells of his association with God the Creator as Jehovah’s “master worker.” (Pr 8:12, 22-31) In view of the close association of Jehovah and his only-begotten Son in creative activity and because that Son is “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15; 2Co 4:4), it was evidently to His only-begotten Son and master worker that Jehovah spoke in saying, “Let us make man in our image.”—Ge 1:26.
Jehovah is actually the basic Source of knowledge. Life, of course, is from him and life is essential for one’s having any knowledge. (Ps 36:9; Ac 17:25, 28) Furthermore, God created all things, so human knowledge is based on a study of God’s handiwork. (Re 4:11; Ps 19:1, 2) God also inspired his written Word, from which man can learn the divine will and purposes. (2Ti 3:16, 17) Thus the focal point of all true knowledge is Jehovah, and a person seeking it ought to have a fear of God that makes him careful not to incur Jehovah’s displeasure. Such fear is the beginning of knowledge. (Pr 1:7) Such godly fear puts one in position to gain accurate knowledge, whereas those who do not consider God readily draw wrong conclusions from the things that they observe.
Pytanie #28:
In REALLY SIMPLE terms. I mean I know it has to do with Evolution but...
Pytanie #29:
question:
"examples of scientific THEORIES include: (MARK ALL THAT APPLY)"
a. relativity
b. big bang
c.gravity
d.evolution
& this one:
"a trend line is the same as a:"
a."universal predictor"
b. "data range"
c. "extrapolation constant"
d."best fit" line
thx, this is for a stupid homework quiz, and i moved to a new district so i probably wont know some of these
Pytanie #30:
I could really use some examples to go with this.
Pytanie #31:
I am prompted to ask that because someone recently used this link in his attempts to refute evolution here on Y!A.
Click Here
In looking through what the site says, I found the usual falsehoods and misrepresentations that the promoters of creationism use. Obviously, I would not be able to refute them all in the limited space allowed by Y!A, so I picked one. It concerns the finding of Java Man by Eugene Dubois at Trinil, on the island of Java in Indonesia in the year 1981.
The site recounts how Dubois found the fossils (which Dubois called Pithecanthropus erectus), then states the following:
"[H]e announced his "great" discovery to the world of science: All these pieces were the remains of the "lost link" between man and ape which the evolutionists were searching for decades. This fossil which gave birth to the imaginary species of "Pithecanthropus erectus" (the man who can stand upright) was earmarked as "Java man" because it was found in the Java Island...."
"What is more important is that Dubois had concealed the other fossils he found in the same region. In the layer where Dubois found Pithecanthropus, he had also found two more skulls belonging to the same era. The cranial capacities of these two fossils were even bigger than the cranial capacity of the modern man. However Dubois never displayed these two skulls, and only exposed the Pithecanthropus fossil, which he thought to be primitive. The American palaeontologist Ruth Moore describes the destiny of these two "inconvenient" skulls called Wajdak skulls as follows:
"Dubois packed up the Wajdak skulls neatly, because he did not want anything to overshadow his discovery after he brought out Pithecanthropus. Both of the Wajdak skulls had large cranial capacities. Dubois found their capacity to be 1500 cc. which is over the moderate cranial capacity of modern European people."
"...However 40 years after the discovery of Pithecanthropus, he was compelled to confess that he had found modern man skulls in the same region. The exposure of the fact that a species which was thought to be primitive had lived in the same era with modern man only indicated that the fossil did not belong to a primitive species, but to a different race. "
So the thrust of the site's argument is that since the Wadjak (not Wajdak) skulls were of modern type humans and were "found" in the same location and layer where the Java Man fossils were found, Java Man could not have been ancestral to modern humans.
In fact, Wadjak, where the skulls were found, is over 60 miles away from Trinil, where the Java Man fossils were found. On top of that, the Wajack location was in a completely different type of strata than the Trinil finds.
Click Here
So the site lied when it said that the Java Man fossils and the Wadjak skulls were found in the same location and layer.
The shape of the skull is quite different from modern humans.
On top of that, Java man was actually a specimen of Homo erectus, and numerous other very similar Homo erectus fossils were subsequently found in several other locations ranging from Africa to Asia. The site also refers to Homo erectus, but says of them,
"Homo erectus means "the man walking upright (erect)" and its skeleton has no difference from that of the modern man. The only reason why the evolutionists interpreted this fossil to be a different species more primitive than the modern man, was its cranial capacity which was a little bit smaller than avarege contemporary man."
In fact, Homo erectus had a long evolutionary history, and its earliest representatives had a quite small cranial capacity at around 800 cc, and the largest cranial capacity was at the low end of the human range at about 1100 cc.
Relevant links:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Also, Dubois did not hide away the Wadjak skulls as the site falsely reported. In fact, contrary to the site's statement that, 40 years later, Dubois was "compelled" to confess that he had found the modern skulls in the same region, Dubois wrote a paper describing the Wadjak skulls both before he found the Trinil fossils and also in 1892 AFTER he found them.
So why are the promoters of creationism such liars?
By the way, this is the second time I have asked that question. Here is the previous question.
Click Here
@TheKitten, I would concur with you, but the creationists keep spouting their lies, and people here on Y!A are taken in by them. Someone has to refute them.
My error. I had the wrong date for Java man. It was found in 1891, not 1981.
@The Not-So-Loved Apostle Paul: "The FACT is that every damn piece of so-called "evidence" that claims to be a missing link in the evolution myth has been publicly discredited."
You have proved my point about creationist lies.
@Star93, it not you, or those like you that are the liars. The promoters of creationism--meaning those who post web sites and publish books--are the liars.
@Star93 differentiated between the YECs and the OECs. I recognized that the OECs are not in the same class as the YECs, and I have even referred to their web sites as providing a more honest look at the evidence. However, when the word "creationists" is used, I think most people take it as referring to the YECs.
Excuse me, it was @Logician who differentiated between YECs and OECs.
Pytanie #32:
Click Here
Pytanie #33:
Click Here
Pytanie #34:
could someone please help me get this answer asap. thanks.
Pytanie #35:
Pytanie #36:
Pytanie #37:
Hebrews 4:2-8 (New International Version)
"Humans evolved from lower species through a process called evolution. God beamed himself down to earth and announced this fact to me so that I could include it in the Bible long before its discovery. Now skeptics won't doubt the validity of the Bible. Therefore, believe in God."
Now, with such passages included in the Bible, how can you atheists deny the word of God when these scientifically accurate facts were included in the divine text long before they were discovered?
Pytanie #38:
a) chemical evolution
b) condensation
c) hydrolysis
d) polymerization
Pytanie #39:
In philosophy, theory (from ancient Greek theoria, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding") refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action
in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it.
So evolution is not a "guess" just because it uses the word theory.
Also evolution is not a religious belief and has nothing to say against God, like creationists think,
The creation–evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a recurring cultural, political, and theological dispute about the origins of the Earth, humanity, life, and the universe.[1] The dispute is between those who espouse the belief of creationism and the proponents of evolution, backed by scientific consensus. The dispute particularly involves the field of evolutionary biology, but also the fields of geology, palaeontology, thermodynamics, nuclear physics and cosmology.[2] Though also present in Europe and elsewhere,[3] and often portrayed as part of the culture wars,[4] this debate is most prevalent in the United States.
Click Here
Click Here
Thoughts please......
Pytanie #40:
Some theists have an issue with evolution because they say they aren't related to apes. But the Genesis story assumes that we are all a product of inbreeding. Is it just me, or is being an ape better than being a mutant freak?
Pytanie #41:
I don't know about you, but I'm getting REALLY BORED refuting Creationist claims that 'evilution' is groundless and the [insert holy book name here] is the one true source of all knowledge. I'd guess you are getting pretty bored with it too so why not create the best answer Yahoo Answers can fit into the response box? The meme would be this one comprehensive answer based on logic reason & evidence alone - preferably with citations & links to further information.
The meme would mean we copy & paste this one rebuttal each & every time we see the same old question reappear & we won't have to bother with saying the same thing over & over & over. We may even succeed in illustrating what a meme is to creationists!
I got the idea by just thinking - 'Ah look this person has given a perfectly good rebuttal already - I'll copy & paste theirs & maybe the message will get through.' The best memetic answer should request that others copy & paste the answer whenever a Creationist denies evolution is a fact or 'only a theory'.
Pytanie #42:
Do atheists really believe the folly of evolution or are they just kidding around? Atheists insist that evolution is a proven fact. This, of course, is nothing but wishful thinking. People who accept evolution accept it for two reasons...
1. Because scientists claim the evidence is overwhelming; therefore, if scientists say evolution is true then it must be--they cannot be wrong.
2. Because believing that you are an evolved animal that evolved from slime and sea creatures gives you freedom to live life any way you want and not be accountable to God.
It doesn't take an intelligent person to realise the foolishness of evolution. If we came from an ape ancestor, then what did the ape ancestor evolve from? Why don't scientists show us a chart of what the ape ancestor evolved from, all the way back to the slime or sea creature?
Evolution is false science, but yet we are taught that evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence. Ha! What evidence? It is so rotten how they lie about having overwhelming evidence when the "evidence" is based on assumption and wild speculation.
There is a saying that a lie told often enough becomes true. The teaching of evolution is so popular that people who reject it get ridiculed for believing in creation. But atheists are actually fulfilling end time prophecy. The Bible is clear that in the end times there will be many scoffers. It's only in this generation that has given a big rise to atheism. The lie of evolution has already deceived millions into hell. Don't let Satan make a monkey out of you.
Pytanie #43:
i got to write an essey about the evolution about gaming devices (including the games to the consoles in order) i've been searching on the internet about it but i cant find a site that gives me the info i need. can someone give me the url to a site that gives that information
i mean essay
Pytanie #44:
There so much source of evolution on the internet and library
They are so lazy -_-!
Pytanie #45:
There are so many facts regarding evolution how can christian muppets deny it and say that god created the world blah blah blah when there is absolutely no scientific evidence only a bunch of fairy tales to support it. I believe it is so hypocritical of the bible bashers to discount science in this matter but are then happy to watch TV, use the internet,go to the doctors, drive cars and take advantage of everything else science has provided us with in our daily lives. Also why is the head of the biggest peadophile ring in the world i.e the pope being welcomed to the uk? He should be hung drawn and quartered like anybody who is convicted of this despicable crime.
I am asking this question because i am sitting here with a hangover after a christening yesterday in which i was subjected to 90 minute of absolute rubbish at the church, i cannot believe that people actually take this stuff seriously
Pytanie #46:
"FAIRY TALE" STORY?
what is it?
mine...
the " Evolution of Man"
Pytanie #47:
I think this can be concluded from Dawkins "The Selfish Gene". Our capacity for self deception is also likely genetic. Why then are so many people anxious to claim evolution as their source of morality?
"cohesive society was also evolutionarily advantageous"
But not necessarily an honest or selfless society, apparently.
"Everything that makes us human is from our genes, the good bits and the bad. "
Then whatever we do is moral by definition.
"We can override those feeling with our intellect. "
But evolution cannot be the source of morality if we have a reason to override evolution.
Pytanie #48:
And if so, what is still "evolving" about us than?
Some say its human behavior, what are your OPINIONS about it.
Pytanie #49:
I'm not a scientist but Steven Hawking's latest revelation doesn't add up.
If laws of physics state that there must be a positive for negative and vice versa, the big bang theory must surely be in question. There is no theory on a great implosion or a negative universe which would be needed to balance the argument (Darwin's theory of evolution would surely also only be balanced by devolution).
His calculations have gone from the Roman system where positive goes straight into negative and completely ignores zero. Zero is a total void where nothing can be created and nothing can be destroyed. Zero is also proven to exist between positive and negative, so what he has said can only be wrong. Every scientist and mathematician has to acknowledge this.
Has he just made a basic error?
I am not acting as an authority on either mathematics or physics (in fact, totally the opposite) which is why I ask the question. I'm not asking about the existence of God, either.
Pytanie #50:
i ran across this article on the anthropology site that i visit from time to time and thought it was interesting, not a question of whether or not God exists, but if spirituality is hard wired into us through evolution for a reason, this is the article
Click Here
** Powered by Yahoo Answers