CarlMinez said:
Meanwhile, Ill just highlight some of your points that I think are the most wrong.
No, because its unethical. Choosing not to believe in the theory in evolution is not unethical.
I disagree. Disagreeing with the theory of evolution on non-evidence based grounds (that is, saying it's wrong for no good reason) IS unethical because it goes against the scientific method. That is, it actively goes against the single largest force for positive societal advancement in the history of mankind. At the very least it is unethical to attempt to persuade others to this point of view... But I find even holding it ethically irresponsible.
Are you comparing the OPs friend with Westboro Baptist Church? I mean, seriously?
Anyway, WBC is hated not because they deny evolution or promote pseudo-christian values. They are hated because of their hate speech, slander and because they are picketing funerals and disrespect people.
You're missing the point. The point I'm trying to get at is that just because you CAN do something doesn't mean that doing it is a good idea. And having a skewed view of reality IS a horrible idea.
We should stamp on whats harmful to society, not what the most of us consider scientifically incorrect.
Except the former contains the latter. I think this is what you don't get. Society itself is nothing but a pinnacle to scientific achievement; it's the reason why we no longer live in caves and live past age 60 on average in the developed world. Acting against science or the scientific mindset/method IS harmful to society as a whole, and religion falls cleanly into that camp.
Let me describe the difference. In Western society, we believe in what we call scientific facts. In other societies, religious or philosophical convictions are more important. However, the problem does not lie in the source ? be it religious or scientific. The problem lies in the outcome. Like intolerance. For example; certain christian fundamentalist are dangerous, not because they believe in God, but because their opinion and view of the world leads to them being intolerant against, for example, homosexuals.
The problem is intolerance, and intolerance is always dangerous no matter where it comes from. Saying ?believe in this because everything else is wrong? is dangerous and it is intolerance. It doesnt matter if its motivated by science or religion. That kind of categorizing, intolerant thinking, which you display when you say that we as a society should ?stamp on? what you think is flat out wrong, is dangerous.
Results, eh? Science has brought you modern medicine, antibiotics, clean water, clean food, safety protocols, evacuation proceedings and warnings for natural disasters... Hell, you think that you'd even be able to read this message without science?
I am intolerant to those who go against science. But this isn't a big deal. Why? Because science kind of separates itself from ethics. It deals exclusively with the physical, while ethics is metaphysical.
The ability to leave old concepts and move forward as a society is good of course, but the thinking you display will only hinder that progress.
Bullshit. I'm fighting against a completely backwards view of the world.
Look, imagine if someone said, "I don't believe in gravity" or "I believe the earth is flat". Would you say that I'm hindering progress by putting someone who is blatantly wrong on that issue in their place? No? Then why evolution, eh?
Right now, your opinions could be labeled as ?correct? given current scientific perspectives. Of course, this will eventually change, but those who tolerate all sorts of opinions in society will accept this change. Those who are intolerant of opinions they cannot understand, like you, will not be able to move on. So there will come a time when the likes of you hinder the very progress you are promoting.
...Except that what is being presented is NOT a scientific dissertation. We don't have somebody bringing up fatal flaws in the theory, we have some computer scientist thinking that modern science is wrong for no good reason and also claiming that there are some things you just don't get into. And beyond the OP you have mostly religious issues. @Contradiction 's post was really good, and it is worth looking further into, but I'm fairly sure that something this obvious wouldn't have been missed by all major biologists of the last 100 years, no?
If someone has real, scientific objections to evolution based on the evidence and data, then be my guest to present them (I'm not trying to brush off Contradiction's post, that was actually a really good question... Wait, hold that thought: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00320.htm Found that in a quick google search, should help answer the question at least a little). However, that's NOT what's happening here. It's a combination of "I don't believe it because I doubt it for no good reason" and "I don't believe it because my religion says otherwise". Telling those people to kindly shove it up their asses is NOT hindering progress. It's telling idiots to shut up and learn something.
