*
I'm actually responding to a post in which Jasiu is responding to Stan. Jasiu says that Stan's wrong, that religion is necessary for people to live peaceful, just lives with happiness and a substantially dropped amount of murder.
Religion is a crucial part of countless lives. Our modern day laws are based on them and they are the founders of determining what is right and what is wrong.I would like, at this time, to point out to Jasiu several wars that were based off of religion. There were the Crusades, in which Europeans swept through the Middle East in order to convert them to Christianity and regain the Holy Land. There were the Thirty Years War and French Wars of Religion, in which France, Germany, Sweden, and Poland all fought between the religions of Catholicism and Protestantism. There was the Taiping Rebellion, which took place in China and is considered the bloodiest war, with 20 million dead. These wars are fueled by religious prejudice, which is fueled by corrupt governments. People tend to want to do anything if it means doing it for their religion- in order to spread their religion and 'help other people find the light'. Governments or other people in power use this weakness against the population.
At another point, Jasiu claims that evolution is not right, that it's just something silly.
If I ask how “did life come to be?”, like many, you would say "evolution" which once again is a theory, not a fact. But the answer "evolution" greatly lacks and does not explain a major part; the very beginning.I have several things to say to this. First of all, I'm also curious as to how life started. However, as we do not yet have the technology to find out, I think I'll have to keep dreaming on it. The idea that a big man randomly decided to create an entire world in seven days is a fancy, fun idea that makes little children fall asleep warm and fuzzy inside... the thing is, I see little to no proof that this ever happened. With evolution, we have proof. For example, we have the fossils of extinct creatures, and the structures to prove that they are somehow related to today's creatures. That's more proof than Christianity could ever hope for. (Oh yeah, and the term 'theory'? Yeah, that doesn't mean 'hypothesis'- it means that scientists don't have any kind of message from billions of years ago, carved into a rock, saying, HEY. HEY YOU. EVOLUTION IS REAL.)
Jasiu continues on to ask about cells and organelles and how they came to be.
Tell me, how can all this complex development come to be?Biology, my dear Watson. It's survival of the fittest, and a need to be environmentally fit. The cells were not fulfilling everything they could- there was so much space in the world, so many places to be explored. However, in their one-cell form, they were unable to complete everything they needed to. And anyways, they had so many recourses around them- why not just... evolve?
What I think is interesting is that one of the classic arguments against evolution is the eye, which is very complex--"What use is half an eye?" But there was never "half an eye", which obviously would be nonfunctional. There was a series of organic developments toward the eye, and all of its parts evolved at similar times, as opposed to parts that didn't work on their own forming first.
ReplyDeleteThis could be useful if you need more arguments for evolution, although someone probably said it better than I did.