Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 13:47, March 25, 2011
, 13:47, March 25, 2011→No animal exhibits religion: God made religion for His children, i.e., human beings
:::::::::I think we may have strayed somewhat from the original point. The item should be removed from the list because it is not in any way a counterexample to evolution. The reasons are as follows: 1. Evolution says nothing at all about the existence of religion in either man or animals. Evolutionary theory is a biological theory aimed at explaining the diversity of life on Earth. The fact that man is also the only species observed to play poker, bungee jump or run for political office are also, likewise, irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of evolutionary theory. 2. As was pointed out above, the obvious reason that animals do not display religious behaviour is that "they have not developed advanced language sufficient to create religious doctrine and they have not developed building techniques sufficient to build churches, mosques, synagogues or temples of Athena". Furthermore, even if animals did posses religious reverence what would that look like exactly? I don't speak squirrel so I can't really say if they are saying prayers or just squeaking randomly. The whole thing is just too silly for words. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 01:22, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I think we may have strayed somewhat from the original point. The item should be removed from the list because it is not in any way a counterexample to evolution. The reasons are as follows: 1. Evolution says nothing at all about the existence of religion in either man or animals. Evolutionary theory is a biological theory aimed at explaining the diversity of life on Earth. The fact that man is also the only species observed to play poker, bungee jump or run for political office are also, likewise, irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of evolutionary theory. 2. As was pointed out above, the obvious reason that animals do not display religious behaviour is that "they have not developed advanced language sufficient to create religious doctrine and they have not developed building techniques sufficient to build churches, mosques, synagogues or temples of Athena". Furthermore, even if animals did posses religious reverence what would that look like exactly? I don't speak squirrel so I can't really say if they are saying prayers or just squeaking randomly. The whole thing is just too silly for words. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 01:22, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I've heard that argument before: that animals might be as high as humans, but that we (silly, ignorant) humans simply don't understand animal language. But except for dolphins (and possibly bees), no species of [[animal]]s can even communicate mundane things like, "There's food over there." With [[training]], some species of can learn to accept commands from humans, and with years of effort some researchers have taught primates a rudimentary sign language.
::::::::You also misunderstand [[religion]] itself: it's not a superstition '''created''' by human beings. We seek God because He, being higher than us just as a shepherd is higher than sheep, seeks a relationship with us. Religion was created by God.
::::::::I submit that evolutionists are trapped in their suppositions, and will never gain a correct understanding of animal life (let alone human life) until they are prepared to identify and reexamine these suppositions. If evolution is to be anything but a pseudoscience, it must compare its theory's hypotheses with reality and jettison those which the evidence contradicts. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:47, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
== Some of these are rather incomplete ==
== Some of these are rather incomplete ==