Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Bling

David Attenborough's "burn in hell" hate mail

81 posts in this topic

Regardless of all our opinions, which I have enjoyed reading so thanks for joining in.......it's hate mail sent to an elderly man with a wealth of experience. And it's wrong wrong wrong.

That's right...I don't agree with him either, but whatever happened to amicably agreeing to disagree? It's almost like some people are, "my ideas are right and I'm God so if you disagree you are a *snip*" Good call :tu:

Edited by Gummug
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true, but can you show me even one intermediary species? I mean, one species evolving into another?

Yes. Everything that's ever lived.

But it's intelligent to believe cells and proteins could assemble themselves into ever more complex organisms? Through random radiation driven mutations? OK... :whistle:

Yes. And through natural selection and genetic drift and isolated reproduction.

It's not my fault if you don't understand the science.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if I'm an idiot I'm in pretty good company, including Isaac Newton and George Washington, among others, who believed the Bible.

Yeah, people who weren't around for genetic sequencing or the wealth of sciences that have come along in 200 years.

If you're proud to be 200+ years out of date with science, well, then you have a host of other problems.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the way some threads go off on tangents! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there is observable evidence of micro evolution. Of course we can't apply the observation of macroevolution because we haven't even considered the aspect of evolution as widely for long at all! Regardless, from bones and skeletons found, it suggests that over time, skulls and bones did in fact change shape and size.

Is this not a clear indication of humanoid evolution at the very least? Why could it not have started even so with God creating microbes which then went on to become humans? Just because it does not conform to some book you dont even know who authored doesn't mean it couldn't have been a probable scenario.

The man in this video is avoiding a lot. He is subtlety trying to bring the audience over with mentions of intelligent people who are religious or who have "turned" to religion. No matter how intelligent you are, it does not dictate how susceptible you are to belief. Belief is possibly controlled by a part of the brain. So intelligence is in that case is not a factor.

Regardless how your brain is made up, you should try to consider all aspects and keep an open mind as nothing is definite. Which is why I like evolution, it is a theory, therefore it can be disputed and changed whereas what is in the bible, is in the bible.

Thanks Orcseeker for a very balanced and vitriol-free post. I think it is very interesting that you are saying belief and intelligence are not related (which I believe myself to a large extent), because so many here seem to think if you don't believe as they do you are stupid or an idiot, etc. etc., blah blah blah.

I do believe in "microevolution" although I wouldn't call it that.

In reference to another post, I don't know why God created (or maybe he didn't maybe the devil did) evil beasts like parasitic worms and deadly bacteria, etc., but obviously we do have them.

I agree one should always keep an open mind but also I think not compromise one's integrity.

To be honest, I think most people's beliefs, whether creationist or evolutionist, are based on emotional factors, and on what they want to believe and what they want to be true, than logical deductions and inductions. I think the deductions are usually more rationales than reasons. That's just my opinion though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Everything that's ever lived.

Yes. And through natural selection and genetic drift and isolated reproduction.

It's not my fault if you don't understand the science.

Did you realize almost all, if not all, mutations are harmful? And genetic drift implies unguided...I still find this an unconvincing argument for greater complexity.

Yeah, people who weren't around for genetic sequencing or the wealth of sciences that have come along in 200 years.

If you're proud to be 200+ years out of date with science, well, then you have a host of other problems.

OK, I should have mentioned Laurence Tisdall and Henry Morris. They're not 200+ that I know of.

I love the way some threads go off on tangents! :tu:

You're right I think I'm going to quit here and go off to look for this subject in the...religion? philosophy? section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true, but can you show me even one intermediary species? I mean, one species evolving into another?

Go and do the research yourself. I am growing tired of providing examples to people who do not go and carry out their own research. There is an insurmountable amount of evidence out there available to you, and it is just waiting for your brain to absorb it. :)

But it's intelligent to believe cells and proteins could assemble themselves into ever more complex organisms? Through random radiation driven mutations? OK... :whistle:

And what else would you suggest? What's more of an intelligent belief than that? If it is so complex that it requires a creator, then just imagine the complexity that would be required to have developed the creator, and the technologies involved with creating the creator's product.

If something is created, it demands a creator.

Creationism is nothing but childish myth, in my honest opinion. "We can't explain how everything got here, so therefore... it must have been created. Why try to understand how everything works, when we just attribute everything that works to a creator, whom is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent?".

It is that logic which has hindered our technological and scientific progress throughout history. If you had questioned anything that was the cultural norm, you were sentenced to death.

Edited by Alienated Being
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit a lot of "Christians" (and note I put it in quotes) have been very reactionary and a hindrance to technology. However, as far as the one point you made, I would say it's a good point except I believe God was not created or evolved...He has always been, is, and always will be, forever beyond our comprehension or even an attempt to begin to understand. I admit, that might seem like a stretch, but the only alternative that I can think of is that the current universe with all its mind boggling complexity (just a PSP is mind bogglingly complex to me) came about by a bunch of gases which came from who knows where and for some reason began to coalesce...or from a nearly infinite point of energy which rapidly expanded and coalesced into the universe. For me it is more intellectually honest to believe in a God who is forever beyond my comprehension than something which seems to me impossible...a bunch of gases or what not floating around and ultimately after eons organizing into almost unimaginable complexity. As far as finding the missing link, as it were, I don't think I'd even have to look...if it were found it would be on the front page of every major newspaper in the world, I should think.

Edited by Gummug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science too hard? Try religion!

Sorry I couldn't resist :passifier:

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science too hard? Try religion!

Sorry I couldn't resist :passifier:

That's not funny! :o

And I'm not defending religion either.

Edited by HavocWing
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you realize almost all, if not all, mutations are harmful? And genetic drift implies unguided...I still find this an unconvincing argument for greater complexity.

No. They are not. The vast majority of mutations are neither beneficial nor harmful.

Genetic drift happens all the time. Maybe you have offspring and I don't. Therefore your genes continue into the population whereas mine do not. Viola. Genetic Drift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not funny! :o

And I'm not defending religion either.

I laughed. Seems to be the way the majority in America think. And some on these boards...

creationism.jpg

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an atheist I can tell you that the fact that a few extremist nut jobs think I'll burn in hell is not a probelm.

It's kind of like being threatened with Bugs Bunny.

If they say "you're going to burn in Hell and I'm going to send you there"

Then it's a problem.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While a certain form of education and knowledge may be required, that does not mean that it is not as observable as gravity - even if it is viewed through a different "lens" (that lens being through the eyes of a biologist/virologist). It is just as observable, however... perhaps not to the common population.

But that does not make it true. Belief in the heliocentric model/geocentric model was also a "cultural" norm, as well... however, we know both to be quite untrue.

Perhaps not in a "normal" person's life, however... it is most certainly as observable as gravity through the eyes of a virologist.

Also, I suppose the same could be asked with regards to Sir Isaac Newton. If gravity is so easily observed, why did it take such a long period of time for an individual to codify it, and explain why it occurs?

If you ask an individual who has no idea as to what gravity is, would they be able to tell you what it is? They can see what happens as a result, but they do not instinctively know, "Oh, that's gravity". In order to understand gravity, we have to understand its principles, and how it works.

And the Greeks saw Zeus in thunder and lighting, the Egyptians saw Ra in the sun... What's your point?

To start at the end, my point was pointing out that evolution is not observable at all. some elements of it under powerful microscopes may be observed but as you point out, tha e is not available to most o the populace and the mere observation of those elemants doesnt lead to a knolwedge of evolution That means that ordinary peole have to take it on fauith ie believ in the scientists who tell the it is all so. And the sceintists are right, but the point i made originally was that ordinary peole dont/cant see evolution occuring, so they have a choice. Believe in what scientists tell them or believe perhaps in what the bible tells them.

One has to have an knolwedge of evolutionary process to appreciate what one is observing and how it fits into the overall mechanisms of evolution.

As you point out, gravity, while difficult to understand, IS observable, but how does an ordinary person OBSERVE evolution? One can't. One must lean about it in science. Without a scientific education and a long historical record of scientific understandings, evolution is quite unobservable and actually difficult to deduce.

Those models were based on observations by very intelligent and rational "scientists" of the day They were reasonable but false, again illustrating that mere observaton without scientific understanding does not lead to the right answer.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe on a t.v. program Sir D, did not say that he was an atheist,what he said was that he was agnostic,he did not have to say anything at all,so give him credit for being honest.

To me he is one of the Greatest persons to ever have walked on this rock.

All the hate mailng "religeous" cretins would do well to follow his example of what a true human really is,and to send hate mail to him is obnoxious.

Why dont these Cowards come out from under the rocks they hide under,and say who they are ?.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. They are not. The vast majority of mutations are neither beneficial nor harmful.

Genetic drift happens all the time. Maybe you have offspring and I don't. Therefore your genes continue into the population whereas mine do not. Viola. Genetic Drift.

OK I was thinking genetic drift meant mutational change of genes...my bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if I'm an idiot I'm in pretty good company, including Isaac Newton and George Washington, among others, who believed the Bible.

Actually it's one or the other sorry mate. The former was anglican and the latter was episcopal. It'd be a coinflip if there weren't so many other sects and religions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What people need to understand about evolution is that it is just the change in allele frequency of a population over time. That is it. That is evolution. If you have a child, it's allele frequency is different than yours. That is evolution. If many people in one group have children, the frequency of alleles is different. That is evolution.

Macro and Micro are never really used in scientific study. They are sometimes used as shorthand categorizations, but they are not biologically relevant terms. The ONLY different between the two is time.

As for people being able to have their own opinions, at what point do we stop allowing willful ignorance to be the new norm? Look at the issue of "race", for example. Biologically, scientifically, there is no such thing. It does not exist. Socially, however, it is very very real. What kind of massive paradigm shift is going to have to occur for people to stop seeing the things like "race", which really aren't there at all and start accepting the factual things that are existent in our world? Evolution, regardless of ones belief, is a very real, very observable and very well understood biological process.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor Sir Attenborough has got lost...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To start at the end, my point was pointing out that evolution is not observable at all.

Yes, it absolutely is. That statement is quite false. I will direct you to this observation of the reproduction of E. Coli bacteria...

Taken directly from the paper...

In 1988, Lenski started an experiment with 12 populations of E. coli bacteria ‐‐ all starting with the same ancestral strain and all living in identical environments ‐‐ to see just how similarly or differently they would evolve. He wanted to keep the experiment going for at least a year and culture about 2,000 bacterial generations. Twenty‐one years and almost 50,000 generations later, the experiment is still growing strong.

source: http://news.msu.edu/media/documents/2009/10/a3270403-b19c-4be8-aac9-15acae041269.pdf

some elements of it under powerful microscopes may be observed but as you point out, tha e is not available to most o the populace and the mere observation of those elemants doesnt lead to a knolwedge of evolution

Actually, after giving it a bit of thought, evolution is arguably more observable than gravity. What we see is the result of gravity, we don't see the actual physical manifestation of the forces involved in gravity. When we throw something, we know it will fall... because of gravity. However, we do not actually see the physical forces pulling the object towards earth. In a lab, we can observe absolutely every physical attribute of evolution. As for gravity? All we see are the results of the forces, not the actual forces themselves.

That means that ordinary peole have to take it on fauith ie believ in the scientists who tell the it is all so.

It's not really faith when the information provided is reinforced with evidence that can be reproduced, my friend. Faith encompasses a belief independent of evidence, which contradicts a scientific theory/law.

And the sceintists are right, but the point i made originally was that ordinary peole dont/cant see evolution occuring, so they have a choice. Believe in what scientists tell them or believe perhaps in what the bible tells them.

You don't see gravity occurring, either - you see the result of gravity's force, but not the actual force in itself as it pulls on the object.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What an intelligent rebuttal...anything you disagree with, just call it stupid...works for most children, so I guess it should work for you too...

Nothing intelligent about the videos you posted, the guy is completely ignorant of evolution. Animals magically turning into other animals? Now that is stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing intelligent about the videos you posted, the guy is completely ignorant of evolution. Animals magically turning into other animals? Now that is stupidity.

I thought that was what evolution was...animals turning into other animals...over billions of years of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speciation, more commonly called "macroevolution", is a term used to describe one species evolving into another species. The diversification of life, both morphologically and genetically, that evolution seems to explain is caused by speciation. Some people deny speciation altogether because it has never been witnessed, even though the opposite is true.

Meet the hawthorn fly, also known as the apple maggot fly:

Rhag_com.jpg

It is a remarkable case of speciation, as it was not developed in a laboratory, but by nature. In the nineteenth century, after apples were introduced in North America, a distinct "race" of hawthorn flies began feeding on them exclusively, even though they usually ate hawthorns. In this new race, called apple maggot flies, six out of thirteen allozyme loci are different than the original hawthorn-eating flies, hawthorn flies mature later in the season and take longer to mature than apple flies and there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate). This suggests that apple flies are evolution in progress.

  • McPheron, B.A., Smith, D.C., Berlocher, S.H. (1988). "Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella". Nature. 336: 64-6.
  • Feder, J.L., Chilcote, C.A., Bush, G.L. (1988). "Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella." Nature. 336: 61-4.
  • Smith, D.C. (1988). "Heritable divergence of Rhagoletis pomonella host races by seasonal asynchrony." Nature. 336: 66-7.

Here's the evening primrose:

470px-Evening_primrose_-_England_-_large.JPG

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, botanist and geneticist Hugo de Vries found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species Oenothera gigas.

  • de Vries, H. (1905). "Species and varieties, their origin by mutation."

Here is the kew primrose:

5169009493_bbcc452ae7_z.jpg

L. Digby crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis.

  • Digby, L. 1912. "The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids." Ann. Bot. 26: 357-88.

You can find several more observed instances of speciation, or "macroevolution", here.

Well, this is the most compelling post I have seen so far to support evolution, and the most objectively (read: ad-hominem-less) given, and I will need to look into it better. It makes me wonder if the donkey was originally from horse stock because as probably everyone knows a donkey and a horse can interbreed, but the offspring, a mule, is sterile. Still, the fly, although a different species, is still a fly, and the flower is still a flower...the fly didn't become a dragon fly nor did the flower become a cactus. However, this is at least worthy of serious thought.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who decide who will go to hell and who won't obviously then believe they are higher up than the thing they worship, judging from the supposed actions of this being, I don't think he will be pleased to hear others trying to do it's job for it. "Only God may judge me" isn't that what they say?

Edited by Orcseeker
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the Biblical God, unless you're willing to admit he (or his authors) fibbed a bit in genesis.

Depends on how you look at it. I think there's room for both evolution and creation. Creation could even jump start evolution. Creation could take an already evolving organism and push it in a new direction as well. Our scientists are already capable of creating new forms of life. For all we know, humanity could have similar origins.

Edited by WoIverine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.