Prove evolution to a scientologist

[modest]

yes im aware that you humans believe the tree branched off several directions... ape man had sex with goat and there were humans. ape man had sex with donkey and there were monkeys.

 

anyway, id like to know where the links are. this lucy thing is fascinating... mildly. but how do we know she was not a physical retard? do we have others to compare too? maybe im a skeptical about one single source being the omnipotent truth, but i'd like to know there are more lucys and how many have been discovered? ps, i have yet to conclude where life evolved from, yet alone dogs :phones:

 

All these questions are answered in the link of my last post.

 

Clearly your intention is not to investigate evolution. You are trying your best to provoke a debate. I have no doubt you are more intelligent than the bait you keep throwing down. The veil of stupidity and skepticism isn’t thick enough to cover the troll hiding beneath. Since you clearly are clever enough to have many interesting conversations on a science forum it makes me wonder why you would favor trolling.

 

Let’s hear where you honestly stand on evolution. Let's hear a fresh perspective that makes people think. Irritating people with something sincere is far more impressive than the typical trollish masquerade that the people around here aren't new to.

 

-modest

[C1ay]

yes im aware that you humans believe the tree branched off several directions... ape man had sex with goat and there were humans. ape man had sex with donkey and there were monkeys.

 

Well, now that you've managed to actually post your claims, let's see you actually back up your claims. You have read through the rules haven't you?

[Brinnie]

All these questions are answered in the link of my last post.

 

Clearly your intention is not to investigate evolution.

i had a formidable response but my computer crashed. forgive me if this 2nd take severely lacks enthusiasm... my intention is to investigate evolution and damn you for saying otherwise. but like i said, you've got to prove it on a Scientologist's level- and like me, they are hardcore critics.

Let’s hear where you honestly stand on evolution. Let's hear a fresh perspective that makes people think.

ok. i believe the only thing that we can truly prove is EXISTENCE. it only takes one moment of sensory to know that present time existence exists. now, "what" exists is completely a different story. after all, we could be livin la vida Matrix... sure, that's irrelevant to a scientist, but not a Psychologist- and to many of psychologists, science is irrelevant. scientology merges the two and says there is a science of psychology and a psychology of science...

 

that said, it would be foolish to say Evolution, (from parasite or whatever to man) is or isn't true when... when i can comprehend psychology. to me, Evolution not 65% solid. how it can be more than 80% to any of the Evo-Elitists blows my mind. yes, i'm firm believer that psychiatry is bullshit, but only to a degree. why? because the only thing that I can prove, in it's entirety, is one: EXISTENCE.

 

it is my understanding that in Science, the theory with the most substantial evidence trumps the next. the popular one. but what I don't get is where scientists stop searching for evidence, as well as counter-evidence. when i have a theory, i try to prove it wrong and try to prove it right and try to prove it wrong and so on. i don't blindly search for evidence that proves my theory. i seek truth, like the rest of you primitive humans. but i don't stop at whats conformable.

 

maybe humans lack a capacity to see outside the box? isn't there a science to non-science as with everything else? Buffy put postwhoring into a mathematical equation. how does that equate to evolution? reverse engineer everything.

 

when i start thinking about teh soul, dreams and technology, i start to think of how is possible it is that evolution could have produced art, this forum, bacardi 151 and all the technological advances of humanity and wonders of this percieved life. it's ****ing wild. no other species can communicate on this level.

 

i'm no facist. i will NEVER say Evolution is or isnt. i will say that a fool would believe in a theory that appeals to their emotions and comprehension level

[Brinnie]

You have read through the rules haven't you?

nope. i can never meet up 2 ur standards. its senseless 2 try communicating with a brick wall

 

[Moontanman]

INTRO

 

where to start, where to start...

• ok. to the best of my understanding, scientists are required to believe in evolution.
  
• i do not believe in evolution, so i guess i cant be a scientist.
  
• apparently, scientology says that for $12,499 i can believe in what i want, but maybe you guys will let me slide with my foodstamp card... [joke]

 

EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION

understand that i have not 'written off' the theory of evolution, it just hasn't been proved to me. if evolution is true, i'd really like to know. but there are some things that either go over my head or just don't make sense to me. i am going to ask some questions that you might consider stupid, but try to give me a good answer, they'll be labled A,B,C, etc... i'll have more questions as i learn.

 

A. FOSSILS:

how old is the oldest discovered caveman skull and where is it today?

how old is the oldest discovered monkey skull and where is it today?

can someone show me one of those "from monkey to man" pictures with the fossil dates, but also tell me which museums the skulls are found in?

 

B. MACROEVOLUTION:

So monkeymen have been around for millions of years and then in the last 2,000 years we all the sudden became smart and invented the wheel, lights, car, computer? where is logical data in that?

 

 

CONTROVERSY

there are millions of people who think; and thousands of webpages that say evolution is false. at this point, i don't understand how anyone can say there isn't some truth to both sides.

 

don't we need to do more lab tests and experiments before claiming a theory is 100% fact? I thought science was all about testing. :rolleyes:

 

 

maybe i stand alone, but i don't think it's very "scientific" to rule out any possibility, even if it's only 0.5% probable :)

 

 

There are thousands of web sites that say aliens walk among us and eat our children, or the Earth is hollow, or the gas companies have bought and suppressed a 1000 mpg carburetor, does that make them true? You can write a web site on anything, eat dung, a million flies can't be wrong!

If you can swallow scientology, evolution should be easy choke down! Just because scientology is believed by famous people doesn't mean it's true. It just means famous people are easily fooled out of their money was anyone else. Give me one shred of evidence to support scientology and I don't mean the ravings of L. Ron Hubbard , the bad science fiction writer who thought it up! Evolution has an over whelming amount of evidence to back the concept up.

 

Moontanman

Mistral

[Moontanman]

BY the way, our earliest ancestor we can deduce was a single celled eukaryotic organism that lived in of the sea a couple of billion years ago not monkeys. Apes evolved from old world monkeys, hominids evolved from ape like animals, the genus homo evolved from hominids. Humans evolved from one or possibly even more than one of the hominids of the genus homo (homo sapiens) as did homo neanderthalis. some would say that we are Homo sapiens sapiens as species name and that cromagnon man was homo sapiens. but it all started with the first cell that cooperated with it's neighbors and incorporated other organisms into it's body as mitochondria, and in some cases chloroplasts. About this time it also evolved the ability to clump together in cooperating associations, from there complex life evolved eventually to become Homo sapiens sapiens. Evolution has no direction, goals or agendas. Evolution is driven by the environment and cooperation between cells.

[jab2]

Proving evolution to you is going to be a serious challenge considering how robustly you misunderstand/misrepresent it.

 

Agree, seeing that I explained the use of capitol letters at the start of sentences very early in this thread, and Brinnie are yet again back to kindergarten speak.

[Ahmabeliever]

What's really unbelievable about this whole thing is that the tag Tom Cruise is included in a science forum.

 

"I can help, we can help... don't look me in the eye!"

[Buffy]

What's really unbelievable about this whole thing is that the tag Tom Cruise is included in a science forum.

 

It could get even stranger though.... :doh:

 

Up your nose with a rubber hose! :D

Buffy

[Boerseun]

Although this thread is in Strange Claims where we're a bit more lax when it comes to evidence etc., no actual claim is being made here.

 

Look at the thread title...

 

Look at the content of this thread...

 

Read the responses...

 

This thread is going nowhere slowly, is completely pointless, and misses the intent of Strange Claims completely, if not Hypography in total.

 

I therefore move for thread closure and deletion.

[Moontanman]

I don't know dude, reading about how a scientologist can swallow camels and gag at knats is pretty intertaining.

 

Moon

[CraigD]

I’ve been avoiding the urge to jump on some inaccuracies and unverified assumption I’ve noticed in this thread on the grounds that, having IMHO one of the least coherent, most profoundly confused opening posts in hypography history, it is a thread best avoided. However, facts checking – even about the vague, strange, and irrelevant – is a hypography tradition, so here goes…

 

Ignoring Brinnie’s variation on the “I don’t believe in Evolution because I don’t understand all the big words” theme, what’s left in this thread seems to be something along the lines of

Scientologists must not believe in biological evolution, because they’re know to have some strange, non-mainstream beliefs

In short, as Scientologists are wrong – extravagantly so – about so many things, they must be wrong about nearly everything, including any scientific theory one cares to chose. Also, Scientology is (arguably) a religion, and its assumed that people for whom religion figure prominently in their lives reject evolution.

 

As is often the case with oversimplifications, this view of the doctrinal beliefs of Scientology concerning evolution is not only overly simple, but for the most part wrong.

 

Scientology affirms a history of Earth resembling – if you avoid over-attention to its zanier details – some of the models proposed by conventional theories of evolutionary biology and abiogenesis. In short, a “cosmic impact” initiated primordial life, which eventually led to cells, complex organism, and humans. On top of this, Scientology throws an entity roughly analogous to the supernatural soul (the “thetan”), and a strong mind-body dualism whereby biology manages bodies and the like, while souls manage minds, with some troubling interaction between the two. It reads like something written by a hyper imaginative scifi writer, because … it was written by a hyper imaginative scifi writer, the legendary L Ron Hubbard, of whom much has been said, to which I can only add that Hubbard was not a recluse, and had a very energetic, interesting life.

 

There are lots of online summaries of the Scientological take on many scientific ideas – this one is a pretty good summary of its imaginative take on Evolution, while this link page contains well-written answers on diverse topics from an actual Scientologist.

 

Much is made of the financial aspects of Scientology, especially the amount of money many people spend (and, complimentarily, other make) on it, leading many to assign it the derogatory label of “cult”. As the many accounts of offended former scientologist bear testament, there’s some truth to this. On the other hand, as Buffy noted in this post in the “Scientology, not all bad?” thread, many people have clearly benefited from their involvement in it. In my experience, this is true of many well-established “cult” religions – for some people, they’re very beneficial – leading me to avoid casting aspersions on them simply because I believe that, factually, they’re nonsensical.

 

Another criticism leveled at Scientology is that, with it’s vehement opposition to convention mental health care, it’s opposed to modern medicine. Except for psychiatry, this isn’t the case – Scientologists believe in availing themselves of all the benefits of conventional and alternative non-psychiatric medicine – though not without their characteristic bizarre tilt on it, such as the belief that an “Operating Thetan” (a person of high achievement in the religion’s techniques) simply isn’t susceptible to most disease.

 

In summary, I believe there are many religions, including many of the largest ones, that are far more inimical to science than Scientology. I’d prefer my neighbors be atheists, like me, but offered the choice of neighbors between, Pentecostal Christians and a Scientologist, I’d chose the Scientologists.

[SkaSci]

i don't get scientology at all.. it was started by a sci-fi writer????

[Moontanman]

i don't get scientology at all.. it was started by a sci-fi writer???

 

 

Yes this is true, and not exactly one of the better ones either.

 

Moon

[CraigD]

i don't get scientology at all.. it was started by a sci-fi writer????

Yes this is true …

It’s a bit of an understatement, I think, to describe L Ron Hubbard as simply a sci-fi writer.

 

He was a versatile, multi-genre professional writer, who, IMHO, must be read to appreciate his style. John Campbell published some of his work, and John Campbell was no mean editor.

 

He was charismatic, confident, roguish (the true, dark kind, not the stereotypical likable kind), to some extent putting ones over on everyone from the US Navy (who gave him command, to their eventual regret, of a 173’ warship), the US lodge of Aleister Crowley’s magical society Ordo Templi Orientis, to some extent the governments of the US and Canada, and arguable, anywhere from several tens of thousands to several million Scientologists worldwide.

 

Scientology, and Hubbard, are not IMHO easy things to “get”. A good appreciation of the subject requires a lot of skeptical yet open-minded research.

… and not exactly one of the better ones either.

I’m not sure how one would go about comparing religions to rank them from better to worse.

 

Going purely on intuition and personal experience, I’d rank Scientology neither as among the best, nor among the worst. Scientologists seem a tolerant bunch, not inclined toward violence, yet unhealthily focused on personal dominance, and vaguely untrustworthy. These seemings fail to adequately describe this religion and its adherents, of even if it is exactly a religion.

 

To me, it’s all fairly fascinating, and not, to me, scary or threatening, though for someone involved in it, I suspect it can get pretty deep and dark.

[InfiniteNow]

I’m not sure how one would go about comparing religions to rank them from better to worse.

 

I think you may have misinterpreted Moontanman's comment. My interpretation is that he meant that L.Ron Hubbard was not one of the better sci-fi authors, as opposed to your interpretation that his suggestion was that scientology is not one of the better religions. However, it would be best if we left that to moontanman himself to clarify. :shrug:

[CraigD]

I think you may have misinterpreted Moontanman's comment. My interpretation is that he meant that L.Ron Hubbard was not one of the better sci-fi authors, as opposed to your interpretation that his suggestion was that scientology is not one of the better religions.

I think you’re correct.

 

However, I’d rank Hubbard fairly high as a pulp-era writer. Technically and thematically, I find him sophisticated (though frequently sloppy) and possessing an ineffable “can’t put it down” narrative hook. I’ve known several fairly well-read folk who shared my experience with Hubbard’s gigantic (roughly 1000 page) novel “Battlefield Earth” – quoting Fredrick Pohl: “I read 'Battlefield Earth' straight through in one sitting although it's immense... I was fascinated by it.”

 

I’ve also known experienced scifi readers who couldn’t get through the first hundred pages.

 

As a science fiction writer, Hubbard is very soft, gleefully violating scientific laws of nature as needed to carry a plot – though, unusually for a soft scifi writer, he eschews supernatural and psychic elements, and exhibits a reverence for engineers bordering on the idolatrous.