Printable View
Now this is a topic I have discussed with quite a lot of people, and I have never actually gotten a proper view. The reason I have started talking to people about it is due to this video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xvyQRdlKiwI
This has to be one of the most weirdest videos I have seen, and it always leaves me pondering my opinions.
This...is a joke right?
Nobody is THAT stupid, right? PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND DECENT TELL ME THAT WAS A JOKE. I must be missing something. All those people agreeing with him in the comments. I must not have been paying attention at the point where he said it was a joke, right? RIGHT?
*cries about the future of humanity*
Anyway, as for the topic. The current evolutionary theory is the one with the most evidence behind it, so yes. Until one with more evidence comes along, I'll stick with this one.
The entire manner in which the argument was presented, the examples given, and the speaker's tone make me question whether or not this video is anything more than a joke. I've never seen this guy before, but I wouldn't rule out that the entire thing is sarcasm delivered in a very serious manner.
Assuming the video is serious, I think it might be a good idea for the guy to actually look into evolution a little bit more so that he can understand what the hell he's arguing against.
That White House part at the end scared me. I almost got heart attack.
I...I just can't believe this. The sheer amount of bad logic in there...hurts, is really the only word for it. It's one of the most poorly thought out arguments I have ever heard. Does he know NOTHING about the theory of evolution?
And what does the whole white house bit have to do with anything? Augh, my head.
I stopped watching after he said "Charley Darwin"
We learn much more from the World of Red and Blue.-_-
Off to the zoo then.
What's wrong with kids doing drugs now?
ILikeRice949: Please be a joke. Please be a joke. Please be a joke. Please be a joke.
dabrowskitron: And I bet it's some crazy bible camp somewhere in the south. >_>
ILikeRice949: It's not a joke.
ILikeRice949: Oh his god, it's not a joke.
It disturbs me that people can even believe such crackpot theories. I think any sort of credibility his hollowed out argument had was thrown out the smurfing window once he mentioned the White House being at the bottom of a giant pentagram.
He claims the reason we do all those horrid things is because we think we came from monkeys and can act like them.
Monkeys, from what I know, are a quite organized animals and do not needlessly kill each other over stupid things. So in fact monkeys are superior to the people who do these things on a moral level.
However, this video makes me laugh.
Whales evolved into cows, eh? I AM CONVERTED.
If he thinks evolution is the stupidest thing he's ever heard, he needs to check himself.
Bleah, some of the worst horrors ever were commited in the name of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoCracker
Anyone who needs the threat of eternal damnation hanging over them to be a nice person is too much of a jerk not to still be a jerk. It just makes them be jerks in ways "God" says is ok.
So I guess the early Puritan Americans, who were some of the most devout christians the world has ever known, were brutally slaying Indians in the image of their god. Thank the heavens they didn't see themselves as descending from monkeys, who knows what atrocities they'd be capable of then.
I love how in the comments section people are praising him as a "genius" rofl.
Bah, that guy really needs to get himself a razor.
He's right about the knife becoming a fork after a million of years... or something similar with a whole bunch of rust holes in it.:roll:
Similarly if we believe were a bunch chemical reactions wouldnt we believe he is too, so how can we trust his over ours.
He believes he is a puppet
This guys dead serious it would seem. Also dangerously ignorant. I'd laugh if it weren't so frightening.
I think he's serious. Check his profile. He has about 20 vids about God and co. He's just dumb.
This is a rather intelligent little Kid. The first Two debunk that video posted here, the third is on Outdated Creationist Theories.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gDAZenorq...elated&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dAPi7gFEHHc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AEXnc4lDtxU
Also proof you shouldn't discount someone because of their age.
All I saw was a moron with an opinion. Comical ... yes, but nothing too terrifying about it I would think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22
I doubt it, but the fact that this kid read all of that out and probably understood quite a bit makes him great already.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoCracker
He's kinda scary alright.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow8017All I saw was a moron with an opinion. Comical ... yes, but nothing too terrifying about it I would think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22
Interesting.... So does he still believe that the Earth is flat? Is the Earth also merely several thousand years old? The Sun goes around the Earth right? Religion is obsolete and only those who can not handle the truth stick to the theories of their prophets. I am not apposed to some of the moral teachings of the religion, I believe that mutualistic interactions should be encouraged between individuals in society. what I am opposed to the obsolete and incorrect ideas that religion still supports which breed ignorant fools like that kid in the video.
He discredits science based on the fact that science has supposedly brought about destruction and bad morality. Destruction and bad morality is not a new concept, and is riddled throughout the bible and history. The use of science for destructive purposes is the decision of the individual. A knife need not be a weapon etc, etc...
and btw, why in the world was the snake in the Garden of Eden? Does Heaven need a security checkup?
Oh..that reminds me...Apparently God created Man in his image, therefore, in order for God to have a son, he required a similar biological process. So i'm guessing he decided to knock up old Mary one night :eek: So did you know that god was a rapist?:DQuote:
Originally Posted by GrinenshirePff... and where did the God came from? What was his dad's name? Or was he created by the big bang? :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkness Eternum
Hehehe.
Actually, bad on the topic. This guy is really not helping the world peace. It's alright that he bashes the atheists and physics, but the fact that he provokes the hate on Islam is pretty bad, to put it down mildly.
Im going to kill people because i came from a monkey.
its not important to me. i'll discuss it if i have to but to me its just one more thing to think about.
is that giant skeleton thing reliable? the pentagram thing was interesting.
That was sooooo boring...! No enthusiasm whatsoever! Jeez, I wonder if he even believed what he was saying!? Anyway, I don't believe in evolution just because I never did as a child. It wasn't something that stuck with me.
Evolution. 100%.
The only proof you need is a baby. That's all. End of discussion.
[Q=NeoCracker][monkeys] do not needlessly kill each other over stupid things.[/Q]
Many actually do.
I stand Corrected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meat Puppet
At least they don't kill in the name of God.
I have absolutely no faith in evolution. Only mentally challenged people have faith in something like that.
Unlike several religions, evolution isn't something that needs to stick at an early age (read: indoctrination), so I don't see how that has anything to do with anything!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tifa Valentine
The frightening thing is that not only does he actually think like that, but the people writing those responses seem to be just as ignorant if they aren't simply joking. Ignorance of this magnitude always frightens me since nothing good can come of it. Ignorance can be a very dangerous thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow8017All I saw was a moron with an opinion. Comical ... yes, but nothing too terrifying about it I would think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22
No, I don't believe in evolution.
Damn ive been wrong all this time. His proof is so conclusive no-one can argue with it unless they are satanists!
I've always loved the argument of "I'm right and anyone who says differently is the devil! DEMON!"
Seriously! All this kid did was set up one really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking. after another, and even then, failed to find any convincing rebuttals for any of it. And I loved the one guy who said that he'd take his Knife -> fork chart and use it to explain how evolution works.
Just really...sad...
I don't believe in evolution anyway and even if the theory was true, that guy couldn't change my mind...and he's not scary at all...:D
Nope. If we did find giant skeletons, we'd have them for public display in a museum. Apart from that, they simply can't exist due to our g-levels. To put it down simply, they'd just crush down in a pile of flesh and bones in notime.Quote:
Originally Posted by boys from the dwarf
That with the pentagram is really nothing simply. Washington was a designed city, i.e. it didn't from from the huts randomly. You could just as well look at other constructed cities which are not using the grid-buildup and hell, you'll see quite a bit of every geometrical figure.
But yeah, it's pretty cool that he says the the root of all evil lies in the white house.:p
EDIT: Just out of pure curiousity. Quite a few people have posted that they don't believe in evolution. Any particular reasons why?
i don't belive evolution, its crazy and pretty dum.... come on thats sick thinking you were a monkey!...YUCK there grose! :yuck:
And my friend told me that the frist guy i think who started evolution when he was about to die he thought evolution was crazy...:sweatdrop
First of all, we didn't evolve from monkeys...we evolved from gorillas. Big difference. Secondly, I find it difficult to believe that someone who dedicated his whole life to refining his theory, would on his deathbed just say that it's all crazy-talk. Thirdly, you say that saying the we, who are physiologically, and socially similar to gorillas, is more far fetched than some guy in the clouds waving his hand and saying "Go, be free!"? I don't buy it, I'm sorry.
We didn't really evolve from gorillas. We share a common ancestor. Or something like that.
And about the comments on his video, he chooses what comments go up, so I can only imagine that he chooses not to display the ones that discredit what he says, and only allows the ones which say how much he rules to be seen.
One thing that I don't get is that IF we did evolve from Gorillas, why are there still Gorillas around?
^^Quote:
Originally Posted by Shauna
Ok, to all you creationists, I pose to you this question: How do you know we haven't evolved? What proof is there that points to us just *poof* popping up cause some fictional character we decided to name "God" decided one day "i'll make people".
And another thing, do you creationists believe in adaptation? Because adaptation is evolution.
So i'd like to hear some of you god thumpers ideas and how you back them up.
OOC: also, maybe this should be in EoEE?
Apologies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shauna^^Quote:
Originally Posted by Shauna
We didn't. Humans, apes and monkeys all share a common ancestor.Quote:
Originally Posted by comet
That makes sense.
I'll admit that I was radical last time I posted on this subject and I apologise. I do have a answer to the above...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tale Of The Magic Rock Apes
Okay, now sit down now, boys and girls - it's story time! Shhhh.... Once upon a time, billions of years ago, there was nothing. Suddenly, magically, the nothing exploded into something. That something is called hydrogen. Can you say "hydrogen?" I knew you could. This hydrogen eventually cooled down enough to condense into solid rock. It was magic rock. Inert and lifeless, but still magical. And then, magically, water formed in the sky above the rock. The waters rained on the rock for, oh, let's say billions of years. Some of the rock broke down into minerals, and these minerals washed into a pool of water.
Then one day some of these minerals magically formed into a kind of goo in the pool of water. Can you say "goo?" I knew you could. Well do you know what happened then? That's right! The goo magically became ALIVE. So anyway, this bit of magic goo magically found something to eat. Then, magically, it found another bit of magic goo to marry, and they had a whole bunch of magical little goos. Eventually - millions of years later - some of this goo grew up into all the plants and animals in the world around us. If it's alive, it came from that first bit of magic goo! Well, more time went on. Finally some of this goo magically evolved - can you say "evolved?" I knew you could - some of this goo magically evolved upwards and upwards, growing ever more advanced, bigger, stronger, smarter, until it became a kind of magical hairless ape with thumbs.
And do you know who those apes are? That's right! They're YOU and ME! We are the magic rock apes! And you know what else? Someday we'll evolve enough that we'll become the God we all know doesn't exist. Now take a nap.
This may seem rather (Ignorant) to many ppl here but the fact is that schools still teach this. Any museum I go to will say the same thing.
Seeing eye by chance?
Charles Darwin expressed confidence that natural selection could explain the development of the eye; but how does this confidence stand up in the light of reason? Today, we are in curious intellectual situation of allowing only naturalistic explanations into public schools. This is done in spite of the fact that the alternative (creation or intelligent design) more adequately explains the observation. It would take a miraculous number of design changes to transform a light sensitive patch into an eyeball. Furthermore, each change would have to be coded onto the DNA of the "new" creature in order for the change to pass to the next generation. It has never been explained how this could have happened. Each new feature would need to be independently useful or natural selection would not have allowed the new creature to live.
-An eyeball with no retina would be a tumor, not an improvement to be passed on to the next generation.
-An eyeball without a focusing lens would be worthless except as a light detector.
-An eyeball without a functioning optic nerve to carry the signal to the brain would be worthless.
-An eyeball without the perfect balance of fluid pressure would explode or implode
-An eyeball without a brain designed to interpret the signals would be sightless
It is beyond credibility that chance mutations could produce any of these changes, let alone all of them at once. In Darwin's time the complex design of the eyeball was forceful evidence in favor of creation. Our more advanced knowledge of the intricate design of the eyes provide even stronger evidence for creation.
For instance, as we travel down the "evolutionary ladder" to examine those creatures which were supposedly among the earliest life forms on the planet, would it not be logical to expect their eyes to be less complex? Contrary to this expectation, among the lowest rock layers are found multi-cellular creatures called trilobites which have an extremely sophisticated optical system. Some trilobites had a compound eye placed in such a way as to allow 360o vision.
Compound eyes are ideally suited for detecting minute motions and some trilobites eyes were specially designed to correct for spherical aberration allowing a clear image from each facet. Even more impressive, each lens allowed for undistorted underwater imaging depth perception. Thus, one of the "earliest" in vertebrate creatures had clear underwater vision through eyes which could detect both depth and imperceptibility small motions in all directions simultaneously. Yet this creature was not at the end of the supposed evolutionary line but near the beginning! Yet no direct ancestor to this incredible complex creature (or its eye) has been found.
The complexity of eyes still argue for the reality of instantaneous formation by an incredibly intelligent designer. There is neither a fossil record showing that the eye evolved nor any testable observations explain how it could possible happen. With these facts in mind, why do we allow textbook selection which leaves out both the problems with evolution and the evidence for intelligent design? This is indoctrination, not education.
now I have some Questions.
---------------------------
Questions for Evolutionists
1.Where did the space for the universe come from?
2.Where did matter come from?
3.Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4.How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5.Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6.When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
7.When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8.With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9.Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10.How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11.Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12.Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
13.When, where, why, and how did:
-Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
-Single-celled animals evolve?
-Fish change to amphibians?
-Amphibians change to reptiles?
-Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
-How did the intermediate forms live?
14.When, where, why, how, and from what did:
-Whales evolve?
-Sea horses evolve?
-Bats evolve?
-Eyes evolve?
-Ears evolve?
-Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15.Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it?
16.There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
17.How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
18.When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
19.*How did photosynthesis evolve?
20.*How did thought evolve?
21.*How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?
22.*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
23.What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
24.*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
25.*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
26.Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
Thank you for your time.
Well EXCUSE me! I THOUGHT the topic was, "Do you believe in Evolution"!Quote:
Originally bespoken by : Mirage
Unlike several religions, evolution isn't something that needs to stick at an early age (read: indoctrination), so I don't see how that has anything to do with anything!
Know what? You right! Evolution does NOT have to stick with you at an early age for you to believe it later on in life, I NEVER said it does!! I said FOR ME, not for you and not for whoever else doesn't believe in evolution, I learned about evolution, I considered it but it wasn't something I thought of often! It's kind of like when I experimented with cigarettes. I tried it a couple of times but it didn't stick with me, even though almost all my friends enjoyed it and offed it to me constantly! I didn't get anything out of it so there was no point in me continuing! Same as evolution, I forget all about it until someone brings it up. It's not something I think of daily or even yearly!!
Kudos to everyone who believes in evolution and/or we are all aliens that will return to space one day! Hell, take me a long! I respect you and whether you have a reasons for believing it or not! And I'm sorry Mirage that my opinion doesn't have "anything to do with anything" on the topic, "Do you believe in Evolution?"
The vertebate eye developed from light-sensitive cells on the surface of the brain. Those patches DID have a use. They helped early life forms know which way the surface of the water was, what time of day it was, and thus the means to avoid direct UV exposure which is harmful. If the human eye had been a product of intelligent design it would have been more intelligently designed. More along the lines of how the squid eye is made.
Do humans live in such conditions that such eyes would be nesisary? The human eye is exreamly complex. Its because of the human eye and we can make illusions so visualy realistic. Nothing about the hunam eye is unintelegent. we have the abillity to know which way surface is and how much depth there is under or above that surface.
That guy in the video, had huge gaps in his logic. He arrived at conclusions with no study, or research. I turned the video off, when he claimed that because we have derived chemicals in our brain, therefore we can not trust our thoughts. How the hell can you go from brain chemicals to then not trusting our thoughts?
I'll listen to someone who has claims, backed by noteable research pubished in one the thousands of academic journals. More probably a comprehensive research that are thousands of publications in scientific journals, that can elude to a single theory. Since that's how things are done. Having a some teen with a webcam, and pictures on the internet, in no way gives anyone credibility to proove something scientifically. Even if he were to try to disprove evolution through theology alone, or even Philosophy, which school of thought was he using? Which bodies of work was he studying? It's one thing, to have an open discusion whether or not "you" personally believe in evolution, for whatever reason. That is perfectly fine. But to try and "proove" it, with no proof is kind ludacris.
Not to say I don't believe in God. I believe in both, if you can believe that. I do believe in evolution, in most areas, specifically the basis of speciation. Through different enviornments, ecotones, organisms derive thier biological niche, thus speciation occurs. Genetic Variation is really the key to all this. The certian indiviuals who have the different traits that make them better suited not to die, they then are the ones to live and pass on that trait that they had to aid in thier survival.
I'm not going to fall in to the whole religion trap except to say; if someone calls me a satanist because I do not worship god I would laugh because I do not believe in either's existence for one cannot co-exist without the other (god is the creator and the devil is the destroyer the exact opposite and anti-god) I believe in going on with the strength I call my own, I will never cry for help or pray for help from a divine/celestial being for I would rather go through life without being called to task or owing those whom we cannot prove exist let alone barter the terms of what they can ask in return for their help/support. (note I don't accept the christian god and devil's existence but I never said I do not accept the existence of all gods.)
This video was laughable unfortunately some people (most commonly found in America's "bible belt" sadly) will believe this crap and accept it as perfect reasons why God exists and the theory of evoloution is BS. To be honest the whole "God exists" debate is a porcelain teapot in space theory that has been knocking around since the dark ages (christianity for a time would have been passed around by word of mouth, chineese whispers anyone? bibles have not existed since the life of christ).
If you're going to compare evolution to peer pressure, then I suppose we have nothing more to discuss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tifa Valentine
It wasn't what you believed in that I didn't consider strange, but the reason why you didn't.
I don't think blue is blue because I didn't like that idea when I was in kindergarden :(.
Does good God also give a reason for giving us back aches or is gravity a work of Satan too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yu-Yevon
Seriously, if you listen to those guys Satan created quite a bit more than God could ever imagine.
PS: @Yu-Yevon: You know, I'm not sure how familiar you are with the theory of probability, but statistically speaking in an infinite amount of time (trials) the chance of a living cell appearing, just as a result of chemical reactions, is pretty damn high. i.e. 1. I'm pretty sure that the scientific explanation of that is somewhat more complex, but your 5th year’s junior school probability and the one week of 6th grade chemistry should have taught you that.
PSII: You know, Yevon was a warlock, and enemy of God. Sure you want to bear his name?
I couldn't even get past your first paragraph before I had to facepalm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yu-Yevon
Ok, first.
The hydrogen didn't cool down to become rock. Huge numbers of hydrogen particles attracted each other into clumps, until the internal pressure of those clumps became so great that the atoms of hydrogen fused to become helium. It's basic stellar physics. In main sequence stars, that helium and hydrogen further fuse at the end of it's life into carbon, and nitrogen, and other basic elements. When the star's life ends, a large proportion of that matter is thrown out, and the process continues elsewhere. In giant stars, the step goes further, taking the carbon and nitrogen and fusing it into iron, and various other heavier metals. This continues, until the larger molecules clumped together in a stellar accretion disk to form planetary bodies.Quote:
Okay, now sit down now, boys and girls - it's story time! Shhhh.... Once upon a time, billions of years ago, there was nothing. Suddenly, magically, the nothing exploded into something. That something is called hydrogen. Can you say "hydrogen?" I knew you could. This hydrogen eventually cooled down enough to condense into solid rock. It was magic rock. Inert and lifeless, but still magical. And then, magically, water formed in the sky above the rock. The waters rained on the rock for, oh, let's say billions of years. Some of the rock broke down into minerals, and these minerals washed into a pool of water.
Some of these bodies were dense and massive enough to attract various gasses creating an atmosphere. After a time, the heat from the formation of said bodies dissipates, causing water molecules in their new atmospheres to condense creating oceans and the like.
Again, no. It's simple chemistry. Carbon molecules reacted with the hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen to create simple proteins, which then combined to become amino acids. These steps have been recreated in a laboratory. The part we cannot create at the moment, is where those amino acids combine into RNA and DNA, although we have gotten to the point where they form into basic celluar "shells" or membranes. Not alive, but definitely close.Quote:
Then one day some of these minerals magically formed into a kind of goo in the pool of water. Can you say "goo?" I knew you could. Well do you know what happened then? That's right! The goo magically became ALIVE. So anyway, this bit of magic goo magically found something to eat. Then, magically, it found another bit of magic goo to marry, and they had a whole bunch of magical little goos. Eventually - millions of years later - some of this goo grew up into all the plants and animals in the world around us. If it's alive, it came from that first bit of magic goo! Well, more time went on. Finally some of this goo magically evolved - can you say "evolved?" I knew you could - some of this goo magically evolved upwards and upwards, growing ever more advanced, bigger, stronger, smarter, until it became a kind of magical hairless ape with thumbs.
The cells that form went about their business, absorbing sunlight to create energy, and going through mitosis a few times. Eventually, their genetic material went through a few mutations, creating cells that consume other cells to create energy, as well as mutating in such a way as to create a viable multi-celled organism. These became the first insects and simple fish, when continued to develop and mutate. By this time, all the extra oxy the phytoplankton had been pumping out created a breathable atmosphere, and certain fish that had undergone another subtle mutation were able to use their gills or gill-analogues to breathe the atmo, some of which eventually crawled on land, which became the first amphibians.
These amphibians continued to develop, until splitting into two (I know there are more, but this is just for the sake of explanation) groups, one remaining amphibians, the other developing into reptiles. Those reptiles splitting into three other groups. One of which, again, remaining the same with minor changes, the other two undergoing drastic change. Some eventually became birds, while others that had developed fur, became mammals.
The first mammals were small, vole-like creatures, and so were quite capable of surviving the mass extinction following the Cretaceous Period. These mammals again split, some dwelling on the ground, some going into the trees, and this is where we get the predecessor to the apes, monkeys and humans. Some of them came out of the trees to become the proto-humans, Australopithecenes and others, some of the ones who left the trees also became the modern great apes, gorillas, chimps, orangutans, what have you.
As for the issue about eyes, I don't know enough about biology to get into that, but I have to say something about this
There is no fossil record, because the eye tissue is far too soft to fossilize. Also, I must ask, what evidence is there for ID? I have not seen Creationists offer one single bit of evidence for their side, quoting only from the bible, or using assumptions not based anywhere near the Scientific Method.Quote:
The complexity of eyes still argue for the reality of instantaneous formation by an incredibly intelligent designer. There is neither a fossil record showing that the eye evolved nor any testable observations explain how it could possible happen. With these facts in mind, why do we allow textbook selection which leaves out both the problems with evolution and the evidence for intelligent design? This is indoctrination, not education.
Now, on to the questions:
Questions for Evolutionists
1.Where did the space for the universe come from?
What kind of question is this? It's not like there's some magical barrier just outside our universe. Space is emptiness. It's infinite.
2.Where did matter come from?
We're still trying to figure this out.
3.Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
The laws are intrinsic to matter. Gravity is an electromagnetic force exerted by matter. Inertia is as well, although it also includes friction.
4.How did matter get so perfectly organized?
It's not. Not even close. Don't you know what radiation is? It's essentially atoms falling apart at the seams. Which is why it's dangerous. The parts that are broken off, then smack into other atoms, causing similar reactions.
5.Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
Again, it's not organized.
6.When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
The closest explanation we have is the one I used above, about amino acids combining. We still don't know exactly.
7.When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
Again, mutation. The original cells mutated, which allowed them to split into two separate organisms.
8.With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Cells don't reproduce sexually.
9.Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
I myself only have a basic understanding of biology, and evolutionary theory. *is a physicist* So I can't answer this one.
10.How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Because mutations that help the creature survive are passed onto its offspring, and then they carry the mutation as well. Mutations that do not, kill the creature, and their genes are not passed on.
11.Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
Anything is possible, however the evidence points elsewhere at the moment.
12.Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
Mutation is the only answer I can offer. Creatures with small lifespans and large reproduction rates, like cells, have a much, much higher chance of mutation, thus they mutate more often, creating more complex genetic code. That repeated over billions of years, leads to some complex code.
13.When, where, why, and how did:
-Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Apparently the intermediates died off, as they weren't as successful as the multi and the single celled versions. Again, I'm no biologist.
-Single-celled animals evolve?
The first living things were single-cell plants. Those mutated to consume other cells to create energy. Those were the first animals.
-Fish change to amphibians?
Look above.
-Amphibians change to reptiles?
Again, see above.
-Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
Not entirely, there are some species of bird that are rather close to reptilian, and some reptiles that are rather bird like, although most of them are extinct.
-How did the intermediate forms live?
*shrug* I'm no paleontologist.
14.When, where, why, how, and from what did:
-Whales evolve?
Land mammals that went back into the sea. They began living more and more of their lives in the sea, until they just left the land entirely. Feet mutating webs, and those mutating into fins, etc.
-Sea horses evolve?
-Bats evolve?
-Eyes evolve?
-Ears evolve?
-Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
The rest of these, I can only attribute to mutation. I don't know enough of biology to answer.
15.Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it?
Again, I do not know.
16.There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
Because it's the only example we have that has proof, and that can be tested. This is what makes it a theory. ID CANNOT be tested, and thus is not a legitimate theory, and remains in the realm of religion, where it belongs.
17.How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
Behavior has to do with the brain, that's all I know.
18.When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
Again. I know basically nothing about the brain.
19.*How did photosynthesis evolve?
It's the simplest form of powering the body. Absorbing light energy which is changed to whatever the body needs.
20.*How did thought evolve?
*shrug*
21.*How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?
Dunno, but they evolved from non-flowering plants.
22.*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
I was unaware there were kinds. I though you either subscribed to the theory, or you didn't.
23.What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
I'd have said you were rather rich, because the coelacanth was rediscovered in like the 1910s.
24.*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
No, because we've only known about macroevolution for a few hundred years. It takes MILLIONS at the very least.
25.*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
Hydrogen didn't just become human. You're skipping most of the processes, which are all scientific, have been documented and proven, for the most part.
26.Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
Personally, I believe it's all cyclical. All the matter in this universe has always been here, or was dumped here by some anomaly from another universe, or whatever. However what I feel doesn't matter when weighed against actual evidence. Evidence is all that matters.
Long post. :o Anyway, again, I'm a Computer Scientist/Physicist using a basic knowledge of biology and evolution. Just because I don't know, doesn't mean other people don't, and just because nobody knows at this time, doesn't mean it's unknowable, or that it was a creator. We just don't know. But that's why science exists. To explore, and to explain. It can't be done all at once, and immediately.
Let me give it a go. I'm by no means a specialist in Biology, but nevertheless. If somebody spots a mistake (or most probably 20), give me a shout.
Oh, actually read the one above. I just like popular science magazines, he's an expert.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yu-Yevon
The human eye does show distinct signs of half-assed-ness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yu-Yevon
For instance: The nerves and blood vessles that feed and connect the retina lie on top of it.
This reduces visual acuity by blocking some of the light that enters the eye.
Also, in order to connect to the optic nerve all the nerves and blood vessles have to pass through a hole in the retina which creates a blind spot.
The eye of creatures like the squid on the other hand has the nerves and blood vessles connecting to the backside of the retina resulting in sharper vision and no blind spot.
This is because the invertebrate eye evolved from light-sensitive patches of skin as opposed to the vetebrate eye which evolved from brain tissue.
Another example of the crudeness of design is the wrist.
Look at an X-ray of it and you'll see that it takes two forearm bones and a clump of carpals to give it the same range of motion that a simple ball-and-socket-joint like the hips and shoulders provide.
This indicates either a goofball of a creator or plain old nature making due with what parts are available for adaptation.
Can we please have this moved in EOEE?
If I'm a monkey, then where are my fleas? ;-;
Actually, since we've answered Yevon's question, maybe he could answer a couple I've got.
1.) Where did God come from? Was he there forever? If so, why didn't he create us even earlier? What happened the day before he started creating the universe?
2.) If we are created in his image, why are we so stupid? Why are we not omniscient? Why do we sin? Was he really so incompetent that he didn't even think about building in an anti-Satan safety mechanism? If he did, why did it fail? How can someone infinitely smart make a mistake?
3.) What concrete evidence do we have of God? Apart from people, and a book written by people, telling us about him, do we have any concrete signs? Why didn't he cure AIDS or cancer yet if he's so benevolent?
4.) Did you ever think about the possibility that the 10 Commandments were written and successfully implemented to control a group of people without hiring guards? In order to keep as many of them form being raped and murdered by each other as possible?
Oh, I just figured out why he has only positive comments. New comments need approval before they're added. And as Roto made me aware of, he disabled ratings after 5 votes, just enough to get 5 stars.
I hope this person dies a very violent death at a very young age.
-edit-
Now that I'm done being pissed off at him stopping me from commenting, I would like to point out that I particularly like Grinen's 4th question.
If you're questioning evolution you are a monkey. and it's been said so many smurfing times so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by gyrus
and since it won't stick with anyone of you creationist idiots;
WE DID NOT EVOLVE *FROM* MONKEYS. WE HAVE A COMMON ANCESTOR
Now if we are through being idiots.
Creationists are morons. You all say "prove that we evolved" well, prove god exists let alone created us.
I want CONCRETE 100% undisputable evidence that god exists.
Grinenshire, those are fantastic questions. Infact, let's leave it open for any of these creatures that believe we just showed up cause some *thing* decided to one day. I wanna see what you all have to say.
This is fantastic. The response videos are... also fantastic.
They're there, they're called crabs.Quote:
Originally Posted by gyrus
I'm gonna take a crack at the questions.
1.Where did the space for the universe come from?
Can't say for a fact.
2.Where did matter come from?
Ditto.
3.Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
No good with physics.
4.How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Lord, it's NOT! Everything in this world is steeped in chaos. There's not really a rhyme or reason to anything. The closest you get is atoms trying to achieve a neutral charge, but even then, there's rules, and exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions.
5.Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
n/a
6.When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
Dunno. Chance?
7.When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
Basic survival. it's an innate knowledge that we will not last forever, so we procreate to fill the void we leave. Just...basic instinct.
8.With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Who knows? Perhaps it was capable of sexual and asexual reproduction.
9.Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
As I mentioned, it's simply the drive to carry the genetic material on.
10.How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Because sometimes it DOESN'T work. In those cases, the flaw dies with the afflicted. In the cases where it actually works, the trait is carried forward.
11.Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
*Shrugs* I can't discount that outright, but as was mentioned, all evidence at our disposal dictates that we evolved from primates.
12.Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
It's not necessarily increasing complexity...it's not adding code, per se...it's just rearranging it in a new, and unique way.
13.When, where, why, and how did:
-Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
-Single-celled animals evolve?
-Fish change to amphibians?
-Amphibians change to reptiles?
-Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
-How did the intermediate forms live?
Can't say. The best I have is that they filled a niche at that time. You assume too fast of a time frame. By all geological accounts, the Earth has been around for, what, a billion years, give or take? Humans have only been around for less than 50,000 of them. That leaves a LOT of time for tweaking and perfecting.
14.When, where, why, how, and from what did:
-Whales evolve?
-Sea horses evolve?
-Bats evolve?
-Eyes evolve?
-Ears evolve?
-Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
Dunno.
15.Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it?
Bearing in mind that even the most basic cells can merely absorb nutrients, it only makes sense that as we evolved, the body would attempt to emulate it as best as possible.
16.There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
Again...filling a niche Both creatures need something they cannot provide for themselves, and as such, fill it for each other. They evolve to depend on each other.
17.How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
But it is chance, or starts out as such. A butterfly spontaneously develops darker wings, making it look more like, say, a leaf...it survives...to make more that look like it.
18.When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve the theory of evolution.
Perhaps it's from a very social ancestry...we've retained our "pack" devotions over our personal drives, at least for the most part. It's still serving a purpose, so it wouldn't be pushed out.
19.*How did photosynthesis evolve?
A means of harvesting energy at a basic level. Light is abundant, so it may as well be used.
20.*How did thought evolve?
It's our niche. We ae weak, we are slow, and we are delicate. Without intelligence...logic...we'd've died out long ago.
21.*How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?
The pretty flowers attract bees and other means of pollenation. Plants developed flowers, and the ones most attractive to the creatures spreading the pollen will be the most likely to survive.
22.*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
I dunno. Do I believe a higher power may have gotten the ball rolling? It's a distinct possibility. But there's too much evidence to ignore to say that we just were poofed into existence.
23.What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
I'd've been curious, I suppose.
24.*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
Macroevolution, provided I understand the concept, is when a massive change strikes an environment, leaving many roles and niches unfulfilled. Thus the environment, an all in it grow to fill in those gaps. It's impossible to predict.
25.*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
As a strict Point A to point B? Nothing, as it's not possible. It was a slow process, over millions, possibly billions of years.
26.Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
Is that not the foundation of Creationism? That God took a void, and filled it with his creation?
First of all, I'm not biased in any way because i believe there is a god and a heaven. I believe in evolution, because it makes more sense than God did it. And I love how in the video if your argument is against creationism, you get a one way ticket straight to hell. He never even considers evolution at all, doesn't even look at it, just says its plain Bull:skull::skull::skull::skull:. At least look at it before saying, "I didn't come from a monkey," because apparently, thats all he knows about evolution.
You see I have a Bible Boy in my biology class. He doesn't get the fact that evolution is a theory and he isn't being forced to believe it. He thinks creationism should be taught in public schools. No. It shouldn't. If you want to learn creationism, St. Joe's is down the street. And if we even think about teaching Creationism, then you better have a class that teaches about every religion's thought on how we got here. I go to school not church.
Edit: I will post an arguement on his video, see if it passes, or see if he says, "Believe what I say or you're going to hell." < that's the thing I don't like about religion.
And the pentagram thing, I believe thats a coincidence. The way he said it made me Lawl. he had the same tone of voice as the Dumbass from loose change.(a really funny movie)
Thats my primary issue with the harcore bible crowd.
Anytime something comes along that they think contradicts it, they say it isn't so, and want to force everyone to think that way too.
Even when it's been proven.
It took centuries for the church to finally apologize for trying to stop the idea that the earth goes around the sun. By that time it had become common knowledge anyhow, and all the participants in the original conflict were long dead. Big fat hairy deal.
If the church really wants to do something that actually means anything, it should quit hassling the scientific community and focus more on rooting out it's child molestors.
I don't see them clamoring to have Hindu or Shinto creation stories told in school.
(gee I wonder why...)
(no, actually I don't)
I believe in Evolution because it makes perfect logical sense. Also, science doesn't claim to know everything, whereas the Bible people just say that 'God did it' to cover their lack of knowledge.
Oh... neat. We lost quite a bit in this thread too... must be the God's will.
Unless you can prove the negative claim, you boast ignorance/arrogance. :tongue: Before the versa gets viced, faith is key to beleiving in the writings far older than any objective evidence than evolutionary science even has. Not that this concludes anything, besides quit insinuating it is made up, and trying to objectify it.Quote:
Originally Posted by starseeker
There's no such thing as proving a negative. There's only a lack of evidence for supporting a positive. With evolution, we have positive evidence of that occuring. With "Intelligent Design," there is no positive evidence. There's no "negative evidence," either, because such a thing does not and cannot exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
you can prove a negative. It is one of only two things you can prove. Simple Boolean logic, it is or it is not. If it is, it can not. simple enough. To prove a negative, you must prove a positive that negates the negative. IE: fact: a dog ate all the food. Negative assertion: The cat ate all the food. We know that if A is a fact, B cannot be true. You assert the very same in the latter part of your post, nullifying your opening thoughts.
Either way, there is some evidence down certain 'rabit holes' for intelligent design. Some evidence for the flood, in some cases. Realistically, we just do not understand enough of A to nullify B ~ nor do many people even care. It is just a battle of bloated ego anymore.
As for evolution - I agree with many parts of the theory, but not it's entirety.
Is lack of evidence what you call negative evidence?
I mean, I could just as well say that all Martians are female. Would that make my statement true simply because we have no means of proving the opposite?
Even more so, if I said that all Martians are female and somebody found a male Martian 20 years later, would that make me "more" right because I said it earlier?
EDIT: On the matter of your "flood". There are two ways of writing things, documentary and fiction. If I wrote that the war in Iraq took many lives, it would be a documentary. If I wrote that the war in Iraq took many lives while a group of Red Mages rescued Saddam, it'd be a fiction. Same applies for the flood.
It does not make it true, but it does not make it false either.
we know A is a fact, granted that it was observed by someone. And if A was witnessed, then B is just a false statement.
All that proves is that the person doesn't know the difference between a dog & a cat.
I'm still waiting for someone to prove god exists.
NANNY MANUS is a living example of everything NEGATIVE SMURF-ED up together. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
I'm still waiting for some material evidence that links floods, boats on the mountains and funny rocks to a supernatural being.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proxy
Now, you are deluding facts. If A was true and directly oppsed B, B cannot be true. You cannot break logic to match your terms. We have to build theories to explain, and then prove or disprove these thoeries. Assumptions are only healthy in preception. They destroy logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proxy
And what exactly do the creationism theories base on? A bunch of old stories and a fairytale book?
Again, lack of evidence is THE ONLY evidence of absence. There's no such thing as absolute certainty, only degrees. Simple example: I assert that there's a tomato on my desk. However, you can't see, smell, or touch anything resembling a tomato anywhere on my desk. Does that make it absolutely certain there's not? No. You could be dreaming, you could have missed a very tiny tomato, reality could all just be a dream, etc. However, you have NO REASON available to you to believe that my assertion is true, and therefore the only logical conclusion is to reject the positive assertion.
You're completely misrepresenting the secular position of evolution. It's not saying "God - if one exists - definitely didn't do anything." Merely - "there's no objective evidence available at hand to suggest that any supernatural powers aided in creating the diversity of life we see today." Which is the truth.
EDIT: in reply to bipper. It's also amusing to see you accusing someone of "deluding facts."
You are jumping the logic ship in favour or a more appealing philosophical back out. According to science and logic though, the best lead we have is Boolean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
I am not saying anything on the subject. I am trying to stay neutral. I am just saying that saying this is the way it is, is fairly arrogant, when looking at things rationally.Quote:
You're completely misrepresenting the secular position of evolution. It's not saying "God - if one exists - definitely didn't do anything." Merely - "there's no objective evidence available at hand to suggest that any supernatural powers aided in creating the diversity of life we see today." Which is the truth.
lol, as it was amusing to see the philly you come out and play. I don't delude facts, I look at them as possibly being different, as in not facts at all. It is called a certain, Preception. That, and I love to smurf around - you know this.Quote:
EDIT: in reply to bipper. It's also amusing to see you accusing someone of "deluding facts."
Did google break? :) There is evidence, and interpetation of. Fact A can be true, there for fact B can be proven false. Depending on the spin you take. Prehapse the Cat really did eat all the food, but someone thought it was a dog - this would be a theory, and then Fact A would not be a FACT. (I dunno where you were going with that proxy). Now, when we look at all our theories and build on them as fact - what we get is a convinsing convolute where a dog can infact equal a cat.Quote:
And what exactly do the creationism theories base on? A bunch of old stories and a fairytale book?
That's not precisely correct though. I could say that the dog ate food at any time, however, though would be a hypothesis as I have no evidence what so ever to prove it right. If I say that the dog ate food and we find the dog's hair on the plate, I have a theory. I have evidence of the dog's presence at the crime scene and no reference to the cat at all. Of course this doesn't mean that we have absolute certainty in that assumption, but it is by far more plausible then the reference to the cat.
As far as the evolution goes, we have evidence of the bones of the beings being there that resemble humans. We have the data on the age of different fossils, which allows us linking them together and thus getting the popular "evolution of man" picture. We have retroviruses that -evolve- in the hospitals, thus proving that evolution can take place.
At this point we are certain that evolution in general takes place right now. We have very strong reasons to assume that it took place in humans. And we have no evidence or theories of Creation at all, save a couple of old far fetched and improvable hypothesises that build our culture. All else is irrelevant.
not if FAct A was a fact. Changing the fact or guising it, should not be possible, as it is a fact. OBjective fact even. Not a fact subject to interpetation
Is A a fact? It's only a fact if you can prove it and you cannot. Thus it is not a fact. Thus we find something that we can prove and claim it to be a theory. Do ask you like, but I prefer a theory with a base below it rather than a hypothesis that's grown popular over the years. It's your business.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
On the other hand, if you try to push this hypothesis through as a fact, thus remove evolution from the school programme and replace it with creationism, we have a problem.
LOL. Yea dude, I am saying for the sake of example, that A is an absolution. Musta misread a post of mine or something -- it is very pertinant that A = True and B!= A therfore B = False.Quote:
Originally Posted by GrinenshireIs A a fact? It's only a fact if you can prove it and you cannot.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
yeas, this is what I was saying. Though you are still being very neglagent to the other side of the story (creationism - note - not saying it is right - here. Just saying it sounds rather arrogant in the terms we were talking) But yeah, I think you get what I am saying.Quote:
Thus it is not a fact. Thus we find something that we can prove and claim it to be a theory. Do ask you like, but I prefer a theory with a base below it rather than a hypothesis that's grown popular over the years. It's your business.
I would be just as pissed. We need to know science, as it is the most right thing we know. Where as creation should only be taught as theology.Quote:
On the other hand, if you try to push this hypothesis through as a fact, thus remove evolution from the school programme and replace it with creationism, we have a problem.
This is just to histarical to watch! (ya go on...I know your just itchy to say somthing back huh Grinenshire?)
Absolutely. I think we should teach it in philosophy since it has built a rather large block of our social basis. Then again, we don't want people to convert to Christians and return back to atheism just because they saw something on the YouTube and it took a while for somebody to reply and prove the author wrong. The point being is that if you've watched the video which started this whole thread, you'd know that we're bashing this VenomX guy, who does support the removal of Evolution from the public schools. I guess we've just been talking past each other a for bit there:) (I do admit that I'm not sure anymore who ate the food in your original premise anymore and might have confused the two animals, thus resulting in this misunderstanding)Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
Well, yes, we agreed if that what you mean, Yevon. As a matter of fact, and I do dare to take the freedom to speak for bipper in this matter (correct me if I get it wrong), we are both, more or less, neutral on the matter and like a good debate. What you call "say[ing] something back huh" is more known as deriving a counter-argument and is rather common for any discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yu-Yevon
On your personal account, I didn't see you say anything even merely intelligent at all in this thread and thank God (yeah, we still use this phase), the crash relieved us of all the idiocies that you wrote/pasted in (including our star member Kent Hovind, a.k.a. the prison boy with a degree in "science"). As the matter of fact, you're the only person who didn't contribute anything constructive to the argument at all and to be frank, I doubt that you've even read most of the things that you've copy/pasted from some Christian-fundamentalist pages. Your very last post is simply called "spam".
PS: You really don't know what a 50kB sig is, do you?
creationist :rolleyes2
i like how he trys to knock down evoloution and gives no proof to creationism. also he didnt do his reading or hed know more about the pentagram and that it was a misinterpretation that led to it being called a demon symbol pentagram
When christianity came into wide circulation the church declared pretty much any symbol or idea from the old religions to be "demonic".
Many deities from the old Celtic beliefs had antlers or horns, thus horns were added to the christian devil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grinenshire
Ya I'm a full fleged (bad spelling) spamer now!
Precisely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yu-Yevon
As far as I remember the pentagram actually stood for the harmony of elements or something similar. Fire, Water, Earth, Air and Spirit. Not sure though.Quote:
Originally Posted by sockmonkey
And (At least according to Wikipedia) was taken to reflect the 5 wounds of Christ. Apparently it's only as of the 20th century that it's come to mean anything evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by GrinenshireAs far as I remember the pentagram actually stood for the harmony of elements or something similar. Fire, Water, Earth, Air and Spirit. Not sure though.Quote:
Originally Posted by sockmonkey
And a goat's head too as far as I know.
There are some that believe it means different things depending on which way it points.
Actually, when it's filled in red colour it's also a sign for the red army.:p
I don't believe in evolution... I'm a Christian..
Why would I believe anything else?
I think people dont understand evolution and think we come from monkey's because of pokemon :p
Besides if creationsim is right then why arent we all the same race and inbred?
inbreeding would happen either way in many instances. And many European decent will find some inbreeding in their tree. As far as race/color a lotta religions deal with this differently. Christianity at the tower of Babel.
Doesn't really work you see. You only had Eva and Adam. That's two people and we have three distinct races, i.e. Caucasians, Africans and Asians. No matter how you long Adam and Eve mate, they can only produce the offspring either as Race A, Race B or Hybrid Race AB. Neither of the above stated races are hybrids of two others. And if you consider the "third race" (sounds like Third Reich really) developing due to the environment, that's your proof of evolution.
If we assume that they were both heterozygous monohybrits, it should look something like this here:
http://homepages.ius.edu/GKIRCHNE/Fig5Mendel.jpg
NB: I tried putting that down as politically correctly as I could. If you do manage to get upset about it, sorry, wasn't my intention.
well, what I said eludes to the tower of babel, when God scorned the races and gave them different color/languages. If you are into that kinda thing.
I know the story, but if we start with Adam and Eve, how do we ever get to the Babel? As far as I remember he only game them different languages. Correct me if I'm wrong here.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
>>> I don't believe in evolution. I believe in Digivolution.
The whole point of the bible stories is to teach a moral lesson and give answers to things that were unknown at the time.
Not be a documentary.
Same here.Quote:
Originally Posted by -=Squall-Leonhart=-
You can be a Christian and accept evolution. Unless you're the kind of Christian that believes the woman is less worth than the man, and that you should stone your neighbour if he works on the sabbath.
He starts off blaming all the worlds problems on non Christians which bothers the hell out of me. Its like he seems to forget that the world is full of other religions, that people of many different religions (omg yeah even his) do the things hes talking about. I think we all seem to forget that the world didn't start when the Christian Bible was written. (Because we all know thats the religion he's arguing evolution with.) People existed way before someone wrote a book saying that thier God made us. I don't believe that any God made us, so I suppose evolution makes the most sense to me, but being Agnostic I won't ignore the fact that something I don't understand may exist. However, I do believe that all religions are mythology, seeing how much of mythology is dead religions. The reason we are seeing less and less of any particular religion is simply because they come and go. Many religions with many different gods exist even now, have existed and no longer exist today. One needs to realize this. I think we use religion as a comfort to the daily life we create for ourselves, because for whatever reason, (be it evolution) we are capable of thought processes no other animal seems to be, which allows us to even think religion can exist. We need something to comfort the thoughts and feelings we may not be able to understand. Something to have "faith" in. Others of us don't need this. Why, that I don't know, its just what makes each person who they are. He makes many references to many different things, and doesn't seem to take the time to understand any of them. Attempting to equate the evolution of a horse over millions of years to plastic utensils. How does he care to explain dinosaurs away? Or the millions of small fossils from organisms that existed long before man? I don't see how someone whos beliefs lay in complete faith of something unproveable, that one one has ever seen, and can't give tangable evidence to, can say that evolution doesn't exist when there is tangable proof through science of similarities between species.
I just saw that part where he tries to say were aren't realted to other species because a wolf, dog and coyote aren't like a banana again while trying to complete my thoughts... I can't even think straight about it anymore. I mean how much, ugh.. its just, you can't compare apples and oranges, oh wait you can, at least they are both from plants. >< I mean wtf dude, a banana? Lets at least try to keep it in the classification Animalia... of course a banana, being of the classification Plantae, isn't going to be similar anymore.... *sigh* I don't even want to think about it anymore.
:moomba:
The guy's just an stupid, arrogant jerk. There's really not much to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moomba Misstress
EDIT: I wonder what's the big deal with American fundamental Chrisitans and bananas though...
And that's exactly what quite a few people seem to miss out.Quote:
Originally Posted by sockmonkey
No, according to you, your perversion of logic works best. In literal terms, you can't know for certain about anything, however there are degrees of certainty when weighing the evidence. Therefore, the only thing required to take the negative position is to have NO REASON to accept the positive assertion. You do it every day of your life. You just reject logic when it suits your biases.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
It amuses me again to see you cite logic and especially science. Especially since they both say you're wrong on this particular issue.
So they are just fairy tales. Fantastic =DQuote:
Originally Posted by sockmonkey
Any reasons to believe otherwise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Proxy
Anything to insult the religion, eh? ;) There is a certain satire about the happenings in the bible. Stop your neighbor from working on the sabbath, as he was told by God not too. His non resting and constant work-ethic will out produce you and make the economy favour him. While his basic family unit would be with out a father, or whatever have you. The strain and effect would be felt on the community. Imagine if we had to work 7 days a week, or take a massive fiscal (economically objective) hit. There was a reason for these rules, a - dare I say it - logical implimentation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
And normally when I tout this horn, I am challenged to the teeth by yourself and others. Either way, you are saying that we go via our stimuli and learn and credit these with being the sole factors that exist. Though, there is the possibility of more to the story. This is the same way in which I gaurd religion, and you destest. And no, I do not prevert logic. I spend quite a bit of time with logic, as a programmer, as a person, and as a thinking machine. Logic is made to be precieved and twisted to be tested as any tight-knit form of thought ought be. So don't start accusing me of preverting it, when all I have seen here is too many lawlgiticians retarding it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raist
I really think you should mind your convictions. There is no law that states one must only strive to follow logic. Also, how much do you know of me, to make a personal assertion of such - not near enough. This does nothing but points out your arrogance and ignorance. If we only ever acted on basic logic alone, it would be a safe assumption that we would never have ended up here, and you would not be alive. Either way, I am not too impressed with your tone, and your double-standard/changing of the equation.Quote:
Therefore, the only thing required to take the negative position is to have NO REASON to accept the positive assertion. You do it every day of your life. You just reject logic when it suits your biases.
I find it rather insulting and hypocritical that you rob science it's number 1 strength, the ability to change. Sure, they disagree now, but science is more than an immediate result, it is a growth. Also, it makes sence to point out here that science is not an objective entity. It is subject to many many schools of thought and people studying all they can. Stop retarding it.Quote:
It amuses me again to see you cite logic and especially science. Especially since they both say you're wrong on this particular issue.
Logic however, is incredibly complex for our minds to follow. If you want to challenge objective logic, good luck. Know that all knowlage and stimuli is subjective. Therefore, you would think that logic has it's own subjective school as well. Think outside your box, swim into the deep end.
You may charge me with being unscientifical and preverting logic, while I charge you with being utterly closed minded and shallow. A common polar of stances in any school of thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by black orb
/thread
Yet again, you are misrepresenting the secular position on evolution (and the atheist position on gods, but that's another topic). We do not discount the possibility of there being other factors. We just don't believe in other factors until there is objective evidence to support them. It's not "no gods did anything to form the diversity of life today," but "we have no reason to believe that any supernatural powers helped develop the diversity of life today." Those are completely different statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
And for further amusement:
Quote:
And no, I do not prevert logic. I spend quite a bit of time with logic, as a programmer, as a person, and as a thinking machine. Logic is made to be precieved and twisted to be tested as any tight-knit form of thought ought be. So don't start accusing me of preverting it, when all I have seen here is too many lawlgiticians retarding it.
So you don't pervert logic... you just don't follow it all the time. Uh, ok.Quote:
I really think you should mind your convictions. There is no law that states one must only strive to follow logic.
YOU accusing someone of retarding scientific growth by that person requiring evidence to support positive assertions? I guess you're just not following logic again.Quote:
Also, it makes sence to point out here that science is not an objective entity. It is subject to many many schools of thought and people studying all they can. Stop retarding it.
I could accept that answer, if there was not such an insulting and spiteful view of theists. That makes this watered down safe position, a little hard to swallow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
And for further amusement:
Yes, to prevert logic would require me to bend it to the point it is no longer logical. When I am deciding what to do, or what to eat, I am often not logical - nor do I wish to think about it. Way to try to use that against me too. :greenie:Quote:
So you don't pervert logic... you just don't follow it all the time. Uh, ok.
And it comes to that part everyone of our discussions does where you have succesfully streamlined the topic into obscurity. The originoal point is that you can prove a negative assertion. IE: there is no God. And until you can prove it, I see no reason to mock (that is, out side of good fun humor). This action alone should suffice my claim. Otherwise, I was simply saying that by being stubborn and passing assumption as facts that you even claim are subjective (in less words) is simply hypocritical and shallow. This retards thought. Also, you just blantantly put words into my mouth and misrepresented my claim.Quote:
YOU accusing someone of retarding scientific growth by that person requiring evidence to support positive assertions? I guess you're just not following logic again.
What insulting and spiteful view? Oh wait, your persecution complex. I forgot.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
So you admit you don't always use logic. Ok.Quote:
Yes, to prevert logic would require me to bend it to the point it is no longer logical. When I am deciding what to do, or what to eat, I am often not logical - nor do I wish to think about it. Way to try to use that against me too.
Now, the inevitable amusing part:
You accusing someone else of misrepresenting an argument.Quote:
Also, you just blantantly put words into my mouth and misrepresented my claim.
Are you accusing the atheist of being disrespectful towards the believers? Give me a break, we've even agreed to have days off on their religious holidays!Quote:
I could accept that answer, if there was not such an insulting and spiteful view of theists. That makes this watered down safe position, a little hard to swallow.
On a serious note, I do not really see many atheists posting videos on YouTube or having entire satellite TV channels simply for the sake of converting people to atheism. The Christians, in this particular case, haven't been bugged by anyone at all. They've simply posted a video that calls everybody who doesn't believe in a Creator a Satanist and tells, excuse the expression, bullcrap about evolution. Now this is where the atheists have, once again, proven the fundamentalists wrong. The Christians got very "sad" about it and stopped talking to us. Now tell me that this is what you call an "insulting[...] view of theism".
Wow, after reading all these responses, my head hurts...But, for the record, I like to believe the I came from my mother and the ONLY strenght I can truely rely on his my own because this life is MY life, not God's. I like to believe in a higher power but to believe that everything will be fine if you leave your life to a God that has no proof of existance is pretty stupid. That's why I choose to live and die knowing it was MY strenght that gave out. As for the existance of the very first lifeform on this planet, I believe that we can't find the true answer for a reason. You see, our past is indeed a major part of our existance. But it isn't the only part. If you put too much effort into the past, your blind to the present and future. If scientist or religion finally figure out where exactly did we come from, life will continue regardless of the answer. And what will change? Like I said before, I will rely on myself. And that's all I need...:cool:
I couldn't believe in evolution I am a christian but, every bodies opinion and the way they are is fine I don't like to force any religion like a few fundamentalists try. just go with the flow and live together no matter the religious or person beliefs.
Personally I like to not discredit, nor believe in any religion. I will not spend my life wondering about god, the afterlife, and if any religion is true.
I'll die when I die, if there is a god and if he is all forgiving, he/she/it should be able to understand the position of the people who don't take sides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
That is what I have been responding to. Now move your frivolous comments off stage if that is all you are trying to do is troll and name call to start a flame war. :hot: Cause this is some serious tinder we are on.Quote:
Originally Posted by starseeker
No :skull::skull::skull::skull:. And neither do you, *obviously*Quote:
So you admit you don't always use logic. Ok.
And this seems to be what you said, that instigated my response. So I guess I really do not see what your response was eluding to. Just seemed like you are looking at me like, "WTF are you talking about". Well yeah, that is what I am talking about :DQuote:
So you don't pervert logic... you just don't follow it all the time. Uh, ok.
cute. I find your dry and dulled wit amusing - among other things. Your instigative and non-retributive replies and comments get old, and rarely bear a point. Do you even know why you are trying to make a mockery out of my post? What you are debating? What you tried saying is vastly different in your last post than your first.Quote:
You accusing someone else of misrepresenting an argument.
Raistlin and bipper: don't respond to each other any more. Do so and you will be BANNED FOREVER.
Correct, respond to Grinenshire View A and Grinenshire View B. What a luck coincidence that this is in General Chat.:love:Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
Welcome to the world of agnostics. Everythings got a damn nametag on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldenboko
:moomba:
Well, *snip*[foa]comet[/foa], I certainly believe in Evolution.
[foa]post edited at comet's request, removing real name -- foa[/foa]