At 2/21/13 04:58 PM, chupacabras89 wrote: I think God created evolution.

Genius. :D

This can only end in disaster.

"The only real wisdom is knowing that you know nothing"
- Socrates

At 2/21/13 03:35 PM, BlueBeef wrote: Anyone with common sense would know the bible is such bullshit.

Look at all this edgy.

At 2/21/13 07:31 PM, Slint wrote:

At 2/21/13 03:35 PM, BlueBeef wrote: Anyone with common sense would know the bible is such bullshit.

Look at all this edgy.

At 2/21/13 07:04 PM, Protagonist wrote:

Anyone with common sense would know not to take the bible literally. But I could see why an edgy ignorant teen would agree with your opinion.

Guys c'mon you won't accept a story on internet forums as true without pictures, and this a book that claims to be the word of the creator of the universe, who spoke through a handful of guys and refused to reveal his existence to anyone else, and not once spoke any real knowledge outside what well, the people who "he spoke though" could of known...
And you're constantly calling people "edgy" for calling bullshit
I think someones a just having a little trouble accepting that their religion is a fairy tale...

At 2/21/13 04:27 PM, 372 wrote:
Yes. Exactly. I've dissected its relevance down to the mechanisms of cyanobacteria. Maybe further. But that is all I can say for now.
I see you are a studying biology. We're gonna get along very well.

Cyanobacteria are asymmetrical though, however being asymmetrical has always been linked to an older evolutionary timeline, or more primitive development. Hey pm me your lab work if ya want.

I believe in God and evolution. I believe that evolution is a creation of God for some purpose. Who says I can't believe in God without believing in the bible? My thoughts on the subject would probably sound crazy to other people.

At 2/21/13 08:48 PM, shitposter wrote:

At 2/21/13 03:31 PM, vannila-guerilla wrote: I do not believe in evolution. I understand why it's true, though.

these words do not make sense together

I think he means, he doesn't just have unquestionable faith of it- like people do religion- he knows the process of evolution and the science behind it. He doesn't believe, he understands.

At 2/21/13 03:53 PM, tonypar16 wrote: Darwin was (probably) a freemason. Enough said.

Don't want to trigger any flame war bomb here,I'm just kidding

Well, you do make a good point even if you don't realize it. Pat yourself on the back. Is your back all good and patted? Good.

The thing is I notice a lot of creationists like to attack Darwin's character. They like to lump up atheism with Hitler and Stalin. The thing is, that is a logical fallacy and not a real fact. It's the Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy(I swear that's a real thing).

It doesn't matter what Darwin did 140 years ago, or what Nazis did 70 years ago(in this particular situation). Even if bad people supported the truth it doesn't make it not true. I'm sure at some point in his life Hitler said "2+2=4" and no one is eager to throw that out the window or argue against how true that is because Hitler said it. It's just a silly argument that tries reducing credibility through petty name calling or scare tactics instead of coming up with any real science. Whether or not Darwin did something wrong(I have heard everything from he was racist to god knows what else) it doesn't change the fact the discoveries he made that have been tested for 140 years+ are any less true because he did something wrong. It's just silly to think otherwise.

At 2/21/13 04:48 PM, Xenomit wrote: Evolution.

There is solid, pure, logical evidence that evolution is true, and even if there wasn't it'd still be logical to think that organisms slowly change and adapt over time, where as creation is in a book that a bunch of old saints and disciples wrote a couple thousand years ago.

Creation is just purely illogical and childish. There has always been a creator, he has existed for eternity, and he just made everything on the planet as you see it today. Evolution is logical, and sais that through chance, life slowly started and change and adapted to it's environment over millions of years, the things that lived in water became water creatures, the things that lived on land became land creatures.

To be 100% honest, you have to be just a tad bit dumb to believe in creationism. Just a tad bit.

Ya know, not to mention when I was working one of my temp jobs, one of the temps I was talking to, I found out he is both a Vegan, and a creationist Christan. I was absolutely dumbfounded by his idiocy. We got to talking about religion and other things.

His logic was that god "created the world in 7 days" and that "our solar system is special" ....

Like I even was trying to be nice and level with him. I offered him idea and possibilities such as.

"We are never really told how long a "day" for god is. 7 "days" could very well be 7 billion years to us, but supposedly there is a passage in one of those many old books saying that a day for god is the same as a day or man. So there goes that I guess. :/

We also talked about stars, and how apparently our sun is special, it was "just created" He insisted that the earth was created -before- the sun, and the sun was just put there to sustain our life. So god created everything, our planet, the plants, us, and all the things dependent on heat, the POOF, our sun was there, right where it needed to be. What about other stars? Were they just poofed into random spaces?

Those stars aren't special according to him, they formed like normal stars, not to mention we are the only thing that has life on it, or so he insisted.

It was really frustrating. He more or less refuses to look at anything scientific, and any sort of hybrid, or compromise like a guided evolution, which I could see as a valid potential is utter garbage in his eyes. Was the first hardcore Vegan I'd ever met, and compounded by the fact he was a creationism just multiplied the stupid 10 fold.

To say that we are the only life in our vast universe is not only ignorant, it's also extremely arrogant. We are not "special" we are just a little bit more organized than some other life, and even then we look like a chaotic bunch of fuckwits when you compare us to organizations like ants and shit.

Honestly, I think that its just a stupid argument. Because everyone is gonna believe what they want to and will stick with it until the end. Which was supposed to be what? 2000? December 2012?.....

Anyway, a friend of mine came up with answer because he was tired of all the bullshit going around. Realizing that many people believe in the big bang/ evolution and the rest believe in god, he came up with the following statement.

"God farted and the world was created. He then emphasized that it was a Big Bang that came from God"'

At 2/22/13 01:07 AM, Trillionaire wrote:

At 2/22/13 01:01 AM, ameliasbinder wrote: Everyone is gonna believe what they want to and will stick with it until the end.

That's not true. People are converted from complete morons (children) into PhD level thinkers (educated, accomplished adults) all the time.

Thats an enitrely different argument. The main idea of this post is people who are more logical and belive in the science to back it up, or the religious fanatics who say were all going to hell anyway. I mean come on, we built a city of sin "Las Vegas" and the City of Fallen Angels (Los Angelas).. I'm not to familiar with many "holy cites" anymore except for Juruslim and Bethel ham, even Rome is having issues, the Pope is turning his back on it....

As for children, there only as dumb as the people who raise them. There are some that learn to think for themselves, and we can only hope for them.

At 2/22/13 01:14 AM, Trillionaire wrote: Let's see that paper, 372.

Look man I am not leaking my paper to a guy named "Trillionaire"
I mean seriously. C'mon. Just.... c'mon.
I'll PM when it's done though.

At 2/21/13 10:48 PM, 4761 wrote:

At 2/21/13 03:58 PM, 372 wrote:

Stuff that makes a lot of sense and is supported by a lot of stuff that makes sense.

A kid who's trying for a Biology major.

I think it's easy to see that users with all numbers for a username are the smartest people in these forums.

Sure, evolution is a phenomenon that has been proven. However, evolution theory as a whole relies as much on assumptions as creationism does. In my opinion, it's stupid to oversimplify either of the two, as both are reasonable given the right arguments.

You assume that the two are opposites (creationism versus evolution), yet the two can work perfectly well together. What's wrong with creationism and evolution?

/Thread?

At 2/22/13 12:58 PM, Entice wrote: Do you believe in micro and macro evolution?

I haven't heard of either of those terms, so if you could please define them, that'd be great!

At 2/22/13 01:18 PM, SwankyVagrant wrote: google them

You lazy bums...

Anyway, while both microevolution and macroevolution seem like reasonable processes, they still rely on assumptions (the latter more than the former). Personally, I find it easier to believe microevolution than macroevolution, simply due to the fact that macroevolution would take a lot more time, and therefore cannot be proven (...yet).

In short, everything in terms of evolution that can be measured now is factual. Anything that is viewed in retrospect before recorded history is theory (and thus assumption).

At 2/22/13 01:30 PM, Entice wrote: Fossil record
Carbon dating

It can't be proven but there's certainly enough evidence
It's not based on assumptions

I know both are used often as pro-arguments, but like you said: they don't prove anything. It just makes the assumption more reasonable. If it is not based on assumptions, then what is it based on?

Heck, even acknowledging existence as we know it is an assumption. 'Cogito, ergo sum'.

At 2/22/13 01:37 PM, Entice wrote: It's almost impossible to prove anything absolutely.

The important thing is that there's evidence for evolution. There's absolutely no evidence for intelligent design unless you take religious texts as literal history.

I guess that at the end of the day, it's a matter of interpretation. One could argue that "proving" creationism through reason might also count as a form of evidence, or that the evidence currently provided is only apparent evidence.

Either way, one is perfectly able to combine different aspects of both theories. Many have tried to solve the "what is truth?"-puzzle before, and many after us will continue to do so. Whatever we may believe, the least we can do is respect eachother's opinions.

At 2/22/13 01:50 PM, Entice wrote: There's no logical reason why a creator has to exist though. Most of those arguments are appeals to probability.

Sure, you can believe in a sky God and science. That's not Christianity though, it's deism or something similar.

Whatever we may believe, the least we can do is respect eachother's opinions.

Unless their opinions are illogical.

Those are your beliefs. Trying to prove either side is beyond the scope of this topic, I think. If we can live together in harmony, then that's enough for me.

At 2/21/13 04:42 PM, Winrar1337 wrote:

At 2/21/13 04:32 PM, Suprememessage wrote: The most compelling argument I've ever heard AGAINST evolution is that God hid fossils just to fuck with us. That's why Evolution is definitely true.

Ever heard a creationist mention gaps in the fossil record or things that have not yet been explained (e.g. exactly how the first life-forms came to be)? They seem to think a few minor things that aren't yet known rule out a theory completely.

Because everything in the book of Genesis is perfectly sound and explained, right?

Exactly. Gaps in the fossil record? The fossil record isn't complete. It certainly has way MORE evidence than genesis. Especially considering that Genesis is a collab (or more accurately, stolen stories from many cultures)

Why does the Joe talk about dinosaurs?

But I don't see the conflict between Evolution and God unless you are forcing it.

Evolution is debated on two levels, macroscopic and microscopic. On a microscopic level, you see people inheriting traits from their parents, and that kind of transformation is not only proven, but also unfolding right before our very eyes.

Macroscopic evolution is a little different. Thinking that some kind of single-celled algae eventually mutated into something large enough to be visible, or how something so passive eventually mutated to have muscles and move around with legs, is a little bit strange. There are plenty of holes in the evolutionary timeline, although there are also a lot of extinct species as well. Certainly there's extremely heavy evidence to support SOME macroscopic evolution, but the odds of us evolving from only one or two strains of bacteria are extraordinarily low.

By the same token, our heritage is two billion years in the making, In two billion years, you can expect a couple abnormal goofs in quantum mechanics and genetics to result in enough anomalies to produce an ecosystem like ours. Given that the earth was around for two and a half billion years before life even began on this planet, the idea of spontaneous generation (in very rare cases, where 'rare' means once every couple billion years) doesn't seem too incredulous to me.

The interesting thing is that organisms are really no different from machines; they're basically just a set of physical and mental processes that cooperate in order to repeat patterns of survival and reproduction. But machines are not self-aware the way organisms are (in particular, humans). Perhaps our bodies are just a result of a long cycle, but scientifically there's no justification for the fact that we are actually conscious instead of being flesh robots.

At 2/22/13 02:24 PM, Kwing wrote: There are plenty of holes in the evolutionary timeline, although there are also a lot of extinct species as well. Certainly there's extremely heavy evidence to support SOME macroscopic evolution, but the odds of us evolving from only one or two strains of bacteria are extraordinarily low.

Do you actually even know what you where talking about?

By the same token, our heritage is two billion years in the making, In two billion years, you can expect a couple abnormal goofs in quantum mechanics and genetics to result in enough anomalies to produce an ecosystem like ours. Given that the earth was around for two and a half billion years before life even began on this planet, the idea of spontaneous generation (in very rare cases, where 'rare' means once every couple billion years) doesn't seem too incredulous to me.

1. What does quantum mechanics have to do with the formation of life..? On a relevant scale...not much...
2. I agree

At 2/22/13 02:24 PM, Kwing wrote: Evolution is debated on two levels, macroscopic and microscopic.

It shouldn't be, because they're the same thing. There is no difference. Macroevolution is nothing more than the sum of a lot of microevolution. There is no barrier between the two; it's the exact same process.

This is why I don't believe in evolution.

ITT: You cannot believe in creation and also support evolution.

Ready?

FIGHT!!

There's evidence about evolution... there's nothing but a scifi book about creation...

At 2/23/13 04:10 AM, Ma1achi wrote:

At 2/21/13 03:49 PM, Provoke wrote: Why debate, we'll find out in the end.

We sure will.

How would we find out in the end when we are discussing origins? That doesn't make much sense. Evolution isn't a religion.

At 2/23/13 09:14 PM, vannila-guerilla wrote:

At 2/23/13 04:10 AM, Ma1achi wrote:

At 2/21/13 03:49 PM, Provoke wrote: Why debate, we'll find out in the end.

We sure will.

How would we find out in the end when we are discussing origins? That doesn't make much sense. Evolution isn't a religion.

Yeah when a monkey or a single celled organism die, I don't think the origin of the universe and life is revealed to them..
So I don't think it would happen to us...