Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/22/11 12:35 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Theoretically, taking ahardliner's view of creationism and applying it to the world we see today, there is at least a plausibility to their views that still warrants some leeway. Even if that plausibility lends itself to scientific trickery by a fallen angel and the idea the hand of God contantly playing with life on Earth. ID theories, being less extreme than this warrant even more open thinking.

Creationism is entirely unfalsifiable, therefore it is unscientific. Based on that alone it does not warrant equal ground with the theory of Evolution. Filling in the unmapped areas of earth's past based on a rule that has worked in every other situation is not the same as blind speculation.

You haven't said it yet, so I'll ask. Are you one of those people who believe creationism should be taught in schools just to "be fair" and let things be "open to choice?"

At 7/22/11 11:27 PM, WizMystery wrote: Creationism is entirely unfalsifiable, therefore it is unscientific.

Unfalsifiable in the same way evolution is? Sure we have some evidence of it in regard to microbacteria, but the vast majority of evolution, and that which involves complex lifeforms takes longer than our lifetime to happen in the quickest of the quick cases. We cannot observe evolution on an extreme majority of the cases. We take it on faith that it applies. Seems pretty similar to creationism to me.

Based on that alone it does not warrant equal ground with the theory of Evolution. Filling in the unmapped areas of earth's past based on a rule that has worked in every other situation is not the same as blind speculation.

Worked in every other situation? What with cyanobacteria and MRSA? Please. All we have shown there is that these species have the capability of evolving, nothing more. Everything else is a leap of faith.

You haven't said it yet, so I'll ask. Are you one of those people who believe creationism should be taught in schools just to "be fair" and let things be "open to choice?"

Wouldn't you like to know. Maybe I'm a hard core creationist, or maybe I take pleasure in arguing things that no one else wants to support.

At 7/23/11 01:00 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Unfalsifiable in the same way evolution is? Sure we have some evidence of it in regard to microbacteria, but the vast majority of evolution, and that which involves complex lifeforms takes longer than our lifetime to happen in the quickest of the quick cases. We cannot observe evolution on an extreme majority of the cases. We take it on faith that it applies. Seems pretty similar to creationism to me.

Uh, no. Evolution is completely falsifiable just by looking at any species out in the wild. Natural Selection has become more than just a part of evolution, it's become a part of even HUMAN psychology meaning it does occur with US. It holds just as true to both our phenotypes and genotypes (more often phenotypes) as it does in just about every other animal. Therefore it is practically a law.

Be aware we do not need to observe evolution happening because we have carbon dating and the remains of many supposed ancestors to our species. When analyzed and placed in chronological order, these remains exhibit gradual changes that could only be brought by natural selection.

Creationism has no evidence whatsoever. Its only arguments have time and time again pointed out to be fallacies (the argument from ignorance, etc) and the ones that do make sense amount only to philosophy, meaning it's just an extrapolation from what we know. It can't be supported by any hard evidence where Evolution can and has.

Worked in every other situation? What with cyanobacteria and MRSA? Please. All we have shown there is that these species have the capability of evolving, nothing more. Everything else is a leap of faith.

We do have an explanation for those. It was the formation of amino acids and the oxygenation of the planet's atmosphere that allowed basic life to begin. We're all made up of atoms, there's not much separating us from inanimate objects, so the fact that these elements combined to form life is no stretch. But that's barely even part of Evolution. This has more to do with geology than anything else.

And just because these missing links exist doesn't mean that Evolution is equal to creationism. At all. I've already said it, but Evolution actually has evidence for working and has worked. Creationism has not.

At 7/23/11 01:00 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Unfalsifiable in the same way evolution is?

Hmm....well........how do I put this...

Creationism is not falsifiable in the same way that the concept of Narnia is falsifiable. Evolution in it's totality is definitely falsifiable, otherwise they wouldn't write research papers on it.

Sure we have some evidence of it in regard to microbacteria,

That's all? Wow, then why the hell does it take 3-6 years to learn biology if that's all they've got?

but the vast majority of evolution, and that which involves complex lifeforms takes longer than our lifetime to happen in the quickest of the quick cases. We cannot observe evolution on an extreme majority of the cases.

Just like the majority of murders aren't directly observed. REALISE THE PRISONERS!

Actually, an awful lot of the evolutionary process is observed on a small and a large scale simply because that evolution (in an abstract sense) only refers to biological diversity through successive generations over a course of time. We know this happens, we've seen this happen. In the most basic level you being born is an illustration of it.

But that's not to say there are things that we can't observe, because we can't observe the diversification of dinosaurs. However, just like tectonics or archeology, there are clues left behind that we can analyse and test to see how (X), (Y) and (Z) occurred.

We take it on faith that it applies. Seems pretty similar to creationism to me.

Faith? Are you referring to acceptance without being demonstrably proven? On some vague cases, yes. But you have to remember that science is an ever perfecting process which attempts to inhibit faith, not promote it.

Creationism on the other hand is faith in it's totality. Unless you have some research papers that show verifiable observations and tests which show that claims are accurate.

Worked in every other situation? What with cyanobacteria and MRSA? Please. All we have shown there is that these species have the capability of evolving, nothing more. Everything else is a leap of faith.

Capability? Yes. Has it worked? Oh definitely, I remember when the Swine Flu reports were saying that the strain is evolving to resist the new vaccines. One commenter said (paraphrasing) "it's mutation and replication, not evolution". Which is like saying "it's a ford mustang, but it's not a car".

Unless MRSA has managed to grow a conciousness, build a miniature gun and shoot down antibiotics, we've seen it evolve.

Wouldn't you like to know. Maybe I'm a hard core creationist, or maybe I take pleasure in arguing things that no one else wants to support.

Actually, a lot of people want to support Creationism. Even the Texas board has recently been reviewing whether or not to incorperate creationism into the curriculum.

But the problem is, the ONLY people who accept creationism either know nothing (have a skewed idea of what it is) of evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang, planetary formation etc or they're massive fucking liars.

Any argument for creationism is not new, insightful or damaging to evolution.

At 7/15/11 01:39 AM, djack wrote: other easily proven facts like 2+2=4. It isn't because it can't be proven.

;;;
Sometimes 2+2 doesn't equal 4.
For example if its 2 oranges + 2 cocnuts.... you don't get 4 oranges or 4 coconuts...its still 2 & 2.

just sayin'

At 7/23/11 04:43 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 7/15/11 01:39 AM, djack wrote: other easily proven facts like 2+2=4. It isn't because it can't be proven.

;;;
Sometimes 2+2 doesn't equal 4.
For example if its 2 oranges + 2 cocnuts.... you don't get 4 oranges or 4 coconuts...its still 2 & 2.

just sayin'

If you add two oranges and two coconuts, that's still a quantity of 4 regardless of what the integer is represented by. To separate them would require additions to the calculation.

Just sayin'

At 7/15/11 01:27 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

carbon dating

Solar flares actually affect radioactive decay.

Why?

ANd here I thought radio-dating was fully understood and universally unchangable.

I guess I was wrong.

Camarohusky, [ copy pasta: ] A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.

I am a Catholic, but I am yet to find any part of my Faith that says evolution doesn't exist. And because all signs point towards evolution existing, it is obviously a fact. Most Christians I know believe in evolution. The only people who I know who don't are Christian fundamentalists. I mean no disrespect to them, but they have some pretty whacky beliefs.

At 7/21/11 09:23 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/21/11 07:17 PM, Killersepp wrote:

What I'm trying to tell ya, little fella, is that EVOLUTION IS A FACT!

No it's not. Religion isn't a fact. The speed and makeup of light is not a fact. Relativity is not a fact.

I'm sorry. I wasn't entirely clear in my previous post. I hope you have some time!

So... theories. You seem to believe that theories are just some sort of hunchesm or vague guesses, as opposed to proper, scientific laws. Not so.
A scientific law is a simple set of rules - usually mathematical - that natural phenomena have been found to follow. A manifest example would be the laws of thermodynamics - but since this BBS seems to lack a TEX plugin, I won't bore you with details.
A theory on the other hand - and keep in mind, we're talking about scientific terms here - is a set of rules. Furthermore, a theory is an explaniation as to why rules are there in the first place.
Again, the most obvious example for this is Newton's theory of gravity. The laws of gravity describe how gravity works. The theory of gravity explains WHY gravity works.
And yes, I KNOW that the THEORY of relativy technically superseded the theory of gravity - it's still fully aplicable in sub-relativistic situations.

Anyway... Evolution. What I haven't made clear in my previous post is that evolution is BOTH a law and a theory; or as I put it: A FACT.
150 years ago, when Darwin first came up with his theory, there were still a lot of doubts - which I won't go into now, as this thread has another purpose.
Today, though, we have OBSERVED evolution happening, both in the wild and in the laboratory - again, elaborating would take just too much time, so I'll spare you the details about peas, DNA, fruit flies, bacteria and all the other stuff. That cements the role of evolution as a LAW - organisms change over time.
Simultaneously, however, evolution is a theory - it explains WHY and HOW organisms change over time. You propably heard about terms like "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection".

So there you go. Anticipating your inevitable antagonism: Where exactly are your objections to evolution as a law/fact and as a theory?

At 7/26/11 11:27 PM, Killersepp wrote: That cements the role of evolution as a LAW

Being corroborated is not what makes something a scientific law...

At 7/27/11 01:12 AM, Camarohusky wrote: corroborat[ion]

And should you establish a relevant dichotomy, the complementary element would be?

Are there degrees of evolution? Standards of measurement?

Anything that isn't arbitrary?

At 7/27/11 02:32 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Are there degrees of evolution? Standards of measurement?

Elaborate upon what you mean by degrees. Evolution happens more spontaneously, and to different levels. It's not something that WILL happen every set period of generations.

Anything that isn't arbitrary?

Arbitrary doesn't really describe evolution. It's not really a specific choice of anything, more useful or effective genes are the ones activated as far as I know. Genes that effectively help the organism adapt to it's environment.

At 7/27/11 01:12 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/26/11 11:27 PM, Killersepp wrote: That cements the role of evolution as a LAW

Being corroborated is not what makes something a scientific law...

How very fucking clever of you.
Let me change gears here: What are YOUR objections to evolution? Why do you doubt it so much? What evidence can you bring forth against it?

At 7/27/11 03:17 PM, camobch0 wrote:

At 7/27/11 02:32 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Are there degrees of evolution? Standards of measurement?

Elaborate upon what you mean by degrees. Evolution happens more spontaneously, and to different levels. It's not something that WILL happen every set period of generations.

But it is measurable in a way that is more than merely arbitrary observation?

Anything that isn't arbitrary?

Arbitrary doesn't really describe evolution. It's not really a specific choice of anything, more useful or effective genes are the ones activated as far as I know.

Right, through natural selection; which is the mechanism of evolution, as I understand it.

Genes that effectively help the organism adapt to it's environment.

Yea, but there is also a sexual angle that can be construed as intraspecies that has barely anything to do with the environment. But in an environment that is constantly changing, doesn't evolution seem like a side-effect of an environment that itself, essentially evolving?

Do you know if evolution covers total reality, or just biological entities?

At 7/27/11 10:34 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Right, through natural selection; which is the mechanism of evolution

Be careful with your articles.

At 7/27/11 11:00 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 7/27/11 10:34 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Right, through natural selection; which is the mechanism of evolution

Be careful with your articles.

Or else I won't get an A?

Fuck off ya smarmy cunt.

At 7/27/11 11:44 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Be careful with your articles.

Or else I won't get an A?

If you really think my reply was purely a matter of grammar, then you're an idiot.

If you don't really think my reply was purely a matter of grammar, then you're weaseling.

Would I be right in assuming the latter is actually the case here?

At 7/28/11 02:21 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 7/27/11 11:44 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Be careful with your articles.

Or else I won't get an A?

If you really think my reply was purely a matter of grammar, then you're an idiot.

If you really believe my reply to your reply to my post had anything to with idiocy, you're a moron. It's not that I don't believe you had something to say, it's that you didn't. Got it?

At 7/27/11 10:34 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: But it is measurable in a way that is more than merely arbitrary observation?

I always love when somebody who's skeptical of evolution of the grounds of creationism starts throwing around words like "observable" and "arbitrary". Because it is totally observable that an invisible man in the sky waved his hand and made people out of dust and crap...and there's nothing arbitrary about that at all.

Also, you and Bach are pretty intelligent, mature individuals. I think you can have a conversation without so many flames can't you?

Flying Spaghetti Monster? Since when is God called the FSM?

At 7/29/11 07:08 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

If you really think my reply was purely a matter of grammar, then you're an idiot.

If you really believe my reply to your reply to my post had anything to with idiocy, you're a moron.

Well... seeing as I said I didn't think it 'had to do with idiocy,' I guess I'm not a moron...

... on that account. ;)

Given the dismissive nature, repetition of words and phrases, accompanied by a smiley face (of clearly sarcastic intention given the negative connotations of the words it accompanies), I'd say this is an attempt at wit. But if I said that, well, you'd tell me it isn't and that there's no wit needed when talking to me etc etc. I get the game. I make a point. You divert. I call it out. You divert. We end up on some other topic about who's stupid or irrelevant or dishonest. Yawn.

It's not that I don't believe you had something to say, it's that you didn't. Got it?

So there was no point to my telling you to be careful with your articles? You wouldn't say that such a statement would imply that I might object to your particular use of one - maybe the only one in a portion of text I quoted from you as preface to the 'smarmy cunt' comment?

I'll answer for you, without your flare: 1. There was no point. / 2. You would not.

However, you'd be lying on both accounts. So the question is now...

Are you prodding me to get me to be less passive and more explicit, or are you just insulting me?

That's your queue to not answer the question and come out of left field with something else.

At 7/30/11 03:49 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: Well... seeing as I said I didn't think it 'had to do with idiocy,' I guess I'm not a moron...

Your guess would be utterly mistaken :)

I get the game. I make a point. You divert. I call it out.

Your whiny nature begs to differ. I'd say you were really just looking for some attention.

At 7/29/11 09:10 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 7/27/11 10:34 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: But it is measurable in a way that is more than merely arbitrary observation?

I always love when somebody who's skeptical of evolution of the grounds of creationism

I asked a question that, as far as I can see, adheres to a central tenet of science. Is it measurable? Thanks for the punk-bitch attitude though, it'll make my day go so much better knowing a knee-jerk liberal bleeding heart teabagger thinks he's found a creationist scapegoat to jerk off too while he marries his same-sex lover in the hopes God forgives him.

Wait, that's not what you claim? I guess I was wrong with all that BS sensationalism. My bad.

Also, you and Bach are pretty intelligent, mature individuals. I think you can have a conversation without so many flames can't you?

Not really. Money brings bitches, bitches bring lies. That has as much to do with the topic as bacc's self-righteous patronism has to do with asking questions.

At 7/27/11 10:34 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: natural selection [...] is the mechanism of evolution, as I understand it.

Is this is a grammatical slip (error)?

At 7/30/11 01:05 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Is this is a grammatical slip (error)?

It'll be a little while before that one gets answered...

At 7/26/11 02:03 PM, wuggums47 wrote: I am a Catholic, Christian fundamentalists. I mean no disrespect to them, but they have some pretty whacky beliefs.

;;;
I can't believe you posted that Christian fundamentalists have whacky belief's ! ! !

Christianity as a Catholic is insane !
You preach about having no false idols, yet your churches idolize saints, the cross, Which is in & on every church, is worn by millions of believers...IS an IDOL !
You believe some invisible all powerful person who has created the universe & sent his only son to earth, of all the trillions of planets in the universe, he/she/it picked earth & sent his son here to die....

do I need to go on ?
IMO it don't get any whackier than that !

To Be Sure there is a higher level... like bat shit crazy, & the fundamentalists seem to be in that catagory, but the whole religious bullshit, needs to be packaged & sold in plant stores as fertilizer, because that's what all of it is, Shit.

Creationist story is a fairy tale for grown ups. It is describing how we got here. Know that.

People need to stop being so offended by the FSM. It's just a joke. Nobody seriously believes that they're going to go to a heaven with a beer volcano and a stripper factory unless they escaped from a mental asylum.

Wow... this thread is ridiculous.
Anyone who claims that natural selection and evolution are unrelated obviously slept through sixth grade biology. Natural selection is in fact, an example of microevolution, sorry to quote a wikipedia article but the first line of Micro-evolution reads: "Microevolution is a change in gene frequency within a population over time.[1] This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow and genetic drift." Does that point really need to be disputed any further?

As for evolution being a theory, yes that is correct, considering evolution can not be accuratly tested in a controlled environment. Considering it is a system, it remains a theory until every portion of what is considered "the theory of evolution" is proven correct, or adjusted to be correct 100% of the time.

Finally, claiming this makes evolution any less credible is by far the most hypocritical thing I have ever read. You're claiming that we shouldn't believe something with tons of research backing it, when Christanity has tons of evidence proving much it implausible? Sure both aren't a 100%, but evolution has much more evidence and makes a lot more sense than some invisible, magical being with the power to do everything and anything, that you only believe in because your parents happened to be Christan too.