Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/20/08 07:54 PM, Hedwick wrote: I love the evolution/ intelligent design arguments. Everybody thinks they know how it works, but they don't know shit. Now, if you are millions of years old and saw us humans descend from other animals, i will listen to you. And likewise if you were around to witness intelligent design, then you can surely have some sort of proof of that. Until one of those two happen, this debate is senseless as there really isn't solid proof in either one.

It's not because we didn't actually someone commit murder, that we can't decide that he is guilty, based on overwhelming evidence, and convict him. Or will you really defend the point "Unless the judge actually saw the criminal commit the crime, there really isn't solid proof so the debate is senseless"?

Requiring direct observation is impossible in both cases. But when dealing with things that don't involve religion, people are often a lot more sensible. I didn't see all that much "SADDAM GASSING KURDS IS JUST A THEORY!" posts. But beware if you dare to apply logic to something where religion is involved.

Elfer has made this point quite nicely already by the way: http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/8425 89

Not even a 100 step picture diagram could properly show the evolution between man and ape. It would require the precise number of generations between the ape and that human, because each is different from the next, sadly this isn't possible with real archeology, though the illusive 'missing link' is no longer missing. [Atleast in terms of bones and stuff]

Computer technology might be able to get some pretty accurate changes.

At 1/18/08 01:33 AM, CaptainPoncho wrote: A lot of you think you know what you're talking about, but you don't.

Evolution says that all things evolve from monkeys. Try taking apart a watch, putting it in a box, and shaking it. Does it evolve into a clock?

Considering metal, which a watch is made out of, cannot change it's structure, and if you shook it around in a box would do nothing. Also, a watch is already a clock, albeit a small one. Also, it doesn't say all things, it says humans.

On the topic of stuff coming from all things, if God, according to the bible, hates homosexuality or that, why even make it, and then theists say that people made homosexuality, which totally contradicts the
"God made EVERYTHING
" rule. In the Garden of Eden, why did the snakes talk then, but not now? Also, why even put a tree there in the first place, if it cannot be touched? Sounds pretty unintelligent and stupid to me.

At 1/18/08 04:28 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote:

At 1/17/08 06:12 AM, AapoJoki wrote: I fail to see anything intelligent in the way the Universe was created according to the Bible.

Take a look at Genesis 1 - 2:3. [...] If you believe in this [...] you have to face the fact that you are supporting a very crude, clumsy, unimaginative and indeed, unintelligent form of design.

From my perspective, the person who is unable to grasp even the smallest fraction of its meaning is the one who is truly unimaginative in this situation. Several times in your post you actually attempt to erase the distinction between literalism and similitude, basically saying that the 'result' is the same regardless of if you think the Earth is 6000 years-old or not.

Well, you can dilute the story as much as you want and call it a metaphor or whatever euphemism you like to use, but it doesn't change the fact that a Universe where solid things are created directly, possible even separately is much less elegant than a Universe whose natural laws allow things to emerge gradually, evolving from simple beginnings to complex and sophisticated entities. Perhaps it's just a matter of taste, but to me, the first one will always seem nothing more than a God zapping lightning bolts from his fingers to make things happen. Of course, there's no denying that the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation myth is a much clumsier way to design things than most metaphorical interpretations of it... or so I can imagine. The problem is, I don't even know how the world exactly was created according to mainstream Judeo-Christian beliefs, if the creation story is to be considered metaphorical. I don't know what the metaphor stands for. It could be that all 2.1 billion Christians, 1.6 billion Muslims and 13 million Jews have each their own interpretation of the metaphor. However, as long as it involves things being popped into existence by some sort of miracles or magic, I will always consider the Universe created this way to be designed with less intelligence than a naturalistic, law-bound Universe of gradual change.

Perhaps you can express your opinion on why a Universe, whose creation and upkeep relies heavily on numerous miracles, can be considered well-designed. To me, however, miracles represent mistakes, almost like glitches that God uses to cheat the system... and why would God need to cheat his own system? My God (if I had one) had need for only one miracle: the Big Bang. The rest is pure physics and chemistry.

Things evolutionary theory has yet to demonstrate or prove:

-- the rise of the first self-replicating proteins and genetic molecules
-- how multicellular organisms came from unicellular organisms
-- how sexual reproduction came from asexual reproduction
-- why manners of sexual reproduction never evolved to include more than two biological actors
-- how mitochondria first merged with cells (if they even did) and what either looked like beforehand
-- the ideas behind 'punctuated equilibrium'
-- the cause of the Cambrian explosion
-- so on and so forth

The fact of the matter is, there isn't just ONE "missing link". How man could have come from monkeys isn't the only unsolved mystery quasi-answered by evolutionary theory. There are in actuality thousands of "missing links" and intermediate forms that SHOULD appear within the fossil record... but don't.

This line of thinking demonstrates the so-called worship of the gaps mentality. Frankly, I thought you would be above it. In practice, it's no more than an argument from ignorance. It's easy to say, wherever there is a gap, let's not look into it any further; let's get satisfied with the belief that it was a miracle. I'm sure you are not one of those fundamentalists who oppose further study of the subjects you have listed? Science can't have all the answers at once, nor does it have to. You're basically saying that in order to convict a homicide suspect, you would need surveillance camera footage that clearly depicts every detail of the suspect's face and contains every single frame from the moment that the suspect entered the scene to the moment that the crime has happened, as opposed to simply finding fingerprints and dna on the murder weapon and a large amount of other similar evidence.

At 1/19/08 04:41 AM, StephanosGnomon wrote: 2) The Bible is not my primary reason for belief in a higher power. It isn't even second or third on the list.

Why do you even need the feel to defend the Bible then? If you have better reasons to believe in God than the scripture, why not just cling on to those then and throw the Bible out of the window? Even Richard Dawkins said (though I don't remember the exact quote) that there can be some reasons to believe in a deity that are not wholly disreputable. Wherever those reasons come from, I'm sure that none of them could come from the Bible or any other holy books.

At 1/17/08 06:25 AM, polym wrote: You can't compare them because intelligence and Math are human concepts. They were developed by humans, not some ultimate being or God.

Intelegance and math are USED to make EVERYTHING we see today. If there is a god (which the theory of it points DOWN), God would of had to use them.

At 1/18/08 06:37 AM, CaptainPoncho wrote:

At 1/18/08 03:58 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: FUCKING FUCK FUCK.
How fucking stupid can you fucking get. YOU'RE THE ONE CLAIMING THAT EVOLUTIONISTS CLAIM EVERYTHING CAME FROM MONKEYS.

Yes, look at the attached picture.

This image, the work of an EVOLUTIONIST, shows a monkey TURNING INTO A MAN while taking just a few steps. How can anyone seriously believe this garbage? Have you ever watched a monkey turn into a man with each passing step?

Show me where in the theory of evolution "shaking" is part of the evolutionary process.

How else are genes supposed to get mutated?

genes don't get mutated. And people don't evolve in a couple of steps. From Earths shaky landscape, with continents moving and weather, and other factors, Cells reproduce new cells from detectors they have, generaly. So the same happens to whole organism. The organism than has a baby that is slightly, slightly, SLIGHTLY changed. And from this, thats why there is black people (because of the sun in africa, White poeple, because of the lack of sun, and many other aspects of human beings.

Evolution is proved. There is no doubt. If you would like to prove me wrong, or show me evidence than a slur of religious words, than please p.m. me. I would like to hear what you have to say

At 1/23/08 09:22 PM, DeathAura wrote: Evolution is proved. There is no doubt. If you would like to prove me wrong, or show me evidence than a slur of religious words, than please p.m. me. I would like to hear what you have to say

*sigh* no it is not. it is the most likely way that everything happened. it is supported with copious amounts of evidence but it is not the only possibility, it is not completley proven.
now don't think that just because i said that, that i believe that creationism holds any water at all.

Things evolutionary theory has yet to demonstrate or prove:

-- the rise of the first self-replicating proteins and genetic molecules
-- how multicellular organisms came from unicellular organisms
-- how sexual reproduction came from asexual reproduction
-- why manners of sexual reproduction never evolved to include more than two biological actors
-- how mitochondria first merged with cells (if they even did) and what either looked like beforehand
-- the ideas behind 'punctuated equilibrium'
-- the cause of the Cambrian explosion
-- so on and so forth

The fact of the matter is, there isn't just ONE "missing link". How man could have come from monkeys isn't the only unsolved mystery quasi-answered by evolutionary theory. There are in actuality thousands of "missing links" and intermediate forms that SHOULD appear within the fossil record... but don't.

This line of thinking demonstrates the so-called worship of the gaps mentality. Frankly, I thought you would be above it. In practice, it's no more than an argument from ignorance. It's easy to say, wherever there is a gap, let's not look into it any further; let's get satisfied with the belief that it was a miracle. I'm sure you are not one of those fundamentalists who oppose further study of the subjects you have listed?

I don't support the further study of the subjects you have listed because the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Blessed Be His Holy Sauce) will simply change the results of any statistics/experiments/scientific facts through the glory of His Noodly Appendege to test the faith of those that follow the one true religion, Pastafarianism. I have faith in the FSM (BBHHS) and in the Theory of Unintelligent Design - that the FSM (BBHHS) got really drunk one evening and accidently created the universe.

At 1/17/08 06:12 AM, AapoJoki wrote: One of the most baffling aspects of the Intelligent Design movement is that the form of design they are promoting, biblical creationism (whether literal or metaphorical, whether young earth or old earth), is considered to be "intelligent". I fail to see anything intelligent in the way the Universe was created according to the Bible.

Intellegent design is not the same as literal biblical creationism. Based on your world view they may have the same credibility, but they are considerably different.

Intellegent design does not claim a god created everything (though it can) I merely claimes that live is too complex to have happened by chance. Hell, space aliens could have bred us in a lab, and they may be eternal beings. The point to intellegent design is that a concious being is responsible for our origins. Be that being the judeo-christian God or some other entity.

At 1/23/08 10:19 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 1/23/08 09:22 PM, DeathAura wrote: Evolution is proved. There is no doubt. If you would like to prove me wrong, or show me evidence than a slur of religious words, than please p.m. me. I would like to hear what you have to say

*sigh* no it is not. it is the most likely way that everything happened. it is supported with copious amounts of evidence but it is not the only possibility, it is not completley proven.
now don't think that just because i said that, that i believe that creationism holds any water at all.

proving is beliving. It may not be true that evolution is eminent, but it is at a 99.9 percent chance. NOTHING in science can be 100 percent. Even proven theories are not yet theorums. Only in math there's theorums. But if you can prove eveolution didn't happen, and god has some "magic trick" plz tell me how it works. And don't say its too holy to understand. Or that its nothing humans compriehend, We already understand the basic of the Universe. And thats Science and Mathematics. Everything in the Universe can be used with the two, and is made with the two. Evolution can be proved and explained. God's "magic trick" cannot.

At 1/24/08 04:55 PM, Euroc wrote: Intellegent design does not claim a god created everything (though it can) I merely claimes that live is too complex to have happened by chance.

Complex and unlikely as life may seem, it has a pretty good statistical probability to emerge somewhere in the Universe. There are probably over a billion billion planets in the Universe... and that's a careful estimate. Even if the odds of life existing on a planet are 1 billion to one, life still would have come into existence on approximately 1 billion planets.

Hell, space aliens could have bred us in a lab, and they may be eternal beings. The point to intellegent design is that a concious being is responsible for our origins. Be that being the judeo-christian God or some other entity.

That fails to explain anything... We cannot understand how things (particularly, intelligent beings) can be eternal. Eternal aliens or eternal gods, if they existed, will probably forever be beyond our understanding. Any reasonable, scientifically oriented person would want to know how those aliens or gods came into existence. Trying to explain world as it is is easier than trying to explain how aliens or gods can be eternal. Similarly, it's easier to try to explain how simple matter could just pop into existence (though it's still very difficult and mysterious) than trying to understand complicated supernatural phenomena like gods. Adding gods or supernaturals to the equation only complicates the problem, which already is formidable without them.

Dude, what the hell are you doing here? I mean seriously, you're too good for Newgrounds. Go dig that Harvard job offer out of the trash and use that stuff between your ears to do something meaningful. Half of the brain-dead fucks who come here have no clue what you're saying. Incidentally, I agree with you entirely.

I'll show you all the intelligent designer: The Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Bow to his noodly touch

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

At 1/25/08 07:08 AM, AapoJoki wrote:

I''m not contending that its a credible world view. I was only differentiating between the two.