Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

This argument has devolved (hee-hee).

The underlying question is "Why is evolution a threat to religion?". Well, it's simple.

The christian (and most other) gospels we know all provide their own 'explanations' for the origins of life. Evolution doesn't pretend to make such a drastic claim, but explains how the variety we see now are direct descendants of species which have existed before it. Since there was no knowledge of any former species to the people who wrote the old testament, it seemed entirely logical that all life as we know sprung forth from the thought on an omnipotent being.

Evolution isn't just some farcical idea dreamed up by scientists to oppress the religious; it actually exists. Hell, given the population nowadays, I would wager there have probably been more experiments dissecting evolution than their were for gravity. It just keeps proving itself. Scientists would be the FIRST people to acknowledge that evolution isn't right if there was proof otherwise, for it would only mean that they truly have not done their homework. Science thrives in the holes in it's own theories!

Also, religions are somehow allowed a caveat for their own gods when it comes to "Who created them?". Saying "God did it" to anything you don't understand doesn't answer any questions, it just raises more. They would take something elegant and beautiful like existence and boil it down to nothing more than monarchical servitude.

At 7/24/08 10:53 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 7/24/08 10:26 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

I'm curious whether or not you approach an opinion on something as unprovable as the origins of life as a utilitarian, a skeptic, or just an asshole.

It's really dangerous to conclude that since this particular question doesn't impact life, it's ok to let someone believe what they want on it.
I mean, what the fuck difference does it make, right?

It makes a difference to the person who was raised to believe such a theory, even though the strength of that belief borders on indoctrination and sets them up for future absolutisms that could damage their ability to percieve the world.

But then again, if someone isn't smart enough to think for themselves and form opinions on the observations they must make throughout their life (which is a long time, mind), then who gives a fuck about them anyways? They're retarded and retards should be ignored, or least truncated from the intellectual perceptions we choose to value.

But the catch is that you can't just be irrational about this one thing.

Why not?

People who don't know dick about one thing usually don't know dick about TONS AND TONS of things and then they start taking really stupid-ass decisions because they don't understand reality.

You went from "can't" to "usually", so you recognize it isn't a rule, because there actual does exist the chance that such a broad desciption of "God" allows for people to hold opinions that simultaneously recognize a "Creator" and still value rational thought.

If you hear someone saying "I know God created the universe" then you know that person doesn't get "logic". You know that they've never seriously asked that question or they're morons. Or worse yet, deceptive assholes who lie about it just to get popularity.

That doesn't really bother me. If someone says that, simply asking them how they "know" such a thing uncovers either their ignorance of absolute proof, or unmasks their dementia that God carries an open dialogue with them.

You can learn a lot about someone based on their answers to questions you'd never figure have anything to do with anything.

A basic tenant of psychology, without a doubt.

At 7/24/08 11:19 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

But the catch is that you can't just be irrational about this one thing.

Why not?

Because humans are logical.
The reason they deny thing X is because they also deny 10 others things that lead to thing X as a conclusion.

If they do deny just thing X and not the others, then you know they're an idiot.

Example:

1- You think playing the lottery is smart.
Why?
I believe in a God and that he will bring me luck.
Right....

A dumb(er) person:

2- I believe I will win the lottery.
Why?
because I will.
Why? Do you think you're lucky?
No.
Do you believe in god or something? Luck gods? Karma?
No.
Do you know that you have like 1/100 000 000 chance of winning?
Yes...

So...whaaaaaa?

===

Get what I mean?
Some people deny certain things purely out of total stupidity and misunderstanding, and some people ( usually smarter ) get like one little detail wrong and then from that there stems tons and tons of conclusions.

Take Kent Hovind for instance. His basic wrong premise ( if you assume he's not just lying to everyone ) is that scientists are trying to fuck with people.

So from this one assumption, he can go on and on forever denying hundreds of facts. He doesn't just deny carbon dating out of nowhere, there's a whole pyramid of misunderstanding.

I'm not familiar, at all, about this Kent guy, but he sounds likes an opportunistic bitch preying on the insecurities and misunderstandings religious folk who've never ventured outside the church hold.

Science has devised methods that shoot down the literal translations of factually stated events in religious texts. The reaction of idiots like Hovind is to attack the entire scientific community on grounds that appeal to his followers, ie carbon dating is a tool of the devil and should be shunned because anything concerning the great opposer is tainted and unworthy of the attentions of God's children.

But what does that mean? You really can't force any sort of belief on anyone if it isn't directly and undeniably present at any given point in time, even if it's only under a certain set a circumstances. The thing that gives faith power is that faith doesn't need to be proven to be followed, it's a yes or no question. It's a way of thinking that had enormous benefits during the evolution of man, and has developed more and more flaws as humanity develops and better recognizes its surroundings and the chaotic causes and effects leading up to any event.

Using the lottery model, someone still has to win, unless the whole thing is a sham and the winner is really a professional actor who'd rather be paid $50k to act like they won a hundred million instead of buying the ticket because they think they're lucky or that some outside force will place the improbable in their laps.

Who would be more likely to consider this scenario, the first person, or the second?

At 7/25/08 12:35 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: I'm not familiar, at all, about this Kent guy, but he sounds likes an opportunistic bitch preying on the insecurities and misunderstandings religious folk who've never ventured outside the church hold.

He's in jail for tax evasion.
He owes a million dollars to the government.

The thing that gives faith power is that faith doesn't need to be proven to be followed, it's a yes or no question.

The thing that gives it power is that we're taught to respect it.
People don't understand what they do when they have faith. They disregard evidence in favor of things they "know to be true" through a mistaken feeling of confidence.

I have a great example to understand how it must feel like. Ok check this out:

Did you ever get deja-vu? I.e. there's like 2-3 seconds randomly where you just go "I know for a FACT that I've dreamed about this before...".
I have tons of time. Most people did. But there is an explanation to it.

faith is like that. They think they KNOW that God talks to them, or that they feel him, but it's just self-deception, alla dousers ( check James Randi's videos on dousing for a really awesome example of people who deceive themselves into thinking they have powers ).

The difference between a smart person and a dumbass is that the smart person will accept that the explanation actually DOES explain it. The dumbass will find other reasons why the explanation is wrong.

example:

Dousers ( while I'm thinking about them ). Dousers are people who use a pendulum/rod/stick or whatever to find anything. Missing children, minerals, water. Whatever. What they do is basically say "if the stick moves, then it means there's water in here, if it doesn't, then there's no water". And they are utterly convinced that it works because of something called the idiomotor response. I.e. their mind subconsciously amplifies small movements like their hands shaking and it makes it seem like the stick is moving on it's own.
So basically they do this all their lives, eventually getting lucky and having it work.

Ok you follow? Then they get tested. They hide like water under 10 different places, the dousers CAN NEVER FIND IT. Then they get the explanation and a demonstration as to why it doesn't really work and why they think it does work.

And you know what they do? They go "oh that can't be it, there must be a bad atmosphere around here" or "something is sapping my powers" etc.

I'm not making this shit up, they're like that.

And it's the same with faith. You explain how it works to a believer, with things that are perfectly rational and within the realm of science and they will deny it because THEY WANT TO BELIEVE and also because THEY'RE MORONS.

Believing in your ability to win the lottery is not necessarily the same as that though. Just like being confident in oneself you know?

That said most people don't think about it like that, they think about it the way you said it.

evolutionism and why it's so dumb:

the only people who believe it are whiny, snob nosed athiests and academics who only goth the job because they believed in evolutionism themselves.

ever read the origin of species? it's a wonder people still read it.
OH WAIT!

THEY DON'T!

they just saw the article on wikipedia. wow! what a great way to learn! :P

What are your arguments against evolution.

Keep in mind it's a theory about process, not control.

At 7/25/08 08:54 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: What are your arguments against evolution.

Keep in mind it's a theory about process, not control.

that's just what evolution is--a theory. the whole of science is made up of guesses based upon more guesses and then some windbag who threatens your credibility if you don't suck their cock (pardon my chinese).

and with just a theory that's all you have. A THEORY! one cannot have a successful experiment if one's "control group" is "changing".

but aside from that, i don't hear you disclaiming that "the only people who believe it are whiny, snob nosed athiests and academics who only goth the job because they believed in evolutionism themselves."

coincidence? i think not. ;p

At 7/25/08 08:59 AM, qu3muchach0 wrote: that's just what evolution is--a theory. the whole of science is made up of guesses based upon more guesses and then some windbag who threatens your credibility if you don't suck their cock (pardon my chinese).

Yeah, the difference between that and religion is that in science you guess, then test your guess and try to prove it wrong.

Also, equivocating the scientific meaning of "theory" with the colloquial meaning of "theory" has been shown to be stupid over and over and over and over and over again. Just don't do it.

and with just a theory that's all you have. A THEORY! one cannot have a successful experiment if one's "control group" is "changing".

So you're proposing that it's impossible to conclude that a species is changing because you can't isolate a control group that doesn't change?

You can have control observations and not just a control group, you know.

but aside from that, i don't hear you disclaiming that "the only people who believe it are whiny, snob nosed athiests and academics who only goth the job because they believed in evolutionism themselves."

coincidence? i think not. ;p

That's the great thing about science: anyone can examine the evidence for themselves and try to discredit it if they want. Interesting how exactly zero creationists have managed to do this in the past 150 years.

The observable, scientific evidence in favour of evolution is overwhelming. Flat out denial of evolution without a strong argument betrays one's ignorance, not skepticism.

At 7/25/08 09:29 AM, Elfer wrote: Yeah, the difference between that and religion is that in science you guess, then test your guess and try to prove it wrong.

as opposed to "knowing"? then omg! let's go out in the middle of the street and guess what's going to happen. ik let's make some generalizaitons because i'm a <sarcasm><dignafied voice>scientist</dignified voice></sarcasm>.

Also, equivocating the scientific meaning of "theory" with the colloquial meaning of "theory" has been shown to be stupid over and over and over and over and over again. Just don't do it.

i'm not using the colloquial term "theory". so you can't pull your "OMG LOOK AT ME! I'M A GRAMMAR NAZI!" stint here. and on a side note: YOU have been shown to be stupid over and over and over and over and over again. Just don't do it.

So you're proposing that it's impossible to conclude that a species is changing because you can't isolate a control group that doesn't change?

maybe... what's it to you?

You can have control observations and not just a control group, you know.

in other words: guessing.

That's the great thing about science: anyone can examine the evidence for themselves and try to discredit it if they want. Interesting how exactly zero creationists have managed to do this in the past 150 years.

an actual group called creationists haven't existed for that long dumbass. go read wiki over again--or better yet... why don't you edit it so you can win? and it has been discredited by darwin himself. but nooo.... athiests don't want to hear any of that and say it's a lie and start getting all. it's kind of ironic and kinky at the same time. :p

The observable, scientific evidence in favour of evolution is overwhelming. Flat out denial of evolution without a strong argument betrays one's ignorance, not skepticism.

i still don't hear you disclaiming that "the only people who believe it are whiny, snob nosed athiests and academics who only goth the job because they believed in evolutionism themselves."

coincidence? i think not. ;p
(ad nauseum)

At 7/25/08 09:43 AM, qu3muchach0 wrote:

i still don't hear you disclaiming that "the only people who believe it are whiny, snob nosed athiests and academics who only goth the job because they believed in evolutionism themselves."

coincidence? i think not. ;p
(ad nauseum)

What are you smoking?

At 7/25/08 10:09 AM, Jaketheclonetrooper wrote:

At 7/25/08 09:43 AM, qu3muchach0 wrote:

i still don't hear you disclaiming that "the only people who believe it are whiny, snob nosed athiests and academics who only goth the job because they believed in evolutionism themselves."

coincidence? i think not. ;p
(ad nauseum)

What are you smoking?

obviously some REALLY good shit. jealous?

but no i jest... although it would be nice.
ahhh... a man can dream though. :p

At 7/25/08 09:43 AM, qu3muchach0 wrote: as opposed to "knowing"? then omg! let's go out in the middle of the street and guess what's going to happen. ik let's make some generalizaitons because i'm a <sarcasm><dignafied voice>scientist</dignified voice></sarcasm>.

I'm not even sure what you're attempting to imply here. Are you trying to say that scientists should be proving everything beyond even the tiniest insane possible shadow of a doubt that nobody has even proposed? Are you aware that that's not actually possible?

i'm not using the colloquial term "theory".

So you're using the scientific term "theory," which implies that you admit that evolution has been rigorously tested and shown to be true in all observed cases?

So you're proposing that it's impossible to conclude that a species is changing because you can't isolate a control group that doesn't change?

maybe... what's it to you?

I'm questioning your understanding of the concept of a "control" and what it actually does in an experiment.

You can have control observations and not just a control group, you know.

in other words: guessing.

No. You can't always use an identical object as a control, sometimes you have to use an instance as a control observation.

What you're saying is like going out and trying to determine if trees are growing by measuring two trees to be one meter high. You designate one the experimental group and one the control group. Then you come back a year later and see that both are now two meters tall. You therefore conclude that trees don't grow.

Insane conclusion, right? The trick is, the control here shouldn't be the other tree. It should be your initial measurement (or, in a way, the meter stick should be your control, if you prefer to think of it that way).

That's the great thing about science: anyone can examine the evidence for themselves and try to discredit it if they want. Interesting how exactly zero creationists have managed to do this in the past 150 years.

an actual group called creationists haven't existed for that long dumbass.

Yeah, but churches that believe in divine creation have existed for that long, and have been trying to suppress, then to discredit evolution since its inception as a scientific theory.

go read wiki over again--or better yet... why don't you edit it so you can win? and it has been discredited by darwin himself. but nooo.... athiests don't want to hear any of that and say it's a lie and start getting all. it's kind of ironic and kinky at the same time. :p

Be more specific. I could say that religion has been discredited by the pope, but it has no meaning unless I actually refer to what I'm talking about.

The reason I'm not going to look this up for myself is that you could be referring to any number of failed proposed mechanisms for evolution instead of evolution itself. From experience, I'd say there's a 100% chance that you're just misinterpreting some event or comment as a discrediting of evolution.

i still don't hear you disclaiming that "the only people who believe it are whiny, snob nosed athiests and academics who only goth the job because they believed in evolutionism themselves."

Okay, I'd like to claim that your statement is false. To prove your statement false, all I'd have to do is give one example of a non-atheist who admits the legitimacy of evolutionary theory.

Here's two:
- Richard Harries, 41st Bishop of Oxford
- Joan E. Roughgarden, Christian and Evolutionary biologist

At 7/25/08 09:43 AM, qu3muchach0 wrote: as opposed to "knowing"? then omg! let's go out in the middle of the street and guess what's going to happen. ik let's make some generalizaitons because i'm a <sarcasm><dignafied voice>scientist</dignified voice></sarcasm>.

Science is some 'generalised guesses'? Throw out your PC and chop off your internet cable and live in a cave. We've sent a man to the moon and, relating to evolution, cured hundreds of diseases - science is right, it's the best way to understand stuff.

Also, equivocating the scientific meaning of "theory" with the colloquial meaning of "theory" has been shown to be stupid over and over and over and over and over again. Just don't do it.

i'm not using the colloquial term "theory". so you can't pull your "OMG LOOK AT ME! I'M A GRAMMAR NAZI!" stint here.

'Theory' doesn't mean 'guess', theories are well tested observations that conform precisely with all the evidence and other knowledge. Heard of the 'theory of gravity?'

and on a side note: YOU have been shown to be stupid over and over and over and over and over again. Just don't do it.

Elfer is a million times smarter than you man.

maybe... what's it to you?

ur dumb

You can have control observations and not just a control group, you know.

in other words: guessing.

Guessing would get us nowhere. Heard of evidence? Like geology, the fossil record, genetics, how continental drift conforms brilliantly with evolution, etc? Like, all of science is evidence for evolution, seriously.

That's the great thing about science: anyone can examine the evidence for themselves and try to discredit it if they want. Interesting how exactly zero creationists have managed to do this in the past 150 years.

an actual group called creationists haven't existed for that long dumbass. go read wiki over again--or better yet... why don't you edit it so you can win?

GRRR wikipedia wont let me vandalise the natural selection page
Creationists have existed since Darwin published his book, they just didn't call themselves that. You think it was instantly accepted and only recently questioned?

and it has been discredited by darwin himself.

No it wasn't. Prove it. If you can't prove it, consider how much misinformation you've been told about this subject. Darwin believed it to the end.

but nooo.... athiests don't want to hear any of that and say it's a lie and start getting all. it's kind of ironic and kinky at the same time. :p

Creationists like to put their fingers in their ears and sing loudly so they can come back with the exact same disproven arguments over and over again.

The observable, scientific evidence in favour of evolution is overwhelming. Flat out denial of evolution without a strong argument betrays one's ignorance, not skepticism.

i still don't hear you disclaiming that "the only people who believe it are whiny, snob nosed athiests and academics who only goth the job because they believed in evolutionism themselves."

How about 'all of the developed world except for the Southern States of the US believe it.' Like I could leave my house now, in England, and ask 100 people on the street 'do you believe in evolution' and 99 of them would say 'yes'. And the 1 who didn't would be deaf. Guess we've just been taught it well.

coincidence? i think not. ;p
(ad nauseum)

I hope this hasn't come across as me calling you stupid. I kinda feel sorry for you. Is that any better?

lol @: elfer and earfetish.

i can always rile them up. :p
it's not even worth the effort to take the jumbled quotes from both of you.
to get the point...

i would have checkmated elfer by dragging him into a discussion on faith, run circles around him until he made an ass of himself and logged off. earfetish? don't really have to do anything to earfetish. he just likes to use blatant ad hominems. :p

long story short: DON'T GET SO HUFFY BITCHES!!! lol.

At 7/25/08 10:44 AM, qu3muchach0 wrote: i would have checkmated elfer by dragging him into a discussion on faith, run circles around him until he made an ass of himself and logged off.

Actually I was one post away from dismissing it as a troll. Congratulations though?

haha boredom got the better of Elfer and Earfetish.

At 7/25/08 10:47 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 7/25/08 10:44 AM, qu3muchach0 wrote: i would have checkmated elfer by dragging him into a discussion on faith, run circles around him until he made an ass of himself and logged off.

Actually I was one post away from dismissing it as a troll. Congratulations though?

thanks. (in before troll though. gg)

At 7/25/08 10:48 AM, poxpower wrote: haha boredom got the better of Elfer and Earfetish.

That's the problem with the internet: You get people who are pretending to be really really stupid, which might almost be a funny trick, were it not for the fact that on the same forum you will have people who are actually really really stupid.

Without making it reasonably unbelievable, it becomes the comedy equivalent of calling someone's name then looking away so they don't know who did it.

I'm sure I've encountered Qu3m3ch0 or whatever arguing from an almost identical viewpoint quite a few times before. like here
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/9091 42

Drakim - Darwin didn't convert

i could use ad hominem and ask you if you have any proof of this, and we could go into one big circle jerk. but that would be pointless. i just stated that such an event is truly a testament to mankind's frailty.

go ahead and continue to bash on christians, exalt darwin, dawkins, nietzche or whatever if it makes you feel more comfortable than discussing the topic at hand.

... so his responses seemed in character

anyway LOL you showed me, lying on the internet (or pussying out of a losing argument, I'm 50/50 about what you actually did)

At 7/25/08 10:53 AM, Elfer wrote:

Without making it reasonably unbelievable, it becomes the comedy equivalent of calling someone's name then looking away so they don't know who did it.

yeah pretty much.

Wow good job, you fooled us into thinking you were another uneducated moron. That's really hard to do!
Next time try and fool us into thinking you're a genius.

p.s. If shaggy is an alt, I think it's now safe to say that at this point in time there's been way too much work put into it, hence it's still really really sad.

p.s he got banned for something unrelated so you guys won't see him around replying any time soon.

So don't hold your breath :(

NEW TOPIC: Did anyone from Canada ever find that American Dream ice cream from Ben and Jerry's? The Stephen Colbert one? I've never ever seen it. I even went to a ben and Jerry's store in MONTREAL and they didn't have it.

Do they think canadians won't go for it?

/ hijack

Americone Dream is called "Freedom fries" in Quebec.

At 7/25/08 11:44 AM, Elfer wrote: Americone Dream is called "Freedom fries" in Quebec.

Sounds like a sick joke. Everyone knows they don't have freedom in Canada.

At 7/25/08 03:23 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 7/25/08 11:44 AM, Elfer wrote: Americone Dream is called "Freedom fries" in Quebec.

Sounds like a sick joke. Everyone knows they don't have freedom in Canada.

There are small quantities of it stored in underground bunkers in Quebec.

UPDATE:

Went to local grocery store.

Ice cream shelves were restocked. New flavor: turtle soup.

Seems to be a mixture of ice cream and caramel turtle pieces.
I wondered: how hard can it be to make new ice cream? Just take vanilla/chocolate and put candy in it or a dough of some kind.
I suggest croissant.

Still no Americone.

I feel empty.

At 7/25/08 03:42 PM, poxpower wrote: I wondered: how hard can it be to make new ice cream? Just take vanilla/chocolate and put candy in it or a dough of some kind.

God Intelligent Designs them and then Satan hides employees in ice cream company payrolls in order to fool people.

Science is the best way to understand stuff scientifically.

It is the "right" way if you're trying to physically understand reality around you.

That's about it.

It's a lot more conventional than other philosophies tho, more dynamic. It's basically how we deal with information. If evolution is say, the process of life, I'd say that science is how we consciously process thoughts and information.

At 7/25/08 04:55 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Science is the best way to understand stuff scientifically.

Oh I have to hear about all the other ways you can understand stuff!