# Evolution versus Intelligent Design



## Jnmcda0

Somebody had suggested making a sticky for a thread about the evidence for evolution, but some felt that a sticky for a thread promoting one side over the other wasn't warranted. So, I'm starting this thread and asking people to present evidence in favor of evolution or intelligent design. We can decide later if the discussion is worthy of a sticky.

Let's try to keep this thread about evidence and not go into politics about what should be taught in school or what religious texts have to say about it.


----------



## Belshazzar

Jnmcda0 said:


> Let's try to keep this thread about evidence and not go into politics about what should be taught in school or what religious texts have to say about it.


It's pretty much impossible to do that, because evolution is a scientific theory while creationism/ID is a religious and political position. Talk Origins has a good overview of the evidence in favor of evolution and a fairly comprehensive debunking of creationist claims.


----------



## coldsorehighlighter

I think evolution is part of the intelligent design.


----------



## kkemerait

*Evidence*

If you want evidence for evolution there are literally 1000s of pages at
http://www.talkorigins.org/

If you want evidence for ID or creationism you might consider sending someone up to the top of a local mountain and hope they can muster up a few stone tablets.


----------



## Shoeless Jane

I think Intelligent design makes more sense than Young Earth Creationism, but it's still a joke.. I mean, how many people who argue intelligent design even have science degrees? you might as well include Jesus in high school chemistry textbooks.


----------



## Scorpius

Both..the universe was intelligently designed to evolve


----------



## wjc75225

Scorpius said:


> Both..the universe was intelligently designed to evolve


Yeah, I believe this. A lot of "Christians" say it's impossible to be a true Christian if you believe in evolution. I'm not saying I really consider myself a Christian, but I think it's ridiculous that people don't consider the fact that maybe evolution is part of intelligent design.


----------



## Pam

Scorpius said:


> Both..the universe was intelligently designed to evolve


 :ditto

I also heard that you'd have an easier time making a 747 by running a hurricane thru a junk yard than having DNA evolve on its own. I was extremely impressed with that. (Some scientist said it--can't remember who)


----------



## Belshazzar

Pam said:


> :ditto
> 
> I also heard that you'd have an easier time making a 747 by running a hurricane thru a junk yard than having DNA evolve on its own. I was extremely impressed with that. (Some scientist said it--can't remember who)


I think Perloff liked to use that one but I don't know if he was the first to use that argument. TalkOrigins has dealt with this already:



> Claim CF002.1:
> 
> Order does not spontaneously form from disorder. A tornado passing through a junkyard would never assemble a 747.
> Source:
> 
> Hoyle, Fred, 1983. The Intelligent Universe. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 18-19.
> Response:
> 
> This claim is irrelevant to the theory of evolution itself, since evolution does not occur via assembly from individual parts, but rather via selective gradual modifications to existing structures. Order can and does result from such evolutionary processes.
> 
> Hoyle applied his analogy to abiogenesis, where it is more applicable. However, the general principle behind it is wrong. Order arises spontaneously from disorder all the time. The tornado itself is an example of order arising spontaneously. Something as complicated as people would not arise spontaneously from raw chemicals, but there is no reason to believe that something as simple as a self-replicating molecule could not form thus. From there, evolution can produce more and more complexity.


The problem with the term "intelligent design" is that it's one made to deliberately mislead and that seems to have happened on this thread. If you believe that god/gods started the ball rolling on the process of evolution, that's not intelligent design -- it's belief in a divine creation over abiogenesis (which has nothing to do with evolutionary theory). To believe in ID, you still have to subscribe to many creationist arguments like irreducible complexity, so ID and evolutionary theory are mutually exclusive. A lot of the literature on ID was created by doing a find and replace in creationist literature:









Note that 1987 was when the Edwards v. Aguillard decision made teaching creationism in public schools unconstitutional.


----------



## RJF

I'll send my Xbox 360 (as well as all of the money in my bank account) to anybody who can offer me one single, tiny shred of evidence supporting the existence of a creator, supreme being, or other ethereal "designer". 

Lack of evidence, or lack of knowledge does not translate to "evidence", nor does our incomplete understanding of the universe point towards there being a mystical figure with a grand scheme for the running of life.


----------



## wjc75225

RJF said:


> I'll send my Xbox 360 (as well as all of the money in my bank account) to anybody who can offer me one single, tiny shred of evidence supporting the existence of a creator, supreme being, or other ethereal "designer".
> 
> Lack of evidence, or lack of knowledge does not translate to "evidence", nor does our incomplete understanding of the universe point towards there being a mystical figure with a grand scheme for the running of life.


^Agreed. That's why the whole concept of "faith" was invented. Faith is not scientific. People can believe anything that they want to believe without proof or anything. That's why I'd never date a girl who is super stubborn in her religious beliefs. :yes. It's ok to have faith in something, but I can't stand the super religious, stubborn type (no offense if anyone here is like that!). However, it can be interesting to talk about faith with someone who has an open mind.


----------



## lonelyjew

wjc75225 said:


> ^Agreed. That's why the whole concept of "faith" was invented. Faith is not scientific. People can believe anything that they want to believe without proof or anything. That's why I'd never date a girl who is super stubborn in her religious beliefs. :yes. It's ok to have faith in something, but I can't stand the super religious, stubborn type (no offense if anyone here is like that!). However, it can be interesting to talk about faith with someone who has an open mind.


That's exactly what I was going to say. I have nothing against the "super religious stubborn types" though; as long as they can show the same respect for my beliefs as they expect for theirs(you know, the whole golden rule thing), then I'm fine with them. My problem is with the idiots who want to force their faith on innocent, easily influenced, kids disguising their faith as science. Thank goodness our government has the sense to deal with them.


----------



## wjc75225

lonelyjew said:


> That's exactly what I was going to say. I have nothing against the "super religious stubborn types" though; as long as they can show the same respect for my beliefs as they expect for theirs(you know, the whole golden rule thing), then I'm fine with them. My problem is with the idiots who want to force their faith on innocent, easily influenced, kids disguising their faith as science. Thank goodness our government has the sense to deal with them.


^Yeah, that, too! I mainly don't like the stubborn types because I like having some conversation about it to understand their beliefs, and if I tell them my beliefs, they'll just say "You're wrong" all of the time (the respect thing you're talking about). However, like you said, some do try to force it and make religion seem more like a cult, which should not be the case.


----------



## kiirby

Evidence for intelligent design.


heh.


----------



## Belshazzar

lonelyjew said:


> My problem is with the idiots who want to force their faith on innocent, easily influenced, kids disguising their faith as science. Thank goodness our government has the sense to deal with them.


Unfortunately, ignorance is well-funded in our nation. Texas, Louisiana, Kentucky, and South Dakota are still trying to push creationism in schools. The Discovery Institute is also pushing global warming denial as part of their "teach the controversy" campaign.

All this maneuvering has often been described as a "legal whack-a-mole." After Aguillard, creationism changed its name to intelligent design. After ID got smacked down in Kitzmiller, they changed the tactic to "promoting academic freedom" and "teaching the weaknesses in evolutionary theory." By removing references to a creator/designer, they can now claim that such school standards do not have a religious agenda.

By throwing global warming into the mix, they can dodge accusations of singling out evolution as the only science they want to "teach the controversy" on. As their language becomes fuzzier, it becomes harder to pin them down legally. I definitely see more court cases on the horizon.

The agenda of the these organizations, though, is becoming even more obvious now that the creationist and AGW denial think tanks are holding hands.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/2374/


----------



## lonelyjew

I weep for the future.... Still though, thankfully our constitution forbids the promotion of faith in schools, and the many precedents set in past, very notably the one I posted, which was set by a conservative judge appointed by GWB, will not allow for any faith based science to be taught. If the best they can do is teach criticism of evolution then whatever, at least they won't be able to directly poison children. Evolution moreover can adapt, and while the necessity to prove themselves is a waste of their time, at least they will adapt, destroying the arguments of the literalist idiots who forgot that the point of their religion isn't how everything began, but how they live their lives.


----------



## estse

I have a rock, which I bang against my head. Evolution, or just rather dead. I'm not of intelligent design.


----------



## LatchKeyKid

I'm going to oblige the OP because some people might benefit.

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. There is no real evidence for it.

Very briefly, the evidence for evolutionary theory:

*Fossils* - There are lots of them, and they show gradual morphological change over time. We can use fossils to trace evolutionary change through time, from simple prokaryotes (3.5 billion years ago) to modern species.

*Genetics* - All life is genetically similar. For instance, humans are _kinda_ similar to Redwood trees and _very_ similar to chimpanzees. How do you explain such strong similarity? Relatedness. Every living thing is my distance cousin. We are all evolved from a (very simple) common ancestor.

*Micro-Evolution* - With careful study, we can actually _see_ evolution in action sometimes. One example: Viruses* are evolving all the time, one reason they're so dangerous. Another example: rapid environmental change can drive rapid morphological change, for instance in Galapagos finches. Life has been around for billions or years. Over time, these small changes must add up.

*They're not quite organisms, but they offer a good model for rapid genetic change.


----------



## Belshazzar

LatchKeyKid said:


> *Micro-Evolution* - With careful study, we can actually _see_ evolution in action sometimes. One example: Viruses* are evolving all the time, one reason they're so dangerous. Another example: rapid environmental change can drive rapid morphological change, for instance in Galapagos finches. Life has been around for billions or years. Over time, these small changes must add up.


The micro-/macro-evolution thing is really a weak distinction that's been seized upon by creationists, though. The only difference is on the scale of time.

"Macro-evolution"/speciation observed in the lab:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/


----------



## LatchKeyKid

Belshazzar said:


> The micro-/macro-evolution thing is really a weak distinction that's been seized upon by creationists, though. The only difference is on the scale.
> 
> "Macro-evolution"/speciation observed in the lab:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
> http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/macro-evolution-observed-in-the-laboratory/


I was a bit reluctant to use the term "microevolution", myself. You're quite right, there is no fundamental distinction; it's just a question of timescale. But despite its misuse, the term is legitimate.


----------



## mud

Evolution is actually a fact and its simple: parents pass their genes onto their off-spring, but not all individuals will be successful in passing on their genes.

The theory of evolution is about trying to understand the specifics better like exactly what conditions need to exist for those characteristics being passed to become widespread. Genetic drift, predation and calamity, etc. can all influence it.

ID, special creation? No facts here, sorry but that is the simple truth.


----------



## Nostalgic

It's incredibly disappointing to see that people still question the validity of evolution in this day and age... all because of a bunch of bronze-age goat herders.


----------



## Mystic76

I agree.


----------



## uffie

quantum physics shows that not everything can be deterministic.


----------



## Same Difference




----------



## wjc75225

Same Difference said:


>


:teeth


----------



## guyeva

Jnmcda0 said:


> Somebody had suggested making a sticky for a thread about the evidence for evolution, but some felt that a sticky for a thread promoting one side over the other wasn't warranted. So, I'm starting this thread and asking people to present evidence in favor of evolution or intelligent design. We can decide later if the discussion is worthy of a sticky.
> 
> Let's try to keep this thread about evidence and not go into politics about what should be taught in school or what religious texts have to say about it.


Intelligent Design IS politics! It's nothing more than the renaming of Creationism in order to get it taught in our schools as science, which it most certainly is not. ID is a political agenda on the part of fundies to push their beliefs on the rest of us.


----------



## Winerocks

Intelligent design makes me crazy. I have a degree in Geology, and have spent a lot of time studying and digging for fossils. I worked with National Geographic and the Royal Ontario Museum (in Canada) at a site known as the "Burgess Shale". 500 million year old fossils that are very convincing evidence of the Cambrian Explosion. All science, no magic wand **** made this happen.


----------



## Glacial

Winerocks said:


> Intelligent design makes me crazy. I have a degree in Geology, and have spent a lot of time studying and digging for fossils. I worked with National Geographic and the Royal Ontario Museum (in Canada) at a site known as the "Burgess Shale". 500 million year old fossils that are very convincing evidence of the Cambrian Explosion. All science, no magic wand **** made this happen.


Interesting job. What other interesting finds did you come across to support evolution?


----------



## Kon

Let's assume evolution of space/matter/stars/galaxies/planets/life/humans, etc. is a given. Here are the difficult questions:

1. What gave rise to the universe and to the evolutionary laws in our universe that allowed for the existence/formation of not only non-life but of self-conscious, intelligent life-form like ourselves?

2. How is it possible for a small, seemingly insignificant sub-part of the universe like ourselves (a creative, thinking human being) to exist and have such complex thoughts, goals, etc. if the larger system from which allowed for it's existence isn't itself in some way intelligent and even much more creative, etc?

Let's assume the answer is simply the result of the "time" factor and/or the existence of infinitely possible universes with one of them having the right properties for giving seed to our universe and our existence:

The chances that the cosmic conditions needed for even a single living cell would come about in a random toss-up are astonishingly low, often called the "fine tuning problem." The most obvious explanation for fine-tuning is that fine-tuning is real, argues O'Leary, "that we live in a designed universe." If, however, we live in a vast and varying multiverse, there could be as many as (10 to the power of 500) different universes in all, making the chance of ours occurring among them comfortably higher. Thus, multiverse theory eliminates the fine-tuning argument for the existence of god."

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_multiverse_problem/

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf

So let's assume some version of Tegmark's metauniverse/Theory of Everything (TOE) in link above is true. Does this really resolve the issue?

The Problem:Tegmark's attempt at a TOE leaves unanswered a number of deep philosophical questions. First, what good does it do to "anthropically" explain this universe in terms of an metauniverse unless one can explain where the metauniverse came from?

I don't think this question will ever be answered.


----------



## infamous

this is just my common sense opinion.

evidence for evolution eh? the evidence is there when one looks in the mirror. how is it that we are the animals who can build huge monuments and at present time can even destroy the world. plus, it is a fact that modern humans where not modern hundreds of hears ago. cave men did not have cell phones!

where do i get my opinions from?

i have been watching the history channel and nova and reading stuff like that since i was very young. so i know that there are people at present time who only know the number 1, when they want to say two they say 1 1. so to continue with my point. these people to me are not "evolved" yet. they are evolved in the physical but not in the mind. so by this very little example i can see that we are just evolving: growing. and i'm pretty sure the way one thinks affects the physical self and also the surroundings affects the mind and the physical body. there are evidence all over nature to understand this in plants and in animals.

you gotta be sh*tting me if i'm to believe that the animal does not suit to the environment. the very fact that we have homes is learning that one cannot survive outside in the raw nature. so animals and plants have to evolve to suit the environment.

there is a river that i don't remember the name of that has an abundant of "evolved" fish living next to each other. what separates them is the way the river flows/is. in some areas of the river it is warm and in those pokets of warm water there lives a certain fish...in other areas it is cold...and there is a different fish living in those pockets of cool water. etc etc.. and there are more examples about animals who change (evolve) pretty quick that i won't even mention. ok, one more, take wild hogs... there are some characteristics a wild hog needs to survive in the wild. now take a domesticated hog... it looks almost identical but there are subtle diferences. domesticated hogs are raised for the best meat to consume. now if a domesticated hog escapes in to the wild, it will soon start to change. literally... the faster the anumals are able to reproduce the more people can see "evolution"... google it the info is there.

now lets take plants... orchids to be exact. there is this particular orchid that only one type of moth can pollinate it (get to the sweet stuff). one could say, the flower changed to accommodate the moth, or the moth changed to accommodate the orchid....i say, either way, one of them had to change (evolve" to accommodate the other.

so i ask myself, do i really need to read on evolution? can't i just open my eyes and look around and put the pieces together on my own? and the answer is yes i can, i just don't want to bother and gathering all this info for the sake to prove someone my beliefs. 

now regarding the intelligence design. if i ask myself, why did humans evolved so much? well i just have to look at the past and come out with the most reasonable explanation by looking at the evidence for sure.

hmmm... i rather not.... cus i like a good debate, i'm just wasting words here if there aren't any intelligent life form in this forum (no offense).

in my eyes, there is no versus though.



> 1. What gave rise to the universe and to the evolutionary laws in our universe that allowed for the existence/formation of not only non-life but of self-conscious, intelligent life-form like ourselves?


well i believe that everything starts from the basics.

so what are these basics?

well... every living thing reproduces and are aware to reproduce in numbers cus only a few will survive. so this means that the living keep on living by consuming the living. and matter keep on being matter by combining with other molecules (i don't know the specific words here). so with this in mind there are already "laws" laid out before the earth was born. so this means the laws of earth don't come from the laws of earth but from the laws of the universe. which who knows where they come from... but there are clues if some really intelligent people really want to know can find out, or will... some day. not in our life time sadly though.

evolutionary laws are simple to understand... just look at my first paragraphs.

regarding intelligence, intelligence only means those humans who are evolving mentally. who are above average in knowledge in anything.



> 2. How is it possible for a small, seemingly insignificant sub-part of the universe like ourselves (a creative, thinking human being) to exist and have such complex thoughts, goals, etc. if the larger system from which allowed for it's existence isn't itself in some way intelligent and even much more creative, etc?


first of all, since we have no problem in surviving in almost any environment, we are only evolving mentally at this point.

getting that out of the way, modern humans can only speculate about the birth of the universe. but by looking at the basics... i say the answer is just waiting to be discovered.

though it just feels like we are being slowed down from evolving mentally now. there are a lot of distractions in this modern world that i don't believe we will keep on evolving mentally. unless we get some help from aliens (life forms from other planets) or our mentallity changes and technology and understanding becomes the "IT" thing to have.

the only way for humans to understand the universe is for humans to evolve mentally. and by getting rid of stupid Hollywood

oh yeah, and does one really wanna know in this time and age?.


----------



## Iota

'Intelligent design' is just a cute way to wrap creationism up in a box and label it as science.



> i have been watching the history channel and nova and reading stuff like that since i was very young. so i know that there are people at present time who only know the number 1, when they want to say two they say 1 1. so to continue with my point. these people to me are not "evolved" yet. they are evolved in the physical but not in the mind. so by this very little example i can see that we are just evolving: growing. and i'm pretty sure the way one thinks affects the physical self and also the surroundings affects the mind and the physical body. there are evidence all over nature to understand this in plants and in animals.


I don't believe that judging a certain culture or group of people as "not evolved mentally" is the very mentally-evolved thing to do.


----------



## Forza Italia

Kon said:


> Let's assume evolution of space/matter/stars/galaxies/planets/life/humans, etc. is a given. Here are the difficult questions:
> 
> 1. What gave rise to the universe and to the evolutionary laws in our universe that allowed for the existence/formation of not only non-life but of self-conscious, intelligent life-form like ourselves?
> 
> 2. How is it possible for a small, seemingly insignificant sub-part of the universe like ourselves (a creative, thinking human being) to exist and have such complex thoughts, goals, etc. if the larger system from which allowed for it's existence isn't itself in some way intelligent and even much more creative, etc?
> 
> Let's assume the answer is simply the result of the "time" factor and/or the existence of infinitely possible universes with one of them having the right properties for giving seed to our universe and our existence:
> 
> The chances that the cosmic conditions needed for even a single living cell would come about in a random toss-up are astonishingly low, often called the "fine tuning problem." The most obvious explanation for fine-tuning is that fine-tuning is real, argues O'Leary, "that we live in a designed universe." If, however, we live in a vast and varying multiverse, there could be as many as (10 to the power of 500) different universes in all, making the chance of ours occurring among them comfortably higher. Thus, multiverse theory eliminates the fine-tuning argument for the existence of god."
> 
> http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_multiverse_problem/
> 
> http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf
> 
> So let's assume some version of Tegmark's metauniverse/Theory of Everything (TOE) in link above is true. Does this really resolve the issue?
> 
> The Problem:Tegmark's attempt at a TOE leaves unanswered a number of deep philosophical questions. First, what good does it do to "anthropically" explain this universe in terms of an metauniverse unless one can explain where the metauniverse came from?
> 
> I don't think this question will ever be answered.


Your 2 main questions are pretty old and there are numerous different authours who speculated and hypothesized about the answers. You can pretty much dig in any other popular evolutionary books that somewhat adresses those questions or references to it to other authors.

Dennet is a main author who thouroughly adressed these questions. Via him, you can reference your way to others.


----------



## Jnmcda0

guyeva said:


> Intelligent Design IS politics! It's nothing more than the renaming of Creationism in order to get it taught in our schools as science, which it most certainly is not. ID is a political agenda on the part of fundies to push their beliefs on the rest of us.


I completely agree with you. However, as I said when I started this thread, some had requested a thread for the evidence for evolution be stickied. Others complained that it wouldn't be fair to only have a sticky for the evidence for the evolution and not for intelligent design.

While I may personally agree that Intelligent Design is not science, this site isn't a science class or a publicly-funded instititution. There is no separation of church and forum here. This thread was meant to provoke a discussion of the evidence and if someone posts what they consider evidence for intelligent design that you find invalid or fallacious, I encourage you to politely discuss why it isn't a valid argument.


----------



## Kon

Forza Italia said:


> Dennet is a main author who thouroughly adressed these questions. Via him, you can reference your way to others.


I didn't find Dennet's ideas on consciousness persuasive. But I will admit that I was and probably will always be brainwashed by McGinn, Fodor and Chomsky's ideas with respect to consciousness: it will remain a mystery.

I read parts of his book, "Darwin's Dangerous Ideas". I know next to nothing about evolution of life to comment and I stopped reading it because I found it boring (not enough discussion on philosophy of physics). For whatever reason I do think the universe is too complex to have developed without a little nudge. But I don't think that nudge is a "higher power"/God, it's just something again beyond our understanding and I don't know why but I think it has to do with the hard problem of consciousness. This quote by McGinn I posted in another thread I found very interesting:

"We might be reminded at this point of the big bang. That notable occurrence can be regarded as presenting an inverse space problem. *For, on received views, it was at the moment of the big bang that space itself came into existence, there being nothing spatial antecedently to that.* But how does space come from non-space? What kind of 'explosion' could create space ab initio? And this problem offers an even closer structural parallel to the consciousness problem if we assume, as I would argue is plausible, that the big bang was not the beginning (temporally or explanatorily) of all existence. Some prior independent state of things must have led to that early cataclysm, and this sequence of events itself must have some intelligible explanation - just as there must be an explanation for the sequence that led from matter-in-space to consciousness.

*The brain puts into reverse, as it were, what the big bang initiated: it erases spatial dimensions rather than creating them. It undoes the work of creating space, swallowing down matter and spitting out consciousness.* So, taking the very long view, the universe has gone through phases of space generation and (local) space annihilation; or at least, with respect to the latter, there have been operations on space that have generated a non-spatial being. This suggests the following heady speculation: that the origin of consciousness somehow draws upon those properties of the universe that antedate and explain the occurrence of the big bang. If we need a pre-spatial level of reality in order to account for the big bang, then it may be this very level that is exploited in the generation of consciousness. *That is, assuming that remnants of the pre-big bang universe have persisted, it may be that these features of the universe are somehow involved in engineering the non-spatial phenomenon of consciousness. If so, consciousness turns out to be older than matter in space, at least as to its raw materials." *

"I am now in a position to state the main thesis of this paper: in order to solve the mind-body problem we need, at a minimum, a new conception of space. We need a conceptual breakthrough in the way we think about the medium in which material objects exist, and hence in our conception of material objects themselves. That is the region in which our ignorance is focused: not in the details of neurophysiological activity but, more fundamentally, in how space is structured or constituted. That which we refer to when we use the word 'space' has a nature that is quite different from how we standardly conceive it to be; so different, indeed, that it is capable of 'containing' the non-spatial (as we now conceive it) phenomenon of consciousness. *Things in space can generate consciousness only because those things are not, at some level, just how we conceive them to be; they harbour some hidden aspect or principle*."

http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/consciousness97/papers/ConsciousnessSpace.html


----------



## Cerz

If someone says "Evolution is only a theory" in this thread i will literally book a trip on Virgin Galactic's first flight, hijack it and plummet into the sun.

I just had to say that, every conversation I've had about evolution some idiot has always came in and said "Well it's only a theory".


----------



## Jnmcda0

Cerz said:


> I just had to say that, every conversation I've had about evolution some idiot has always came in and said "Well it's only a theory".


Yeah, I hear that all the time as well. If you want to get technical with semantics, evolution isn't a theory. Evolution is a fact. The theory is evolution by means of natural selection.

It is just like with gravity. It is a fact that what we term gravity exists. The general theory of relativity explains how this occurs.


----------



## Nostalgikeren

I have nothing against Intelligent Design, I really think it's good to give Darwinism a little competition. The only problem is that all of the argument such as Irreversible Complexity(did I say that right?) are falsified. And there is no longer any valid arguments supporting a creator or designer. Allthough I believe in evolution, Im really looking forward to see new theories from the ID people. I just simply love science and philosofy, and Im looking forward to see if anything can challenge what we know of the world today.


----------



## ValiantThor

I dont believe in the idea of god that man created to feel more comfortable to a universe of unknown, but what I dont understand is how everything started. Something had to have created the billions of galaxies and the vast space between all of them.


----------



## Jnmcda0

ValiantThor said:


> what I dont understand is how everything started. Something had to have created the billions of galaxies and the vast space between all of them.


Well, we don't know for sure what led to the Big Bang. Cosmologists and physicists are still working on answers to that.

Here's a good lecture talking about some of the current theories of how universe came about:






From the time just after the Big Bang started, we do have explanations as to what occurred. It is thought that, initially, the entirity of space was condensed into a single, incredibly dense point that scientists have term the singularity. All matter in the universe was contained within this point.

The singularity expanded very rapidly, almost like an explosion. When this occurred, the matter was scattered and continues to expand outward even now. This is why there is so vast a space between most of the galaxies. However, the matter wasn't evenly distributed when the Big Bang occurred. Some areas of the universe are more dense than others.

At the time right after the Big Bang, the main elements in the universe were hydrogen and a little bit of helium. There were patches of these elements throughout the universe. The more dense clouds of these elements came together because of gravity and began to rotate due to the law of conservation of angular momentum. As these balls of hydrogen and helium atoms became more dense and rotated faster, the atoms moved at increasingly higher velocity until they were moving so fast that when they collided, they fused together. This fusion gives off a lot of energy. The ball of hydrogen and helium ignites and a star is born. Gravity pulls nearby stars together to form galaxies.

When the atoms inside the stars fuse together, they form heavier atoms. If you look at a periodic table, all of the elements up to iron are formed inside stars by nuclear fusion. When large stars run out of energy, they explode as a supernova. The elements heavier than iron are formed inside supernovas.

When the stars die out and release their energy, the elements that they spew out into the cosmos disturb dormant clouds of elements that weren't previously dense enough to come together to form stars. When these dormant clouds of gas are stirred up, it is called a nebula. It is inside these nebulae that new stars are formed, as the clouds of gas are stirred up and brought together by gravity.

The planets are formed by elements that were close enough to the star to be held within it's gravitational pull, but too far away to get sucked into the star. As these elements rotate around the star, and grouped together into balls of molten rocks and gas in a process known as accretion. The solar winds push most of the lighter elements farther out away from the star. This is why planets closest to the sun (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) are small, rocky planets, while planets farther out are mostly composed of gas.

Here's a good series of videos explaining all this:

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/DB23537556D7AADB/0/wg1fs6vp9Ok


----------



## Kon

This is one long video in 6 parts (continous) and discusses what existed "before" the Big Bang and if that question is even meaningful:





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVwi...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7vT...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH-G...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSCM...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szgc...feature=related


----------



## fredbloggs02

RJF said:


> I'll send my Xbox 360 (as well as all of the money in my bank account) to anybody who can offer me one single, tiny shred of evidence supporting the existence of a creator, supreme being, or other ethereal "designer".
> 
> Lack of evidence, or lack of knowledge does not translate to "evidence", nor does our incomplete understanding of the universe point towards there being a mystical figure with a grand scheme for the running of life.


Really quite disappointing to read so many lazy ideas here. It makes me feel I'm only part of a forum because of black and white thinking in some respect. I find that hurtful.

Evidence isn't evident to everyone. A blind man will NEVER be able to personally testify to his observation of certain "evidential" tests so however he'd conur with you in the end, however you concur with "evidence" it won't be in the same way as the man who uncovered it more than likely. Knowing that I wonder how far people are willing to go to doubt their own senses. There is only a lack of knowledge or evidence to your interpretation of knowledge or evidence not knowedge or evidence in general. I'm afraid you've adopted the sciensy view of things as gospel A man can be lost in different ways to me. I don't mean to pick at this post particularly it was simply the first one I read of this nature. Prove to me by way of "evidence"(whatever that means) there is a god. "incompleteness" is in expectation of an answer by the sounds of it. You'd be surprised if science diddn't answer all questions or just scientific ones?.... I'd first question to challenge you to prove to me first the way in which you prove there isn't a god should relate to anyone but you and people of a similar mind? Prove the bible is evidence? Prove you're any better than a religious fanatic by any other means than "flying spaghetti monster." I say, prove the scientific doctrine is evidence of anything but itself. Prove to me your considerations should relate to anything other than it's own self limiting understanding of this world. Science suggests there are no answers? True to a follower's understanding but to an outsider point of view very self limiting. Why should a man made god be subservient to a man made science? You'd have a job proving that both philosophically even reasonabl with anything someone I'd consider interesting and worth reading, no offense. Wanting "proof" is the same thing as closing your mind to the possibility of a different kind of proof, to me. Can science or religion exist free of theory and god? It depends who you ask. What is and what isn't. The owness of proof people say. What proof lol? You can hurt someone's spleen with that in the same way you can hurt it with god. Either you relate to me or you don't. That is closed minded to me. Then again I don't know what you mean by proof so I should probably reserve judgement. Good and bad proof much the same as a good and bad Christian, a good and bad scientist.

There isn't a shred of evidence for god from a scientific perspective nor vice versa to many religious minds. We're not talking like and like here, you're not speaking the same language. Preference is king not logic, that's the language of science and an unfounded language in much the same way religion would seem to a scientific mind. I don't care to prove you or science wrong, it doesn't matter to me to win at a French spelling competition because... I'm not French and being that to your view that makes me German I suppose. Well, so be it. It isn't illogical to question scientific understanding either. It does confound me however the way in which science dictates unlike the varying degree of a spiritual understandings and followings that there are things we have to accept as our doctrine. I suppose some works are just good huh, the names of some men should go down in history because they were logical intellects lol. Different understandng from a similar base of understanding yet there are thousands of baseless religions with no concordance with oneanother. I see them more open minded and less damaging in the long run to progress in the way I see progress if I'm honest. Very Western ideal that progress comes from outside one's self. That the proof must be ON THE TABLE or it's not there and I'm not listening, very external evidence by benchmark reason in my view. There is evidence to me with the mystery and feeling limited by science. I won't waste my breath expanding on this, it would take to many to explain what I meant.
"The world is expanding!" What into?
"We came from nothing!" The essence of nothingness remains unknown today.
"Evolution is a fact." The world as I know it stretches only as far as my lifespan. To some that would be too much to accept, seeing is beliving and I can see why. Simply because gravity pointed downwardd yesterday gentlement, that's the only reason any of this can be ascertained as a certainty and noone could prove it did in a way to satisfy everyone. One reason we have debaits Not for some dickhead to tell us how hard he gets when he squashes a creationist with evidence as I've read here s often, that is the epitome of mindlessness. God it's so irritatingly uncreative and borishly lazy *yawns*.


----------



## fredbloggs02

Kon said:


> This is one long video in 6 parts (continous) and discusses what existed "before" the Big Bang and if that question is even meaningful:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVwi...feature=related
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7vT...feature=related
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH-G...feature=related
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSCM...feature=related
> [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szgc...feature=related[/URL]


Yeah I watched that show keenly at first then midway through I couldn't stop laughing at the hapless gerbils slashing away on their chalkboards to tell me we came from nothing or repeated somethings over and over again but without origin to cover up for the lack of understanding of nothingness. I wouldn't mind them having said we came from nothing in itself but some of them really went out of their way to try and hide it diddn't they God it was hilarious. I'd never seen scientists write poetry with algebra before. It seems to me god is no more a convenient interlude than science really. All science empowers us to do is to put to words our current hapless understanding or in the very least limited at it's most crucial junctures. Science doesn't explain itself well enough to be a viable alternative to any other understanding in my view.. It's like starting a job with the wrong tools for all I care to describe it, useless, self limiting, nonsensical rubbish. For all I care for it I'll go far as to say the only reason I'm hearing so much about it here on this forum is because most people here think they're rather clever being a marginalized 10% of the atheist population in the most fanatical country in the west. Far from original, just more jargon you've been spoon-fed in place of thinking for yourselves once again. A bit like the Bill of Rights while the rest of the world decided unanimously slavery was wrong, philosophy is still on the horizon I feel. I don't know I just expect more from the world than this. Anyway I've been scathing enough. I'm going to refrain from throwing yet more of my anti-colonial speak across to you now. I really find nothing more frustrating than atheist jargon and facepalming in the face of religion though I apologize to all offended. I just expect more than this really, disappointing.


----------



## Ivan AG

fredbloggs02 said:


> "Evolution is a fact." The world as I know it stretches only as far as my lifespan. To some that would be too much to accept, seeing is beliving and I can see why. Simply because gravity pointed downwardd yesterday gentlement, that's the only reason any of this can be ascertained as a certainty and noone could prove it did in a way to satisfy everyone. One reason we have debaits Not for some dickhead to tell us how hard he gets when he squashes a creationist with evidence as I've read here s often, that is the epitome of mindlessness. God it's so irritatingly uncreative and borishly lazy *yawns*.


This has been on my mind lately. Why do some "scientists" act in a very similar way to the people they claim to have "destroyed" as they put it, with evidence? I though the point of debate was to prevent ideas from becoming dead dogmas, not to boost one's own ego and self esteem?

Some of them claim even claim infallibility even though ironically science can never really prove anything but rather provide evidence to support or disprove it's theories.

A user on Yahoo dared to question whether humans were social animals from a philosophical perspective and lo and behold several of these people of science came to bash on him for denying the "truth" which they claimed was undeniable and that he was simply trying to make false claims.

Why this arrogance and conceit on the part of some members of the scientific community?

Is science the closest we can come to the truth?

They resemble the very religious fanatics they debate against.


----------



## fredbloggs02

Ivan AG said:


> This has been on my mind lately. Why do some "scientists" act in a very similar way to the people they claim to have "destroyed" as they put it, with evidence? I though the point of debate was to prevent ideas from becoming dead dogmas, not to boost one's own ego and self esteem?
> 
> Some of them claim even claim infallibility even though ironically science can never really prove anything but rather provide evidence to support or disprove it's theories.
> 
> A user on Yahoo dared to question whether humans were social animals from a philosophical perspective and lo and behold several of these people of science came to bash on him for denying the "truth" which they claimed was undeniable and that he was simply trying to make false claims.
> 
> Why this arrogance and conceit on the part of some members of the scientific community?
> 
> Is science the closest we can come to the truth?
> 
> They resemble the very religious fanatics they debate against.


Right! Thank god I can breath again praise Jehosapher! Someone who actually has a curiosity! I wonder why is it so unreasonable that a truth isn't necessarily the same fitt as a microscope's lense today and in truths from now too! Why must there be a foundation to what we know? Why is this a tower to reach a pinnacle of the best we've found before? Why must everyone relate to the way in which a man deduces from the world around him? There is nothing more frustrating than "we'll never know the answers, noone will." MAYBE SO but for gods sake at least bounce it around a bit to begin with, you don't lose marks for showing your workings. On thebasis of all the miracles and marvellous discoveries so far we grasp our wrld better than ever hrough science. They say it makes no claims but at the same time is a priori and a posteriori truth, analytic and synthetic all at once and that gives it it's voice. I claim to know not is also a claim. I claim probability is a claim. I know that I'm not alone, I know that other people have the same thoughts that every part of myself is part of the world somehow. What on earth posesses a person to suggest such things? As a child we reallly think of ourselves. The process of integrating a consciousness to people we hear sounds, see, hear maybe? Maybe all that I hear and see is that which I've read and all that every one of us really see and hear is a small part of a convenience to a larger convenience that fitts all sizes and that convenience could be god who knows. Why god? the answer to an illogical question need be illogical for all I care to analyze such a question. That in itself is good reasonable thinking by reason's own hand. Why do so any cultures look so peaceful, look so different have nothing we accept as that which brings peace yet appear so peaceful at once? I'd have to know every part of myself to know a god isn't a part of me and fitting certain parts as a detective fiddling around with theory as you say can overturn everything before. I know of myself at least that I am not simply my thoughts, feelings, physical matter lol. There is that which mediates all that and overlooks it all with seeming frivolity at times lol, that part being an illogical anxiety that prompts me to jump out of windows to escape family gatherings with a feeling of such grim resolve lol. That knowing that noone, not even experts know where to place. Are the rest of you not part of that misunderstanding of yourselves? To be misunderstood is the same thing as being misinterpreted? To gradually feel the questions of less significance as one surpasses their maiden years of questioning and self realization lol. Could that not just be the foundation taking hold by a lack of curiosity? Maybe all this comes from is separation. Who knows? Maybe I wouldn't care if suddenly I knew like so many seem to they a a knowledge of a place for themselves in this world. instead of quoting the bible people quote philosophers and poets, scientists. Are we not all part of that? One size fitts all convenience but isn't the same size for everyone and that is the gift of god who knows. Then again maybe the idea however they tried to relate it wasn't intended in the light we saw it. There is SO much more than this and so many questions. Why not explore even if the very foundation for the conversation are just words to most of you?


----------



## fredbloggs02

Evidence is just a word and if it tells us anything it informs us we are incredibly small. In that, in that infinitesimally small space how likely is it I wonder that science may very well fold in on itself? Possibly as likely as infinity is to encompass everything. Maybe for now evidence is useful to survive to some when we can know nothing for certainty by evidence's logic but not forever for when it may be able to, I'll keep my skepticism of evidence. Till that time when I'll throw it away then or maybe a bit before if I learn enough or things change It's doesn't seem sufficient evidence to suggest that because we are so small we should accept the small answer to me, that would fall under the presumption we could never know anything for certainty. Usefullness aside where would we go with our certainty our skepticism once the very notion of certainty and skepticism ceases to exist? It's a red herring to meto suggest atheists don't necessarily believe in certanty when they believe in likelihood with certainty. I believe the concept of certainty exists inside the concept of likelihood.

When we're talking about something infinitesimally small where nothing changes for the greater movement what on earth does it matter how much we've come to know? "Bacteria in a gut" as someone I loved once said. What on earth does it matter how you justify the world being governed by logic? We're not talking about this worldly understanding. To decide something isn't outside your mind or isn't in motion is contrary to science I feel and outside it's own theories "theory of mind" for example. What on earth does it matter when we're talking about how something outside the universe works how your belief within it﻿ functions adequately? If now is all that matters, if seeing is believing in that sense science is acceptable but I don't believe it sufficient personally when it comes to a standpoint in view of god. It wouldn't even make the weigh in, to me. How do you tie experience to a person? Scientifically you'd just replace something you feel you know with something you best feel fitts the description from experience of the doctrine of science from my point of view. A feeling. A feeling maybe even governs scientists inadvertently though they'd never admitt it. What governs the feeling? Endless questions from a logical standpoint maybe a futile number but there are also limitless things to talk about you'd attribute to each or even things you embrace by themselves noone could disprove but make for the best I'd ever know of a person, from my experience thus far lol.


----------



## vulgarman

> A user on Yahoo dared to question whether humans were social animals from a philosophical perspective and lo and behold several of these people of science came to bash on him for denying the "truth" which they claimed was undeniable and that he was simply trying to make false claims.


Yahoo users are credible scientists?


----------



## Ivan AG

vulgarman said:


> Yahoo users are credible scientists?


What's the standard for being a credible scientist?

Degree in one of the natural sciences?


----------



## vulgarman

do yahoo users claiming science actually have any deep understanding of it?

and aren't philosophy and science different things?


----------



## fredbloggs02

I don't think there is such a thing as a universal "science." Some people would suggest there is such a thing as universal evidence though, interpretation free. I don't think a relgious man of solid foundation would bother trying to convert anyone or ridicule anyone though, that's just weak. Express themselves maybe. Science posesses a critical flaw to me similar to most religious fanaticism, it doesn't justify itself in the way it reaches out to encapsulate a truth. Why does the manner a truth need encapsulate itself matter when we're talking about something as seemingly by scientific evidence as personal and unique as the mind? When you can't look through your own eyes at something I'd suggest reaching out with the senses is the best alternative before something I or we appreciate as better or changes an understanding. Who knows? So mny peaceful religions already seem to possesssuch an understanding and I'd go looking to reach the same level of peace regardlss of sirituality. If there is no such thing as complete truth why look at all for anything? Why label a real an unreal if by your own appreciation the implements you use are broken and inadequate? Or maybe there is such a thing as nothingness in a testube as Horizon dictates there isn't thus far. I don't think so by our present understanding goes is at all the case though and I don't think that will ever change(me being a bit closed minded, maybe). Anyway you'd never really know what you're looking at? The vital leap is always there and death awaits the other side why jump into the abyss or constrain yoursef to a truth of inside this world separate from us i.e. science when there is already more than that? miracles happen in todays world, ABSOLUTE contradictions of science you need only watch a hypnotist at work. Contortions and rigidity scientifically impossible fo a set of muscles to employ alone HAPPEN. Jesus placed his palms on people's heads too and healed them alledgedly. It makes me wonder. There are things science doesn't give credance to, experiments if you will that do take place in the time and space experiments do BUT these are personal experiences I think, they can't be translated to a testube I feel. That is Scientific blindness and stubbornness to me. Strange traits to apply to a scientist wouldn't you say when speaking from a matter of reality position?


----------



## mindsanitizer

let me put it this way, evolution does not mean we came in to being out of dumb luck but by elements randomly getting together. intelligent design means the flagellum is not random but intelligent. 

now, if evolution really is true, where are the millions of transitional fossils that should be everywhere? 

on the other hand, where is the intelligent designer?

i am more towards ID though for the simple fact that evolution could be true does not explain the beginning. it just explains evolution itself.


----------



## Magaly

mindsanitizer said:


> now, if evolution really is true, where are the millions of transitional fossils that should be everywhere?


a simple google search should tell you that.


----------



## mindsanitizer

^lol, i googled though i failed to see the missing links. could you be so kind as to show me the missing links  

you are a monkey?


----------



## Ivan AG

I have also noticed in most Internet forums, that arguing for any other theory besides evolution will end up in a bunch of highbrows laughing it up.

I though argument strengthened an idea by preventing it from stagnating?

This is part of the scientific arrogance I cited in my previous few posts. The assumption that science is infallible, and that philosophy is nothing more but a waste of time.


----------



## vulgarman

> I cited in my previous few posts. The assumption that science is infallible, and that philosophy is nothing more but a waste of time.


I might have missed that statement previously. I'm not certain those opinions are mutually exclusive to each other.

also, http://freedomainradio.com/ philosophy site. Lots of content.


----------



## Ivan AG

vulgarman said:


> I might have missed that statement previously. I'm not certain those opinions are mutually exclusive to each other.
> 
> also, http://freedomainradio.com/ philosophy site. Lots of content.


Some people may just be put off by the fact that philosophy doesn't arrive at any conclusive answers and if anything, it creates even more questions without answers.


----------



## vulgarman

> it creates even more questions without answers.


that's kinda the beauty and fun of it.

philosophy - questions supposed answers
science - questions to find answers
religion - answers that aren't questioned.

That my take on the three. :b


----------



## Magaly

Ivan AG said:


> This has been on my mind lately. Why do some "scientists" act in a very similar way to the people they claim to have "destroyed" as they put it, with evidence? I though the point of debate was to prevent ideas from becoming dead dogmas, not to boost one's own ego and self esteem?
> 
> *Why this arrogance and conceit on the part of some members of the scientific community? *





fredbloggs02 said:


> I don't think a relgious man of solid foundation would bother trying to convert anyone *or ridicule anyone though, that's just weak. Express themselves maybe. *





fredbloggs02 said:


> For all I care for it I'll go far as to say the only reason I'm hearing so much about it here on this forum is because *most people here think they're rather clever being a marginalized 10% of the atheist population in the most fanatical country in the west. Far from original, just more jargon you've been spoon-fed in place of thinking for yourselves once again*. A bit like the Bill of Rights while the rest of the world decided unanimously slavery was wrong, philosophy is still on the horizon I feel. I don't know *I just expect more from the world than this*.
> 
> I really find nothing more frustrating than atheist jargon and facepalming in the face of religion though I apologize to all offended.* I just expect more than this really, disappointing.*


well...that was horribly condescending and self-contradictory fred.


----------



## fredbloggs02

mindsanitizer said:


> let me put it this way, evolution does not mean we came in to being out of dumb luck but by elements randomly getting together. intelligent design means the flagellum is not random but intelligent.
> 
> now, if evolution really is true, where are the millions of transitional fossils that should be everywhere?
> 
> on the other hand, where is the intelligent designer?
> 
> i am more towards ID though for the simple fact that evolution could be true does not explain the beginning. it just explains evolution itself.


I heard that one of the theories to explain this was rather conveniently that evolution skipped certain stages with some species and isn't quite as clear cut as the generally acceptable definition.


----------



## fredbloggs02

Magaly said:


> well...that was horribly condescending and self-contradictory fred.


May have gone a little bit overboard on the bandwaggon of expressing myself there, still I'd have to be pretty blind not to have seen that myself.... I'm not sure where to go from here in all honesty lol. Less absent, level headed approach towards my understanding of a lack of curiosity or fewer contradictions? I'll have a think. I believe a "lack of curiosity" is outside the scope of bashing a differing understanding from my own if only for the incredible frustration it brings me and I'm sure others alone. Even if you did accept a lack of curiosity, expression and freedom of thought as I and others see them as a legitimate perspective I wouldn't give it house room honestly however hypocritical and it's an important point made albeit scathingly as I conceded, Magaly. I would wonder about the person but find it hard to take them seriously at the same time. I realise it is hard for people here to really put their thoughts out there OF COURSE. If I offended you it was unintentional, I offend lots and lots of people(mostly Americans) and you're not alone. I don't think all Americans are the same, just the few thoroughbread atheists who don't question. I do believe though without such a semantic contradiction there'd be no discussion, we'd all just accept "yeeeaaaaah no evidence pssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh." Or even worse than a Christian handing you a bible, an atheist handing you his or her form of it for hours on end. Do we accept a limited truth(if there is such a thing) or one lacking in evidential propreity? I don't know if those are the two options, you can always explore. How far does science go to satisfy you?


----------



## Magaly

fredbloggs02 said:


> Less absent, level headed approach towards my understanding of a lack of curiosity or fewer contradictions? I'll have a think. I believe a "lack of curiosity" is outside the scope of bashing a differing understanding from my own if only for the incredible frustration it brings me and I'm sure others alone. Even if you did accept a lack of curiosity, expression and freedom of thought as I and others see them as a legitimate perspective I wouldn't give it house room honestly however hypocritical and it's an important point made albeit scathingly as I conceded, Magaly.
> 
> I realise it is hard for people here to really put their thoughts out there OF COURSE. *If I offended you it was unintentional, I offend lots and lots of people(mostly Americans) and you're not alone. I don't think all Americans are the same, just the few thoroughbread atheists who don't question.*


don't lie, it was intentional. how could it not have been? You revert to attacking the people you are arguing against, a logical fallacy know as Ad hominem. don't do it. although to be fair previous posters were doing the same thing, so your comments were probably in response to that.

Atheism does not = lack of curiosity. requiring evidence does not = lack of curiosity. Preforming Scientific experiments is the pinnacle of curiosity. The only reason you are using a computer right now is because of scientific curiosity, the accumulation of evidence, the employment of what was discovered to create amazingly creative technological innovations which in turn are used to further our understanding of the world we live in.

All your talk about not "believing" in evidence is...just...ughh. We use evidence everyday to make even the tiniest decisions. You see a pot of boiling water. You know from experience what it feels like to get burned. You are able to recognize, from the evidence you have accumulated throughout your lifetime, that sticking your hand in the pot of boiling water would most likely result in pain. If you wanted to take it a step further and test your hypothesis, you could very well do so.

You form your spiritual beliefs through *faith*. Other people require evidence before they can believe in something. It is wrong to accuse people who don't believe in a god as being "close minded", stupid, the same as everyone else who is also atheist, and lacking in curiosity.



fredbloggs02 said:


> Science posesses a critical flaw to me similar to most religious fanaticism, *it doesn't justify itself in the way it reaches out to encapsulate a truth. *Why does the manner a truth need encapsulate itself matter when we're talking about something as seemingly by scientific evidence as personal and unique as the mind?


I'm not sure what you mean in the bolded type... a basic understanding of the scientific method should be enough for someone to know how science is justified.

Many personal and unique qualities of the mind can be studied scientifically and they have.


----------



## Ivan AG

What Fred may mean by lacking curiosity is being completely dependent on science to provide you with answers. 

Philosophers often have debates about issues which the scientific method has no way of testing. 

Values, beauty, morality, art, etc. 

Therein lies it's limitation.

It's important to have a broader perspective instead of accepting a single system of knowledge.


----------



## Jnmcda0

mindsanitizer said:


> ^lol, i googled though i failed to see the missing links. could you be so kind as to show me the missing links
> 
> you are a monkey?


I am not a monkey. I am, however, a primate. Humans are somewhat closely related to monkeys, but not decended from them. Rather, we share a common ancestor.

As for transitional forms, we have many examples that are discussed here:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

Regarding a "missing link", the idea is kind of nonsensical. For every new fossil that is found, it creates two more "missing links", even though the transition from the earliest species to the current species is better documented.

For instance let's say we are looking at an evolution of numbers that started with 1 and currently is at 100. A doubter asks about the missing link between 1 and 100. We then find the number 62. The doubter then says "what about the missing link between 1 and 62?". Another says "what about the missing link between 62 and 100". Time goes on and we find 2, 15, 37, 38, 55, 59, 64, 69, 74, 84, 90, 92, 93, and 98. The doubters then say "what about the missing links between 2 and 15, 15 and 37, 38 and 55, etc.?" and the cycle continues.

We probably aren't going to find fossils for every single speciation between the earliest primates and ourselves because fossilization is a relatively rare process. Bones only fossilize or are otherwise preserved for exceptionally long periods of time under certain conditions. It is probably unlikely that an example of every species between humans and our earliest primate ancestors has been preserved.

Still, we have more than enough examples of transitional forms to demonstrate the evolution of the early primates into modern humans.

Furthermore, DNA evidence confirms this theory. The fossil records show that Chimpanzees and Bonobos were the most recent species to branch off of our common line of decent (or to draw a parallel to human genealogy, they would be like the first cousins of humans). The DNA evidence confirms that they are the most closely related species to humans. Other primates, such as gorillas are a little more distantly related (they would be like our second cousins).

Francis Collins, a Christian who is head the of the National Institute of Health and conducted the Human Genome Project, says that even if there was no fossil evidence, the DNA evidence alone would be sufficient to prove common ancestry between humans and other primates.


----------



## mindsanitizer

> humans are in the same biological family as chimps, gorillas and orangutans.


there's a huge difference between micro/macro evolution and darwins theory of evolution.

aside from that, where are the transitional missing links from monkey to humans?


----------



## mindsanitizer

those skulls are a poor example of transitional examples. for one, how to you eliminate the variety of human species from the transitional? i'm certain the skulls from one race of humans looks different than another. or how do you distinguished the mutations that may be cause by genetics or by some virus. it is a far cry to call those skulls transitional. on top of than, where are the transitional links from all animals? there should be millions if not billions.... to little lizards running around with half developed wings, etc.



> For instance let's say we are looking at an evolution of numbers that started with 1 and currently is at 100. A doubter asks about the missing link between 1 and 100. We then find the number 62. The doubter then says "what about the missing link between 1 and 62?". Another says "what about the missing link between 62 and 100". Time goes on and we find 2, 15, 37, 38, 55, 59, 64, 69, 74, 84, 90, 92, 93, and 98. The doubters then say "what about the missing links between 2 and 15, 15 and 37, 38 and 55, etc.?" and the cycle continues.


right. then there should be millions of transitional examples laying around. we could say that monkeys for us is 1 and humans a 100. there should be millions of transitional links there in between. acceptable missing links would be technically all 1-100. but how many are there out there really? none. do we have 50 60 or 99 with just missing one link? this goes against you point due to the fact that on tv they only mention of one missing link but there are many.



> Still, we have more than enough examples of transitional forms to demonstrate the evolution of the early primates into modern humans.


do you have the link?



> Furthermore, DNA evidence confirms this theory. The fossil records show that Chimpanzees and Bonobos were the most recent species to branch off of our common line of decent (or to draw a parallel to human genealogy, they would be like the first cousins of humans). The DNA evidence confirms that they are the most closely related species to humans. Other primates, such as gorillas are a little more distantly related (they would be like our second cousins).
> 
> Francis Collins, a Christian who is head the of the National Institute of Health and conducted the Human Genome Project, says that even if there was no fossil evidence, the DNA evidence alone would be sufficient to prove common ancestry between humans and other primates.


it doesn't matter. a banana has 50% of out DNA where is the transitional evidence from banana to animal? science is to primitive to propose it knows the answer. the DNA could not be anything years down the road. there is more to the DNA than what we are able to see.

and regarding the genome project, they were surprise to see that there is more to than just the genome.


----------



## Magaly

mindsanitizer said:


> where are the transitional missing links from monkey to humans?


There are no transitional links from monkeys to humans because* humans did not evolve from monkeys. *



mindsanitizer said:


> those skulls are a poor example of transitional examples. for one, how to you eliminate the variety of human species from the transitional? i'm certain the skulls from one race of humans looks different than another. or how do you distinguished the mutations that may be cause by genetics or by some virus. it is a far cry to call those skulls transitional. on top of than, where are the transitional links from all animals? there should be millions if not billions.... to little lizards running around with half developed wings, etc.


Every human skull is slightly different than the next, but they are not dramatically different from each other like they are from the skull fossils found. you act as though the people who find these things don't rule out any of these things themselves, when in reality these fossils are rigorously studied. The neanderthal was first said to be a modern human suffering from rickets, a claim that has since been refuted http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html

some dinosaurs with birdlike features:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromaeosauridae
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor

and you are still ignoring the fact that fossilization is relatively rare.



mindsanitizer said:


> right. then there should be millions of transitional examples laying around. we could say that monkeys for us is 1 and humans a 100. there should be millions of transitional links there in between. acceptable missing links would be technically all 1-100. but how many are there out there really? none. do we have 50 60 or 99 with just missing one link?this goes against you point due to the fact that on tv they only mention of one missing link but there are many.


..what? no..are you even reading what me and jmc posted?. monkeys are not 1 and humans 100. We did not evolve from monkeys. Enough with the straw man arguments.



Ivan AG said:


> What Fred may mean by lacking curiosity is being completely dependent on science to provide you with answers.
> 
> Philosophers often have debates about issues which the scientific method has no way of testing.
> 
> Values, beauty, morality, art, etc.
> 
> Therein lies it's limitation.
> 
> It's important to have a broader perspective instead of accepting a single system of knowledge.


I completely agree with that. I don't look at paintings and think "well..I must like this because of A, B and C, now I must go verify this scientifically!" It's just that the way he casts evidence and science aside as being useless seems a bit extreme.


----------



## mindsanitizer

> There are no transitional links from monkeys to humans because* humans did not evolve from monkeys.*


primates, or orangutans, same difference.

primate - A mammal of an order that includes the lemurs, bush babies, tarsiers, marmosets, monkeys, apes, and humans. They are distinguished by having hands, handlike feet, and forward-facing eyes, and, with the exception of humans, are typically agile tree-dwellers












> Every human skull is slightly different than the next, but they are not dramatically different from each other like they are from the skull fossils found. you act as though the people who find these things don't rule out any of these things themselves, when in reality these fossils are rigorously studied. The neanderthal was first said to be a modern human suffering from rickets, a claim that has since been refuted http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html


first, how do you know that they are not dramatically different? have you taken measurements from human skulls all over the world yourself? or where is the link where you gathered this information? there is no way one can be able to keep in a data base all the shapes of humans in the world. they most likely get the information from hospital statistics in their local area. i just want to know how do they know the measurements from humans? also, *you act like they are 100% right.* more over, the rigorously studying of the fossils does not mean anything. well, it only means that they rigorously study them with the tools and ability at hand. the funny thing is that that does not mean that they are correct. for example, if i'm not mistaken, they currently have 3 ways to test how old a fossil is. and one method can be millions of years off the other method. also, they cannot be for sure 100% which one is right.

the neanderthals don't mean anything big. in fact, is shows how they where wrong (if they are even right in the first place) and could be again.



> some dinosaurs with birdlike features:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromaeosauridae
> http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsid...aeopteryx.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor


these are nothing compared to the millions of transitional animals that should be around all over.



> and you are still ignoring the fact that fossilization is relatively rare.


no i'm not ignoring this, in fact, i can use it as an example of how little we know to come up with conclusions. people find a new fossil and they get excited and hyped and jump to conclusions and the whole media spreads it. but later we find out we where wrong and the media may say this but not with the same hype and media spreading. the former gets most of the peoples attention.



> ..what? no..are you even reading what me and jmc posted?. monkeys are not 1 and humans 100. We did not evolve from monkeys. Enough with the straw man arguments.


no. you misunderstood or i failed to explain myself. i saw what jmc posted and i know what monkeys are. i'm just generalizing not being specific cus i'm not in that field, but my point should come across when i say monkeys.

what i was trying to say with my statement of 1-100 is that the first primate proposed to be our first link is 1 and us humans are 100. like this picture...










so the fist mammal in that picture is a 1 and the last mammal (us) is a 100. so i was trying to say is that where are the links from 1-100? or how many fossil links do we have from 1-100? or do we have 99 links and we are only missing one?


----------



## Magaly

mindsanitizer said:


> first, how do you know that they are not dramatically different? have you taken measurements from human skulls all over the world yourself? or where is the link where you gathered this information? there is no way one can be able to keep in a data base all the shapes of humans in the world. they most likely get the information from hospital statistics in their local area. i just want to know how do they know the measurements from humans?


When a skull is found anthropologists are able to identify if it came from a modern human, just like they are able to identify the skulls of gorillas, chimps, dogs, horses etc. Human skulls are not dramatically different from each other to be irrecognizable as belonging to the same species. The skulls we have found clearly do not belong to any living hominid. some have very apelike features and are bipedal. intermediates between human and earlier, more apelike predecessors.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_2.htm
http://humanorigins.si.edu/resources/multimedia/videos/evidence-human-origins
http://anthropology.net/2007/06/11/fossil-hominid-skulls/



mindsanitizer said:


> these are nothing compared to the millions of transitional animals that should be around all over.


What kind of argument is that? You completely ignore the fossils we have found that give clear evidence for the link between dinosaurs and modern birds because you believe (incorrectly) that there should be _millions_ of them lying all over the place? I am going to explain one more time how rare fossilization is, because you don't seem to be grasping it. Variables that work against an animal becoming fossilized include scavengers, decomposition, corrosion, destruction caused by temperature and weather, etc. The fossils we have found represent a very small portion of all the animals that have ever existed. it makes no sense to cast the fossils we do have (which provide clear evidence in favor of evolution) aside because all fossils have not been found. Unfortunately, we will never find fossil remains of every single species that has ever lived on this planet.
more on fossilization here:http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Fossilisation


----------



## Jnmcda0

Magaly already discussed most of your reply to my arguments, so I'm not going to reiterate those points.



mindsanitizer said:


> a banana has 50% of out DNA


Yes, humans and bananas share approximately 50% of our DNA. That is a heck of a lot less than the 98.8% of our DNA that we have in common with chimpanzees.



> where is the transitional evidence from banana to animal?


You are misunderstanding or misrepresenting what the theory of evolution by natural selection says. Bananas didn't transition to animals. They share a common ancestor. Asking when a banana transitioned to an animal is like me asking when your cousin gave birth to you.



mindsanitizer said:


> primates, or orangutans, same difference.


No. Read up on biological classification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification

This isn't even a matter of evidence. It is simply how we classify various life. Your argument that primates and orangutans are the same thing is like saying basketball is the same thing as sports.

Here are some other good links regarding classification:

http://tolweb.org/tree/
http://evogeneao.com/images/Evo_large.gif



> primate - A mammal of an order that includes the lemurs, bush babies, tarsiers, marmosets, monkeys, apes, and humans.


Yes, primates include humans and monkeys. That doesn't mean humans come from monkeys. The category of colas includes Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and Dr. Pepper (among others). That doesn't mean that Coke comes from Pepsi.



> have you taken measurements from human skulls all over the world yourself?


No, but there is a field of science devoted just to that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniometry



> these are nothing compared to the millions of transitional animals that should be around all over.


Every fossil is a transitional fossil.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils



> people find a new fossil and they get excited and hyped and jump to conclusions and the whole media spreads it. but later we find out we where wrong and the media may say this but not with the same hype and media spreading. the former gets most of the peoples attention.


The vast majority of the time this occurs, it is because the media takes the findings in a study or published research paper and mis-reports the findings because the reporter doesn't know what they are talking about. Whenever I hear a report that they've found a "missing link", I'm always skeptical about what it is that has actually been found because it is often not a direct ancestral species that has been found.



> i saw what jmc posted and i know what monkeys are. i'm just generalizing not being specific cus i'm not in that field, but my point should come across when i say monkeys.


I'm not a biologist either. However, if you want to have a meaningful conversation, you need to use the correct terminology or at least explain what you mean when you say monkeys. Now that you've explained it I know what you mean, but until now I didn't know if you didn't understand the concept. Is there a reason you don't want to use the correct terms even though you know what they are?


----------



## Magaly

mindsanitizer said:


> what i was trying to say with my statement of 1-100 is that the first primate proposed to be our first link is 1 and us humans are 100. like this picture...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so the fist mammal in that picture is a 1 and the last mammal (us) is a 100. so i was trying to say is that where are the links from 1-100? or how many fossil links do we have from 1-100? or do we have 99 links and we are only missing one?


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html


----------



## fredbloggs02

Magaly said:


> don't lie, it was intentional. how could it not have been? You revert to attacking the people you are arguing against, a logical fallacy know as Ad hominem. don't do it. although to be fair previous posters were doing the same thing, so your comments were probably in response to that.
> 
> Atheism does not = lack of curiosity. requiring evidence does not = lack of curiosity. Preforming Scientific experiments is the pinnacle of curiosity. The only reason you are using a computer right now is because of scientific curiosity, the accumulation of evidence, the employment of what was discovered to create amazingly creative technological innovations which in turn are used to further our understanding of the world we live in.
> 
> All your talk about not "believing" in evidence is...just...ughh. We use evidence everyday to make even the tiniest decisions. You see a pot of boiling water. You know from experience what it feels like to get burned. You are able to recognize, from the evidence you have accumulated throughout your lifetime, that sticking your hand in the pot of boiling water would most likely result in pain. If you wanted to take it a step further and test your hypothesis, you could very well do so.
> 
> You form your spiritual beliefs through *faith*. Other people require evidence before they can believe in something. It is wrong to accuse people who don't believe in a god as being "close minded", stupid, the same as everyone else who is also atheist, and lacking in curiosity.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean in the bolded type... a basic understanding of the scientific method should be enough for someone to know how science is justified.
> 
> Many personal and unique qualities of the mind can be studied scientifically and they have.


I'm not all that up on computers I'm afraid so I won't be highlighting anything in particular.

Are you defending people who said "If you don't give me evidence I don't believe it"? I'm not sure if that's worthwhile to be honest I never said atheism= lack of curiosity, that's just our spin on what I said. Of course I appreciate science and it's usefullness in discerning how one's urinary spray protrudes the body AND at what angle. I realise how science is justified a priori but at that point we're talking about semantics. What I wonder is how well does science expand upon the wonders of our universe outside it's own shell. How open, how truthful are those deductive, evidential claims? To close your ears to someone you don't understand I can appreciate that but in the same way science would simply wash it's hands of anything that everyone couldn't relate to. That doesn't seem particularly open minded either. By a lack of curiosity I was alluding to the idea that there is only one ay to solve a problem or interpret the world. If we were told the water is not hot before sticking our hands into it THE FIRST TIME we did so maybe the conditioning would've changed our conception of the pot of boiling water, maybe for all you and I know there are peple who see the pot differetly already. I can already feel the anguish that assertion in itself probably causes you but I stick by it There are things that none of us can see that aren't tangible we can't scientifically disprove or prove but we still leap to the understanding that this is because our scientific engine isn't powerful enough yet or that their absence has no effect on a richer understanding.. Maybe absolutes need not exist but that does form the basis of something unfullfilled to me at least. To place the word infinity over something seems pretentious to me. I may as well say nothing or reserve judgement untill a different interpretation is available. Science deson't require the infinite arguement to function? I understand that. Jurassic Park functions in a similar way but no scientist would consider that progress. A man who loses a drag race because of his car will never admitt it untill he loses his car I suppose There are concepts that exist logically and as alledgedly science produces logic I can assume these concepts would be accounted for by science... Not so, most of them I find prominent counter-arguements to the burden of proof being on the believer. For example the concept of logical absolutes, the idea of *nothing* for example. Do you really think if there was an undertanding it would be available to everyone?

I believe the concept of certainty is within the concept of probability. To suggest that something is probable to me draws from an understanding that you must be certain about the perimeter inside which you base your understanding of probability. Probable within a box science dictates? Probable for the best of what we know? I'd argue then that the significance of what we know within the context we value now is insignificant. If we are so small, infinitesimally as is scientifically proven, within something so vast who are we to assert that we're making progress? OOOOHhhhh science overturns itself less and less as we progress? Progress into the context of infinity or the unexplained or words science simply chooses to ignore because it contradicts it? That is a redundant assertion to me and a very limited formla. I don't agree this is the best we can do in terms of putting things to a useful formula either, people have done better and I do believe that. It doesn't take a leap of faith to appreciate the peace other cultures with no prideor foundation in science exude. Would science exist without a mind? Are we limited to a personal understanding of the world such as science would dictate? How bound are we by our consciousness to science? Why should I be any more content with the prophecy of a half truth than the prophecy than a fulfilled truth abscent in logical propreity? Are you not just accepting your own insignificance to believe science directly applies to you without introspection?


----------



## Magaly

fredbloggs02 said:


> Of course I appreciate science and it's usefullness in discerning how one's urinary spray protrudes the body AND at what angle.


well...it's good that you appreciate that...lol


----------



## fredbloggs02

Magaly said:


> well...it's good that you appreciate that...lol


Lol, I'm not saying it doesn't get any better or richer just that it may not get a whole lot broader from what I've read though, quite remarkably I'm sure you'll appreciate I'm actually no Biologist or Physicist

That said, the best I've ever heard any supposedly free thinker do to disprove the existence of god than to drag people unwittingly down to a level of logic based on their experience. I'm not saying I know a better way but where does the arrogance come from in them to feel because they don't know, there is no answer? That to me is contradictory to their view.. Not that I'm any better but I don't think the jury is out in the same way for each of us.. When you don't know something I just think it's worth wondering how you'd expect to know anything not throw stones at people who adopt a different approach by asking for evidence or proof. I'll go out on a limb and say that I don't believe anyone here on this forum has ALL the world's knowledge in their heads as they put the completed answers on the table. People just accept that things have been arrived at before them and that is good enough. Prove evidence is truth in the same way you'd say "prove the bible is true." Who is the onus of proof really on? Is it justifiable to say "evidence tells me this therefore everything it can conceive of within this must be true?"


----------



## RyanJ

This thread is getting lost in tl;dr posts, amature philosophizing, and pointless semantics. Let's try pictures.

This is evolution:










This is any other "theory":

"You can't prove to me that this is a crappy cgi scene showing planets and spheres over some kind of a checkerboard because you don't have every last piece in place...therefore, God."


----------



## mindsanitizer

> When a skull is found anthropologists are able to identify if it came from a modern human, just like they are able to identify the skulls of gorillas, chimps, dogs, horses etc. Human skulls are not dramatically different from each other to be irrecognizable as belonging to the same species. The skulls we have found clearly do not belong to any living hominid. *some have very apelike features* and are bipedal. intermediates between human and earlier, more apelike predecessors.


just like Australian aborigines have apelike features? or just like african american people have apelike features? you have to see the ignorance in coming to conclusions by just having a few fossils to come up with the "whole picture."

you have no way to know for sure that Lucy is the link where all hominids branched out from. that is nice for the media to spread, but that is not the truth. paleontologists are always changing their stories. just the other day i read that something about some fossil that was though to be this old turns out is 1.5 billion years older or younger, whatever. i've been reading/hearing about this for ever. and will continue to read/hear it.

so, i cannot swallow the notion that you have everything figured out already. in fact, people are still searching for fossils and they will continue to do and their story will continue to change for ever.

just ask yourself, why are we humans only able to be smarter than the rest of the evolving animals? shouldn't there be smart horses, or smart cats, or smart birds that can use computers and make things from this earths natural resources?

doesn't that tell you that we rule this world for one reason or another?

out of the millions of all living life, we are the top dogs of everything else alive. this alone says something.

also, you keep on talking about human evolution, which lies in the micro/macro evolution realm. this is before darwin. darwin's theory of evolution is from the first micro living organisms to us humans and other animals today. IOW, from from point A to point B. while intelligent design only questions point A.



> What kind of argument is that? You completely ignore the fossils we have found that give clear evidence for the link between dinosaurs and modern birds because you believe (incorrectly) that there should be _millions_ of them lying all over the place? I am going to explain one more time how rare fossilization is, because you don't seem to be grasping it. Variables that work against an animal becoming fossilized include scavengers, decomposition, corrosion, destruction caused by temperature and weather, etc. The fossils we have found represent a very small portion of all the animals that have ever existed. it makes no sense to cast the fossils we do have (which provide clear evidence in favor of evolution) aside because all fossils have not been found. Unfortunately, we will never find fossil remains of every single species that has ever lived on this planet.
> more on fossilization here:http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Fossilisation


well, if you only rely on fossils to see the whole picture, you will never find a fossil of how the flagellum "evolved."










just ask yourself. from where did the flagellum get the design of it's tail motor? forget human evolution, lets go all the way back to the A point. the same motor that is in your cell phone that makes it vibrate or the same motor that is in your hair blow dryer or alternator in the hoover damn, is the same principle in the flagellum tail motor.

that is the main point about this thread, i believe. not merely the evolution from ape to human but from what? to bacteria to human.


----------



## Neptunus

mindsanitizer said:


> just ask yourself. from where did the flagellum get the design of it's tail motor?


----------



## fredbloggs02

RyanJ said:


> This thread is getting lost in tl;dr posts, amature philosophizing, and pointless semantics. Let's try pictures.
> 
> This is evolution:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is any other "theory":
> 
> "You can't prove to me that this is a crappy cgi scene showing planets and spheres over some kind of a checkerboard because you don't have every last piece in place...therefore, God."


Yep, god of the gaps. That's a popular arguement. Not really the kind of arguement I'd stand behind to prove god but maybe it's a good way of scientifically acknowledging it's own absurdity to question the deeper human need.... Are the gaps you'd have to throw on the table in order to prove god only in superficial matter to begin with? I mean, you pretty much play the role god of your own example. You know where the planets you posted came from, you posted them here and noone could say for certainty they understood how it was done but you know. Perhaps they'd suppose as I have then that science fails to justify how my understanding and my understanding of your demonstration with the picture metaphysically intertwines. You could paint a silhouette of god with the gaps in the picture but so long as the jury on the full picture is out then where do the gaps come from? What gaps are left? Why do we automatically concede that the gaps even exist? This is already a scientific point of view.

There are many different types of unknowns surely and even science would concede that. I never said god was the answer to intelligent design as there are many differet concepts of god, not just the one you were thinking of. How would you know you were disproving mine without appreciating my understanding of it? You know there are gaps because science says so. You see the arguements for the gaps as incoherent because science tells you they are. Sounds a lot like the arguemnt from ignorance form me, god justifying himself by the bible. Finally, I don't concede it's reasonable to have to justify the deeper human need to science at all. Since when was the deeper human need or any abstract concept demonstrable by science? There are so many ways I know myself demonstrably that I find fulfillment outside of a scientifically evident explanation and maybe that's the same for a number of you too. Simply because people feel fulfilled from some renounced ghostie, spiritual appreciation of the world who's to say that's because I dreamed it up or it's untrue for that reason alone? How would science disprove the desire in itself is worthy of lab space and a cornerstone of reality? The picture doesn't speak for itself, not to me anyway. I also think it's healthy to question science too as other people here have, it does change it's story often even in the context of the infinitesimally small space it occupies.


----------



## mindsanitizer

> Yes, humans and bananas share approximately 50% of our DNA. That is a heck of a lot less than the 98.8% of our DNA that we have in common with chimpanzees.


yes, the beauty of it all is that a banana with 50% of the same DNA as humans doesn't even look 50% like humans, hell, it looks like a fruit to me. with no legs, no heart, no eyes, etc. how can it have 50% DNA in common with ours with out even being able to walk?

that says something right there.



> You are misunderstanding or misrepresenting what the theory of evolution by natural selection says. Bananas didn't transition to animals. They share a common ancestor. Asking when a banana transitioned to an animal is like me asking when your cousin gave birth to you.


yes i know this. but my point is regarding DNA alone. if DNA percentage is so important in comparing human DNA percentage to chimps why is it that when a chimp has 98.8% in common with our DNA it means that they might be our "cousins" and take a lot of importance. but if we see the banana DNA percentage of 50% and does not look anything 50% like us, does not mean anything? there is something ignorant about that if you ask me. i would at least expect the banana to be 50% monkey.



> You are misunderstanding or misrepresenting what the theory of evolution by natural selection says. Bananas didn't transition to animals. They share a common ancestor. Asking when a banana transitioned to an animal is like me asking when your cousin gave birth to you.


no, you are misunderstanding. i already know what evolution proposes-- that things evolved by mutation and natural selection. so we "know" that living organisms first poped out of nothing in the form of some bacteria. then plants poped out out from bacteria. so a living organisms evolved into a plant like a banana tree. so there is a transition from living organisms to plant somewhere. and if DNA is so important why does a banana have 50% in common with our DNA and not look anything like a human, not even 1% human?



> No. Read up on biological classification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification
> 
> This isn't even a matter of evidence. It is simply how we classify various life. Your argument that primates and orangutans are the same thing is like saying basketball is the same thing as sports.
> 
> Here are some other good links regarding classification:
> 
> http://tolweb.org/tree/
> http://evogeneao.com/images/Evo_large.gif


yes i know. an orangutan is an orangutan and a gorilla is a gorilla but don't give me the "tree" of life as a reference. that tree of life has been changing ever since it first appeared. i would just love to see how they came up with that tree though. i just was raised not to believe in fairy tales. unless it can be shown to everyone how "they" came up with that tree, is when i start to believe. there is a lot of information that the majority of the public does not know. and those that know about that information don't know that it is 100% acurate, like "the big bang."



> No, but there is a field of science devoted just to that:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniometry


that is nice but by just looking at the link i don't see the australian aborigines skull being compared to europeans and so forth.



> Every fossil is a transitional fossil.
> 
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils


yes i know. again, where are the fossils that show a lizard to a human? or a fish to a human? etc. there should be millions of them out there. the best we can do right now is lucy.


----------



## mindsanitizer

lol that doesn't say much....

what i am more intrigued by is how did you embed the youtube video.


----------



## Magaly

mindsanitizer said:


> just like Australian aborigines have apelike features? or just like african american people have apelike features?


...O_O`


----------



## lonelyjew

Neptunus said:


>


Heh, I remember our evolution professor going off on the infamous flagellum argument specifically lol. The funny thing about creationists, mentioned in that video, is that they spend their time looking for places where an argument can be made, not with evidence of their own, but with hypotheticals. In fact, the whole theory of ID, rather than being based on real evidence, hinges on the extraordinarily fallacious premise that if evolution can't explain it, only ID or creationism can.

Proponents of evolution are considered by many to hold an aire of superiority and an elitist attitude, but I think a large part of that stems from the silliness of the other side. It would be as if a religion decided to attack organic chemistry principles, pointing out that reactions in certain specific instances don't behave as predicted, therefor there must be divine intervention, and thus organic chemistry is false, and random religious zealot's theory is true. Pretending there isn't a mountain of evidence for evolution does not make it any weaker a theory, nor does trying somehow link it to biogenesis, and for anyone who does keep an open mind and cares to understand what evolution actually is, this is quiet obvious.

Obviously a huge part of the debate stems from a lack of visual, demonstrative influence, however the strongest evidence for the relatedness between species can be seen in actual genetic sequences studies, as well protein homology. Saying 98% of DNA sequence matches does not say very much at a glance, however, when considering something like "junk" genetic elements and their sequence locations relative to other genes, the only plausible way to address the similarities would with relatedness. These sequences, retrotransposons for example, are functionally useless, if not harmful at times, attacks the notion that we're perfectly made. And to address the "if they're useless why did evolution leave them there" argument, simply, evolution doesn't think, and these particular things only have a minimal potential for harm in the form of mutations, and are not directly influential in themselves. Without a strong drive, they simply remain, and mutate, until they are wholly useless and lose any minimal effect they actually had. Anyways, looking at these sequences, and which organisms do have them, and which don't, and how different the specific sequences are, it can be determined exactly when they were inserted in the species line, and which common ancestor it would have had to have inserted into.

This doesn't get into the process of evolution, however, the relatedness maps constructed with one technique greatly match those of other techniques, with correlations being so strong that there is little to be questioned in the way of relatedness. The evolutionary process, which has mountains of it's own evidence in things like fossils, or the many studies the Grants did (a husband wife scientist team ), which show macro evolution at work, in real time. The great thing about the Grant studies, is that they showed just what evolution is not - a constant force which forces species to change in a particular direction - but rather the simple and random survival of species, spread of genes, and mututations, influenced by an environment. For instance, while under normal circumstances birds of a large size may have been favored by females, causing a relative increase in the next generations size, a drought in that generation may have favored smaller birds, killing off many of the larger birds in that generation, leaving only smaller birds, swinging back the next generation back to it's original size.

Another way to explain the relatedness would be off course with divinity, however, that is wholly incompatible with science, and therefor as mentioned numerous times in this thread, a matter of faith and faith alone. Not being grounded in scientific, it follows quite obviously that ID and creationism have no real scientific value. This is clearly demonstrated in their complete inability to make predictions. This inability in itself makes them useless, promoting stagnation, and nothing else.


----------



## lonelyjew

mindsanitizer said:


> yes, the beauty of it all is that a banana with 50% of the same DNA as humans doesn't even look 50% like humans, hell, it looks like a fruit to me. with no legs, no heart, no eyes, etc. how can it have 50% DNA in common with ours with out even being able to walk?
> 
> that says something right there.


Yes it does, that you are very much ignorant of basic genetic principles. A gene makes a protein, and the sum of the expression of these genes, and therefor the proteins they make, at particular times, and in particular qualities, make a human. Extremely slight variations in protein sequences can have drastic effects as seen in comparing different species. Better yet, in our own cells, perhaps as little as a .000001% change in sequence can lead to a fatal cancer developing. Even better, looking at genetic diseases, a single point mutation in one of the *3* *BILLION *nucleotides can cause severe, even fatal pathological conditions like sickle cell anemia, or cystic fibrosis. That's a .000000033% change in sequence.



mindsanitizer said:


> yes i know this. but my point is regarding DNA alone. if DNA percentage is so important in comparing human DNA percentage to chimps why is it that when a chimp has 98.8% in common with our DNA it means that they might be our "cousins" and take a lot of importance. but if we see the banana DNA percentage of 50% and does not look anything 50% like us, does not mean anything? there is something ignorant about that if you ask me. i would at least expect the banana to be 50% monkey.
> 
> no, you are misunderstanding. i already know what evolution proposes-- that things evolved by mutation and natural selection. so we "know" that living organisms first poped out of nothing in the form of some bacteria. then plants poped out out from bacteria. so a living organisms evolved into a plant like a banana tree. so there is a transition from living organisms to plant somewhere. and if DNA is so important why does a banana have 50% in common with our DNA and not look anything like a human, not even 1% human?


Actually, again, your points only show your ignorance. We do share a massive amount of similarity with a plant (a banana is just a part of a plant...) which can be seen in cellular function. We are all eukaryotes, and the amount of ways we are alike is too long to list.



mindsanitizer said:


> yes i know. an orangutan is an orangutan and a gorilla is a gorilla but don't give me the "tree" of life as a reference. that tree of life has been changing ever since it first appeared. i would just love to see how they came up with that tree though. i just was raised not to believe in fairy tales. unless it can be shown to everyone how "they" came up with that tree, is when i start to believe. there is a lot of information that the majority of the public does not know. and those that know about that information don't know that it is 100% acurate, like "the big bang."


Why are you so demanding of a mountain of direct evidence with evolution in particular, why not chemistry? How carefully do you study the pharmacology of a possibly fatal drug before you take it for something minor? Why the faith in pharmaceutical scientists and not evolutionary biologists? Further there is plenty of evidence, you just haven't actually tried to find it, rather demanding it, then ignoring it. I described one of the major ways phylogenetic trees are made above, if you actually care to read it.



mindsanitizer said:


> that is nice but by just looking at the link i don't see the australian aborigines skull being compared to europeans and so forth.
> 
> yes i know. again, where are the fossils that show a lizard to a human? or a fish to a human? etc. there should be millions of them out there. the best we can do right now is lucy.


What? I don't even understand what your argument is. There are tons of fossils which show fish becoming amphibians, amphibians becoming reptiles, and reptiles splitting into a number of other groups of animals.


----------



## lonelyjew

Gah, you know what gets me here, it's that I probably come off arrogant pointing out mindsanitizer's ignorance, rather than it being the other way around. I've read about the research, studied the evidence, and therefor I have a basic enough understanding of the theory to formulate a real opinion on it. He has not. 

Let me make a simple example of this: I have looked at a car engine and drive train, and knows the extreme basics of how it works. Gas + oxygen blows up, moves a piston, which moves a thingy, which then moves other thingies, which move the wheels. Knowing these very minor, overarching details, I then go to my engineer, and tell him the way I think an automatic transmission works, and tell him his "theory" on transmissions is bunk. 

While this is crazy in itself, it goes beyond this: When he tries to actually explain to me how it works, and I don't understand part of it, rather than studying what he's talking about, I try to point out how what he's saying is possibly wrong, and then when he can't address it, I decide it confirms my explanation without need of any evidence of my own. He then decides to look it up, and then having the real explanation, he tells me, and rather than rethinking my own belief, I find another thing he doesn't know, which further confirms I'm right and he's wrong. And so the cycle continues.

There is absolutely no reason why people who actually bothered to learn and understand what they're talking about should have to be sensitive, let alone suffer, people who have no idea what they're talking about, yet speak with a conviction of someone who's dedicated their lives to what they're arguing about. If you want to believe in something, that's your right, and I am not going to criticize it, or even argue against it, however, if you want to challenge my beliefs, or those of others, which are based on much more than faith, have the decency to make an attempt to understand that which you're arguing, because if you don't, you neither will get, nor deserve any respect on the matter.


----------



## mindsanitizer

> Yes it does, that you are very much ignorant of basic genetic principles. A gene makes a protein, and the sum of the expression of these genes, and therefor the proteins they make, at particular times, and in particular qualities, make a human. Extremely slight variations in protein sequences can have drastic effects as seen in comparing different species. Better yet, in our own cells, perhaps as little as a .000001% change in sequence can lead to a fatal cancer developing. Even better, looking at genetic diseases, a single point mutation in one of the *3* *BILLION *nucleotides can cause severe, even fatal pathological conditions like sickle cell anemia, or cystic fibrosis. That's a .000000033% change in sequence.


yeah, says your school professor or school book. if your school professor cannot debunk this debate regarding evolution and ID, why should i believe that you have the answer?

so tell me, where does the gene come from? where does the code to make a protein come from? since you seem to know?

you over simplify it. if that where the case, humans would be able to make humans out of dirt. we all know that that is stupid.

lol. they have a long way to go, that is if they can get there, for know-it-all scientists to become god.



> Actually, again, your points only show your ignorance. We do share a massive amount of similarity with a plant (a banana is just a part of a plant...) which can be seen in cellular function. We are all eukaryotes, and the amount of ways we are alike is too long to list.


whoah! we have answered the debate here. lets all stop and not question ourselves anymore. lets stop digging for fossils and searching for answers since the messiah here has the answer for us all. let me burst your bubble here, what you are speaking about is just a theory. and a theory is just a probability. IOW, just a hypothesis. yes, i understand that any leaf has veins just like humans. blah blah blah. that does not say much though. just sharing a similarity says something? what? what is this massive similarity? and what does this similarity means?



> Why are you so demanding of a mountain of direct evidence with evolution in particular, why not chemistry? How carefully do you study the pharmacology of a possibly fatal drug before you take it for something minor? Why the faith in pharmaceutical scientists and not evolutionary biologists? Further there is plenty of evidence, you just haven't actually tried to find it, rather demanding it, then ignoring it. I described one of the major ways phylogenetic trees are made above, if you actually care to read it.


the thing that you fail to understand is that micro/macro evolution is true, i don't deny that. but what i do deny is the theory of evolution by darwin. it has been debunked too. i'm just to lazy to dig it up. it says something about if something is falsifiable, then his whole theory falls apart. which it has been proven falsifiable.



> What? I don't even understand what your argument is. There are tons of fossils which show fish becoming amphibians, amphibians becoming reptiles, and reptiles splitting into a number of other groups of animals.


tons of fossils? fist of all, how many fossils is a ton? also, i am very exited to learn that there are tons of transitional links here. can you back this up? thanks. where is the source?


----------



## mindsanitizer

> Gah, you know what gets me here, it's that I probably come off arrogant pointing out mindsanitizer's ignorance, rather than it being the other way around. I've read about the research, studied the evidence, and therefor I have a basic enough understanding of the theory to formulate a real opinion on it. He has not.


sure. explain ID then. where did the code for the DNA come from? for example. how did or from where did the first living organisms come to exists? where did the code to the software come from?



> Let me make a simple example of this: I have looked at a car engine and drive train, and knows the extreme basics of how it works. Gas + oxygen blows up, moves a piston, which moves a thingy, which then moves other thingies, which move the wheels. *Knowing these very minor, overarching details, I then go to my mechanic, and tell him the way I think an automatic transmission works, and tell him his "theory" on transmissions is bunk.*


lol @ blows up and moves a piston that moves a thingy! yeah, that is knowing the extreme basics. actually, that is not even knowing the basics let alone extreme basics. i would not have said anything if i didn't actually knew how a car engine worked. regarding the bold, what? is not like a mechanic does not know how an automobile transmission works. or that he knows less than you do about the transmission.

if he wants to take your money, that's another story. but i can assure you that he does not know less than you. sorry to burst your bubble.



> While this is crazy in itself, it goes beyond this: When he tries to actually explain to me how it works, and I don't understand part of it, rather than studying what he's talking about, I try to point out how what he's saying is possibly wrong, and then when he can't address it, I decide it confirms my explanation without need of any evidence of my own. He then decides to look it up, and then having the real explanation, he tells me, and rather than rethinking my own belief, I find another thing he doesn't know, which further confirms I'm right and he's wrong. And so the cycle continues.


yeah, you have talent but you need to do better than that to explain your self about evolution vs ID. this is not a debate in this forum but rather a debate since years ago which very smart people have debated about but have not debunked one or the other. yeah, evolution has fossils. but how can evolution explain the complexity of the very first micro organisms? it can't. that's why there is a debate. hell, evolution could be true, but from where did the first micro organisms evolved from? further more, from where did the our planet earth come from?


----------



## lonelyjew

mindsanitizer said:


> yeah, says your school professor or school book. if your school professor cannot debunk this debate regarding evolution and ID, why should i believe that you have the answer?


Are you ****ing kidding me? This statement alone makes me question whether you're just trolling. Why do you believe anything? Why do you believe anything anyone tells you? Why did you suddenly decide to pick out evolution to question above say, that they speak Spanish in Spain, or that the Roman Empire existed? Have you been to Spain? Have you ever met a Roman Emperor?

And as for debunking the debate, are you asking him to disprove ID? It can't be done, and that's why it isn't science, because even if it's true, you can't test for it, and you can't therefor falsify it. That in itself disqualifies it from being a scientific theory.



mindsanitizer said:


> so tell me, where does the gene come from? where does the code to make a protein come from? since you seem to know?


I addressed this in We're not talking about abiogenesis in this thread, and evolution =/= biogenesis. I mentioned that in the first of those 3 posts...



mindsanitizer said:


> you over simplify it. if that where the case, humans would be able to make humans out of dirt. we all know that that is stupid.


And how did you come to that conclusion? I'm at a loss how you pulled that out of there. You have no idea how complex even basic cellular life is if you somehow got that out of what I said.



mindsanitizer said:


> lol. they have a long way to go, that is if they can get there, for know-it-all scientists to become god.


Have you ever met a scientist? Do you have any idea what goes into their work? They dedicate their life towards one thing, discovering new things in their own particular field. They spend their entire lives learning, and studying, in order to explain how a facet of the universe works. They don't do that by closing their minds or by being dogmatic.



mindsanitizer said:


> whoah! we have answered the debate here. lets all stop and not question ourselves anymore. lets stop digging for fossils and searching for answers since the messiah here has the answer for us all. let me burst your bubble here, what you are speaking about is just a theory. and a theory is just a probability. IOW, just a hypothesis. yes, i understand that any leaf has veins just like humans. blah blah blah. that does not say much though. just sharing a similarity says something? what? what is this massive similarity? and what does this similarity means?


No, I answered your argument, lets stop debating that, and not question why a banana doesn't have arms and legs :roll. In fact, let's open up a textbook, or even a wikipedia article, and learn some basic logic and science...



mindsanitizer said:


> the thing that you fail to understand is that micro/macro evolution is true, i don't deny that. but what i do deny is the theory of evolution by darwin. it has been debunked too. i'm just to lazy to dig it up. it says something about if something is falsifiable, then his whole theory falls apart. which it has been proven falsifiable.


Oh, that's wonderful. Thank you for that useful tidbit . Wow.



mindsanitizer said:


> tons of fossils? fist of all, how many fossils is a ton? also, i am very exited to learn that there are tons of transitional links here. can you back this up? thanks. where is the source?


They're out there, just a google search away. I'm sure you're up to it.



mindsanitizer said:


> sure. explain ID then. where did the code for the DNA come from? for example. how did or from where did the first living organisms come to exists? where did the code to the software come from?


Simply put, ID holds that certain biological and/or aspects of the universe are too complicated to have arisen naturally, by random chance. This complexities could only have occurred with the aid of a designer, which it's proponents hold to be G-d.

*And again, we're not talking about abiogenesis.*



mindsanitizer said:


> lol @ blows up and moves a piston that moves a thingy! yeah, that is knowing the extreme basics. actually, that is not even knowing the basics let alone extreme basics. i would not have said anything if i didn't actually knew how a car engine worked. regarding the bold, what? is not like a mechanic does not know how an automobile transmission works. or that he knows less than you do about the transmission.
> 
> if he wants to take your money, that's another story. but i can assure you that he does not know less than you. sorry to burst your bubble.


Dude, read it again, I don't think you understood what I wrote at all. It isn't a complicated point, and it's very direct....



mindsanitizer said:


> yeah, you have talent but you need to do better than that to explain your self about evolution vs ID. this is not a debate in this forum but rather a debate since years ago which very smart people have debated about but have not debunked one or the other. yeah, evolution has fossils. but how can evolution explain the complexity of the very first micro organisms? it can't. that's why there is a debate. hell, evolution could be true, but from where did the first micro organisms evolved from? further more, from where did the our planet earth come from?


It's been a political debate, not a scientific debate. *It can't be a scientific debate because ID is not science*.

Anyways, I'm really starting to think you're a troll, this post for the sake of others, who would somehow see validity in the contrived "reasoning" you're arguing with.


----------



## stylicho

> Let me make a simple example of this: I have looked at a car engine and drive train, and knows the extreme basics of how it works. Gas + oxygen blows up, moves a piston, which moves a thingy, which then moves other thingies, which move the wheels. Knowing these very minor, overarching details, I then go to my mechanic, and tell him the way I think an automatic transmission works, and tell him his "theory" on transmissions is bunk.


Bad analogy. The mechanic in this case is more similar to a doctor in that he knows the functions of the body (car). That doesn't describe how the car was created. But I get what you're trying to say .


----------



## lonelyjew

Engineer then lol, is that better?


----------



## joejoe

I think mindsanitizer is just trolling. actually, reading his responses he is trolling.

It does bother me, however, that many of his questions are answered in college biology classes. I think taking a course would help him out immensely in understanding evolutionary theory.

I remember a debate on a podcast between Dr. Kent Hovind and a genetics researcher. 





What was notable to me was that a compelling reason for evolution over ID was the numerous applications that arise from evolutionary science. ID produces nothing to better human kind. You can look at a species and say that it was created by someone. But that's where it ends. Evolutionary science on the other hand produces a number of applications in cancers and conservation. It is in the business of studying past changes and predicting future ones. ID seems like a dead end.

In any case this is a faux debate. No one in the scientific community argues about evolution. It seems more like a debate between educated or the enlightened versus the religious. Or rather it's a manifestation of the old science vs religion debate that comes up time and time again. One side produces amazing advances while the other stands around collecting money.


----------



## fredbloggs02

joejoe said:


> I think mindsanitizer is just trolling. actually, reading his responses he is trolling.
> 
> It does bother me, however, that many of his questions are answered in college biology classes. I think taking a course would help him out immensely in understanding evolutionary theory.
> 
> I remember a debate on a podcast between Dr. Kent Hovind and a genetics researcher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was notable to me was that a compelling reason for evolution over ID was the numerous applications that arise from evolutionary science. ID produces nothing to better human kind. You can look at a species and say that it was created by someone. But that's where it ends. Evolutionary science on the other hand produces a number of applications in cancers and conservation. It is in the business of studying past changes and predicting future ones. ID seems like a dead end.
> 
> In any case this is a faux debate. No one in the scientific community argues about evolution. It seems more like a debate between educated or the enlightened versus the religious. Or rather it's a manifestation of the old science vs religion debate that comes up time and time again. One side produces amazing advances while the other stands around collecting money.


I dunno. What makes you think Religion should bear the brunt of responsibility for American or Western branches of the church who extort money from people?

Applications of creationism:Abstract reasoning, the power of suggestion or in other words hypnosis lol, purpose, self assurance, scepticism of materal evidential truths and science lol. I'm laughing at this but as a rule I think you have to assume people type things they've at least half thought about no matter what

The applications for evolutonary science revolve around evolutionary science no? You could prove it by evidece but evidence is the scripture of science in the same way the bible is for religion to me.

Sure science is fasciating and useful to a great many people, not to everyone. It does presume a lot without justification though. The only difference between science and religion in my view is that it gets away with it's assumptions on the basis that it's not claiming absolute certainty only practical knowledge, which it does in many respects inadvertently I feel. I'm no scientist so I won't even try to argue on my understanding of the theory of relativity and light travelling in a straight line. I forget who said this but the essence was that within the theory science would just assume that light travelled in a straight line unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. It simply illustrated to me a general assumptive tendency that some things are true. If that isn't the case I take that back, I'm trying to understand things better, not score points off anyone.

Religion runs in toe with Theology and I find some of the arguements that turns up of great benefit to human kind. To question things people take for granted keeps things interesting. Whoever wakes up in the morning and searches for the number 87 before resting easily is a sad existence indeed lol. Sometimes the answer is a conversation, not simply a stream of consciousness people spew but what you make of everything around you as an individual. Who cares wether or not evidence fits in a box. Whoever suggested that was the best measure for evidence to begin with?

In many respects Western culture and understanding has always been on the back foot to more Eastern traditions. It's just been a matter of fitting the right vocabulary to the knowledge already uncovered before science appreciated it. Personally I don't see the difference between lots of people discovering truth within themselves and lots of people discovering truth externally ON THE TABLE. Don't any of you blokes play poker? There is no "right answer" to me outside of the jargon spewed all over the place. Which claim is most useful? Who are we to decide which is most useful? Why must we decide in the absence of a prevalent alternative everyone can appreciate in the same way and go from there?


----------



## mindsanitizer

> Are you ****ing kidding me? This statement alone makes me question whether you're just trolling. Why do you believe anything? Why do you believe anything anyone tells you? Why did you suddenly decide to pick out evolution to question above say, that they speak Spanish in Spain, or that the Roman Empire existed? Have you been to Spain? Have you ever met a Roman Emperor?


no i'm not kidding you and can you stop cussing. you fail to realize that most people are close minded. that the majority of the people only think one dimensional. they are slaves of other people who think the same. but once in a while there is someone who decides not to follow the one dimensional thinkers and breaks free from the blindness and starts to think a little farther than just one dimensional.

what you believe that you know right know is not actually anything new, you only believe what someone is telling you. you are only taking in mind what is already out there. but if you break out out of that mentality and when you start seeing things differently. that is when your mind breaks free and you even start dreaming about new wonderful possibilities.

i use to believe that a dollar was nothing, it is when i started to earn my own money is when i opened my eyes and truly realize the true value of the dollar.

so i actually do not believe everything that anyone tells me, i just take it in consideration and put it in the closet. i do this over a period of time and i try to make a picture out of that and paint my own picture.



> And as for debunking the debate, are you asking him to disprove ID? It can't be done, and that's why it isn't science, because even if it's true, you can't test for it, and you can't therefor falsify it. That in itself disqualifies it from being a scientific theory.


well then why don't you take in consideration ID? in other words, it may not be science but the evidence is there. is like you taking a trip to europe but when someone asks you, from where are you coming from?, and you don't know yourself. you only remember getting in a car or on a plane. so just because you don't remember where you came from and science cannot prove it, it does not mean that you didn't come from somewhere.

so ask yourself, from what or where did eukaryotes come from, or from what did they evolved from? surely they had to have evolved from something else, and that else from something else and that else from something else. i don't even need science to understand that.

the tree of life us just BS from know-it-all scientists who propose the tree of life. they are jusp jumping to conclusions and expect everyone to believe that.

so you fail to see the obvious-- that we don't know that darwins theory of evolution is true. we do know about micro/macro evolution but not that everything evolved from just one form of micro organisms. that is just a guess by looking at the micro/macro change.

ID doesn't want to compete with science, it just asks why do you believe in darwin evolution but yet cannot explain where the code came from. and not only that, if you want for darwins theory of evolution to be a fact, you need to gather a sht load of Lucy fossils, not just for humanoids, but for every living life form including micro organisms.



> I addressed this in We're not talking about abiogenesis in this thread, and evolution =/= biogenesis. I mentioned that in the first of those 3 posts...


how convenient. just talk about evolution and ignore from where or what everything evolved from. this is you being close minded because i can even guarantee you even with out googling or reading about it that at this very moment there is someone out there studying this very point-- abiogenesis and they do that to attempt to see the whole picture. as a matter of fact, if we can't answer with science from what or where the very first living organisms evolved from, then the whole theory of darwins evolution is debunked.



> And how did you come to that conclusion? I'm at a loss how you pulled that out of there. You have no idea how complex even basic cellular life is if you somehow got that out of what I said.


simple, scientists are in this high horse believing that they have everything figured out when that is false. to be more precise, the theory of evolution proposes that everything about the origins of life has been figured out. when, logically, that is not the case. it only is backed up by micro/macro evolution. but that is another animal all together. micro/macro does not proposes that everything evolved from something. in other words, the theory of evolution, or the tree of life, whatever, proposes that everything evolved from a single seed. but the believers of evolution get confused with micro/macro evolution. also, they don't know where the seed evolved from. it is all a theory dude, clear as bottled water.



> Have you ever met a scientist? Do you have any idea what goes into their work? They dedicate their life towards one thing, discovering new things in their own particular field. They spend their entire lives learning, and studying, in order to explain how a facet of the universe works. They don't do that by closing their minds or by being dogmatic.


right, therefore your statement backs up my statement. there are still things yet to be discovered. so it means that we don't know everything yet, in fact, i will go as far as to say that we are merely scratching the surface. so go study harder so you can figure something new but don't try to tell me that we know that darwins theory of evolution is a fact.



> Simply put, ID holds that certain biological and/or aspects of the universe are too complicated to have arisen naturally, by random chance. This complexities could only have occurred with the aid of a designer, which it's proponents hold to be G-d.


first of all why are you so scared to say god. if you where smart, you would take god in consideration too in your hypothesis. that would be very ignorant not to do. and yes that is ID. i could also argue, that every living thing is part of this whole universe "motor." so lets open our eyes for a minute and look past our noses. past our ignorance. lets take gravity for example. isn't gravity part of our motor? at a first glance, it does not make sense but if we take the complex gravity out of the equation, we die. so don't tell me that gravity is not part of us just because it is not attached to our hip. can you wrap that around your brain?

you are just nitpicking. you cannot see the whole picture (which is the point for everything) you cannot see the whole picture by just looking at one part of the picture.



> Dude, read it again, I don't think you understood what I wrote at all. It isn't a complicated point, and it's very direct....


i did read it again and it does not have anything meaningful besides taking the statement literally. can you use a better analogy?



> ...this post for the sake of others, who would somehow see validity in the contrived "reasoning" you're arguing with.


yeah you came and educated everyone eh.


----------



## joejoe

fredbloggs02 said:


> I dunno. What makes you think Religion should bear the brunt of responsibility for American or Western branches of the church who extort money from people?


Hinduism, Buddhism aren't excluded. But I wouldn't call either (western or eastern) extortion. Donations are voluntary though perhaps peer pressured. Attend a hindu temple for a while and it's clear who the bigger donors and resultant players are. It can be quite political I assure you. But that wasn't my argument. In fact, it is that they do nothing to progress the human condition, IMHO. At least I wouldn't go beyond the obvious benefits of meditation. I should be specific and say that ID is a proxy for christian fundamentalism who's beliefs include millions of species of animals in a boat, a talking snake, and a 6 thousand year old planet.

As long as Religion doesn't overreach into Science or public policy I really don't care. But this ID theory doesn't lend to scientific debate because it's not scientific :/ So for me, there is no debate.

*Blech, I made some generalizing statements about religion without defining terms. My conclusion is that evolutionary science is beneficial and intelligent design, a dead end.


----------



## RyanJ

fredbloggs02 said:


> Yep, god of the gaps. That's a popular arguement. Not really the kind of arguement I'd stand behind to prove god but maybe it's a good way of scientifically acknowledging it's own absurdity to question the deeper human need.... Are the gaps you'd have to throw on the table in order to prove god only in superficial matter to begin with? I mean, you pretty much play the role god of your own example. You know where the planets you posted came from, you posted them here and noone could say for certainty they understood how it was done but you know. Perhaps they'd suppose as I have then that science fails to justify how my understanding and my understanding of your demonstration with the picture metaphysically intertwines. You could paint a silhouette of god with the gaps in the picture but so long as the jury on the full picture is out then where do the gaps come from? What gaps are left? Why do we automatically concede that the gaps even exist? This is already a scientific point of view.
> 
> There are many different types of unknowns surely and even science would concede that. I never said god was the answer to intelligent design as there are many differet concepts of god, not just the one you were thinking of. How would you know you were disproving mine without appreciating my understanding of it? You know there are gaps because science says so. You see the arguements for the gaps as incoherent because science tells you they are. Sounds a lot like the arguemnt from ignorance form me, god justifying himself by the bible. Finally, I don't concede it's reasonable to have to justify the deeper human need to science at all. Since when was the deeper human need or any abstract concept demonstrable by science? There are so many ways I know myself demonstrably that I find fulfillment outside of a scientifically evident explanation and maybe that's the same for a number of you too. Simply because people feel fulfilled from some renounced ghostie, spiritual appreciation of the world who's to say that's because I dreamed it up or it's untrue for that reason alone? How would science disprove the desire in itself is worthy of lab space and a cornerstone of reality? The picture doesn't speak for itself, not to me anyway. I also think it's healthy to question science too as other people here have, it does change it's story often even in the context of the infinitesimally small space it occupies.


You know I love you Adam, but after reading your post several times, I still can't figure out what you are trying to say.


----------



## Magaly

he will reply with something equally difficult to understand.


----------



## Jnmcda0

mindsanitizer, just out of curiosity, do you believe that the germ theory of disease, the plate tectonic theory, and gravitational theory are true?


----------



## mindsanitizer

joejoe said:


> It does bother me, however, that many of his questions are answered in college biology classes. I think taking a course would help him out immensely in understanding evolutionary theory.


 really! what does college biology say about from where did the first living organisms evolved from? i forgot myself but please do remind me, thanks.



joejoe said:


> I remember a debate on a podcast between Dr. Kent Hovind and a genetics researcher.


that genetics "researcher" sounds like an immature bart simpson, an irish bart simpson to be exact. how old was that "genetics researcher"... 18 years old?



joejoe said:


> What was notable to me was that a compelling reason for evolution over ID was the numerous applications that arise from evolutionary science.


wtf. so what you are saying is that i cannot see with my own eyes and cannot come up with a theory of my own with out science. this just in! news flash! we don't need science. but you love your computer don't you. the same technology that contributes to your SA. you just gotta love it. .

science just wants to explain everything, but science is nothing. because in order to live a fulfilling life, it does not require to be explained..... just as long as we know what fulfilling is. and i know is not watching tv. that sht will brain wash you. as a matter of fact, science is our worse enemy. ever since science started, humans have been more destructive to themselves and our earth (key word being our earth). e.g. axmen, deadliest catch, e=mc2 anyone? lets not forget acocaine, which i bring up in below too.



joejoe said:


> *ID produces nothing to better human kind.* You can look at a species and say that it was created by someone. But that's where it ends. *Evolutionary science on the other hand produces a number of applications in cancers and conservation.* It is in the business of studying past changes and predicting future ones. ID seems like a dead end.


how ironic, you say those words yet you are suffering from SA. since, of course, you are implying that scinece is your ticket to a better life. lol

also, for example, you fail to see that cocaine was created by a scientists. cocaine is modern humans addiction. also, genetically modified food fuks us up. more over, beer, cigarettes, and weapons of mass destruction. the needle too, was an invention created by a scientists and a sht load of other things that just keeps us as slaves and money producing machines.... but that is onother subject for another day.



joejoe said:


> In any case this is a faux debate. *No one in the scientific community argues about evolution.* It seems more like a debate between *educated or the enlightened versus the religious.* Or rather it's a manifestation of the old science vs religion debate that comes up time and time again. *One side produces amazing advances while the other stands around collecting money.*


if you believe this is a faux debate, please don't stick your nose in it since you don't know what you are talking about. the bold shows precisely how that you generalize and speak for others, just speak for yourself. FYI, the idea of ID was coined from a biochemist. it is ignorant to not know this in the first place. furthermore, read up about ID on wiki to open your blind eyes. it goes all the way back to the great greek thinkers.

the last bold statement is a very idiotic statement, seriously. ahem! e.g. nasa is spending millions of dollars with out even doing anything. google it smart guy.

you just love thinking you are educated eh.


----------



## mindsanitizer

> mindsanitizer, just out of curiosity, do you believe that the germ theory of disease, the plate tectonic theory, and gravitational theory are true?


yes i believe in all of those to be true.


----------



## huh

Defending evolution in this thread isn't worth the effort. There is no argument in the scientific community that evolution occurred, and is occurring. The only arguments in the scientific community regarding evolution are over certain aspects of the theory and how it functions, not whether it happened at all. Those who already aren't convinced are unlikely to change their minds. This really is an embarrassing failure of our educational system.


----------



## Jnmcda0

mindsanitizer said:


> yes i believe in all of those to be true.


There is as much evidence for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection as there is for any of those other theories. Why isn't there a theory of intelligent falling, in which a supernatural deity is pushing objects down? Why aren't there people pushing to teach a sin theory of disease? It seems to me that the only reason evolution by natural selection is contested more than other theories is that it directly contradicts a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution


----------



## Kon

Jnmcda0 said:


> There is as much evidence for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection as there is for any of those other theories.


Some scientists question the use of the term "natural selection" arguing that its use (really over-use) has become a vacuous tautology. They argue that other forces such as physical and chemical laws/constraints are at work shaping evolution. I don't know much about it to comment but maybe someone can summarize it.

From my understanding, it's like why Helium came after Hydrogen during the evolution of our universe: there are serious constraints based on physical laws that shape evolution that often don't have much to do with natural selection:

"In a classic paper, Gould and Lewontin warn against "naive adaptationism," the inappropriate use of adaptive theorizing to explain traits that have emerged for other reasons. The argument is illustrated by an analogy with the mosaics on the dome and spandrels of the San Marco basilica in Venice: 
Spandrels -- the tapering triangular spaces formed by the intersection of two rounded arches at right angles ... are necessary architectural by-products of mounting a dome on rounded arches. Each spandrel contains a design admirably fitted into its tapering space. An evangelist sits in the upper part flanked by the heavenly cities. Below, a man representing one of the four biblical rivers ... pours water from a pitcher in the narrowing space below his feet. 
The design is so elaborate, harmonious, and purposeful that we are tempted to view it as the starting point of any analysis, as the cause in some sense of the surrounding architecture. But this would invert the proper path of analysis. The system begins with an architectural constraint: the necessary four spandrels and their tapering triangular form. They provide a space in which the mosaicists worked; they set the quadripartite symmetry of the dome above. Such architectural constraints abound, and we find them easy to understand because we do not impose our biological biases upon them. ... Anyone who tried to argue that the structure [spandrels] exists because of [the designs laid upon them] would be inviting the same ridicule that Voltaire heaped on Dr. Pangloss: "Things cannot be other than they are ... Everything is made for the best purpose. Our noses were made to carry spectacles, so we have spectacles. Legs were clearly intended for breeches, and we wear them." ... Yet evolutionary biologists, in their tendency to focus exclusively on immediate adaptation to local conditions, do tend to ignore architectural constraints and perform just such an inversion of explanation.​ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/BBS/.WWW/bbs.pinker.html

Here's one of the arguments that I came across googling:

"The human brain is the most complicated device for reasoning and calculating, and for expressing emotion, ever evolved on earth. Natural selection made the human brain big, but most of our mental properties and potentials may be spandrels-that is, nonadaptive side consequences of building a device with such structural complexity. If I put a small computer (no match for a brain) in my factory, my adaptive reasons for so doing (to keep accounts and issue paychecks) represent a tiny subset of what the computer, by virtue of inherent structure, can do (factor-analyze my data on land snails, beat or tie anyone perpetually in tic-tac-toe). In pure numbers, the spandrels overwhelm the adaptations.
The human brain must be bursting with spandrels that are essential to human nature and vital to our self-understanding but that arose as nonadaptations, and are therefore outside the compass of evolutionary psychology, or any other ultra-Darwinian theory."

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/gould_pluralism.html


----------



## fredbloggs02

Magaly said:


> he will reply with something equally difficult to understand.





RyanJ said:


> You know I love you Adam, but after reading your post several times, I still can't figure out what you are trying to say.


Well that was well received, as expected. I know why you say difficult to understand by the way I wasn't trying to make perfect sense infact, just thinking aloud is helpful to me. Wuv you too wyan mwah. .... Predicting what I'm going to be doing I think I'm done with responding to the both of you, gives you a chance to recuperate. Enjoy the rest of the discussion guys.


----------



## lonelyjew

mindsanitizer said:


> no i'm not kidding you and can you stop cussing. you fail to realize that most people are close minded. that the majority of the people only think one dimensional. they are slaves of other people who think the same. but once in a while there is someone who decides not to follow the one dimensional thinkers and breaks free from the blindness and starts to think a little farther than just one dimensional.


Just because I say "I don't buy into your theory of fire being hot" does not make me a multi-dimentional thinker, who sees things as they truly. It would only make me delusional.



mindsanitizer said:


> what you believe that you know right know is not actually anything new, you only believe what someone is telling you. you are only taking in mind what is already out there. but if you break out out of that mentality and when you start seeing things differently. that is when your mind breaks free and you even start dreaming about new wonderful possibilities.


Again, ignoring everything that I've learned, that makes a lot of sense, that works together with great fluidity, would not make me a free thinker... Bioinformatics, proteomics, genomics, all of these things strongly support evolution, and all have implications way way beyond evolution. Things like the HIV protease inhibitor drugs don't just appear out of thin air magically, they were tailor made for their work, and the overarching science necessary for this, in itself, supports evolution by showing inter related structure/function. You can look it up if you want, but you won't, because somehow I'm the closed minded one for looking at real world evidence that you don't need to see :roll



mindsanitizer said:


> i use to believe that a dollar was nothing, it is when i started to earn my own money is when i opened my eyes and truly realize the true value of the dollar.


Again, are you kidding me? I'm sorry but your egotistical point about your own ignorance does not do away with a century of scientific research.



mindsanitizer said:


> so i actually do not believe everything that anyone tells me, i just take it in consideration and put it in the closet. i do this over a period of time and i try to make a picture out of that and paint my own picture.


Again, do you take any prescription drugs? Why do you believe in those? Why do you believe in anything your doctors tell you? Get off your high horse, you don't question these things, you choose to select evolution.



mindsanitizer said:


> well then why don't you take in consideration ID? in other words, it may not be science but the evidence is there. is like you taking a trip to europe but when someone asks you, from where are you coming from?, and you don't know yourself. you only remember getting in a car or on a plane. so just because you don't remember where you came from and science cannot prove it, it does not mean that you didn't come from somewhere.


I do take it into consideration on a personal level actually, but it isn't science, and so I won't consider it in that context. Maybe it was all designed, but it is a useless idea in the scientific sense.



mindsanitizer said:


> so ask yourself, from what or where did eukaryotes come from, or from what did they evolved from? surely they had to have evolved from something else, and that else from something else and that else from something else. i don't even need science to understand that.


Eukaryotes came from prokaryotes; see endosymbiosis. Also, to get rid of the suspense, you don't understand.



mindsanitizer said:


> the tree of life us just BS from know-it-all scientists who propose the tree of life. they are jusp jumping to conclusions and expect everyone to believe that.


Why is it BS? Have you studied the research methods used to make it? Homology? Genetic parsimony? Protein structure relationships? No? Your ignorant conclusions are just that, and what's worse is they're based on things you've decided to be true, which in themselves are nothing.



mindsanitizer said:


> so you fail to see the obvious-- that we don't know that darwins theory of evolution is true. we do know about micro/macro evolution but not that everything evolved from just one form of micro organisms. that is just a guess by looking at the micro/macro change.


We aren't talking about Darwin's theory, we're talking about the modern theory. There is a difference, and you should know what is being discussed if you're going to make such an investment in the "debate."



mindsanitizer said:


> ID doesn't want to compete with science


Yes it does, that's the damned problem. It doesn't belong in a classroom, yet people keep trying to force their religion down the throats of others, even when a conservative Christian Justice tells them their agenda is unconstitutional.



mindsanitizer said:


> how convenient. just talk about evolution and ignore from where or what everything evolved from. this is you being close minded because i can even guarantee you even with out googling or reading about it that at this very moment there is someone out there studying this very point-- abiogenesis and they do that to attempt to see the whole picture. as a matter of fact, if we can't answer with science from what or where the very first living organisms evolved from, then the whole theory of darwins evolution is debunked.


Do you know what a theory is? It explains something. Simple right? Evolution explains how life became what it was today, the process which drives speciation. It doesn't explain where life originated from. There is another group of theories for that, which are plausible, but lacking in evidence to cause any sort of paradigmatic shift in the matter. It isn't explained, it probably will be in the future, but not yet. There is too much we don't know, however to believe that just because we're lacking in knowledge now somehow means that ID is correct requires some leap of magical and illogical thinking. I'm guessing you would have been that guy telling everyone the world was at the center of the universe, and that everything revolved around it a few hundred years ago....



mindsanitizer said:


> simple, scientists are in this high horse believing that they have everything figured out when that is false. to be more precise, the theory of evolution proposes that everything about the origins of life has been figured out. when, logically, that is not the case. it only is backed up by micro/macro evolution. but that is another animal all together. micro/macro does not proposes that everything evolved from something. in other words, the theory of evolution, or the tree of life, whatever, proposes that everything evolved from a single seed. but the believers of evolution get confused with micro/macro evolution. also, they don't know where the seed evolved from. it is all a theory dude, clear as bottled water.


If scientists had everything figured out they'd be out of work. Also, I feel I have to mention, you haven't used any consistent, real world, logic in any of the posts in this thread.



mindsanitizer said:


> right, therefore your statement backs up my statement. there are still things yet to be discovered. so it means that we don't know everything yet, in fact, i will go as far as to say that we are merely scratching the surface. so go study harder so you can figure something new but don't try to tell me that we know that darwins theory of evolution is a fact.


We don't know everything but we know a lot, and we know a lot of things with an almost absolute, unquestionable, certainty. Again, why don't you question that the sun revolves around the earth? We don't know how the universe started, so that somehow throws everything out the window by the "logic" you use in the post I'm quoting.



mindsanitizer said:


> first of all why are you so scared to say G-d.


Judaism, look it up.... And scared? Really? *REALLY?*



mindsanitizer said:


> if you where smart, you would take G-d in consideration too in your hypothesis. that would be very ignorant not to do. and yes that is ID. i could also argue, that every living thing is part of this whole universe "motor." so lets open our eyes for a minute and look past our noses. past our ignorance. lets take gravity for example. isn't gravity part of our motor? at a first glance, it does not make sense but if we take the complex gravity out of the equation, we die. so don't tell me that gravity is not part of us just because it is not attached to our hip. can you wrap that around your brain?


You don't understand science, you can't take G-d into consideration because G-d can't be proved or disproved. Further, it breaks natural law, the rule which has the very nature of the universe being consistent, without which science would be useless. G-d and science are like oil and water, they are separate, and cannot coexist meaningfully together.



mindsanitizer said:


> you are just nitpicking. you cannot see the whole picture (which is the point for everything) you cannot see the whole picture by just looking at one part of the picture.


Your eyes look at the world one tiny sliver at a time, and combine the picture into a whole. Science does the same. Nice try at a copout though.



mindsanitizer said:


> i did read it again and it does not have anything meaningful besides taking the statement literally. can you use a better analogy?


It's fine the way it is, other people got it, it's very clear.


----------



## RyanJ

fredbloggs02 said:


> Well that was well received, as expected. I know why you say difficult to understand by the way I wasn't trying to make perfect sense infact, just thinnking aloud is helpful to me. Wuv you too wyan mwah. .... Predicting what I'm going to be doing I think I'm done with responding to the both of you, gives you a chance to recuperate. Enjoy the rest of the discussion guys.


Lol...thanks man...


----------



## bsd3355

This whole changing the bible thing just is more evidence to point out it probably ain't real in the first place. They change it because it doesn't suit "their" religious tastes. What a bunch of crap! That thing has been revised so much to tug at the hearts of spirit seekers.


----------



## PlayerOffGames

bwidger85 said:


> This whole changing the bible thing just is more evidence to point out it probably ain't real in the first place. They change it because it doesn't suit "their" religious tastes. What a bunch of crap! That thing has been revised so much to tug at the hearts of spirit seekers.


why is it still allowed to post?!...has it not been understood how dangerous it is?


----------



## Godless1

Alright creationists, what do you say to this?


----------



## justpassinby

Shouldn't the argument be "The Big Bang Theory" versus "Intelligent Design" ? Evolution does not explain a beginning, it explains a process or sequence of events.


----------



## moneyman

What about Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Doesn't it deserve to be discussed equally as well?


----------



## bsd3355

(5 months later...)

wow, you guys are still on this topic!?


----------



## fredbloggs02

You ask the people. "How do I know the fear of death exists?" I tell you "they are afraid to die, they are afraid of an.....end." 

And now I understand perfectly, the end presents itself as clearly. God is non-existent amoung those who serve death and life without meaning. And suddenly I am struck with an epiphany lol.. "Does not the man who needs an end serve meaningless life as far as a god who needs a beginning to such an end?" "Are these benefactors of life both needily dumpy as eachother in the useful knowledge they present?"

One decides the end serves the means, thus serving life through the means, through material possessions. One decides the end serves him through mans' funneling of immaterial possessions without such dependence on them. Both lives, meaningless but. In truth, we've substituted one dominatrix for another yet needier one, the one who needs us to contribute the wealth we possess to it's lustre and attach ourselves to his teachings of value in that wealth before giving them up. A manipulative God who shouts. "NO MAN OR INDIVIDUAL MAY KNOW ME! OF HIMSELF, HE IS A LIE! HE IS BOUND TO ME AS A MASSE AND NONE MAY KNOW ME BUT EN MASSE THROUGH THE MEANS OF MY PERSUADING HIM TO LIVE THUS ABANDONING HIS HIGHEST HOPE TO DIE BY ANY MEANS BUT MINE!" ... "Thus roars the pernicious monster." It needs us to know him by his manipulation as did the former, only this one more real to our eyes, less personal, less easily obtainable, more clutchingly ripped from our chest than within a sea the endless currents were to swim away from. I think creators of this monster know this and they use him to funnel away all individuality within a brick wall of their own defensive posturing. In short, god is of our choosing or god is of their choosing. Both can demonstrate why we follow the ending to our lives, both require our absolute trust in that. How do I know God exists? Because I know I fear the end of the material. How do I know the material exists? Because I know the material is the tool of fearful providence of that end..

God is an interpretation. I know a candle will burn me when my hand passes over it hesitantly. This is useful to know but there is more to the candle than a single aspect of burning. I know little of truth of even the wick by receiving it as burning, I miss a more sophisticated truth that is soon supplanted by a more sophisticated truth and on to infinity predicted. I say predicted because, that is a convenient prediction when thrown ahead of something far too fast, far too steep to catch or climb. It is a ploy to cut a swathe of the incomplete truth away when deciding the truth of burning as it blazes. The truth is expanding far too fast, far too steep to catch or climb so the burning candle burns far shallower than we learned of burning the next to the point that our understanding of the burns become of greater insignificance each day without reppeal. So I inspect my wounds to wonder at the nature this great, speeding stallion inflicted me as it sundered off into the distance and that to me, is truth.


----------



## Magaly

fredbloggs02 said:


> God is non-existent amoung those who serve death and life without meaning.


I don't understand what you are trying to say. I derive meaning out of what I do, what I want to do with my transient life. Meaning does not dependent on there being some immaterial spirit thing watching over me.


----------



## fredbloggs02

Magaly said:


> I don't understand what you are trying to say. I derive meaning out of what I do, what I want to do with my transient life. Meaning does not dependent on there being some immaterial spirit thing watching over me.


I don't require one either, I'm not religious in that sense. Although, immaterial and spirit are two different realms to me. "Spirit" isn't good enough, it is a hollow word, never used alone to someone truly spiritual who'd seek to justify themself.. Doesn't it strike you that as soon as you read past scientific function you're labeled a spiritualist? When every premise requires coherence of itself even when all premises together speak wholesomely? I don't accept that when the brain dies, thoughts follow suit. A brain scan measures thoughts, when the brain dies, the brain scan dulls but, do the thoughts dull? As I burn myself with a candle a scan of my hand would tell more than my interpretation of the blazing? Perhaps the image of the candle burning my hand is the spiritualism and the burning is birthed by the blazing within me. Is a brain scan not only the aspect most easily read? Does it not follow then that without a brain scan we know little of truth or real? Is a brain scan wholesome to you? Is not the desire to interpret the results of a test differently fair tenure to such a differing interpretation, of a body seperate from thoughts, a brain seperate form scans? I feel constricted by such interpretations masquerading as truth, though I wouldn't associate such a feeling of constriction with spiritual infringement. You can have your brain scans and your constrictions but I say, truth is mine. Don't you?


----------



## Kon

justpassinby said:


> Shouldn't the argument be "The Big Bang Theory" versus "Intelligent Design" ? Evolution does not explain a beginning, it explains a process or sequence of events.


I also find that question far more interesting than the question of whether one "complex" organism/animal/ape really evolved from another "simpler" organism/animal/ape. I mean, where did these rules that allow for the creation and evolution of our universe and/or meta-universe come from? If they didn't come from "anywhere" in any sense of the term why are they that way? Even if one assumes that all possible universes eventually occur, where did these rules allowing for all such possibilities come from? Why does anything exist in the first place?


----------



## fredbloggs02

Kon said:


> I also find that question far more interesting than the question of whether one "complex" organism/animal/ape really evolved from another "simpler" organism/animal/ape. I mean, where did these rules that allow for the creation and evolution of our universe and/or meta-universe come from? If they didn't come from "anywhere" in any sense of the term why are they that way? Even if one assumes that all possible universes eventually occur, where did these rules allowing for all such possibilities come from? Why does anything exist in the first place?


...So do I.


----------



## Jnmcda0

Kon said:


> I also find that question far more interesting than the question of whether one "complex" organism/animal/ape really evolved from another "simpler" organism/animal/ape. I mean, where did these rules that allow for the creation and evolution of our universe and/or meta-universe come from? If they didn't come from "anywhere" in any sense of the term why are they that way? Even if one assumes that all possible universes eventually occur, where did these rules allowing for all such possibilities come from? Why does anything exist in the first place?


I don't know. I know that's not a satisfying answer, but it's the only honest answer I can give. To me, saying a deity exists that created the universe is no more satisfying because it begs the same question: Why does God exist? Why is there a God rather than no God?


----------



## Kon

I don't know if anybody has come across Max Tegmark views of our universe as one among many possible mathematical structures; that is, our external physical reality is really just a mathematical structure. He argues that although all mathematical stuctures are manifested physically, only a minority contain observers to testify to their existence. I find this view interesting but the argument that at the bottom/deep level, reality is just a mathematical "object" still falls short of explaining qualia/the mental. So I guess the multiverse model kinda goes against "the designed universe" concept because all possibilities are realized somewhere in this abstract mathematical multiuniverse but it still doesn't explain the existence of the mathematical structure itself or how such a mathematical structure allows for the existence of the mental.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0646v2.pdf


----------



## fredbloggs02

I think, there is no such thing as one answer and mathematical equations do represent themselves as one answer to some. I've never understood how to challenge on the terms of a premise I don't agree with, it doesn't address the core of the question, the question transitions into someone else's tangent and call me closed minded but I don't address other people's tangents unless they're family. Perhaps some of you philosophy buffs can help me, I'm lagging behind in my studies because of this? Tutors don't accept that you already have you own ideas and represent them well, they call them irrelevence. I am a highly irrelevent person and for that thank my soul dearly. And then as if that wasn't as much an insult as they come, the next tempestuous malevolence strikes! The eye of this inferior tempest wants to string me along inside and whisk away my thoughts to it's cyclone, not content with my agreeing to accept a tempest maiming others but condescends to my supposed ignobility to run away from him. For hours he spends trying to coax me into the eye but I will not, I have seen the destruction they caused others before me. Why should any man or woman have to send their originality into such a tempest when capitulant discussion isn't part of the destruction one need cause? I will discuss a tempest from a distance but only from a distance. Never expect me to send one into my heart, I have my own there already and he is the Poseidon of all storms.


----------



## Fortune

god is the universe... perhaps?


----------



## diamondheart89

I don't understand, why do they have to be 'versus' each other. Why can't it be both?


----------



## Dreamscape

Jnmcda0 said:


> I don't know. I know that's not a satisfying answer, but it's the only honest answer I can give. To me, saying a deity exists that created the universe is no more satisfying because it begs the same question: Why does God exist? Why is there a God rather than no God?


I agree. It seems to be a futile approach from either side. As far as I can see it theists and atheists alike settle on the idea that something was simply there without any initial cause. The only other model I could think of when I was still agnostic was to consider an infinite hierarchy of supreme beings that have created one another.

I'm still wondering why many people seem to think that nothing should be more probable than something. Why do we assume that should be the default? If all we've ever known is a something then what reasoning do we have to assume nothing should have been more likely without a God? Is it really easier to assume that something which existed (without initial cause) caused something else which didn't exist to begin existing? How is that possible? It seems to bring even more questions to the table, rather than answering them. Magical properties of a God obstruct the reasoning even further.


----------



## Kon

Apotheosis said:


> I'm still wondering why many people seem to think that nothing should be more probable than something. Why do we assume that should be the default?


I think that's a very good point. Maybe the principle of "nothingness" (non-existence) is actually more anomolous/strange than existence.


----------



## Jnmcda0

diamondheart89 said:


> I don't understand, why do they have to be 'versus' each other. Why can't it be both?


You could have a deity that created the universe and life and then developed that life through evolution. However, that isn't what most people mean when they talk about intelligent design (ID). Most ID proponents would object to the idea that humans evolved from other primates.

I think part of the reason for the disagreement that humans evolved is that this directly contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis. If there was no literal Adam and Eve, then there was no fall and no original sin. Without original sin, Jesus' crucifixion is a moot point.


----------



## diamondheart89

Is ID limited to the Biblical version of God, then? What about people who believe in a deity that created the laws that govern the universe? I guess the proponents are all Christian, but the idea need not be limited to the Christian God.


----------



## moneyman

diamondheart89 said:


> What about people who believe in a deity that created the laws that govern the universe?


I have a much easier time of this, because people who believe in this aren't typically judgmental of how other people live their lives nor do they try to instill their beliefs upon you or the rest of society.

However, it still suffers one of the other drawbacks of organized religion, which is that it suppresses critical thinking on certain topics and is anti-science (i.e. anti-thought) at its root. If we believe that a diety created the laws of the universe, then why study anything that may disprove that? So we simply accept that? It's a short-circuit in thinking. We are no longer asking "why" or "how" just "it is".

It then becomes a slippery slope for what this diety's intentions were. And we know where that road leads.

Not to mention we still don't know where that diety came from, which brings it back to my question - why is it ok for theists to accept that we don't know how a diety came to be, but can't use that same thought to explain a godless universe's existence? Why not cut out the self-serving middle man?


----------



## coldsorehighlighter

moneyman said:


> I have a much easier time of this, because people who believe in this aren't typically judgmental of how other people live their lives nor do they try to instill their beliefs upon you or the rest of society.
> 
> However, it still suffers one of the other drawbacks of organized religion, which is that it suppresses critical thinking on certain topics and is anti-science (i.e. anti-thought) at its root. If we believe that a diety created the laws of the universe, then why study anything that may disprove that? So we simply accept that? It's a short-circuit in thinking. We are no longer asking "why" or "how" just "it is".
> 
> It then becomes a slippery slope for what this diety's intentions were. And we know where that road leads.
> 
> Not to mention we still don't know where that diety came from, which brings it back to my question - why is it ok for theists to accept that we don't know how a diety came to be, but can't use that same thought to explain a godless universe's existence? Why not cut out the self-serving middle man?


From what I believe, it's not so much that we don't know how said deity came to be, it's that we can't know. 
Time started when the universe did, and if a deity created the universe, then this deity exists outside the dimension of "time"...which means it's possible(although impossible based on our laws) that the deity has always existed...that it didn't "come" from anywhere.

Now, believing in a creator doesn't mean we should stop trying to discover new things through science, it doesn't mean we should stop being curious.

Science is really the "enemy" of ancient religions, not the enemy of God.


----------



## Kon

the cheat said:


> Time started when the universe did, and if a deity created the universe, then this deity exists outside the dimension of "time"...which means it's possible(although impossible based on our laws) that the deity has always existed...that it didn't "come" from anywhere.


Currently many cosmologists kinda question that premise; that is, they believe that the question of what existed/happened before the big-bang is very reasonable. Here are 2 of many such links (one is a video, the other is Penrose's pdf version of cosmology):

*What happened before the Big Bang?*






http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.3706.pdf


----------



## coldsorehighlighter

Thanks for the link, Kon, I'm going to go watch it now.:yes I'm real interested in these types of things. I watched a BBC Horizon thing about parallel universes and it's awesome.


----------



## Kon

the cheat said:


> I'm real interested in these types of things.


Me too. Here's the whole piece (it's continuous in order-in 6 parts), just in case you're interested. It has discussions with some of the best cosmologists in the world:





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVwi...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7vT...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH-G...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSCM...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szgc...feature=related


----------



## coldsorehighlighter

^I just kept clicking on the new parts as the videos ended, thanks though.
It was interesting. All the ideas are, although I'm partial to string theory. All of them still leave open the possibility for "intelligent design" or a creator.


----------



## moneyman

the cheat said:


> From what I believe, it's not so much that we don't know how said deity came to be, it's that we can't know.
> Time started when the universe did, and if a deity created the universe, then this deity exists outside the dimension of "time"...which means it's possible(although impossible based on our laws) that the deity has always existed...that it didn't "come" from anywhere.


Right. Which is my point - the universe also may not have "come from" anywhere. It always has been. Why is that not just as acceptable as a deity that has "always been". Throwing a deity in the mix just short-circuits the pursuit of knowledge.

In fact there are studies out there now that implicate that our perception of time is an illusion - that all "times" and possibilities exist simultaneously and that our perception of it is limited therefore illusory.

It's possible that we can't ever fully understand how that works or how something can just be "forever". But it doesn't require a deity.

You see this in principles of quantum mechanics, where scientists are still studying how it all works, and people takes bits of it and claim "god" is behind it. The uncertainty principle for example. Anytime there is poorly understood knowledge about how the universe works, people try to shut it down by claiming it's "god" doing it. Then we eventually figure out how it works, and the god people find something new that's poorly understood to try and latch on to. Grasping at straws.

This has been going on for as long as humans have existed. At what point do you eventually say you know what, maybe there is no "god" behind all this. Because "he" just keeps getting deeper and deeper into the background, ironically as we understand more and more.

So say someone believes there is a possibility that an intelligent designer is behind the "creation" of the universe. Now what? What purpose does that thought/belief serve? Do you act upon that thought in some way? Do you behave in a certain way because of that thought/belief? I don't understand the point.

BTW - For those who want their minds blown on the concept of timelessness, I recommend this site -

http://everythingforever.com/


----------



## coldsorehighlighter

moneyman said:


> Right. Which is my point - the universe also may not have "come from" anywhere. It always has been. Why is that not just as acceptable as a deity that has "always been". Throwing a deity in the mix just short-circuits the pursuit of knowledge.
> 
> In fact there are studies out there now that implicate that our perception of time is an illusion - that all "times" and possibilities exist simultaneously and that our perception of it is limited therefore illusory.
> 
> It's possible that we can't ever fully understand how that works or how something can just be "forever". But it doesn't require a deity.
> 
> You see this in principles of quantum mechanics, where scientists are still studying how it all works, and people takes bits of it and claim "god" is behind it. The uncertainty principle for example. *Anytime there is poorly understood knowledge about how the universe works, people try to shut it down by claiming it's "god" doing it. Then we eventually figure out how it works, and the god people find something new that's poorly understood to try and latch on to. Grasping at straws.*
> 
> This has been going on for as long as humans have existed. At what point do you eventually say you know what, maybe there is no "god" behind all this. Because "he" just keeps getting deeper and deeper into the background, ironically as we understand more and more.
> 
> So say someone believes there is a possibility that an intelligent designer is behind the "creation" of the universe. Now what? What purpose does that thought/belief serve? Do you act upon that thought in some way? Do you behave in a certain way because of that thought/belief? I don't understand the point.
> 
> BTW - For those who want their minds blown on the concept of timelessness, I recommend this site -
> 
> http://everythingforever.com/


I don't think that's true, at least not for me. Explaining how the universe works doesn't explain why the universe is. There might not be a why, but you can't say there definitely isn't a why, just by explaining the nature of the universe. Let's say string theory explains the universe...how does that take away the possibility of God?


----------



## moneyman

the cheat said:


> I don't think that's true, at least not for me. Explaining how the universe works doesn't explain why the universe is. There might not be a why, but you can't say there definitely isn't a why, just by explaining the nature of the universe. Let's say string theory explains the universe...how does that take away the possibility of God?


Figuring out how the universe works gets to the "why", ultimately. Figuring out how the sun appears on one side of the world and disappears on the other side ultimately got to "why". Saying "god did it" ultimately contributed nothing to the real reasons of "why". It only delayed discovery of "why".

There is always the possibility of "god" no matter how remote.

The point is, if you believe there is, what do you DO with that information? What purpose does it serve?


----------



## Kon

the cheat said:


> ^I just kept clicking on the new parts as the videos ended, thanks though. It was interesting. All the ideas are, although I'm partial to string theory. All of them still leave open the possibility for "intelligent design" or a creator.


Can anyone think of any criteria that would make the "intelligent design" argument become unsound/frivalous or fall apart?


----------



## coldsorehighlighter

moneyman said:


> Figuring out how the universe works gets to the "why", ultimately. Figuring out how the sun appears on one side of the world and disappears on the other side ultimately got to "why". Saying "god did it" ultimately contributed nothing to the real reasons of "why". It only delayed discovery of "why".
> 
> There is always the possibility of "god" no matter how remote.
> 
> The point is, if you believe there is, what do you DO with that information? What purpose does it serve?


Showing that the sun appears on one side of the world and disappears on the other side of the world is a "how", not a "why".

Staying on topic for this thread, for example, showing and proving evolution only explains _how_ humans are here, not _why_. Again, there may not be a why but there could be, which means it can't just be discounted.

If I asked you "Why is there a universe?" would you start explaining one of the current leading theories on how the universe exists? If so, it would never answer my question.


----------



## coldsorehighlighter

Kon said:


> Can anyone think of any criteria that would make the "intelligent design" argument become unsound/frivalous or fall apart?


I can't think of anything. The reason being, just look at that YouTube video on all those different theories. All of those people are brilliant scientists...but all of them, except for possibly one, will be wrong with their theories. 
If that many smart people have that many different theories, I just can't imagine a time where the scientific community will come together and disprove the possibility of a creator.

I actually think "string theory" will eventually spawn the idea that those extra dimensions we can't physical observe are where heaven, and our souls, exist.:eyes


----------



## moneyman

the cheat said:


> Showing that the sun appears on one side of the world and disappears on the other side of the world is a "how", not a "why".
> 
> Staying on topic for this thread, for example, showing and proving evolution only explains _how_ humans are here, not _why_. Again, there may not be a why but there could be, which means it can't just be discounted.
> 
> If I asked you "Why is there a universe?" would you start explaining one of the current leading theories on how the universe exists? If so, it would never answer my question.


Ok, what if you asked me "How is there a universe". Same thing. I could only explain it to a point, because we don't yet know everything about "how".

The "how" and the "why" are the same thing.

"How" did humans evolve is the same thing as "why" did humans evolve. Think about it.

You claim that explaining "how" something works doesn't explain "why" it works. Why not? What's the difference?

More importantly, I'm interested in the response to my earlier question - if you believe a deity is ultimately responsible for all this, what do you do with that information? Say that everyone is in agreement that yes, a deity must be responsible for creating all this. Now what? Is it even relevant? Why? Or, How?


----------



## Jnmcda0

moneyman said:


> The "how" and the "why" are the same thing.
> 
> "How" did humans evolve is the same thing as "why" did humans evolve. Think about it.
> 
> You claim that explaining "how" something works doesn't explain "why" it works. Why not? What's the difference?


I disagree that the "how" and the "why" are the same thing. For instance, knowing the process by which things evolve (the "how") does not necessarily answer the question of why the process of evolution occurs. Here's another analogy: a musician may know how to play a song on a guitar without knowing why the pluck of the strings produces that note.


----------



## moneyman

Jnmcda0 said:


> I disagree that the "how" and the "why" are the same thing. For instance, knowing the process by which things evolve (the "how") does not necessarily answer the question of why the process of evolution occurs. Here's another analogy: a musician may know how to play a song on a guitar without knowing why the pluck of the strings produces that note.


Read your second sentence again. It's a process, which is important, as I'll explain below. Again, the how and why are the same.

Start with this sentence - "How does the process of evolution occur?" Then, explain it. After you're done, go back and simply change the first sentence to "Why does the process of evolution occur?" and leave the explanation exactly the same. Does it still make sense? Of course it does, because the how and the why are the same thing!

Furthermore, your analogy is inaccurate, because you are comparing two separate circumstances. One is a person using an instrument to imitate music, the other is a description of the physical properties of a plucked string.

It is also out of context to the above conversation. How and why CAN be different questions depending upon the context. An accurate analogy would be "How do you play that song" vs. "Why do you play that song". In that case, "how" could be explained technically and physically how to go through the motions of playing the song. Why could be something emotional, like "because it's my favorite song". Perhaps that is what you were trying to illustrate.

However, back to the context of the conversation above, how and why the universe exists is the same question, just like how and why humans evolved is the same question. The reason it is different and out of context from the above analogy is due to intent. How the lion killed the lamb is different from why the lion killed the lamb. It had intent. Just like the guy playing the song.

Physical phenomena, however, has no intent. How the water travelled downstream is the same thing as why the water travelled downstream. It has no intent. You could say that god intends it to, and then yes "how" and "why" become different in their answers.

So the implication above in the question "why" does the universe exist is the same as how, unless you assume there was intention. The person above claims that the "how" does not explain "why", but that's only if you assume there is intent. I assume there is no intent, therefore no difference.

So we've come full circle to...an impasse. However, we have seen in our world plenty of evidence that describes that physical phenomena require no intent to occur, after centuries of slowly chipping away at religious dogma (gods control the weather, etc). The best that anyone can come up with anymore is the ultimate "intent" for the universe itself to be as it is.

BUT - that still gets back to my question of why would that even be relevant? What purpose would that information serve? This is a critical question if you are ready to believe that a deity was responsible for the creation of the universe. To me, it merely deflects to an entirely new set of questions, all of which would be pure speculation without evidence and therefore garbage. In other words, pointless. In other words, why bother wasting your time believing it?


----------



## coldsorehighlighter

moneyman said:


> Read your second sentence again. It's a process, which is important, as I'll explain below. Again, the how and why are the same.
> 
> Start with this sentence - "How does the process of evolution occur?" Then, explain it. After you're done, go back and simply change the first sentence to "Why does the process of evolution occur?" and leave the explanation exactly the same. Does it still make sense? Of course it does, because the how and the why are the same thing!
> 
> Furthermore, your analogy is inaccurate, because you are comparing two separate circumstances. One is a person using an instrument to imitate music, the other is a description of the physical properties of a plucked string.
> 
> It is also out of context to the above conversation. How and why CAN be different questions depending upon the context. An accurate analogy would be "How do you play that song" vs. "Why do you play that song". In that case, "how" could be explained technically and physically how to go through the motions of playing the song. Why could be something emotional, like "because it's my favorite song". Perhaps that is what you were trying to illustrate.
> 
> However, back to the context of the conversation above, how and why the universe exists is the same question, just like how and why humans evolved is the same question. The reason it is different and out of context from the above analogy is due to intent. How the lion killed the lamb is different from why the lion killed the lamb. It had intent. Just like the guy playing the song.
> 
> Physical phenomena, however, has no intent. How the water travelled downstream is the same thing as why the water travelled downstream. It has no intent. You could say that god intends it to, and then yes "how" and "why" become different in their answers.
> 
> So the implication above in the question "why" does the universe exist is the same as how, unless you assume there was intention. The person above claims that the "how" does not explain "why", but that's only if you assume there is intent. I assume there is no intent, therefore no difference.
> 
> So we've come full circle to...an impasse. However, we have seen in our world plenty of evidence that describes that physical phenomena require no intent to occur, after centuries of slowly chipping away at religious dogma (gods control the weather, etc). The best that anyone can come up with anymore is the ultimate "intent" for the universe itself to be as it is.
> 
> BUT - that still gets back to my question of why would that even be relevant? What purpose would that information serve? This is a critical question if you are ready to believe that a deity was responsible for the creation of the universe. To me, it merely deflects to an entirely new set of questions, all of which would be pure speculation without evidence and therefore garbage. In other words, pointless. In other words, why bother wasting your time believing it?


It's not a waste of time, for me, to consider the possibility that something I can't ever fully understand created the universe and everything in it.
To me, the idea of a creator is just as absurd as the idea of the universe being a "random" event, so why not be open to it? My beliefs have changed my life. Not changes anyone can see, but they have changed how I view the world and how I treat people. 
I believe in science, and God.
Which leads me to the whole "how" vs "why" thing. I understand what you're basing your argument on. If there is nothing like God/a creator, then "how" and "why" are the same in this context. But you can't say with certainty that there is no God, so in that context, they are not the same.


----------



## F1X3R

> Right. Which is my point - *the universe also may not have "come from" anywhere. It always has been.* Why is that not just as acceptable as a deity that has "always been". Throwing a deity in the mix just short-circuits the pursuit of knowledge.


Not according to science, that's what the whole debate stems from.


----------



## Godless1

The problem with debating whether the universe ever began or has always been, is that it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of time. In the early universe, when the universe was still on a quantum scale, time did not exist. We like to think of time as an objective rule, but it is much more subjective. Discussing whether or not the universe has a beginning totally misses the point.


----------



## moneyman

the cheat said:


> It's not a waste of time, for me, to consider the possibility that something I can't ever fully understand created the universe and everything in it.
> To me, the idea of a creator is just as absurd as the idea of the universe being a "random" event, so why not be open to it? My beliefs have changed my life. Not changes anyone can see, but they have changed how I view the world and how I treat people.
> I believe in science, and God.
> Which leads me to the whole "how" vs "why" thing. I understand what you're basing your argument on. If there is nothing like God/a creator, then "how" and "why" are the same in this context. But you can't say with certainty that there is no God, so in that context, they are not the same.


The idea of the universe being a "random" event is not the only possibility that does not require a deity.

For example, there is the possibility that everything simply exists, simultaneously, in every possibility, and always has. We are simply perceiving some slice of it, and time is an illusion. In this case, it is not random at all. Lately science has been seriously pursuing these avenues, so it's not necessarily far-fetched. See Stephen Hawking's discussion on Feynman's sum-over-histories for example.

Our minds are necessarily limited by that which we perceive. It is quite possible that we can never know the true nature/origin/whatever of the universe simply due to our inherent limitations. That in no way necessitates a deity, it simply means we have limitations to our understanding of the world we perceive. Is that really a difficult or unreasonable concept?

And once again, for the umpteenth time, I have yet to see a clear answer to what is the purpose of believing that a deity is responsible for the creation of the universe. Other than, as I mentioned before, self-serving purposes. Is that the best answer? Because it makes a person feel better?

That's completely fine, but it sure as heck isn't science and doesn't belong anywhere near a serious conversation about the origins of the universe.

I think that's why the question isn't being clearly answered, because like when most religious beliefs are put on the spot, they get exposed for what they are. Feelings. Which are entirely subjective.

You can't say with certainty that we're not all figments in Mickey Mouse's imagination. That's what I believe, I just feel it in my soul, and his presence here as an icon of good times and fun is essentially proof of this. You can't prove that I'm wrong. So perhaps we're all barking up the wrong tree here, the whole time.

You see where that leads the conversation? You can't prove that we're not really in the Matrix. You can't prove that we're not all in some sophisticated alien zoo. Or that the universe we perceive is actually a neuron in some vast alien brain. So shouldn't those be equally viable explanations to our "universe"? We could spend all of our time exploring all those "unprovable" theories, and many more, but where would that lead us?

Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it should carry equal weight with all other possibilities, does it? Like I said above, throwing in the deity creation argument simply deflects the conversation to speculative and purely subjective statements, which just becomes noise. Because whose "feelings" carry the most weight? How is one idea any more relevant than another, when none of them carry any scientific evidence, other than "you can't prove it doesn't exist"?

Seems to me it's simply the ultimate cop-out. We don't know, we can't prove it, so let's just make up something that "could" explain it, without objective evidence. Even though everyone will have a different idea of what that is. Even though it still doesn't explain where "it" came from or what "its" intentions are, but we can either make that up as we go, based upon our individual and often conflicting feelings (we'll just fight about it to settle our differences), or we will simply say "it" has always just been. Even though, hypocritically, we can't accept that thought for the universe without a deity.


----------



## moneyman

F1X3R said:


> Not according to science, that's what the whole debate stems from.


That's not true at all.

As I mentioned above, there are credible scientific theories that deal with the possibility that time is an illusion and the universe has no beginning or end.

This includes a variation of the big bang theory proposing that it is a perpetual cycle of big bang and big crunch. That's actually a fairly common one, I'm surprised you've never heard of it.


----------



## F1X3R

I have heard of it. Watch those videos that were posted earlier in the thread for examples of the questions that science is still trying to answer and the problems with simply concluding that time is an illusion or things are cyclical and always were.

Science has traced the age of the universe, anything prior to that is only speculation.

It seems to me something outside of this universe or our comprehension is needed to explain the existence of this world, not necessarily a deity.


----------



## crimsoncora

I believe neither

I have no intelligent opinion as to how we came to be, everyones forms their stance based on anothers theory. I have enough confidence to just say i don't know.


----------



## Kon

I think the hypothesis that the universe or meta-universe came from a true "nothing" just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Nothing leads to nothing. If by "nothing" one means, something else (e.g. quantum foam, etc.) then it's not really "nothing". 

I wonder how much of mind-independent reality, we are capable of understanding. If we're anything like other animals, probably not much, even though it doesn't appear that way.


----------



## fredbloggs02

There is nothing more irritating than the misinterpreted subservient position(which infact is not as I will explain) "we are incapable of knowing anything subjectively and I am magnanimous to say that my limits speak for everyone and everyone has a right to a common answer or limit. "We don't know of before a beginning." However, that beginning is up to our vacancy to provide some day when we fill it with water through the holes when it no longer depletes itself, this holy bucket lol. Cheers to the innovative, right-handed thinkers! Sod that and sod them! I say, my limits are my own, I possess them in the same way people possess different theories. "I don't know" is already an assumption, an assumption that the way in which I know anything suffices to explain my limitations. I pity those who assert their feelings of limitation to themselves. I have the courage to be ignorant is not courageous and far from humble. On what grounds does such an impudence find it's footing? I say you have that right as the knowledgable, semi-representative correspondent of hollow truth, not the wholesome linguist. The linguist discovers his own language as truth presents itself to him.. He is as lost as the river is cascading the way to it's delta. I hold up my hands to that but... To a river, truth presents itself at every turn, it is constant, it knows that the end is of little consequence for the end is of no more consequence than it's bending. The language of constancy is missing from science. Where do algebra ever encapsulate not simply contain constancy such as the river? Ignorance is not an end it's a right. This smokescreen posturing as humble is as humble as an ant who decidedly turns away from human civilizations and, from his own existence. Both are dictatorships who reside externally. They are not yours! Both require capitulation for capitulation's sake. For the promise of truths I do not sacrifice my own! A search is a constant and a constant is a definite answer. A constant river doesn't wait to be distinguished, by the time it has it's already provided at least twice the truth presented. Blink at a constant and you miss it, blink at algebra and you miss an interpretation of a constant. How many men blink at an interpretation is anyone's guess but not all men blink at the same time. I speak for my own blinking, I interpret my own gaps because, they are mine! I do not hide behind other mens blinking whilst cowering from my own in a cupboard. Noone possesses my gaps in the same way noone possesses my blinking! A truth that presents itself speaking the words of truth from "men" are rightfully dubious, whereas our own are not. I can predict as to why some questions mean something to me as I can when they don't to other people... The wrong words now are the right words later. Many respectable scientists, even those who openly despise religion admitt they don't know how, why the earth began, they naturally just presume their theory is correct because, it appeals to them. 

I am a left-handed thinker and limitations are not my choice. To me before you start building is the truth! It is the discovery of internal truth, not external dictatorships. Before you urge the thoughts is the next bend! As truthful as a dream before finding it's footing in the scrutiny of a cushion is the truth I possess.


----------



## F1X3R

^ lol "rack him" (I wonder if anyone will get that)

Right, we will truly never know if we assume we can't. Perhaps we can't, or maybe we already know more than we realize.


----------



## Magaly

Kon said:


> I think the hypothesis that the universe or meta-universe came from a true "nothing" just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Nothing leads to nothing. If by "nothing" one means, something else (e.g. quantum foam, etc.) then it's not really "nothing".


quantum foam can be a band name


----------



## mindsanitizer

> I also find that question far more interesting than the question of whether one "complex" organism/animal/ape really evolved from another "simpler" organism/animal/ape. I mean, where did these rules that allow for the creation and evolution of our universe and/or meta-universe come from? If they didn't come from "anywhere" in any sense of the term why are they that way? Even if one assumes that all possible universes eventually occur, where did these rules allowing for all such possibilities come from? Why does anything exist in the first place?


NOTE: Pardon my babbling!

being interested in things/stuff is what keeps us going... and entertained at the same time. it is encoded in us and we should keep seeking for an answer. that is the main goal, not to be just arguing back and forth who is right and who is not for infinity. that would be getting stuck in one place for the simple fact that both are right and wrong at the same time. but we keep on learning and gaining new knowledge ever day of ours lives. our knowledge is not static nor is our bodies.

regarding the big bang theory, it is the same as evolution since it tries to explain from point A to point B... same with evolution. but what if there where many points A's? what would we call that then? meaning, if a chicken evolved from a certain micro organism and from another did humans. now, lets say that all mammals did evolved from their independent micro organisms... but wait! where did such micro organism evolved from? it would only make sense with our current (limited understanding) reasoning that it had to have come from one of many point A's (one of many micro-micro organisms. and so on and so forth for infinity)

intelligent design does not really care about evolution or not, it just tries to understand itself taking into account evolution or disregarding it. IOW, even if evolution was to be 100% right, where did the code for evolution come from? for us mere mortals, that is only our own personal quibble, because if we where to be wiped off the face off this earth, by a comet or meteor, tomorrow? life would continue on. like it has before dinosaurs. heck, a next chapter of humanity could be born next more intelligent or dumber than us.

there are many things to be discovered! the evidence is with hitler. one should take good notice in this human behavior how a lot of people are capable of doing more than what they believe they are capable of. hitler was the "leader" but the scientists where merely just weak humans. the evidence is there, under hitler's realm, the first yet engine was invented and so was the rocket (and many other things). just by that alone says something. that we are just merely being control by our stupid government (stupid because we allow the gorverment to control us), that they have us under a leash. ok, going off topic. still, this is true among all humans. we always follow who we think is more powerful than us. which is coded in our DNA to do... which says something about our history. (or if you would like... evolution)

there are many theories about the big bang. one of them could be true, but that does not eliminate a creator. because the creator could have been creating big bangs all over the place. we can only grasp that notion if we can see past the big bang theory. what if there is a formula that can create a big bang and POOF! many planets are born and so is life and so is a new "outer space." after trillions upon trillions of these big bang occurrences happening... there should be something to be born out of that, that would understand the big bang.

just like many scientists believe there are multiverce, why shoul i (a believer in god) not believe that god had a god. it is really not that far fetched to me if i look at the evidence. to others it may, but i am open minded.

we can speculate all we want and i know that by speculation, for infinity, we will soon find the answer. but there is no such evidence right now to derail cretinism. (nor evolution) though evolutionists only believe in evolution to be their god.


----------



## mindsanitizer

> I don't understand, why do they have to be 'versus' each other. Why can't it be both?


you need to be able to understand a lot of things in order to try to make sense of it. for one, humans "grow" (mentally and physically) by many reasons. but, unfortunately, one of them is conflict and aggression. i am tired of using hitler as an example but he is at the top of why good can come out of evil (and vise versa... things are complicated) and how evil is part of us.

also, lets take the feeling of pain as an example. the feeling is not pleasant to feel, but it is essential to us to keep on living none the less.

it is complicated to understand just as relationships are. though they are not really understandable... just by some.

now that i thought about it some more both, creationist and atheists, "believe" in a creator... they just are forced to chose one when it comes to debating it. more so when your life depends on it. or if you were almost beaten to death and god did not respond to your pleas! (for one reason or another)

so this is just human behavior at it's best... understand that and choose to either waste time to debate the situation or not. at the end of the day, you do it to gain something from it though.... in here, mostly attention. this is a SA forum after all. where attention deprived people mingle, IMO.

though, this should be a distraction from our SA so you should be able to distinguished this from anything else. that means that seeking attention is not always bad.... how ever you gain it.

but back to the point, evolution is not true.


----------



## fdsafdsaf

mindsanitizer said:


> NOTE: Pardon my babbling!
> 
> being interested in things/stuff is what keeps us going... and entertained at the same time. it is encoded in us and we should keep seeking for an answer. that is the main goal, not to be just arguing back and forth who is right and who is not for infinity. that would be getting stuck in one place for the simple fact that both are right and wrong at the same time. but we keep on learning and gaining new knowledge ever day of ours lives. our knowledge is not static nor is our bodies.
> 
> regarding the big bang theory, it is the same as evolution since it tries to explain from point A to point B... same with evolution. but what if there where many points A's? what would we call that then? meaning, if a chicken evolved from a certain micro organism and from another did humans. now, lets say that all mammals did evolved from their independent micro organisms... but wait! where did such micro organism evolved from? it would only make sense with our current (limited understanding) reasoning that it had to have come from one of many point A's (one of many micro-micro organisms. and so on and so forth for infinity)
> 
> intelligent design does not really care about evolution or not, it just tries to understand itself taking into account evolution or disregarding it. IOW, even if evolution was to be 100% right, where did the code for evolution come from? for us mere mortals, that is only our own personal quibble, because if we where to be wiped off the face off this earth, by a comet or meteor, tomorrow? life would continue on. like it has before dinosaurs. heck, a next chapter of humanity could be born next more intelligent or dumber than us.
> 
> there are many things to be discovered! the evidence is with hitler. one should take good notice in this human behavior how a lot of people are capable of doing more than what they believe they are capable of. hitler was the "leader" but the scientists where merely just weak humans. the evidence is there, under hitler's realm, the first yet engine was invented and so was the rocket (and many other things). just by that alone says something. that we are just merely being control by our stupid government (stupid because we allow the gorverment to control us), that they have us under a leash. ok, going off topic. still, this is true among all humans. we always follow who we think is more powerful than us. which is coded in our DNA to do... which says something about our history. (or if you would like... evolution)
> 
> there are many theories about the big bang. one of them could be true, but that does not eliminate a creator. because the creator could have been creating big bangs all over the place. we can only grasp that notion if we can see past the big bang theory. what if there is a formula that can create a big bang and POOF! many planets are born and so is life and so is a new "outer space." after trillions upon trillions of these big bang occurrences happening... there should be something to be born out of that, that would understand the big bang.
> 
> just like many scientists believe there are multiverce, why shoul i (a believer in god) not believe that god had a god. it is really not that far fetched to me if i look at the evidence. to others it may, but i am open minded.
> 
> we can speculate all we want and i know that by speculation, for infinity, we will soon find the answer. but there is no such evidence right now to derail cretinism. (nor evolution) though evolutionists only believe in evolution to be their god.


I don't see how your "point A to point B" disproves anything. Infinity simply doesn't exist either. Can you explicitly show me infinity? You can't.

Anyway, how did evolution start? Well, eventually there existed the correct circumstances for a selfreplicating RNA molecule to form as the first candidate. From here we can follow the principles of natural selection into more complicated structures like DNA, then DNA would code for complex structures as virus and so on. This happening over billions of years is enough time for something as complex as us to exist. How did this happen from point A to point B? By random changes, survivability etc. We can even observe gradual changes in these steps of evolution by observing skeletons of beings which are something between humans and a common decendent of us and monkeys.. Evolution is still observed to happen in nature all the time. The subject of biology relies a lot on evolution as well.

Now, there was a reasonable step by step explanation of how we came to exist.. What is option number 2 in this discussion? That we came to be because of magic as explaiend in a book of primitive thousand year old science? Well, i choose to believe in logics instead of magic, because i am not a total dumbass.

I'm open for the existence of something which may be labeled as God. But I believe that the bible and prolly most other religious books are full of it.


----------



## mindsanitizer

> ﻿I don't see how your "point A to point B" disproves anything.


 what? do you even know what A and B means? same like 0 and 1. it means the beginning of something... in the alphabet the latter A is the very beginning and in numbers 0. i forget that i have to be very specific for other people to grasp such simple things.


> *Infinity simply doesn't exist either*. Can you explicitly show me infinity? You can't.


 wow wow wow there Einstein. just because i cannot show it physically does not mean it does not exist. ho brother, do i have to explain such things as that though we live in a world of assumptions that sort of add up. like gravity, is just an assumptions that adds up but it is not a fact. evolution is just an assumption that does not add up. love is another that does not add up. your child hood memories are assumptions that do not totally add up either. now you want me to prove infinity lol. is earth the center of the universe? if we where to count 1, 2, 3, 4, what number would be the last? none! there is infinity of counting. for example 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000..... if there is no name for that number, go on, give it one. that is still not the end of counting. kids man.


> ﻿Anyway, how did evolution start? Well, eventually there existed the correct circumstances for a selfreplicating RNA molecule to form as the first candidate. From here we can follow the principles of natural selection into more complicated structures like DNA, then DNA would code for complex structures as virus and so on. This **** happening over billions of years is enough time for something as complex as us to exist. How did this happen from point A to point B? By random changes, survivability etc. We can even observe gradual changes in these steps of evolution by observing skeletons of beings which are something between humans and a common decendent of us and monkeys.. Evolution is still observed to happen in nature all the time. The subject of biology relies a lot on evolution as well.


 first of all, explain this quote *"Well, eventually there existed the correct circumstances for a selfreplicating RNA molecule to form as the first candidate."* with great detail... that does not due! also, see this is again just looking at things one dimensional. fresh guy arguing coming out of a science class. your argument is flawed because we are not the center of the universe. that means that lest say A is the big bang and Z is our understanding of how old the universe is. ok, you are with me so far? you believe we are B and that this whole universe was made for us humans. this is where you fail to think straight. because there are billions of planets that are older than ours. and common sense suggests that there are other similar earth planets out there too. so if there are others, i'm also assuming there is life there too... like duh! so since there are other planets out there similar like us (it is obvious by logic) older than ours, that only means that there are more advance life than us. wait, lets get back to the present. hmmm... yeah dude, we descended from apes! what else is new in your own little world? also, you don't even know what evolution is, can you define it in lay man's term even? you just think you know.


> ﻿Now, there was a reasonable step by step explanation of how we came to exist.. What is option number 2 in this discussion? That we came to be because of magic as explaiend in a book of primitive thousand year old science? Well, i choose to believe in logics instead of magic, because i am not a total dumbass.


 yeah, all of the people who wrote as best they could about things they witness in the past are dumb-*** as long as you cannot understand their perspective...yeah. you are the only smart one here. what have you invented or build, or have done to help society? please explain you intelligence here, this is your opportunity to shine and add something new to our civilization... our understanding of evolution. i'm too lazy to describe how your logic fails, as a matter of fact, you statement does not even deserve a civil explanation but rather the opposite.


> ﻿I'm open for the existence of something which may be labeled as God. But I believe that the bible and prolly most other religious books are full of it


 hey, either believe or not. plain and simple. you are not important, what makes you important is what you do with your life. also, your logic fails you again, books do not have intestines. so you are more full of it than a book. that's why you use the toilet and a book does not. also, you know what you know mostly from books...lol. talk about fail.


----------



## fdsafdsaf

mindsanitizer said:


> what? do you even know what A and B means? same like 0 and 1. it means the beginning of something... in the alphabet the latter A is the very beginning and in numbers 0. i forget that i have to be very specific for other people to grasp such simple things.


I could figure out as much, but you still didn't disprove evolution. I'll quote your previous post under and explain what you missunderstood:



mindsanitizer said:


> regarding the big bang theory, it is the same as evolution since it tries to explain from point A to point B... same with evolution. but what if there where many points A's? what would we call that then? meaning, if a chicken evolved from a certain micro organism and from another did humans. now, lets say that all mammals did evolved from their independent micro organisms... but wait! where did such micro organism evolved from? it would only make sense with our current (limited understanding) reasoning that it had to have come from one of many point A's (one of many micro-micro organisms. and so on and so forth for infinity)


The theory of evolution is only defined from "point A to point B" regardless of what was before A. The theory of evolution states that we evolved from single celled beings, nothing more.

Are you required to have the receipt of your shoes everytime you need to tie them, just to prove that they exist? Sounds like how your logics works at least.



mindsanitizer said:


> wow wow wow there Einstein. just because i cannot show it physically does not mean it does not exist. ho brother, do i have to explain such things as that though we live in a world of assumptions that sort of add up. like gravity, is just an assumptions that adds up but it is not a fact. evolution is just an assumption that does not add up. love is another that does not add up. your child hood memories are assumptions that do not totally add up either. now you want me to prove infinity lol. is earth the center of the universe? if we where to count 1, 2, 3, 4, what number would be the last? none! there is infinity of counting. for example 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000..... if there is no name for that number, go on, give it one. that is still not the end of counting. kids man.


Gravity is observed, infinity is not... Ofcorse our perception of gravity is not gravity itself, but gravity still reflects an objective state of existence different in some way from another physical quantity.

Actually love adds up. It is a subjective perception that simply exists. Ever heard of cogito ergo sum?

Anyway the definition of a number is asymmetry or confinement. That is the opposite of inifnity per definition! The global wavefunction (quantum state of the universe) can only be a superposition of so and so many quantum states.

As for counting the last number would be the last number you mention before you die.. The universe is always limited.. Speed, action, size and time its all limited.. If time was infinite, now would never have gotten time to happen since infinite amount of events must have happened before now..



mindsanitizer said:


> first of all, explain this quote *"Well, eventually there existed the correct circumstances for a selfreplicating RNA molecule to form as the first candidate."* with great detail... that does not due! also, see this is again just looking at things one dimensional. fresh guy arguing coming out of a science class. your argument is flawed because we are not the center of the universe. that means that lest say A is the big bang and Z is our understanding of how old the universe is. ok, you are with me so far? you believe we are B and that this whole universe was made for us humans. this is where you fail to think straight. because there are billions of planets that are older than ours. and common sense suggests that there are other similar earth planets out there too. so if there are others, i'm also assuming there is life there too... like duh! so since there are other planets out there similar like us (it is obvious by logic) older than ours, that only means that there are more advance life than us. wait, lets get back to the present. hmmm... yeah dude, we descended from apes! what else is new in your own little world? also, you don't even know what evolution is, can you define it in lay man's term even? you just think you know.


Here i only see emotional motivated arguments with no logical fundament.. It's not worth responding to further than i have. However i'll explain in greater detail about how RNA formed in the next post.



mindsanitizer said:


> yeah, all of the people who wrote as best they could about things they witness in the past are dumb-*** as long as you cannot understand their perspective...yeah. you are the only smart one here. what have you invented or build, or have done to help society? please explain you intelligence here, this is your opportunity to shine and add something new to our civilization... our understanding of evolution. i'm too lazy to describe how your logic fails, as a matter of fact, you statement does not even deserve a civil explanation but rather the opposite. hey, either believe or not. plain and simple. you are not important, what makes you important is what you do with your life. also, your logic fails you again, books do not have intestines. so you are more full of it than a book. that's why you use the toilet and a book does not. also, you know what you know mostly from books...lol. talk about fail.


Here it seems like you are getting butthurt as a result of not comprehending science or the theory of evolution or logical thinking at all.. Since when is contributing to society a measure of intelligence anyway? At least the main characteristics of your post showed up several times in this paragraph, that you ----> fail.


----------



## fdsafdsaf

The origin of life
Life seems to have arisen very quickly on the Earth, some 100 − 500 Myr after
the formation of the planet. The study of the evolution of DNA molecules
can serve as a clock showing that many organisms on branches of the tree of life
(bacteria, archea, eukaryota) close to the root are extremophiles such as those
living close to deep-sea volcanic vents or in hot springs. These organisms are
adapted to life in hot water (hyperthermophiles and use chemical energy rather
than photosynthesis; they are chemoautotrophs. It therefore seems likely that
8
life first arose in the vicinity of such an environment where there is plenty of
chemical energy to fuel the chemical reactions that lead to life.
How did life begin? One needs a source of organic molecules such as
1. Chemical reactions in the atmosphere. (Miller-Urey experiment in the
1950’s.)
2. Impacts of asteroids or comets which are known to contain many complex
organic molecules.
3. Chemical reactions in the vicinity of deep sea vents or hot springs.
The transition from chemistry to biology requires some sort of self replicating
molecule. DNA is probably too complex to be a credible “first try”. RNA
is the obvious first candidate, it consists of only one strand and short RNAstrands
could conceivable have arisen spontaneously in the right environment.
A large caveat is that RNA seems to need the assistance enzymes in order to
self-replicate and enzymes need RNA in order to be produced. However, Tomas
Cech and colleagues at the University of Colorado in Boulder, showed that some
RNA can catalyze biochemical reactions in much the same way enzymes do for
which he shared the Nobel Prize in 1989. These RNA molecules are called
ribozymes. So a plausible scenario is is that RNA or an RNA-like molecule
might catalyze their own replication. This has been accomplished in part in
laboratory work where RNA-catalyzed reactions have been able top partially
replicate.
Thus, short, self replicating strands of RNA could by mutation have evolved
leading eventually to DNA. The assembly of complex organic molecules was
probably helped if it occurred on a substrate of hot sand, clay or rock where
strands of RNA up to 100 bases long could form — as has been accomplished
in the laboratory. One possible such mineral is pyrite, FeS2. Early cell like
structures, pre-cells, could have formed spontaneously in the same environment
from lipids. Those RNA-strands lucky enough to pass within these membranes
would have had an enormous advantage in development as they could shield
their replication and any helping enzymes from the outside environment.
We can summarize the origin of life in five steps:
1. On early Earth localized areas with amino acids, building blocks of nucleic
acids, were dissolved in a dilute “organic soup”.
2. Complex molecules including short strands of RNA grew from these building
blocks, perhaps as reactions on a clay or other mineral surface. These
strands eventually become self replicating.
3. Membranes form spontaneously in the organic soup and enclose complex
molecules, the first pre-cells.
4. Natural selection among the RNA strands leads to increasing complexity
and eventually something we may label life.
9
5. RNA molecules are finally replaced by DNA as the favored hereditary
molecule.
On a final note: it has been discovered that organic molecules and microbes can
survive in space for a certain time. This opens the possibility that life can have
been passed between planets, for example from early Mars to the Earth or vice
versa.


----------



## moneyman

mindsanitizer said:


> ...but back to the point, evolution is not true.


You need to explain that statement.

And for starters, the next time a flu pandemic comes around, since you don't believe evolution is true, you get the old shot that the flu bugs have become resistant to! How does that sound? Because surely they couldn't have EVOLVED to become resistant to it, because evolution isn't true. I'm sure if you just pray, you'll be fine.

And those traits you inherited from your parents? Just coincidence. You don't "inherit" anything, because that would mean evolution was true.

And the police, with their DNA, boy are they in for a surprise when they find out evolution isn't true!

And think of all those museums, stuffed with evidence of how organisms (including humans) have gradually evolved over vast amounts of time, what a dirty trick someone played on them! Probably the devil. That rascal!

This country is in big trouble. Please tell me you're a troll.


----------



## moneyman

mindsanitizer said:


> ... but there is no such evidence right now to derail cretinism.


By the way, that has to be the most awesome freudian slip I've ever seen


----------



## fredbloggs02

fdsafdsaf said:


> If time was infinite, now would never have gotten time to happen since infinite amount of events must have happened before now..
> 
> I understand the arguement, I knew there was something sucpicious when I read it the first time though. This reminds me of trips to the science museum as a small boy with my dad. We saw the infinite mirrors that stretched out ino the distance... .. "But John(I called my dad by his first name), there is an end to them look, it's where mirrors don't happen anymore but I can still see where they're going, look! Maybe the symmetry ended where I did for all I know. Infinity is like social anxiety, any metaphor a therapist throws you ever does it justice when you find yourself impossibly intertwined with it, the seperate you is as a sense but he does exist, he has existed and he will do again. The metaphor is perfect in that it encapsulates a sense, it doesn't tell you which bits to chop off. Time doesn't end where infinity begins is my assertion, "we" simply cease to see it, we are the binding perhaps, "we" are not A4 sheets of paper. I know those halls of mirrors were as limited as you do! However I cannot strike myself from the record of infinity simply because I cannot grasp it as a collective, irrelevent as I may be to it. there is no crime in irrelevence, I could still know more from an irrelevent point of view than the collective in their relevence. You think I play with semantics? I see through them, I do my best to untangle the web they have become. Even without me, infinity needs a sense of itself and I provide one too before I'm lost. Whoever said I'm not allowed to be lost with infinity? It's ok to be lost and lie because it's there for all to see. Lost requires a collective of entenglement around however, I don't see the entanglement. Now I ask you this, am I still entangled because I am told so or are people expressing their own private webs collectively? I don't care, it makes no difference to me lol. It seems to me they hold a part of the web that overlaps infront of them, I am underneath that and it's their delusion I am one with he layer that is overlapping.... I don' need to abandon everything and start anew in repost to all. I needn't strike all from the record in my despondent love of everything. Perhaps we don't make quite the impression on time here and now as we think would be my response. Every"thing" may be limited, but every"thing" is only a single aspect of all? The globe makes room for the surveyer or the surveyer for the globe? Every"thing" has never existed within infinity I agree. Do we suppose then that infinitiy is as an aspect of every"thing" or an aspect of all? Subtle language is the language of certainty it seems. Sticking the god of all we've come to know infront of all conceivable truth. Is it any wonder he falls short as a standard measure? He is only as powerful as we and we you would say stand within everything, I would say I stood within all. Time will not tell within the context of infinity because our measurements only serve as a sense like the mirror, it is a self-professed lie so as a boy had the chance to paint his own picture. I suppose infinity is similar to an unconscious expanding in the sense that you'll never encapsulate all in such times. Maybe that is the only reason infinity exists at all because we're too proud to admitt our hands aren't fleet or broad enough to clutch the great speed some call God. There is nothing wrong with that, proud people are fun to debate with.
> 
> I literally just looked into Quantum theory, I was bored. It seems to reflect a lot of anger I've always felt at people who try and break a dream and I slam my fists down now because I know I had these ideas before I ever witnessed them in these videos!!! People have done to me without knowing, I am the victim of the victimless crime for reasons I've long suspected .... The slamming of my fists angers me more for their blatant contravention of the peace I've always felt, these fists aren't mine, they don't belong to me! This is the independence I've always possessed I think, this is why so many of my dreams influenced from all directions would stutter with effect and will again.


----------



## mindsanitizer

> ﻿﻿I could figure out as much, but you still didn't disprove evolution. I'll quote your previous post under and explain what you missunderstood:


 i disprove evolution by the facts alone. you can not know for sure that all animals evolved from one single organism. evolution is just an assumption. note, it claims that all living things came from ONE SINGLE ORGANISM. that is what evolution proposes. hey, any dumb person can settle for that notion even if it is not true. you only believe that because you have blind eyes. you are forgetting that our reality might not be true. we only see the color blue as blue because we named such color blue. we live only in our own little world. we "see" planets and stuff, but we might be living inside a giant.

evolution is not true and don't get fooled by the hype. all medicines out there are not really cures. just look at all medicine commercials. they all have side effects that are worse than what they claim to cure. your precious scientists (working based on the belief of evolution) only see you as a science rat for the rest of your life. they don't have the cure for anything. so why should i believe they know what they are talking about?

and there are other many examples.



> ﻿The theory of evolution is only defined from "point A to point B" regardless of what was before A. *The theory* of evolution states that we evolved from single celled beings, nothing more.


 exactly, it's only a THEORY!



> Are you required to have the receipt of your shoes everytime you need to tie them, just to prove that they exist? Sounds like how your logics works at least.


 that's the thing though. you can only look and think what is in front of you... and that is fine. so you cannot talk about anything else than what you can see.

my logic is way ahead of you dude. if i was in your class, i would surpass you. to understand what we can see with out eyes is simple. to understand beyond our perspective is harder but there are many clues that say what it may be.

what is so hard to understand about what evolution proposes? nothing! a prokaryote was born (from who knows where) then came plants and gave oxygen and big animals where born. meh! nothing hard about understanding that.



> ﻿Gravity is observed, infinity is not... Ofcorse our perception of gravity is not gravity itself, but gravity still reflects an objective state of existence different in some way from another physical quantity.


 dude, infinity is evolution if you look at it closely. is there a point where evolution stops evolving? so in your own little world, evolution is from point A to point B, but that is your only perception in your limited mind. lets see if i can put it in another way.. lets say that tomorrow we find all the missing links to prove evolution. ok, then what? what will that accomplish, nothing. because you are only proving from your perspective of point A to point B. but i doubt there will be such day when evolution is proven... it's impossible. unless you can grab a prokaryote and make a human out of it. keep day dreaming evolution boy.



> Actually love adds up. It is a subjective perception that simply exists. Ever heard of cogito ergo sum?


 no it doesn't add up because universal love is subjective. there is no such thing as universal love. there is only love in your own little messed up world. and that messed up world could not be massed up... it depends.

for example charlie sheen may feel like a female loves him if she gives him drugs for his birthday.



> Anyway the definition of a number is asymmetry or confinement. That is the opposite of inifnity per definition! The global wavefunction (quantum state of the universe) can only be a superposition of so and so many quantum states.


 well, infinity does exist regardless. even if the universe is going in circles. big bangs -> life -> black holes -> big bangs -> life -> black holes.

to put it simply, if you cannot disprove infinity, why keep asking for proof?

you have no brain capacity to do either. just to say, "infinity is not true."



> As for counting the last number would be the last number you mention before you die.. The universe is always limited.. Speed, action, size and time its all limited.. If time was infinite, now would never have gotten time to happen since infinite amount of events must have happened before now..


 or so you think! meh. history should have taught you a thing or two. and you say you believe in evolution!

so you are saying if there was such thing as infinity, there would only be one infinity and not many? A



> ﻿Here i only see emotional motivated arguments with no logical fundament.. It's not worth responding to further than i have. However i'll explain in greater detail about how RNA formed in the next post.


 yes, yes explain what you know about RNA, stay away from the rest of logical arguments please. BTW, RNA is nothing.



> ﻿Here it seems like you are getting butthurt as a result of not comprehending science or the theory of evolution or logical thinking at all..


 only responded based on your butthurt post.



> Since when is contributing to society a measure of intelligence anyway? At least the main characteristics of your post showed up several times in this paragraph, that you ----> fail.


 what? are you kidding me? them how do we know the intelligent from the dumb asses? there may have lived a smarter person than Einstein out there in a secluded island. how do we know about Einstein genius?


----------



## Spindrift

mindsanitizer said:


> exactly, it's only a THEORY!


You don't understand what a scientific theory is. It's not some kind of idea a couple of people whipped up on their coffee break.

Scientific theories, such as the theory of evolution, have great bodies of evidence and data to support them. They have criteria that they must meet in order to be considered a useful and valid theory. There are strict parameters that they must work within. A theory must make a testable prediction.

If you argue that the theory of evolution is false on the grounds that "it's only a theory", then you must also argue against cell theory, plate tectonics, heliocentrism, et al.


----------



## Amocholes

Your statement does not hold up about theories. The Theory of Relativity cannot be tested at this time as we have no means of traveling at or even close to the speed of light yet it is pretty widely accepted as fact. When steam trains first started it was pretty well accepted that if one traveled faster than 30 mph that one would be unable to breathe and would thus suffocate. This has since been disproved.


----------



## Jnmcda0

mindsanitizer said:


> exactly, it's only a THEORY!


That species evolve is a fact. The process by which they evolve is a theory.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html


----------



## fdsafdsaf

fredbloggs02 said:


> I understand the arguement, I knew there was something sucpicious when I read it the first time though. This reminds me of trips to the science museum as a small boy with my dad. We saw the infinite mirrors that stretched out ino the distance... .. "But John(I called my dad by his first name), there is an end to them look, it's where mirrors don't happen anymore but I can still see where they're going, look! Maybe the symmetry ended where I did for all I know. Infinity is like social anxiety, any metaphor a therapist throws you ever does it justice when you find yourself impossibly intertwined with it, the seperate you is as a sense but he does exist, he has existed and he will do again. The metaphor is perfect in that it encapsulates a sense, it doesn't tell you which bits to chop off. Time doesn't end where infinity begins is my assertion, we simply cease to see it, we are the binding perhaps, we are not A4 sheets of paper. I know those halls of mirrors were as limited as you do! However I cannot strike myself from the record of infinity simply because I cannot grasp it, irrelevent as I may be to it. Even without me, infinity needs a sense of itself and I provide one too before I'm lost. Whoever said I'm not allowed to be lost with infinity? It's ok to be lost and lie because it's there for all to see. I don' need to abandon everything and start anew in repost to all. I needn't strike all from the record in my despondent love of everything. Perhaps we don't make quite the impression on time here and now as we think would be my response. Every"thing" may be limited, but every"thing" is only a single aspect of all? The globe makes room for the surveyer or the surveyer for the globe? Every"thing" has never existed within infinity I agree. Do we suppose then that infinitiy is as an aspect of every"thing" or an aspect of all? Subtle language is the language of certainty it seems. Sticking the god of all we've come to know infront of all conceivable truth. Is it any wonder he falls short as a standard measure? He is only as powerful as we and we you would say stand within everything, I would say I stood within all. Time will not tell within the context of infinity because our measurements only serve as a sense like he mirror, it is a self-professed lie so as a boy had the chance to paint his own picture. I suppose infinity is similar to an unconscious expanding in the sense that you'll never encapsulate all in such times. Maybe that is the only reason infinity exists at all because we're too proud to admitt our hands aren't fleet or broad enough to clutch the great speed some call God. There is nothing wrong with that, proud people are fun to debate with.
> 
> I literally just looked into Quantum theory, I was bored. It seems to reflect a lot of anger I've always felt at people who try and break a dream and I slam my fists down now because I know I had these ideas before I ever witnessed them in these videos!!! People have done to me without knowing, I am the victim of the victimless crime for reasons I've long suspected .... The slamming of my fists angers me more for their blatant contravention of the peace I've always felt, these fists aren't mine, they don't belong to me! This is the independence I've always possessed I think, this is why so many of my dreams influenced from all directions would stutter with effect and will again.


I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say, but i feel like you are thinking in the right direction  I guess if infinity exist i can only see it as never ending, but not existing as a whole. Infinity will never be something whole i guess, or a number.

I checked out the first video.. The measurement problem is solved, it is simply that every quantum state not measured gets connected to the environment while the measured value is the one getting entangled with the measurement instrument. Which value this is, is however perhaps truly random.


----------



## fdsafdsaf

mindsanitizer said:


> i disprove evolution by the facts alone. you can not know for sure that all animals evolved from one single organism. evolution is just an assumption. note, it claims that all living things came from ONE SINGLE ORGANISM. that is what evolution proposes. hey, any dumb person can settle for that notion even if it is not true. you only believe that because you have blind eyes. you are forgetting that our reality might not be true. we only see the color blue as blue because we named such color blue. we live only in our own little world. we "see" planets and stuff, but we might be living inside a giant.
> 
> evolution is not true and don't get fooled by the hype. all medicines out there are not really cures. just look at all medicine commercials. they all have side effects that are worse than what they claim to cure. your precious scientists (working based on the belief of evolution) only see you as a science rat for the rest of your life. they don't have the cure for anything. so why should i believe they know what they are talking about?
> 
> and there are other many examples.


Oh, so the theory of evolution might not be true? Oh noes, where is the Bible, there is a tiny chance that evolution isn't true so lets use our imagination and stupidity and see what fairytales we can believe in instead...

Seriously though, nothing is proven. Gravity isn't proven. That you existed two seconds ago isn't proven.. But why do we believe in it? Because it is scientific. Since you have no clue about science at all, just ask about why we should believe in science and i'll explain why science is most reasonable to believe in. E.g. what's more scientific: Do objects fall because of gravity, or an invisible green gome pulling them down?



mindsanitizer said:


> exactly, it's only a THEORY


And the Bible is only a story. Also the probability increases of evolution being true since there are no other reasonable theories.



mindsanitizer said:


> that's the thing though. you can only look and think what is in front of you... and that is fine. so you cannot talk about anything else than what you can see.


We can't see gravity. Yet my philosophical level of explanations are on a deeper level than you will ever reach.



mindsanitizer said:


> my logic is way ahead of you dude. if i was in your class, i would surpass you. to understand what we can see with out eyes is simple. to understand beyond our perspective is harder but there are many clues that say what it may be.


What logics? I'm surprised you even know the word? I'd love to see how you define logics though... I don't think it takes so much logics anyway to argue like you do: "You are wrong, I am better than you, you can't prove it"...



mindsanitizer said:


> what is so hard to understand about what evolution proposes? nothing! a prokaryote was born (from who knows where) then came plants and gave oxygen and big animals where born. meh! nothing hard about understanding that.


It goes deeper than that, but sure the theory of evolution isn't particularly difficult to understand.



mindsanitizer said:


> dude, infinity is evolution if you look at it closely. is there a point where evolution stops evolving? so in your own little world, evolution is from point A to point B, but that is your only perception in your limited mind. lets see if i can put it in another way.. lets say that tomorrow we find all the missing links to prove evolution. ok, then what? what will that accomplish, nothing. because you are only proving from your perspective of point A to point B. but i doubt there will be such day when evolution is proven... it's impossible. unless you can grab a prokaryote and make a human out of it. keep day dreaming evolution boy.


Infinity is evolution?? hahaha good one.. Keep it coming dude. And yes, luckily my mind is limited from your "great" logics.

Theories don't deal exactly with reality.. When are you going to realize that?

There is lots of evidence supporting the theory of evolution even if it can't be proven 100%. Gravity can't be proven either.. Can you prove that next time i release a ball in mid air that it will fall? Maybe it simply won't. Maybe 5+12 doesn't equal to 17 because a demon keeps tricking your mind into believing that, according to Descartes.

The word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, which states that modern species are the products of an extensive process that began over three billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms, and Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics.



mindsanitizer said:


> no it doesn't add up because universal love is subjective. there is no such thing as universal love. there is only love in your own little messed up world. and that messed up world could not be massed up... it depends.
> 
> for example charlie sheen may feel like a female loves him if she gives him drugs for his birthday.


Love still exists subjectively. Ofcorse the signals in the brain and the resulting modeling of the world around us, is is not the same thing which we see and perceive as the objective world.



mindsanitizer said:


> well, infinity does exist regardless. even if the universe is going in circles. big bangs -> life -> black holes -> big bangs -> life -> black holes.
> 
> to put it simply, if you cannot disprove infinity, why keep asking for proof?
> 
> you have no brain capacity to do either. just to say, "infinity is not true."


No, if the universe has gone in 5435743902578934275 circles the next one will be +1 and not infinity. As mentioned infinite events can't have existed before now since then now would never occur since infinite events before now would still be in the process of happening before "now". Still time probably didn't exist at some state of the existence of the universe.



mindsanitizer said:


> or so you think! meh. history should have taught you a thing or two. and you say you believe in evolution!
> 
> so you are saying if there was such thing as infinity, there would only be one infinity and not many? A
> 
> yes, yes explain what you know about RNA, stay away from the rest of logical arguments please. BTW, RNA is nothing.
> 
> only responded based on your butthurt post.
> 
> what? are you kidding me? them how do we know the intelligent from the dumb asses? there may have lived a smarter person than Einstein out there in a secluded island. how do we know about Einstein genius?


So since you for some reason are not satisfied with the evidence that we have for evolution, perhaps you would like to present some better ideas and try to explain how they are more reliable?


----------



## mindsanitizer

first of all, is there no such thing as infinity? answer. and say why again. but this time explaining more than what you already said about infinity.


> ﻿Oh, so the theory of evolution might not be true? Oh noes, where is the Bible, there is a tiny chance that evolution isn't true so lets use our imagination and stupidity and see what fairytales we can believe in instead...


 so what is your purpose in proving the theory of evolution? you know damn well that you cannot prove it. lets clarify things here because you sound confused. there is evolution and there is the theory of evolution. evolution is normal. i get the flu virus and my body becomes immune to it. you may see this as evolving and it is, but it is not "the theory of evolution." similarly, a google "evolved" to the google it is right now. but the body immune to the new flu virus is still the same. we didn't grow horns. same with google evolving. it is still google. i don't even see evolution i see intelligence. we are intelligent beings. we don't follow stupidity or random things. we see intelligent people as gods and we follow them so we can learn from them and spread our seeds. some just are selfish and think only of themselves till they die. but if everyone was like that, we would all be extinct. i can see that you have an agenda towards the bible like if it was the devil. the devil here is anyone or anything that rubbed you the wrong way. you not necessarily using common sense to come up with that conclusion. like if a dog bit you as a little boy, you will be scared of dogs and more of the breed that bit you. by using your sight, you will recognize the similarities in the devil dog the next time you see it. same if a black person was to punch you in the face, your memory receptors have that in mind. including the surroundings. etc. that's why we know right from wrong too. are you using common sense to come up with that butt hurt comment? if yes, you are more than welcome to dissect the whole bible with great detail in how it is so wrong? dude, this is nothing new to me. i can see through you like a window. you can't see past RNA. you only based everything that you think that you know about the bible based on your science classes and newly gained knowledge about RNA and stuff. if you where to have been taken bible classes with results, your world view would be different. now, i am know your answer. you will say it won't. but there has to be a reason why you believe in evolution and not in the bible. when both have their purpose. just like some people are for abortion and others are not. same scenario.


> Seriously though, nothing is proven. Gravity isn't proven. That you existed two seconds ago isn't proven.. But why do we believe in it? Because it is scientific. Since you have no clue about science at all, just ask about why we should believe in science and i'll explain why science is most reasonable to believe in. E.g. what's more scientific: Do objects fall because of gravity, or an invisible green gome pulling them down?


 lol, science can't even cure SAD. and there might not even be such a thing as SAD just a made up word by your precious scientist to milk you off of your money. hell, let me be Nostradamus and predict the future here... there will never be a cure for SAD in a science made pill. why? because these scientists don't know jack. back on point. if nothing is proven then you cannot disprove god. as a matter of fact, god gave you the ability to do science. since life is not about being reasonable.... that's what scientist believe. when have you seen a scientists with a lot of females and spreading the seed all around? you haven't. that is true reality. there is a difference between living in a fantasy world of trying to understand things (that most of them are just theories) and doing things unconsciously, that are backed up as facts by their results, with out science. as a matter of fact, you see your scientists as gods.


> ﻿And the Bible is only Bull****. Also the probability increases of evolution being true since there are no other reasonable theories.


 does it make you feel like a big man when you say bullshi t? why don't you understand that evolution will always be a scientists wet dream. you can say all that you want but it cannot be true based on science rules alone. you should know this smart man. sure, understand RNA, the gnome, the epic-gnome, etc. you cannot prove the theory of evolution just by that by science standards. unless you can make a monkey out of a micro-organism called prokaryote. or any other animal for that matter, since prokaryotes are the gods of scientists.


> *﻿We can't see gravity.* Yet my philosophical level of explanations are on a deeper level than you will ever reach.


 loooool.... at we can't see gravity!


> ﻿What logics? I'm surprised you even know the word? I'd love to see how you define logics though... I don't think it takes so much logics anyway to argue like you do: "You are wrong, I am better than you, you can't prove it"...


 well, the true logic is that Darwinism nor creationism cannot be disproved! what? that is not true in your little mind? this has been argued since ancient Greeks. catch up to reality dude! kids these days! i am just killing time here meh!


> ﻿It goes deeper than that, but sure the theory of evolution isn't particularly difficult to understand.


 deeper? well what are you waiting for dude. explain this deepness! don't just sit there and say it.


> ﻿Infinity is evolution?? hahaha good one.. Keep it coming dude. And yes, luckily my mind is limited from your "great" logics.


 so when will evolution stop? your mind is a grain of sand. please, go ahead and explain how evolution is not infinity?


> Theories don't deal exactly with reality.. When are you going to realize that?


 huh!


> There is lots of evidence supporting the theory of evolution even if it can't be proven 100%. Gravity can't be proven either.. Can you prove that next time i release a ball in mid air that it will fall? Maybe it simply won't. Maybe 5+12 doesn't equal to 17 because a demon keeps tricking your mind into believing that, according to Descartes.


 are you really insane not to be able to prove gravity with out perceptions? our perceptions IS reality. but we cannot explain what is out side of our perceptions with facts. and that is where god is and so is the theory of evolution. one will never derail the other, so just chose one side or the other. that's all one can do. i really don't care what you believe in, i'm just wasting time here. tomorrow, this won't help me pay my bills. and that is human perception = reality.


> ﻿Love still exists subjectively. Ofcorse the signals in the brain and the resulting modeling of the world around us, is is not the same thing which we see and perceive as the objective world.


 huh! by your logic, infinity exists too when you said it doesn't.. okayy! disregarding that flawed view of yours, god still exists subjectively. get over it and go study RNA and make some bullshi t pills that won't work. or something else that won't work. what can you do that works besides having mouth diarrhea? what you are studying it is easy, because you only use the sense of sight to understand. and even that is easy to understand, you will fail to make it work. like i said, i can prove it to you that i can beat you at your own "knowledge." i have been there many times. people live in their own little world. when they find out that their world is crap, is when they get depressed and go down (well those that are strong will learn). this is the reason why i know that a lot of them live in a fantasy world. just keep dreaming but don't talk to me about "true reality" (reality outside your perspective of true reality)


> ﻿No, if the universe has gone in 5435743902578934275 circles the next one will be +1 and not infinity. As mentioned infinite events can't have existed before now since then now would never occur since infinite events before now would still be in the process of happening before "now". Still time probably didn't exist at some state of the existence of the universe.


 dude! you don't know the next one! so at present time, today is infinity. i give up! you assume that infinity has a beginning. when it does not, nor an end. it's just keeps going and going with no beginning or ending. your life has no infinity, you will die. end of story. this is boring to me... i need more brain power for a challange.


----------



## fdsafdsaf

mindsanitizer said:


> first of all, is there no such thing as infinity? answer. and say why again. but this time explaining more than what you already said about infinity.


Well my opinion about infinity is such as the Bible.. I can't prove that it doesn't exist. But there is no observations supporting it. You know, observation is the only reason to believe that something exists.. Anyway infinity is simply never observed, and you can't even imagine infinity. You can only imagine that a number keeps growing larger. However a growing number and infinity are two different things.



mindsanitizer said:


> so what is your purpose in proving the theory of evolution? you know damn well that you cannot prove it. lets clarify things here because you sound confused. there is evolution and there is the theory of evolution. evolution is normal. i get the flu virus and my body becomes immune to it. you may see this as evolving and it is, but it is not "the theory of evolution." similarly, a google "evolved" to the google it is right now. but the body immune to the new flu virus is still the same. we didn't grow horns. same with google evolving. it is still google. i don't even see evolution i see intelligence. we are intelligent beings. we don't follow stupidity or random things. we see intelligent people as gods and we follow them so we can learn from them and spread our seeds. some just are selfish and think only of themselves till they die. but if everyone was like that, we would all be extinct. i can see that you have an agenda towards the bible like if it was the devil. the devil here is anyone or anything that rubbed you the wrong way. you not necessarily using common sense to come up with that conclusion. like if a dog bit you as a little boy, you will be scared of dogs and more of the breed that bit you. by using your sight, you will recognize the similarities in the devil dog the next time you see it. same if a black person was to punch you in the face, your memory receptors have that in mind. including the surroundings. etc. that's why we know right from wrong too. are you using common sense to come up with that butt hurt comment? if yes, you are more than welcome to dissect the whole bible with great detail in how it is so wrong? dude, this is nothing new to me. i can see through you like a window. you can't see past RNA. you only based everything that you think that you know about the bible based on your science classes and newly gained knowledge about RNA and stuff. if you where to have been taken bible classes with results, your world view would be different. now, i am know your answer. you will say it won't. but there has to be a reason why you believe in evolution and not in the bible. when both have their purpose. just like some people are for abortion and others are not. same scenario.


If you have 500 apples and you get 500 apples more do you believe that you have 1000 apples? 500+500=1000? Well how do you know? By using your own retard argument, you haven't seen that you had thousand apples and then exchanged it... You know we humans, excluding you are intelligent because we can observe fundamental information and generalize it.. By observing that 1+1=2 we can generalize it for more units..

So by observing that mutation does happen over small amounts of time, we can reasonably generalize it over larger portions of timem, and it becomes a theory which makes very good sense.

Now lets look at the Bible.. There really isn't any observation giving any reason to believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans to exist.. Other than empty words... If you are as stupid as all the other creationists i've pwned in discussions, you'd say: "Oh noes, but you learned science from books too".. Well sure science is learned from books too, but we can support it with our fundamental observations.. For example, we can verify newtons laws ourselves by actually observing reality around us.. The same just doesn't apply for the Bible.. Even if we can find a stupid boat which looks like noahs ark or whatever, it does not imply that God made a flood, or anything else written there..



mindsanitizer said:


> lol, science can't even cure SAD. and there might not even be such a thing as SAD just a made up word by your precious scientist to milk you off of your money. hell, let me be Nostradamus and predict the future here... there will never be a cure for SAD in a science made pill. why? because these scientists don't know jack. back on point. if nothing is proven then you cannot disprove god. as a matter of fact, god gave you the ability to do science. since life is not about being reasonable.... that's what scientist believe. when have you seen a scientists with a lot of females and spreading the seed all around? you haven't. that is true reality. there is a difference between living in a fantasy world of trying to understand things (that most of them are just theories) and doing things unconsciously, that are backed up as facts by their results, with out science. as a matter of fact, you see your scientists as gods.


Oh my science can't cure SAD, so science is sooo stupid right? Or wait, maybe it is you who are stupid?

Your next amazing argument: Science can't disprove God, therefor God exists and therefor science exist because he gave us ability to do science.. Do i even need to explain how stupid this is?

You keep posting irrelevant **** as if you are trying to make a point.. Scientists aren't alpha males.. So what? Climbing up the social hierarchy is a bigger insurance for survivability and spreading genes than contributing with intelligent stuff, since with the ability to make people like you and/or dominate them, you even have the benefit of scientific results and surviving with the support of the entire group. Thus, people with genes being attracted to those who survive better will spread their genes more, than those who are attracted to loners.. Since a stupid group of people would out compete a group of two smart people in the times people lived in caves or as nomads.. Still intelligence is yet constructive to survivability and thus also to some degree attractive..



mindsanitizer said:


> does it make you feel like a big man when you say bullshi t? why don't you understand that evolution will always be a scientists wet dream. you can say all that you want but it cannot be true based on science rules alone. you should know this smart man. sure, understand RNA, the gnome, the epic-gnome, etc. you cannot prove the theory of evolution just by that by science standards. unless you can make a monkey out of a micro-organism called prokaryote. or any other animal for that matter, since prokaryotes are the gods of scientists.


Even if you can't understand why the theory of evolution is a reasonable theory, it doesn't mean that others can't.. Do you really think you are that much smarter than all the scientists in the world? How old are you, 15?



mindsanitizer said:


> loooool.... at we can't see gravity!


Yes forces are invisible. We only see that objects accelerate..



mindsanitizer said:


> well, the true logic is that Darwinism nor creationism cannot be disproved! what? that is not true in your little mind? this has been argued since ancient Greeks. catch up to reality dude! kids these days! i am just killing time here meh!


For once you said something true.. But you are still an idiot and your argument totally fails. Because some things are more reasonable to believe in than others... E.g. what is more likely to believe in, that a gnome will kick you in the balls in exactly 2.54327859043275 seconds, or that it will not happen?



mindsanitizer said:


> deeper? well what are you waiting for dude. explain this deepness! don't just sit there and say it.


If you want a deeper explanation of the theory of evolution than what fits into your microcosmos of an existence, simply google it.



mindsanitizer said:


> so when will evolution stop? your mind is a grain of sand. please, go ahead and explain how evolution is not infinity?


infinity means larger than any number. Evolution describes how species change.. The theory of evolution is more than just larger than any number, assuming it could even have that property. I guess both your english skills and stupidity failed you at this one..



mindsanitizer said:


> huh! are you really insane not to be able to prove gravity with out perceptions? our perceptions IS reality. but we cannot explain what is out side of our perceptions with facts. and that is where god is and so is the theory of evolution. one will never derail the other, so just chose one side or the other. that's all one can do. i really don't care what you believe in, i'm just wasting time here. tomorrow, this won't help me pay my bills. and that is human perception = reality.


Let me translate your amazing logics yet again lol... "Theories such as evolution are about objective reality.. Therefor all theories are equally probable." Need i say anything more than WRONG? 

cont'd in next post


----------



## fdsafdsaf

mindsanitizer said:


> huh! by your logic, infinity exists too when you said it doesn't.. okayy! disregarding that flawed view of yours, god still exists subjectively. get over it and go study RNA and make some bullshi t pills that won't work. or something else that won't work. what can you do that works besides having mouth diarrhea? what you are studying it is easy, because you only use the sense of sight to understand. and even that is easy to understand, you will fail to make it work. like i said, i can prove it to you that i can beat you at your own "knowledge." i have been there many times. people live in their own little world. when they find out that their world is crap, is when they get depressed and go down (well those that are strong will learn). this is the reason why i know that a lot of them live in a fantasy world. just keep dreaming but don't talk to me about "true reality" (reality outside your perspective of true reality)


Wow i feel like you are so much talking about yourself.. living in your own little world with mouth diarrhea.. You can't beat me in physics at M. Sc. level.. In fact i doubt you'd understand anything at all.. Based on the intelligence level of your arguments i'm starting to think that you are trolling, so if you want me to keep responding you better increase the intelligence level behind your arguments..



mindsanitizer said:


> dude! you don't know the next one! so at present time, today is infinity. i give up! you assume that infinity has a beginning. when it does not, nor an end. it's just keeps going and going with no beginning or ending. your life has no infinity, you will die. end of story. this is boring to me... i need more brain power for a challange.


Yeah you need more brainpower to take the challenge. Since you failed to understand the argument. You fail.


----------



## Amocholes

Infinity is a concept. It is not a concrete object. The idea is that you can always add 1 more to any number. What is so difficult about this? 

Evolution is another concept. No 2 life forms are entirely identical. (Even in identical twins) There are minute variations. Some of these variations are passed on to offspring. some variations are beneficial while others become redundant. (like the appendix). It is widely accepted as fact yet there are no actual rules that we have been able to determine. Therefore it remains a theory unlike gravity whose effects can be measured. (if we drop an apple from a set distance we can calculate precisely when it will hit the ground)


----------



## Amocholes

*Less argument and more discussion please.*


----------



## fdsafdsaf

Amocholes said:


> Infinity is a concept. It is not a concrete object. The idea is that you can always add 1 more to any number. What is so difficult about this?
> 
> Therefore it remains a theory unlike gravity whose effects can be measured. (if we drop an apple from a set distance we can calculate precisely when it will hit the ground)


As for infinity, it is not just adding a number, but that it is bigger than any other number. However how can a number be bigger than any other number. If infinity isn't a number then it requires believing in something fundamentally non observed and thus no reason to believe in.

Gravity is also a theory. If we throw an apple maybe it will start flying 5 meters longer than we thought because of quantum tunneling. Nothing can indeed be proven except for our own existence.


----------



## fredbloggs02

fdsafdsaf said:


> As for infinity, it is not just adding a number, but that it is bigger than any other number. However how can a number be bigger than any other number. If infinity isn't a number then it requires believing in something fundamentally non observed and thus no reason to believe in.
> 
> Gravity is also a theory. If we throw an apple maybe it will start flying 5 meters longer than we thought because of quantum tunneling. Nothing can indeed be proven except for our own existence.
> 
> It may do something we can all witness then again, it may do something none of us witness the same, the language we use is created under the illusion we all share it simply because we all use the same words. Things are safe when you don't see them anymore but replace a word where seeing used to be, then the subtleties seemingly vanish. If anyone ever attested he saw the same thing as the next man he should be lieing but the words are corrupted enough to lie for him once he's satisfied in them. The words are corruptable and he is succeptible to corruption, it makes his life easier being honest. A concientious man who needs to tell the truth need arrive quickly at it, MUST begin to build swiftly, far more swift in his desperation than a truth should. He need be able to replicate it so that at least he becomes known the "truthful man." At least people know the originality of his lies. It becomes a job of convincing people to accept the words, to come to consensus over ripping them from an environment that never contained them in the first place yet speaking of the environment nonetheless. Isolating things that exist as a whole. Speaking of the reality of crime with a man who upon greeting us every time forces entry by placing his foot in the door. People assure us he is welcome to desensitize us and eventually we welcome him ourselves....


----------



## mindsanitizer

> Well my opinion about infinity is such as the Bible.. *I can't prove that it doesn't exist.* But there is no observations supporting it.


 Wow, you can't prove that it does not exist because it does exist. That's why you know what a bible is! Don't get confused, you are failing because you are referring to the content of the bible not the bible itself. Get it? The bible is real! If you believe the bible is not real, then you are in some other planet. 
Now I don't really know if you hate the bible due to some agenda (god was not there for you when you requested help.. etc) or because you got confused at school when science class told you "no, god did not make the clouds."
Who knows, the bible still exists. So you will never prove that it doesn't for infinity. I don't see your logic behind this seriously. 


> You know, *observation* is the only reason to believe that something exists.. Anyway infinity is simply never observed, and you can't even imagine infinity. You can only imagine that a number keeps growing larger. However a growing number and infinity are two different things.


 The bold depends on your definition of observation. Based on your first paragraph, I would say that your "observation" needs more observing. 
I don't know what you mean about imagining a number; you make it sound like imagining is some type of disease. That we should not believe our imagination!, when I know full well, that imagination is part of our ability to be knowledgeable. Without imagining an infinite number, how do we know when a number stops? By that logic, our counting should stop at 10. Past that, is just going for infinity because we can always add a zero to the next number plus 1-9. 
That defines infinity, I don't know what you are trying to imply when you say they are two different things when they both add up and support each other. 
Without being an infinite amount of numbers to count, there would not be infinity. Without knowing what infinity is, there would not be no definition for an infinite counting. 


> If you have 500 apples and you get 500 apples more do you believe that you have 1000 apples? 500+500=1000? Well how do you know? By using your own retard argument, you haven't seen that you had thousand apples and then exchanged it... You know we humans, excluding you are intelligent because we can observe fundamental information and generalize it.. By observing that 1+1=2 we can generalize it for more units..


 What? So if I have 1000 apples I have 2000 apples? says who? Hmmmm&#8230;. I don't really get your "logic." You know red apples are what humans taste buds prefer. So if you are trying to imply that if I have 500 apples I already had 1000 apples because I could grow some more with the 500 apples seeds. But you fail to see that red apples are humans doing. Red apples are freaks of nature. Apples grow sour and sweet and in different colors. It's a game of pin the tail on the donkey. I bet you believe in Johnny Appleseed story&#8230; lol. Most do so I don't blame you.



> So by observing that mutation does happen over small amounts of time, we can reasonably generalize it over larger portions of timem, and it becomes a theory which makes very good sense.


 Yes it does make sense because you are a mutant. I on the other hand, am a product of intelligence. The difference is obvious. You are basically saying that mutation is intelligent. Hmmm&#8230; if mutation was so important would there not be human's with two heads or 4 arms, or heck, 5 heads and 6 arms?



> Now lets look at the Bible.. There really isn't any observation giving any reason to believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans to exist.. Other than empty words... If you are as stupid as all the other creationists i've pwned in discussions, you'd say: "Oh noes, but you learned science from books too".. Well sure science is learned from books too, but we can support it with our fundamental observations.. For example, we can verify newtons laws ourselves by actually observing reality around us.. The same just doesn't apply for the Bible.. Even if we can find a stupid boat which looks like noahs ark or whatever, it does not imply that God made a flood, or anything else written there.


 Lol&#8230; just because you cannot see an alien does not mean they do not exist. And that is as far as your perception goes (nothing else exists other than what you can see with your eyes. a blind mole rat does not know shi t about us. now what if you where a blind mole rat?). Again, believe that all you want. It does not really matter. But for those people who will leave this earth soon because it will be destroyed by ignorant people, it does matter a lot. God knows that this world will end sometime. That's why he gives us the knowledge to understand how to leave this world. If you want to go against god, hey, enjoy the bumpy road. 
The difference between your weak mind and mine is that I believe in both, again, still, I can surpass you in whatever you job is or whatever you are studying! I have proved it before many times. As a matter of fact, I have to pretend to be at lower levels of intelligence among people because, if I don't, I get outcast. 
The point is that you are speaking with a closed mind due to your issues. I am open to science and god! 
Let me put it to you this way, tell me what can science do to make me feel what I feel when I prey?
If you don't know the feeling that comes after praying, you are more ignorant than I am. I would gladly pay money if there was such a pill. Praying does not come with any side effects! 


> Oh my science can't cure SAD, so science is sooo stupid right? Or wait, maybe it is you who are stupid?


 Maybe I am more stupid that you are, or maybe you are. This does not matter, well, can you tell me how to cure SAD? You cannot debate facts even if your heart breaks to find out that science is not everything. You need to get out more. I don't blame you if you can't though, duh! SAD. If you had the cure, you would not be here!



> Your next amazing argument: Science can't disprove God, therefor God exists and therefor science exist because he gave us ability to do science.. Do i even need to explain how stupid this is?


 Stupid is stupid does. You might be stupider than the next person. Based on science laws, God does exist because it cannot be disproved. Hmm&#8230; what's the word that science geeks use? Something about a model&#8230;. Like putting something is a test tube to replicate the issue at hand. Lol, you cannot put God in a test tube! How stupid is that? You are forgetting that you precious earth is not yours. But go ahead and destroy it with your atom bombs (product of scientists&#8230;thank you!)



> You keep posting irrelevant **** as if you are trying to make a point.. Scientists aren't alpha males.. So what? Climbing up the social hierarchy is a bigger insurance for survivability and spreading genes than contributing with intelligent stuff, since with the ability to make people like you and/or dominate them, you even have the benefit of scientific results and surviving with the support of the entire group. Thus, people with genes being attracted to those who survive better will spread their genes more, than those who are attracted to loners.. Since a stupid group of people would out compete a group of two smart people in the times people lived in caves or as nomads.. Still intelligence is yet constructive to survivability and thus also to some degree attractive..


 What? Evolution is based on alpha males! It is very ironic for a science nerd to disregard alphas! seriously. The nerd that you look up to right now is your alpha. The thing is that you are blind. While what I speak of is true it supports both God doings and the theory of evolution, co I am really confused why you would you this as an example to support your side. Hmmm&#8230; unless you are confused or another reason. 
All I know is that without alphas, there would not be a God (god is an alpha) nor scientists. Not in the mood to explain true reality. I just know that most geeks don't like alphas though they have wet dreams over their alpha geeks,,,lol.


----------



## mindsanitizer

> Even if you can't understand why the theory of evolution is a reasonable theory, it doesn't mean that others can't.. Do you really think you are that much smarter than all the scientists in the world? How old are you, 15?


 This comment says a lot about your understanding of someone being smart. You make it sound like a scientist is smarter than any other person. When most are not even smart at what they think they understand. Their smartness is subjective! Like none of them are wrong or have been wrong? Lol. 
If a scientists was to tell you, take 20 pills a day of this kind would you? I bet you would. Since they are smarter than others. 
If you had car problems, of course, you would go to a scientists to fix the issue? 
If you had to have eye surgery, you would go to a scientists?
If you have female problems, hey, a scientists is to the rescue?
Scientists are not what they seem to be. Well, they are the same as any other person, they just make more money by doing less work. Of course, someone else makes more money by doing less work than scientists. Also, WTF is a scientists, is it really that hard to be one? Can I not be one by studying this or the other? And even if I am wrong by studying this or the other, I am not a scientist? 
Just babbling, not hard to understand to me! 
Dude, I believe in the theory of evolution also, I believe in a god. Plus, I do believe that I am smarter than most due to the end results. You want to prove this to you? Ok, it can be done. Just think about "evolution" (not the theory of evolution). You know more information than your dad does. Our brain gains more knowledge by the hour. So there is someone out there that is more knowledgeable than Einstein. 


> Yes forces are invisible. We only see that objects accelerate..


 Lol&#8230;. Trying to sound smart. Even a squirrel can see gravity if you tell it what gravity is. Acceleration is something else&#8230; K stop trying to hard, you don't know everything dude.
If you are trying to teach me something, go ahead and write a book about it or prove it with something knew that has not been done. Don't just argue with RNA, which is something figured out by someone else and not you! 


> For once you said something true.. But you are still an idiot and your argument totally fails. Because some things are more reasonable to believe in than others... E.g. what is more likely to believe in, that a gnome will kick you in the balls in exactly 2.54327859043275 seconds, or that it will not happen?


 So what you believe is more reasonable than others&#8230;.hmmm&#8230;K.. Princess Dianna. 
A gnome cannot kick me in the balls because it has no feet. And I though you knew this things! That does to show your hatred towards God. That hate you have is science eh! Figure it out bad boy. You are not different than the bully that bullied you at school&#8230; or any other bully for that matter. Experience says that when you are bullied or deprived of parent's attention, you grow up unstable. This is true! So either you go against God due to some personal issues or go against God due to you being a follower of some science geeks who don't believe in God. You cannot believe in God if you believe in science though, that is the hype (though I believe in both). 
You are just a grown up loner geek. I say that because science believers like the "facts."


> If you want a deeper explanation of the theory of evolution than what fits into your microcosmos of an existence, simply google it.


 So google speaks for you now?


> infinity means larger than any number. Evolution describes how species change.. The theory of evolution is more than just larger than any number, assuming it could even have that property. I guess both your english skills and stupidity failed you at this one..


 Hmmm&#8230;. *infinity means lager than any number?* loooool&#8230;. Really? So now infinity is tied to numbers? Pardon my ignorance your "majesty" (sarcasm) but I though it was more like * that refers to a quantity without bound or end.* (actual definition)[/b] pardon my mistake your honor! (sarcasm) 
What? Evolution is larger than just lager numbers? What is this? A circus show? 
Now my English skills are an excuse too! 
I am sure you are at the top when it comes to English speaking and grammar too! WTF! Is this even irrelevant? Or are you just trying too hard? 


> Let me translate your amazing logics yet again lol... "Theories such as evolution are about objective reality.. Therefor all theories are equally probable." Need i say anything more than WRONG?


 Here we go again&#8230; just because you put a "therefore" in it means they both do not make sense? or something along those lines. "just because you believe that you are smart, therefore, no one else is".. right? 
So if I say&#8230;.
"Theories such as God are about objective reality.. Therefor[e] all theories are equally probable." 
* Need i say anything more than WRONG?* yes you do, and then say it again. WTF is going on inside your "smart" brain?


----------



## fdsafdsaf

mindsanitizer said:


> Wow, you can't prove that it does not exist because it does exist. That's why you know what a bible is! Don't get confused, you are failing because you are referring to the content of the bible not the bible itself. Get it? The bible is real! If you believe the bible is not real, then you are in some other planet.
> Now I don't really know if you hate the bible due to some agenda (god was not there for you when you requested help.. etc) or because you got confused at school when science class told you "no, god did not make the clouds."
> Who knows, the bible still exists. So you will never prove that it doesn't for infinity. I don't see your logic behind this seriously.
> The bold depends on your definition of observation. Based on your first paragraph, I would say that your "observation" needs more observing.
> I don't know what you mean about imagining a number; you make it sound like imagining is some type of disease. That we should not believe our imagination!, when I know full well, that imagination is part of our ability to be knowledgeable. Without imagining an infinite number, how do we know when a number stops? By that logic, our counting should stop at 10. Past that, is just going for infinity because we can always add a zero to the next number plus 1-9.
> That defines infinity, I don't know what you are trying to imply when you say they are two different things when they both add up and support each other.
> Without being an infinite amount of numbers to count, there would not be infinity. Without knowing what infinity is, there would not be no definition for an infinite counting.


Ofcorse i know the Bible exists. But i don't believe in the content in it. Some of the stories might be inspired by some events e.g. perhaps there really was a guy called Jesus who managed to inspire a lot of people. However what i don't believe is the unobserved principles. Such as that he was particularly holy, or could walk on water, raised from the dead etc. Or noahs ark, Adam and eve..

I'll give you some example of observations and non observations. For example, a pink flying elephant is unobserved. Do you think one exists? I think not. Because fundamentally we haven't observed or found the technology or the possibility to create such beings.. However you may not have observed a pillow shaped as a hexagon? Well in this case you can still assume one is likely to exist, because you have observed all the principles necessary for it to be possible.. By simply knowing that we can sew together any shape, and that there might be an economical demand for it. So when it comes to evolution we have observed every such principles necessary. When it comes to the stories of the Bible, they are fundamentally unobserved.



mindsanitizer said:


> What? So if I have 1000 apples I have 2000 apples? says who? Hmmmm&#8230;. I don't really get your "logic." You know red apples are what humans taste buds prefer. So if you are trying to imply that if I have 500 apples I already had 1000 apples because I could grow some more with the 500 apples seeds. But you fail to see that red apples are humans doing. Red apples are freaks of nature. Apples grow sour and sweet and in different colors. It's a game of pin the tail on the donkey. I bet you believe in Johnny Appleseed story&#8230; lol. Most do so I don't blame you.


No i said that 500apples + 500 apples = 1000 apples.. How can you prove that this is the case even if you have not observed it? If you have understood what i wrote above, you should be able to answer it.

Then answer, why is it reasonable to assume that the earth isn't going to end in the next 5 seconds after you read this?



mindsanitizer said:


> Yes it does make sense because you are a mutant. I on the other hand, am a product of intelligence. The difference is obvious. You are basically saying that mutation is intelligent. Hmmm&#8230; if mutation was so important would there not be human's with two heads or 4 arms, or heck, 5 heads and 6 arms?


Mutation isn't intelligent, it is random. However only the successfull permutations of the randomness survives. That is how we evolved as such. We also ended up with no more than two arms because of evolution obviously have some constraints due to the physical laws and is also gruadual.. Such as that the simplest construction is most probable, and two legs and arms is relatively simple and successfull at the same time.. Or having more heads and arms hasn't been so constructive for surviving. There exist people with two heads today. Are they more successfull?



mindsanitizer said:


> Lol&#8230; just because you cannot see an alien does not mean they do not exist. And that is as far as your perception goes (nothing else exists other than what you can see with your eyes. a blind mole rat does not know shi t about us. now what if you where a blind mole rat?). Again, believe that all you want. It does not really matter. But for those people who will leave this earth soon because it will be destroyed by ignorant people, it does matter a lot. God knows that this world will end sometime. That's why he gives us the knowledge to understand how to leave this world. If you want to go against god, hey, enjoy the bumpy road.
> The difference between your weak mind and mine is that I believe in both, again, still, I can surpass you in whatever you job is or whatever you are studying! I have proved it before many times. As a matter of fact, I have to pretend to be at lower levels of intelligence among people because, if I don't, I get outcast.
> The point is that you are speaking with a closed mind due to your issues. I am open to science and god!
> Let me put it to you this way, tell me what can science do to make me feel what I feel when I prey?
> If you don't know the feeling that comes after praying, you are more ignorant than I am. I would gladly pay money if there was such a pill. Praying does not come with any side effects!


I said that I am open for the existence of what may fit into some definition of God. However i can safely say that the Bible along with most others if not all other so called holy books contains a lot of bull**** and is at best primitive and fallacious attempt of science for people 2000 years ago. It contains a lot of moral unecessities, primitive and fallacious scientific explanations etc. In many countries women are raped, molested and then hanged for it just because of retard interpretation of worthless text in a stupid book. People choose fairy tales over science.. Girls should be virgins until they are married.. You ask why i hate the Bible etc.. I don't exactly hate it, but i mentioned some destructive properties of it. The good parts about holy books is that spiritual perceptions are positive, and they inspire to achieve them.. However, I simply practice meditation in order to achieve that. Simple steps, no bull****.



mindsanitizer said:


> Maybe I am more stupid that you are, or maybe you are. This does not matter, well, can you tell me how to cure SAD? You cannot debate facts even if your heart breaks to find out that science is not everything. You need to get out more. I don't blame you if you can't though, duh! SAD. If you had the cure, you would not be here!


CBT is a cure.. I guess i don't follow it too strictly and yield to my urge to analyze instead.. I go out with friends nearly everyday, but still i find the dynamics of socializing very stressfull. I feel like i need to be more inside than going out more.



mindsanitizer said:


> Stupid is stupid does. You might be stupider than the next person. Based on science laws, God does exist because it cannot be disproved. Hmm&#8230; what's the word that science geeks use? Something about a model&#8230;. Like putting something is a test tube to replicate the issue at hand. Lol, you cannot put God in a test tube! How stupid is that? You are forgetting that you precious earth is not yours. But go ahead and destroy it with your atom bombs (product of scientists&#8230;thank you!)


Maybe it is Allah and not God who is the ruler of the universe.. You can start with pondering on that.. I think a more reasonable religious belief would be to find what is equal in all different religions. Even that might not be entirely true for all we know. But yet, more logical.



mindsanitizer said:


> What? Evolution is based on alpha males! It is very ironic for a science nerd to disregard alphas! seriously. The nerd that you look up to right now is your alpha. The thing is that you are blind. While what I speak of is true it supports both God doings and the theory of evolution, co I am really confused why you would you this as an example to support your side. Hmmm&#8230; unless you are confused or another reason.
> All I know is that without alphas, there would not be a God (god is an alpha) nor scientists. Not in the mood to explain true reality. I just know that most geeks don't like alphas though they have wet dreams over their alpha geeks,,,lol.


Evolution isn't based on alpha males but alpha males are a consequence of what evolution is based on.


----------



## fdsafdsaf

mindsanitizer said:


> This comment says a lot about your understanding of someone being smart. You make it sound like a scientist is smarter than any other person. When most are not even smart at what they think they understand. Their smartness is subjective! Like none of them are wrong or have been wrong? Lol.
> If a scientists was to tell you, take 20 pills a day of this kind would you? I bet you would. Since they are smarter than others.
> If you had car problems, of course, you would go to a scientists to fix the issue?
> If you had to have eye surgery, you would go to a scientists?
> If you have female problems, hey, a scientists is to the rescue?
> Scientists are not what they seem to be. Well, they are the same as any other person, they just make more money by doing less work. Of course, someone else makes more money by doing less work than scientists. Also, WTF is a scientists, is it really that hard to be one? Can I not be one by studying this or the other? And even if I am wrong by studying this or the other, I am not a scientist?
> Just babbling, not hard to understand to me!
> Dude, I believe in the theory of evolution also, I believe in a god. Plus, I do believe that I am smarter than most due to the end results. You want to prove this to you? Ok, it can be done. Just think about "evolution" (not the theory of evolution). You know more information than your dad does. Our brain gains more knowledge by the hour. So there is someone out there that is more knowledgeable than Einstein.


I do believe that studying contributes to intelligence. At least studying something scientific or something which involves logical reasoning. Any e.g. physics professor sent back 1000 years ago would be likely to have one of the most analytical minds in the world.

Also, you just get better at what you do too. Do you think you know more maths than a maths professor with Ph D? Even if you would score more on an IQ test, you would never beat him in maths, or know more about evolution than a biologist.

So i was just advising you to not waste time trying to disprove theory of evolution with your same strategy, because scientists have thought further than that.



mindsanitizer said:


> Lol&#8230;. Trying to sound smart. Even a squirrel can see gravity if you tell it what gravity is. Acceleration is something else&#8230; K stop trying to hard, you don't know everything dude.
> If you are trying to teach me something, go ahead and write a book about it or prove it with something knew that has not been done. Don't just argue with RNA, which is something figured out by someone else and not you!


See again you think you know more about something than somebody who is more educated than you on the topic. I've studied physics for many years, like i said, you'll never beat me in it. Can you see a graviton? No. In fact physicist don't even know what gravity is. F=ma force is observed as mass that accelerates. Observing and combining these observed quantities in a multiplication simply called force, is equal to other combinations of observed quantities. If i'd write a book about it as you request, i'd steal the work of somebody else. Such as David Hume already explained that forces are invisible. In fact he's an excellent philosopher who i would reccomend you to read about if you want to know anything about science.



mindsanitizer said:


> So what you believe is more reasonable than others&#8230;.hmmm&#8230;K.. Princess Dianna.
> A gnome cannot kick me in the balls because it has no feet. And I though you knew this things! That does to show your hatred towards God. That hate you have is science eh! Figure it out bad boy. You are not different than the bully that bullied you at school&#8230; or any other bully for that matter. Experience says that when you are bullied or deprived of parent's attention, you grow up unstable. This is true! So either you go against God due to some personal issues or go against God due to you being a follower of some science geeks who don't believe in God. You cannot believe in God if you believe in science though, that is the hype (though I believe in both).
> You are just a grown up loner geek. I say that because science believers like the "facts."
> So google speaks for you now?
> Hmmm&#8230;. *infinity means lager than any number?* loooool&#8230;. Really? So now infinity is tied to numbers? Pardon my ignorance your "majesty" (sarcasm) but I though it was more like * that refers to a quantity without bound or end.* (actual definition)[/b] pardon my mistake your honor! (sarcasm)
> What? Evolution is larger than just lager numbers? What is this? A circus show?
> Now my English skills are an excuse too!
> I am sure you are at the top when it comes to English speaking and grammar too! WTF! Is this even irrelevant? Or are you just trying too hard?
> Here we go again&#8230; just because you put a "therefore" in it means they both do not make sense? or something along those lines. "just because you believe that you are smart, therefore, no one else is".. right?
> So if I say&#8230;.
> "Theories such as God are about objective reality.. Therefor[e] all theories are equally probable."
> * Need i say anything more than WRONG?* yes you do, and then say it again. WTF is going on inside your "smart" brain?


This is a gnome and it has legs: http://image.shutterstock.com/displ...es-vector-illustration-color-b-w-17749276.jpg

Oh yeah I am emotionally unstable because i don't believe in fairytales from the Bible, right....

Did you finally figure out the contradiction about infinity? If so i have to say well done.

As for the rest in the last quote was just chaos and unlogical mess.. If you want me to respond further to that you need to elaborate..


----------



## HUNK

RJF said:


> I'll send my Xbox 360 (as well as all of the money in my bank account) to anybody who can offer me one single, tiny shred of evidence supporting the existence of a creator, supreme being, or other ethereal "designer".
> 
> Lack of evidence, or lack of knowledge does not translate to "evidence", nor does our incomplete understanding of the universe point towards there being a mystical figure with a grand scheme for the running of life.


+1


----------



## Selbbin

Bwa hahahahaha, this is like watching two ten year olds arguing about how to fly the space shuttle.


----------



## cgj93

Is this even an argument? You cant really call it an argument anymore xD. Bottem line, evolution has won, and as the years go by we'll probably see more evidence mounting up on that side. If you decide that science is boring or that it goes against your own belief system, then you're simply ignoring it.


----------



## moneyman

Mindsanitizer, here is a simple example I'd like to get your input on. 

Do you believe that colonies of bacteria can become resistant to certain antibiotics? If yes, then by what process do you think they become resistant? 

PS - I find it amusingly ironic that your screen name is a synonym for brainwasher, not that it has any bearing on this discussion


----------



## mindsanitizer

> Mindsanitizer, here is a simple example I'd like to get your input on.
> 
> *Do you believe that colonies of bacteria can become resistant to certain antibiotics?*


No! Not just colonies of bacteria&#8230; but all bacteria can become resistant to all antibiotics. (It just takes time, well unless antibiotics kills all earth [bad] bacteria first)

Yes I believe that that is a fact... no if's or what's about it. And that does not just apply to bacteria but to every living organism on earth. This is a good example why drug pills will never work for everyone. Therefore, there will never be a one-pill-cures-it-all for anything. Scientists are only very primitive in this area to advertise something that does not cure yet. Because God and nature are more knowledgeable than any pill created by any scientists since science is just a few years old while God and nature have been trying to perfect life for thousands of years. So not just a bacteria "learns." Even we humans learn things consciously and unconsciously (or to be more precise, animals learn unconsciously just like our unconscious body learns due to our genetic implanted code) e.g. when you get the flu virus, your body becomes immune to that particular strand of flu virus (bacteria?) afterward. You did not have to do anything about it because you are not in control of your genetic code! This also correlates with addiction because we keep on wanting more and more. We always want more money, more drugs, more happiness, and more sex... just more! We are never satisfied with what we have due to our gene code. That does not necessarily define "the theory of evolution." That also does not mean that there is no "right path."

That process is called intelligent learning from an intelligent designer.

The theory of evolution is really nothing big really. It is very easy to believe and understand, while intelligent design goes wayyyy beyond just understanding of the theory of evolution. IOW, evolution is like a VW beetle racing a corvette. Evolution is way behind God or God is more in the realm of trying to understand the "big bang."

If you where to design anything, you would stop designing that anything if this world was static, but it is not. God made you that way! Evolution did not make just anything to be able to design because dinosaurs have never been to the moon like humans have (though dinosaurs are wayyy older than humans compared to how long they have lived in this earth). You are brand new compared to any other living "animal" because we are young. how young? a few thousand years old! not even a million.

Also, "we" don't know all the facts since there are caves out there with human evidence left behind discovered today and their age measured with modern human technical tools that say the cave is older than what humans are believe not to exists then. so those caves are wayyyy older than what "scientists" say and believe that there were no humans that far long ago. So if there were no humans that far back, who or what none-human was living in those caves? By today's technology, humans are not to believe to have lived that far back. So none-humans where living in those caves doing "human" like behavior?



> If yes, then by what process do you think they become resistant?


By the process of learning and intelligence. That process involves intelligence not mere dumb coincidence.



> PS - I find it amusingly ironic that your screen name is a synonym for brainwasher, not that it has any bearing on this discussion


Do you really know the definition of sanitizing? All you have to do is look it up (the definition to sanitize) in your dictionary. I believe that you may be confused about the actual definition. Because if the brain is not ill, it does not need any sanitizing.


----------



## fredbloggs02

LostIdentity said:


> Is this even an argument? You cant really call it an argument anymore xD. Bottem line, evolution has won, and as the years go by we'll probably see more evidence mounting up on that side. If you decide that science is boring or that it goes against your own belief system, then you're simply ignoring it.


Why should we all feel a sense of inspiration in the same way as you or like minds? They rely on the tangible, they don't tap into psychology or illusion or the unreachable interpretations many share without scientific explanation, they simply dismiss it as a personal mockery of truth within a hallucination. They come me petty with outright parables of space and time, microscopic change within the space of nothing we see today comparative to my fingernail, or the vastness of my fingernail shaving to my elbow as an expression of human time on earth within all time. And yes, it is too short for such parables. They are open to new experiences in so far as their foundations are built reaching to the sky with closed doors around. Science is simply culture. South Park bless their souls made a mockery of some of Dawkinism and rightly so lol. I've known since I was very young logic was interpretation that seperated human minds in our glorified arrogance, that we of all had the measurements that mattered, obscenely narrow-minded in the wrong hands, but no more so..

*Blavius: *_They are not a logical race, Wise One! They go around chopping down trees for tables, when they have perfectly good tummies to eat on. How logical is that?!_

*Otter Leader:* _Yes! The great Dawkins said we cannot tolerate those who don't use reason! How reasonable is it to eat off wood instead of your tummy?_

*Wise One:* _Well perhaps the great Dawkins wasn't so wise. Oh, he was intelligent, but, some of the most intelligent otters I've ever known were completely lacking in common sense. Maybe, some otters do need to believe in something. Who knows? Maybe, just believing in God makes God exist._

*Contemplative silence*....

*Otter Soldiers:* _Kill the Wise One!_

_Kill the Wise One!!! *Otters in uproar slaughter The Wise One*_

_Sound the Napperteeeiiii!!!*_

_Dawkins:"Your God depended by chance on where you were born."_

_I love the way South Park uses silences and pricks our pomposity with them. Do we really still believe a band of desperate otters having evolved to the point of grasping the ever flowing nuance of science will be here with us using the same incomplete arguements presented years ago? Or, is science more so dependent on a branch of our culture hellbent on improving at the cost of some subtle, comfortable deceptions too... Why improvement? Why does anyone have a right to it? Those who denounce that right, what of them? Those who disgust themselves with the right of scientific arguement presented today. It doesn't take a great intellect to bore himself senile with regurgitation, and common people have that right as well. I could honestly break my face on science books quoting Shelley or ... As though there were some unwritten rule people of great minds love great poets. Beautified, subsidiary pettiness. To speak to their arrogance one would have to prick it first with the subtelty of a drawing pin, subtelty they do not possess is obvious by the way their own theories appear in exclamation marks, and the drawings they paint as prophets like fishermen of old with their hands held high, dim, vacuous, bemused, smirking complexion as though they really were the stag beetle who carried their dung that covered up the sun over the hill at night. Time fascinates them, HUGE, IMCOMPERABLE SPACES fascinate them. Minute alterations in dna fascinate them. All this though falls between two points of heaven and hell of finely attuned, hollow eyes, all of which are sorely crude ways to measure anything, surely any cultured psychologist/Historian will tell you that._

_Intelligent design is a desperate attempt for science in schools, it doesn't explain how cultures evolve to different psychology, it doesn't explain how science is infact a cultural progression and the way by peasants of a time long ago to be heard.. To the few today who still see endless loopholes in scientific theory with presumptions and false modesty drawn in. you're not alone._


----------



## RyanJ

fredbloggs02 said:


> [...]


The illusory conflagration of dynamic syntax with uninhibited realms to with which we arduously retort from within. Lighting the path to unfathomable incendiary rhetoric that belies the unfortunate soul from the universal truth of what we must follow. Hearing the mellifluous resonance of a body of knowledge once transformed to berate the unquestionable film of what would necessarily be mistaken for pseudo-intellectualism. The soft florescence of dhimmitude to an anonymous source of wisdom must inescapably transverse the nothingness of illegitimate consternation. We should be so wise to uncontrollably coagulate our rancidity of contemplation before internationally recognizing that taking random large words out of a dictionary does not an argument make.


----------



## Spindrift

^


----------



## Slogger

Wow, people are channeling Jim Morrison on this thread...


----------



## foodie

.


----------



## Godless1

RyanJ said:


> The illusory conflagration of dynamic syntax with uninhibited realms to with which we arduously retort from within. Lighting the path to unfathomable incendiary rhetoric that belies the unfortunate soul from the universal truth of what we must follow. Hearing the mellifluous resonance of a body of knowledge once transformed to berate the unquestionable film of what would necessarily be mistaken for pseudo-intellectualism. The soft florescence of dhimmitude to an anonymous source of wisdom must inescapably transverse the nothingness of illegitimate consternation. We should be so wise to uncontrollably coagulate our rancidity of contemplation before internationally recognizing that taking random large words out of a dictionary does not an argument make.


That is the most resplendent grandiloquence I have ever descried.


----------



## moneyman

mindsanitizer said:


> By the process of learning and intelligence. That process involves intelligence not mere dumb coincidence.


Interesting thought, but really explains absolutely nothing. I was asking what the process was. How do they "learn" and what "intelligence" are you speaking of?

You're saying it's a process of intelligence that involves a process of intelligence?

I'm obviously not following you. Are you going along with what the pope and other intelligent designer's say, that of course evolution is real and factual, but god created the process of evolution? Because from your earlier statements it looked more like you were flat out denying that the process of evolution itself exists. I'm pretty sure I saw you write "evolution is not true". That's what I'm trying to get at - are you denying the process itself, or merely whether the process was created by something intelligent or not?



mindsanitizer said:


> Do you really know the definition of sanitizing? All you have to do is look it up (the definition to sanitize) in your dictionary. I believe that you may be confused about the actual definition. Because if the brain is not ill, it does not need any sanitizing.


Well, I did one better, for your sake. I looked up the word "sanitizer" in the thesaurus in order to find synonyms, since that was specifically what I stated. Here's the entry and the link. Note the word "wash" included at the end.

Synonyms: clarifier, cleaner, cleanser, decontaminant, deodorizer, detergent, disinfectant, filter, fumigator, refinery, sanitizer, wash

http://thesaurus.com/browse/sanitizer

You learn something new everyday, don't you? You're welcome!


----------



## fredbloggs02

I was unaware I made any arguement or used excessive words like some sort of pedant lol. Simply expressing myself for a laugh*shrugs*.... I'm not one to make anxious people feel worse so with respect to those of you who do enjoy debate, I'll be opting out of this one.

Only an imbecile feels threatened as though the words were a superficial attempt to dwarf him, he hides a secretive respect for what he sees to flout but nothing more. All he sees is a vocabulary. For those of you who say words don't mean anything on their own.. Words are everything, they give us the right. They make our chance and they break them and sometimes both. They are the connection we create for ourselves between everything without ourselves in it or draw people to the part of ourselves words will be lead by in time. Reduce yourself from that and become an animal. They incite meaning, they interpret meaning, they fabricate meaning. If I wanted to brush over words that paradoxically contradicted themselves used in an all too acceptable way then I'd do well to use as many that I disagreed with as I could, even as simple sarcasm..


----------



## ValiantThor

"What could define God [is a conception of divinity] as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of that God.They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible." Stephen Hawking
Thread closed as far as im concerned.


----------



## fredbloggs02

ValiantThor said:


> "What could define God [is a conception of divinity] as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of that God.They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible." Stephen Hawking
> Thread closed as far as im concerned.


Who's eyes does this arguement see with? Even if you saw with your eyes what right have they to dictate to the rest of you the truth?


----------



## fdsafdsaf

mindsanitizer said:


> No! Not just colonies of bacteria&#8230; but all bacteria can become resistant to all antibiotics. (It just takes time, well unless antibiotics kills all earth [bad] bacteria first)
> 
> Yes I believe that that is a fact... no if's or what's about it. And that does not just apply to bacteria but to every living organism on earth. This is a good example why drug pills will never work for everyone. Therefore, there will never be a one-pill-cures-it-all for anything. Scientists are only very primitive in this area to advertise something that does not cure yet. Because God and nature are more knowledgeable than any pill created by any scientists since science is just a few years old while God and nature have been trying to perfect life for thousands of years. So not just a bacteria "learns." Even we humans learn things consciously and unconsciously (or to be more precise, animals learn unconsciously just like our unconscious body learns due to our genetic implanted code) e.g. when you get the flu virus, your body becomes immune to that particular strand of flu virus (bacteria?) afterward. You did not have to do anything about it because you are not in control of your genetic code! This also correlates with addiction because we keep on wanting more and more. We always want more money, more drugs, more happiness, and more sex... just more! We are never satisfied with what we have due to our gene code. That does not necessarily define "the theory of evolution." That also does not mean that there is no "right path."
> 
> That process is called intelligent learning from an intelligent designer.
> 
> The theory of evolution is really nothing big really. It is very easy to believe and understand, while intelligent design goes wayyyy beyond just understanding of the theory of evolution. IOW, evolution is like a VW beetle racing a corvette. Evolution is way behind God or God is more in the realm of trying to understand the "big bang."
> 
> If you where to design anything, you would stop designing that anything if this world was static, but it is not. God made you that way! Evolution did not make just anything to be able to design because dinosaurs have never been to the moon like humans have (though dinosaurs are wayyy older than humans compared to how long they have lived in this earth). You are brand new compared to any other living "animal" because we are young. how young? a few thousand years old! not even a million.
> 
> Also, "we" don't know all the facts since there are caves out there with human evidence left behind discovered today and their age measured with modern human technical tools that say the cave is older than what humans are believe not to exists then. so those caves are wayyyy older than what "scientists" say and believe that there were no humans that far long ago. So if there were no humans that far back, who or what none-human was living in those caves? By today's technology, humans are not to believe to have lived that far back. So none-humans where living in those caves doing "human" like behavior?
> 
> By the process of learning and intelligence. That process involves intelligence not mere dumb coincidence.
> 
> Do you really know the definition of sanitizing? All you have to do is look it up (the definition to sanitize) in your dictionary. I believe that you may be confused about the actual definition. Because if the brain is not ill, it does not need any sanitizing.


Any good reason for believing in all of this? I'd like to hear the reasoning for this one :haha


----------



## mindsanitizer

> Interesting thought, but really explains absolutely nothing. I was asking what the process was. How do they "learn" and what "intelligence" are you speaking of?


 It is really not my responsibility to teach those who cannot understand it. Granted, my limited vocabulary and English makes things harder. But there is more evidence of intelligence than mere dumb roll-of-the-dice luck to hit the jack pot to end up with today's modern humans.

For one, why are only us humans more advanced than the rest of the animal kingdom? Coincidence right? But it does not even look like coincidence even if you did the math. I would believe in "the theory of evolution" 100% if I saw cows and horses making tools too. Heck, even apes. But it seems like we where the only ones selected to do such things. Basically we have been at the top ever since our beginning (which is a block wide (in years) compare to the rest of the animals). And due to our gift of "evolution" (evolution here is intelligence) and not the "theory of evolution" (mere dumb luck) we are advancing to who knows for what?

So we learn through remembering and by intelligent experience. God gave us this ability to understand E.G. how making other people happy (even our enemies), makes us happy. Because he wants us to be one and not fight. Since there is no such thing as a one ant colony. Confused people who do not understand this (confused) are all over the place and will always be lost in their lives, but for those who can see the path will live a fulfilling life. Just living a fulfilling filling life requires intelligence and not dumb luck. Because it dumb luck was right, I would not know right now what makes me money and how to enjoy it. Since dumb luck would determine whether I am an ******* or a nice guy.

It is a fact that those people who know what is up know what is down. So by then, if we know how to make money we also know how to loose it. There are those who just want to make and make money and those who keep on loosing money no matter if they where millionaires (by dumb luck) at one time or another. Point is, those who can understand both sides are always almost guaranteed to end up at the top more than the rest of the sheep. This is intelligence and not mere dumb luck.

To get back to the point... we learn (gain) intelligence by the process of intelligence. Those who are dumb don't have a clue what intelligence is... well, they have a definition for it but it only lies in their dumbness thinking.

if there was no intelligent designer, we would all be dumb brain dead animals.

LOL, I laugh when I see a scientists in the science channel trying to learn if dolphins are really smart. or if ravens are smart. or if any other type of animal is smart.. or should I say, capable of learning. LOL. Of course they are smart and capable of learning... hmmm... are the scientists trying to compare a human's smartness and learning capabilities with theirs (humans) or what? (i believe they are... hmmm..)

I also love it when they say the scientists have spent 30 years studying such type of animal and have not learned anything new since 30 years ago. Like if they (animals) are that hard to figure our.

I can spend a year with your mom/dad/brother/sister/GF (whom are animals too) and I can pretty much tell you what makes them happy/angry/have any type of issue. etc... I can tell you the cure and predict their future too. Meh... not that hard to view. I learn this through the process of intelligence and NOT through the process of "the theory of evolution."

If you don't know what I speak of, you are not intelligent nor know how one learns (gains) intelligence.



> You're saying it's a process of intelligence that involves a process of intelligence?


 yes because intelligence is what keeps us modern. Not pure run of the dumb luck. What have you achieved with "the theory of evolution" lately? And what have you achieved with intelligence lately? The former, all you have to do is just play the roll-of-the-dice game, and the other you make intelligent choices and end up gaining more intelligence from intelligent choices. I don't even know what is so hard to understand this.

Hmmmm... let-me-sheee! Tell me any problem that you may be struggling with right now, and I can guaranteed there is a solution. Why? Because intelligent people run the show and not dumb one's. Because intelligence is a gift to us not by evolution but by the creator. As a matter of fact, there is a cure for SAD. And it does not take a pill to cure it. All it takes is intelligence and effort and someone intelligent who is looking after your benefit.

Now someone dumb won't know the solution to your problems or any other problems, because they would be way behind you. (dumber)

unless you can convince me that intelligence is a process of dumbness?



> I'm obviously not following you. Are you going along with what the pope and other intelligent designer's say, that of course evolution is real and factual, but god created the process of evolution?


 yes I am saying that the intelligent designer created both evolution and the theory of evolution. though the theory of evolution is just a blind fold and the real truth (evolution) is mistaken by confused people as being "the theory of evolution."

so god created us and gave us "evolution" but there are those science geeks whom hate god with a passion. therefore, reject god and call it "the theory of evolution" (which is not the same as evolution)



> Because from your earlier statements it looked more like you were flat out denying that the process of evolution itself exists. I'm pretty sure I saw you write *"evolution is not true"*. That's what I'm trying to get at - are you denying the process itself, or merely whether the process was created by something intelligent or not?


 I see what you mean, well sometimes I type (say stuff) that make sense in my mind but I fail to understand that it may not make sense in someone else mind. Or I fail to transfer my thoughts to words or on paper. This precess I understand why that is... hmm I don't really explain what I do/fix I just do it. Also, I am not really that experienced in talking to other people about my points of view.

At any rate, for me, most of the time, the end results speak for itself... so again, I am not use to explaining myself.

But yeah, when I deny the "process of evolution" I'm denying "the theory of evolution." and when I say that "evolution is not true," I am trying to say "the theory of evolution" when I say that. I do believe in "evolution" (not the theory of evolution) and don't believe in "the theory of evolution" (which tries to imply way more than just evolution)



> Well, I did one better, for your sake. I looked up the word "sanitizer" in the thesaurus in order to find synonyms, since that was specifically what I stated. Here's the entry and the link. Note the word "wash" included at the end.


 so you brain wash your clothes when they are dirty lol.


----------



## RyanJ

fredbloggs02 said:


> I was unaware I made any arguement or used excessive words like some sort of pedant lol. Simply expressing myself for a laugh*shrugs*.... I'm not one to make anxious people feel worse so with respect to those of you who do enjoy debate, I'll be opting out of this one.
> 
> Only an imbecile feels threatened as though the words were a superficial attempt to dwarf him, he hides a secretive respect for what he sees to flout but nothing more. All he sees is a vocabulary. For those of you who say words don't mean anything on their own.. Words are everything, they give us the right. They make our chance and they break them and sometimes both. They are the connection we create for ourselves between everything without ourselves in it or draw people to the part of ourselves words will be lead by in time. Reduce yourself from that and become an animal. They incite meaning, they interpret meaning, they fabricate meaning. If I wanted to brush over words that paradoxically contradicted themselves used in an all too acceptable way then I'd do well to use as many that I disagreed with as I could, even as simple sarcasm..


This post seems to get longer and more acerbic in tone with every edit. I do, however, appreciate the addition of the imbecile comment. :teeth

A person might be the most brilliant thinker on earth, but unless he is able to clearly and logically communicate his thoughts to other people, the great ideas will only be known to him.

The main point here is that I (and at least some others) fail to make sense of just what it is you are trying to say. Until they add a filter on Google Translate that could assist in this endeavor, you might as well be writing these posts for you own gratification.


----------



## moneyman

mindsanitizer said:


> For one, why are only us humans more advanced than the rest of the animal kingdom? Coincidence right? But it does not even look like coincidence even if you did the math. I would believe in "the theory of evolution" 100% if I saw cows and horses making tools too. Heck, even apes. But it seems like we where the only ones selected to do such things. Basically we have been at the top ever since our beginning (which is a block wide (in years) compare to the rest of the animals). And due to our gift of "evolution" (evolution here is intelligence) and not the "theory of evolution" (mere dumb luck) we are advancing to who knows for what?


Mindsanitizer, in no way do I mean to offend, but what your statement there tells me is that you very clearly do not understand the process of evolution even at a rudimentary level. Further debate would be futile at this point because of this.

I strongly encourage you to do some serious research on the process. Regardless of whether or not you "believe" in it or not, it will help your arguments immensely if you have a good grasp of the material you are arguing against. Your lack of knowledge on the subject undermines any dispute that you have.

Again I am not saying this to put you down, but rather to give you some advice. Make a serious effort to understand the process of evolution, on your own. I think you will be surprised. I don't mean wikipedia or other online resources, a good book is usually the best because it is more comprehensive than most websites (that I am aware of) can capture.

I would highly recommend Richard Dawkin's "The Greatest Show on Earth" for starters. Although you may scoff as he is probably the last author you would want to read, instead view it as gaining a better edge for arguing your case. Read the book and gather up the evidence you need to dispute it intelligently.

Many atheists/agnostics read the bible for the very same purpose. Try to beat us at our own game, if you will. People will take you much more seriously if you argue from a position of knowledge.


----------



## fdsafdsaf

mindsanitizer said:


> No! Not just colonies of bacteria&#8230; but all bacteria can become resistant to all antibiotics. (It just takes time, well unless antibiotics kills all earth [bad] bacteria first)
> 
> Yes I believe that that is a fact... no if's or what's about it. And that does not just apply to bacteria but to every living organism on earth. This is a good example why drug pills will never work for everyone. Therefore, there will never be a one-pill-cures-it-all for anything. Scientists are only very primitive in this area to advertise something that does not cure yet. Because God and nature are more knowledgeable than any pill created by any scientists since science is just a few years old while God and nature have been trying to perfect life for thousands of years. So not just a bacteria "learns." Even we humans learn things consciously and unconsciously (or to be more precise, animals learn unconsciously just like our unconscious body learns due to our genetic implanted code) e.g. when you get the flu virus, your body becomes immune to that particular strand of flu virus (bacteria?) afterward. You did not have to do anything about it because you are not in control of your genetic code! This also correlates with addiction because we keep on wanting more and more. We always want more money, more drugs, more happiness, and more sex... just more! We are never satisfied with what we have due to our gene code. That does not necessarily define "the theory of evolution." That also does not mean that there is no "right path."
> 
> That process is called intelligent learning from an intelligent designer.
> 
> The theory of evolution is really nothing big really. It is very easy to believe and understand, while intelligent design goes wayyyy beyond just understanding of the theory of evolution. IOW, evolution is like a VW beetle racing a corvette. Evolution is way behind God or God is more in the realm of trying to understand the "big bang."
> 
> If you where to design anything, you would stop designing that anything if this world was static, but it is not. God made you that way! Evolution did not make just anything to be able to design because dinosaurs have never been to the moon like humans have (though dinosaurs are wayyy older than humans compared to how long they have lived in this earth). You are brand new compared to any other living "animal" because we are young. how young? a few thousand years old! not even a million.
> 
> Also, "we" don't know all the facts since there are caves out there with human evidence left behind discovered today and their age measured with modern human technical tools that say the cave is older than what humans are believe not to exists then. so those caves are wayyyy older than what "scientists" say and believe that there were no humans that far long ago. So if there were no humans that far back, who or what none-human was living in those caves? By today's technology, humans are not to believe to have lived that far back. So none-humans where living in those caves doing "human" like behavior?
> 
> By the process of learning and intelligence. That process involves intelligence not mere dumb coincidence.
> 
> Do you really know the definition of sanitizing? All you have to do is look it up (the definition to sanitize) in your dictionary. I believe that you may be confused about the actual definition. Because if the brain is not ill, it does not need any sanitizing.


I'm sorry but your text is completely void of logical reasoning.

also :haha at bacterias becoming intelligent.


----------



## mindsanitizer

> Mindsanitizer, in no way do I mean to offend, but what your statement there tells me is that you very clearly do not understand the process of evolution even at a rudimentary level. Further debate would be futile at this point because of this.


 No offense taken really. My thinking is not like your average joe's and I know this for a fact. Most people do not agree with me in forums nor in real life. This I came to realize that is due to my isolation so I am more interested in finding solutions and enjoying things like how stuff works than your average joe. So what I am trying to say is that I am most of the time right than wrong. Of course, clearly, you can only take that statement with a grain of salt and judge it based on your perceptions. But I know what I know based on intelligent experiences. Also, I am clearly familiar with statements like yours of "you very clearly do not understand the process of evolution even at a rudimentary level..." You might be right but you clearly fail to back up your statement to support your clearly beliefs. So I am obligated to inform you that evolution is not the same as the "theory of evolution" that is as clear as bottled water to me. though clearly not to you.

Why do I say that you may asked? (you may ask that because you clearly think that I am in the wrong thinking. And of course you do. That why I am responding to your statements) Because we don't live in a static life. Climates changes, our way of thinking changes, everything changes (not static). As a matter of fact, you are changing right now, mentally, physically, and emotionally. We have no other choice but to "move ahead." get it? That is not evolution. Everything and everyone needs to "adjust" to the changes in life. BUT this does not give evidence of "the theory of evolution."

So what I am getting at is that adjusting to climate change mentally and physically does not = "the theory of evolution."



> I strongly encourage you to do some serious research on the process. Regardless of whether or not you "believe" in it or not, it will help your arguments immensely if you have a good grasp of the material you are arguing against. Your lack of knowledge on the subject undermines any dispute that you have.


 hmmm.... first, may I ask what is your definition of "the theory of evolution" and explain that in laymen's terms so I can understand you?

Second, this is the definition of evolution by Wikipedia...



> *Evolution* (also known as *biological* or *organic evolution*) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms.


 So just ask yourself, are we really changing from the beginning? Or for that matter, who or what has not (is not) changing from the very beginning?

Bare with me here, so everything changes in this life. There is no such thing as a static life. And every scientists takes notice of this, but this is really not supporting "the theory of evolution" it only supports intelligence. why? Because we are only understanding that what we decide to do is for our benefit. of course most fail to see that other certain aspects don't change. For example, it is believed that we evolved from prokaryotes, right? Yet, prokaryotes all have said fuc k it, we won't "evolve" anymore. why do i say that? Because they have been prokaryotes since the very beginning billions of years ago. they were prokaryotes 4+ billions years ago and they are still the same today! Why is that?

Still, if a huge meteor was to hit earth and wipe us humans (like the dinosaurs), we would be born again and again from prokaryotes if the "theory of evolution" is correct. But that would also imply that in a lot of other planets all over the universe too. moreover, the dinosaurs should be born again and again too. Because after the earth is gone, life will continue to live in some other planet. (complicated stuff)

So my beliefs are that we where not born from prokaryotes but rather where made this way by god.

So "evolution" is a necessity to keep on living. Keep on learning. But the evidence of that does not indicate the "theory of evolution." it does not indicate that every living thing came from prokaryotes (like may scientists believe). It is just jumping to conclusions.

The definition of "the theory of evolution" is a follows:



> *Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise*
> *Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related.* Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).


As you can see, not even the definition for it makes any sense. If we are all related in a earth sense, heck yeah, everything is related and part of us. So the air is part of us too. The water is part of us too. But that does not mean that everything came (evolved) from one single living organism. Which is what "the theory of evolution proposes." by that definition there or no bad nor good, everything is the same. Which is not correct. 

Also, today there is no natural selection anymore. We humans run the show. We chose the best way to grow our crops. We genetically manipulate a tomato with a thicker skin. This is due to better harvest the tomato with machinery. Why machinery? Because human labor is not fats enough to keep with the human consumption demand. The tomato is not naturally changing or mutating, we are mutating and selecting. 

The same can be said for the red apples and seedless fruits. Etc. We are selecting what we want to grow and we are selecting who will survive the longest. I.E. nature is not in full control anymore. That means "the theory of evolution" is not in control anymore. We will eventually choose how to evolve. 

Anyways, we are in two different pages so I think we should agree to disagree. After all, you haven't provided no further evidence to prove your statements. Same thing everyone is saying. Now I say that is not evolving in the brain. 



> Again I am not saying this to put you down, but rather to give you some advice. Make a serious effort to understand the process of evolution, on your own. I think you will be surprised. I don't mean wikipedia or other online resources, a good book is usually the best because it is more comprehensive than most websites (that I am aware of) can capture.


 what does the "theory of evolution" exactly mean to you? Seriously, with out using wikipedia or the dictionary.



> I would highly recommend Richard Dawkin's "The Greatest Show on Earth" for starters. Although you may scoff as he is probably the last author you would want to read, instead view it as gaining a better edge for arguing your case. Read the book and gather up the evidence you need to dispute it intelligently.


 I will look in to this book. I may come an debate with you if you know it by heart. If you don't know it, please don't give me ignorant suggestions.

Also, I would also suggest for you to read the bible and pray for research purposes as well. Lest not be ignorant on both matters.



> Many atheists/agnostics read the bible for the very same purpose. Try to beat us at our own game, if you will. People will take you much more seriously if you argue from a position of knowledge.


 I am not trying to beat anyone at any game. You van believe what you want. I am just debating based on my beliefs. The people who do not take me seriously do not really matter, they don't make my life decisions.

What do you know about knowledge? For starters, what is your own personal definition of "evolution?"


----------



## Kiwong

Intelligent design is not science, it is dogma.


----------



## moneyman

mindsanitizer said:


> they were prokaryotes 4+ billions years ago and they are still the same today! Why is that?


Same reason sharks and alligators and such have remained similar over millions of years. It works for them. The way they are has not required major mutations/adaptations to be successful. They are successful in their form and their environment. It's another excellent example of natural selection. Why fix what isn't broken? Another example of you not understanding the process.



mindsanitizer said:


> we would be born again and again from prokaryotes if the "theory of evolution" is correct.


That's not necessarily true, and probably not even likely. It depends upon many external circumstances, like the environmental conditions and such. Another example of you not understanding the process.



mindsanitizer said:


> it does not indicate that every living thing came from prokaryotes (like may scientists believe). It is just jumping to conclusions.


Jumping to conclusions? There exists a tremendous body of evidence from multiple separate lines of evidence that continues to accumulate to this day confirming the process. I'd hardly call it "jumping to conclusions". It's one of the most well understood scientific processes known. The only "debate" comes from fundamentalists with an agenda and the uneducated.



mindsanitizer said:


> As you can see, not even the definition for it makes any sense.


As I mentioned before, try understanding the process comprehensively instead of soundbites and web pages. You're doing yourself a disservice otherwise.



mindsanitizer said:


> Also, today there is no natural selection anymore. We humans run the show.


Just because humans can manipulate natural processes does not mean there is no "natural selection" anymore. You're giving humans way too much credit for our abilities. Consider if we killed all insects on the planet. What would happen to the food chain? Are we really in control? or would natural processes trump our best efforts?

Besides in many cases we are able to manipulate natural processes because we UNDERSTAND those natural processes, ahem.



mindsanitizer said:


> I would also suggest for you to read the bible


And the Koran and any other religious text as well, no? Including cult manifestos? Which one(s) deserves more attention, and why? Is one more credible than the other? How do I determine which is "right"?



mindsanitizer said:


> You might be right but you clearly fail to back up your statement


Just one reason I said what I said is because of your statement "I would believe in "the theory of evolution" 100% if I saw cows and horses making tools too. Heck, even apes. But it seems like we where the only ones selected to do such things."

You seem to think that sophistication is a requirement for the process of evolution. It's clearly not. How sophisticated is a tree compared to humans, yet which has been around successfully for much longer? A tree does not need to make tools to successfully survive and reproduce. Nor do cows, horses, etc. A fundamental tenet of the process of evolution is that of natural selection, in which those organisms that successfully survive and reproduce are the ones that continue on. The vast majority of organisms on this planet do not need to make tools in order to survive and reproduce.

I'm very curious why you would believe in evolution 100% if you saw cows and horses making tools. The process of evolution is so very, very much more rich and compelling than that, I firmly believe if you had a more complete understanding of it that you would be astonished. There are many books that spell it all out in layman's terms, easy to read and comprehend, and also very transparent and easy to fact check and confirm. I gave you but one example of probably hundreds to choose from.

You may see it as a cop-out from me, and perhaps it is, but I simply don't have the time or patience to explain to you what took me hours and hours and hours of reading and researching to understand. Each explanation I will have for you, you will ask a further question about, which is good, but will turn this thread into a book about the process of evolution, in a haphazard "Q & A" sort of way.

You would be better served to read a few good, credible books about the subject instead. From your post about being isolated and enjoying reading about how things work and so on, this should be right up your alley. When someone makes arguments based upon their poor understanding of the topic, it becomes tedious. Like if a child wants to argue with you about an orange car not being colored orange, because orange is a flavor, not a color, you tend to get a little frustrated and feel everyone's time could be spent a little more productively.

And yes, once you have done that and can demonstrate that you have a more comprehensive understanding, I'd very much be glad to discuss with you. I'd be thrilled, quite honestly.

I was never a religious person at all, but my public education left me very lacking in understanding evolution very well (thanks to the "controversy" in this country). So when I took it upon myself to read up on it, even I was blown away by just how compelling it is and just how beautiful it is, and how profoundly real and ubiquitous it is. Carl Zimmer and Richard Dawkins are a couple of my favorites, but I'm sure you can find plenty of others who do a fine job of explaining it all in layman's terms.

Research for yourself, don't take random people's words for it on an internet forum. Even if you somehow come away from it not believing the process of evolution is real, you won't be disappointed. Fascinating stuff. I already knew a considerable amount about evolution when I read Dawkin's "Greatest Show on Earth" but that book quickly became one of my favorite books of all time. Simply awesome.


----------



## moneyman

Ok, you caught me in a weak moment. I'd like to add something, from a website (a decent one, but again I STRONGLY suggest you read comprehensive books on the subject to get a good grasp) that I want to call out, since it is a common misunderstanding -

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

"It is important to remember that:
Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees. Humans and chimpanzees are evolutionary cousins and share a recent common ancestor that was neither chimpanzee nor human.

Humans are not "higher" or "more evolved" than other living lineages. Since our lineages split, humans and chimpanzees have each evolved traits unique to their own lineages. "

Here's the link to other common misconceptions about evolution, which is quite relevant for this thread (since many of those misconceptions have been directly brought up here) -

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

And a last comment I want to throw out.

Consider where you, personally, started. A single cell. A fertilized egg cell inside your mother.

What? You expect me to believe you, a whole human being person with complicated parts started out as a tiny little single cell? Ridiculous! Who could believe such nonsense? Prove this theory! How could one little cell do such a thing? And in only 9 months!? Impossible.


----------



## mindsanitizer

First (again) I would like to clarify that intelligent design does not want to compete with "the theory of evolution" in no way shape or form (or replace it for science). Yes I understand that some people tried to write books about ID for schools to teach as science, but that is not the whole issue here. At least not mine anyway.

My beliefs about intelligent design do not interfere with my beliefs about science or technology. I believe in both. As a matter of fact, I find it ignorant not to believe in any type of deity and just believe in the natural world. This is coming from a person who watches the history channel all of the time, who watches the discovery channel all of the time, who reads about how stuff works. Etc. You can even call me a hacker both in life and in material stuff like computers, cars, game consoles, software, power tools, you name it. As a matter of fact, I admire how electronics work and how it seems like almost yesterday we had windows 98.

I just admire how things work. From the flagellum of a prokaryote to an AC and DC motor.

So what I am really trying to say is that I like both religion and science, they both have their place. But I just don't believe in disregarding religion and just worshiping the material world.

At any rate...



> Same reason sharks and alligators and such have remained similar over millions of years. It works for them. The way they are has not required major mutations/adaptations to be successful. They are successful in their form and their environment. It's another excellent example of natural selection. Why fix what isn't broken? Another example of you not understanding the process.


 it works for them eh? Let me put it to you in perspective. You have prokaryotes in your mouth right now. You have prokaryotes in your epidermis right now. There are prokaryotes in your stomach. If you go outside in the dirt and pick up a hand full of dirt, there are probably a million (or millions) prokaryotes in that hand full of dirt. So, please, don't allow your ignorance to compare them with "sharks and alligators and such" when they have been put in the indanger species by us humans because we where killing them all. But you say it works for them? When it is painfully obvious that it is not working for them at all.

And you are telling me this as an example of not understanding the process. For a fact, your example does not explain what you tried to explain as being the process though.

Can you try again with more details besides just "it works for them."?



> That's not necessarily true, and probably not even likely. It depends upon many external circumstances, like the environmental conditions and such. Another example of you not understanding the process.


 lol... I just love it when people just say an opinion with out baking it up. How hard is it to say, "that is wrong" and walk away? Easy!!! not hard at all. Which is what you just did there.

Just as long as the prokaryotes exists means that the external circumstances to their existence are the same. If they where not, they would be dead. Or if they where not, the earth would not exist. I don't think you get it.

At least just give one good example to back up your claims, is that too much to ask?

Why is it not necessarily true?

What made you come to that conclusion?

Why is it not even likely?

What made you come to that conclusion?

C'mon man. Something. Use your advanced brain.



> Jumping to conclusions? There exists a tremendous body of evidence from multiple separate lines of evidence that continues to accumulate to this day confirming the process. I'd hardly call it "jumping to conclusions". *It's one of the most well understood scientific processes known.* The only "debate" comes from fundamentalists with an agenda and the uneducated.


 huh... ok this goes to show your fanaticism. This also says that you only think that you know something when you don't.

Case in point, if the "theory" that we "evolved" (like everything else), from prokaryotes *"It's one of the most well understood scientific processes known."* then I have been living under a rock this whole time. Would you care to show me the evidence... give me a reference to a web page, quote a paragraph from a book, just back it up!! since it is one of the *most well understood* there must be tons of evidence.



> As I mentioned before, try understanding the process comprehensively instead of soundbites and web pages. You're doing yourself a disservice otherwise.


 I can clearly see that you are a bully. You are one of those persons who thinks knows a lot about something when you actually don't know anything. Yet, you want the other person to prove it to you while you just bully. Meh!

C'mon smart guy. Answer me these questions.... which should be easy for you.

What does "the theory of evolution" mean to you?

Is the "theory of evolution" same as "evolution"?

If yes, explain why that is, if not explain that too.

For some reason, your statement does not make sense.



> Just because humans can manipulate natural processes does not mean there is no "natural selection" anymore. You're giving humans way too much credit for our abilities. Consider if we killed all insects on the planet. What would happen to the food chain? Are we really in control? or would natural processes trump our best efforts?


 huh... what? Why give me a response by going against my claims and then give me a response stating that you are not going against my claims. Typical bullying.

So explain how there is natural selection in todays (present) life? Explain it with examples! Don't just something with out backing it up. (typical confused person behavior)

what do you mean if we killed all insects on the planet? What's your point? If we killed all insect on the planet we would all die!! I don't get your "logic." again, back it up! How many times do I have to ask for this?



> Besides in many cases we are able to manipulate natural processes because we UNDERSTAND those natural processes, ahem.


 huh... just because you believe you understand something does not mean that your understanding is correct. Also, like I already mentioned, you are contradicting yourself.



> And the Koran and any other religious text as well, no? Including cult manifestos? Which one(s) deserves more attention, and why? Is one more credible than the other? How do I determine which is "right"?


 well duh! Your logic sn not in tune with universal logic, not even with mine. It is something very elementary. You speak like a student to me, in all honesty, not trying to offend but you get confused by the most basic stuff.



> Just one reason I said what I said is because of your statement "I would believe in "the theory of evolution" 100% if I saw cows and horses making tools too. Heck, even apes. But it seems like we where the only ones selected to do such things."
> 
> You seem to think that sophistication is a requirement for the process of evolution. It's clearly not. How sophisticated is a tree compared to humans, yet which has been around successfully for much longer? A tree does not need to make tools to successfully survive and reproduce. Nor do cows, horses, etc. A fundamental tenet of the process of evolution is that of natural selection, in which those organisms that successfully survive and reproduce are the ones that continue on. The vast majority of organisms on this planet do not need to make tools in order to survive and reproduce.


 Sophistication? Not even close my friend. So if I am able to kill your whole family (killing your gene traits... "species") when I choose to and you cannot do anything about it but die, I am sophisticated? We are in two different pages here dude. I don't even think that you know what is to be in control!!! At the top!!!



> I'm very curious why you would believe in evolution 100% if you saw cows and horses making tools. The process of evolution is so very, very much more rich and compelling than that, I firmly believe if you had a more complete understanding of it that you would be astonished. There are many books that spell it all out in layman's terms, easy to read and comprehend, and also very transparent and easy to fact check and confirm. I gave you but one example of probably hundreds to choose from.


 dude, it is not as easy as you pointing me to some books that is going to change my mind. Also, it is not your responsibility to change my mentality. Just debate with what you know and what you know is those books (supposedly).

You are only speaking from your perspective and I should would appreciate if you put more effort in explaining it than just speaking lazy.


----------



## mindsanitizer

> You may see it as a cop-out from me, and perhaps it is, but I simply don't have the time or patience to explain to you what took me hours and hours and hours of reading and researching to understand. Each explanation I will have for you, you will ask a further question about, which is good, but will turn this thread into a book about the process of evolution, in a haphazard "Q & A" sort of way.


 nah it's cool dude. I have spent the same time as you have or even more. Depending on our age difference. But one thing I know is that you haven't provided me with a smudge of your evidence. All I hear from you is "duh! It's all over the place." which is fine to believe that bot don't try to convice someone with that and then say something like "you don't get my point."



> You would be better served to read a few good, credible books about the subject instead. From your post about being isolated and enjoying reading about how things work and so on, this should be right up your alley. When someone makes arguments based upon their poor understanding of the topic, it becomes tedious. Like if a child wants to argue with you about an orange car not being colored orange, because orange is a flavor, not a color, you tend to get a little frustrated and feel everyone's time could be spent a little more productively.


 hey moneyman, this is not the very first debate about this subject for me in the internet. I have debated with many more intelligent people than you about such things. No offense but it is the truth. I am talking about mathematicians, old guys who are engineers, etc. And even them have admitted that in some areas they are wrong. The only-thing that you can do now is not believe that everything is set in stone. The best you can do is to ignore me man.



> And yes, once you have done that and can demonstrate that you have a more comprehensive understanding, I'd very much be glad to discuss with you. I'd be thrilled, quite honestly.
> 
> I was never a religious person at all, but my public education left me very lacking in understanding evolution very well (thanks to the "controversy" in this country). So when I took it upon myself to read up on it, even I was blown away by just how compelling it is and just how beautiful it is, and how profoundly real and ubiquitous it is. Carl Zimmer and Richard Dawkins are a couple of my favorites, but I'm sure you can find plenty of others who do a fine job of explaining it all in layman's terms.
> 
> Research for yourself, don't take random people's words for it on an internet forum. Even if you somehow come away from it not believing the process of evolution is real, you won't be disappointed. Fascinating stuff. I already knew a considerable amount about evolution when I read Dawkin's "Greatest Show on Earth" but that book quickly became one of my favorite books of all time. Simply awesome.


 take it easy dude.


----------



## moneyman

mindsanitizer said:


> intelligent design does not want to compete with "the theory of evolution" in no way shape or form


Interesting you say that, since that is exactly what proponents of ID were trying to do in public schools. They wanted it on equal footing with the theory of evolution as an "alternative". That was the whole point of the dust-up a few years back. That's how the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory was born. So what in the world are you talking about?



mindsanitizer said:


> it works for them eh? Let me put it to you in perspective. You have prokaryotes in your mouth right now. You have prokaryotes in your epidermis right now. There are prokaryotes in your stomach. If you go outside in the dirt and pick up a hand full of dirt, there are probably a million (or millions) prokaryotes in that hand full of dirt. So, please, don't allow your ignorance to compare them with "sharks and alligators and such" when they have been put in the indanger species by us humans because we where killing them all. But you say it works for them? When it is painfully obvious that it is not working for them at all.
> 
> And you are telling me this as an example of not understanding the process. For a fact, your example does not explain what you tried to explain as being the process though.
> 
> Can you try again with more details besides just "it works for them."?


Man, I really have a lot of patience, you know that?  The only comparison I was making with sharks and alligators is that they too are organisms that have not changed much over vast periods of time. Let me remind you that your question was why are prokaryotes still the same after 4 billion years, implying they stopped evolving. My response is that an organism that is successful enough to survive and reproduce need not change if their current condition still allows them to survive and reproduce in their existing environment. Some may change anyways through mutations and the like and those may survive and reproduce as well, potentially becoming a new species. Meanwhile the others who have not changed continue on. You see how something can evolve into a new species while the species it evolved from can still exist too? There are many ways this can happen. Sometimes it's geographic, when a group of a particular species finds itself in a new environment for example and through the processes of natural selection different traits are more advantageous than in the "other" environment, so the species evolves differently in this environment than the others in the "old" environment. Following? Need more specifics, more details, more why/how? This is all basic, fundamental stuff. Like I said before, we could go on for ages drilling down through these basics.

Further, a species that is unable to respond rapidly enough to survive and reproduce in a changing environment will, you guessed it, die out and go extinct. For example if a predator comes along that is superior at killing it and wipes it out before it has had time to adapt. Or the environment changes much too rapidly and severely for a species to adapt well enough to survive in it. This is not a difficult concept. These are basic concepts of natural selection. I don't know how much more simple to make it for you, I am not a teacher. I can point you to resources you can study yourself, like I said before. Much more efficient than us going back and forth. But then it's less of a discussion and more of a teaching session. I am not a teacher.

I have a very difficult time believing that you have studied and understood much of anything about natural selection when you have questions such as these or difficulty grasping this concept. It seems you are more concerned with arguing than understanding.

You asked why are they the same after all this time. I told you why. They are able to survive and reproduce in their environment just as they are. Do you need more explanation? What is it you don't understand about this? I'm not throwing the towel in yet, but you have to work with me.



mindsanitizer said:


> the "theory" that we "evolved" (like everything else), from prokaryotes "It's one of the most well understood scientific processes known."


I was referring to the process of evolution being one of the most well understood scientific processes known. You seem to have some grasp of this as you stated yourself "we humans run the show". We "run the show" in this context because of our understanding of the process of evolution. Genetics, breeding, medicines, pretty much all of biology for example. But you can just say that it's my opinion if you'd like, I'm ok with that.



mindsanitizer said:


> What's your point? If we killed all insect on the planet we would all die!! I don't get your "logic." again, back it up! How many times do I have to ask for this?


You said humans "run the show", there is "no natural selection anymore". If we run the show, shouldn't we be able to kill all insects on the planet? Aren't we running the show? And if we did kill all the insects on the planet, why would we die? I thought we were running the show. We wouldn't die if we ran the show, because we're in control, not natural processes. Didn't you say we run the show? Do you have a different interpretation of the phrase "running the show"? Because I take it to mean we are in control. You get that logic now? Need more back up?

Care to back up your statement there is no "natural selection anymore"? And does that mean you believe there once was natural selection, and now there isn't? Care to explain that logic?



mindsanitizer said:


> I can clearly see that you are a bully. You are one of those persons who thinks knows a lot about something when you actually don't know anything. Yet, you want the other person to prove it to you while you just bully. Meh!
> 
> C'mon smart guy.
> Typical bullying.
> typical confused person behavior
> you get confused by the most basic stuff.
> many more intelligent people than you


lol. I didn't mean to upset you.

Yes, I am too lazy to put much more effort into this discussion with you, because like I explained before it becomes tedious when someone simply hasn't, can't, or refuses to grasp the basics.

I do still hope you take my advice and, speaking of laziness, commit to actually reading the material yourself rather than trolling on internet forums and speaking with geniuses, lol.

Yours truly,

The Bully 

PS - you never explained why you would believe 100% in evolution if you saw cows and horses using tools. Can you? I'd really like to know, because it would give me an idea of what your thought processes are on this subject and where some of your blatant misunderstandings are (although I have a pretty good idea). So what's the explanation?


----------



## moneyman

- more -



mindsanitizer said:


> evolution is not true and don't get fooled by the hype. all medicines out there are not really cures. just look at all medicine commercials. they all have side effects that are worse than what they claim to cure. your precious scientists (working based on the belief of evolution) only see you as a science rat for the rest of your life. they don't have the cure for anything. so why should i believe they know what they are talking about?


http://health.howstuffworks.com/dis...deadly-diseases-cured-in-the-20th-century.htm

That link will show you a few diseases that have been cured. Do you even research anything before you post? And of course pharmaceutical companies peddle medicine to people, that's how they make money. People will buy them whether they "cure" or not, if they provide any sort of relief.

So how on earth do you make the leap that "evolution is not true... all medicines out there are not really cures". First, your medicine statement is false, and second, what does that have to do with "evolution is not true"? You are really a trip.



mindsanitizer said:


> mere dumb roll-of-the-dice luck to hit the jack pot to end up with today's modern humans.


"*There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution.* Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating."



mindsanitizer said:


> exactly, it's only a THEORY!


"First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. *Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.*"

(emphasis mine)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html



mindsanitizer said:


> It is really not my responsibility to teach those who cannot understand it.


Indeed. But sometimes we really try, don't we.


----------



## mindsanitizer

> Interesting you say that, since that is exactly what proponents of ID were trying to do in public schools. They wanted it on equal footing with the theory of evolution as an "alternative". That was the whole point of the dust-up a few years back. That's how the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory was born. So what in the world are you talking about?


 Not all ID believers believe the same just like not all scientist believe the same. As is with religious people. Some are way out there than others, truth be told. This is not really hard to see from my point of view. Don't tell me there are no mad scientists? That everyone who believes in science is right? Of course not, you don't even have to answer that question. The evidence speaks for itself.

From what I understand it, those ID people went about it the wrong way in trying to spread their beliefs. That is what their goal was, to spread their word too. Why should they be denied that? I believe that they have that right and not to be denied by law. We have a right to believe in whatever we want to believe and we also have a right to use our own "intelligence" and decide "from our options" and not just allow things to be shoved down our throats.

The science books are full of errors... till today. I find it more of a waste to time to believe that we came from apes than to believe that "god is with you." Believing in science is just a non-beneficial waste of time for modern people (unless if you are perusing a science related career. And we all know that those a very few).

Seriously, who gives a rats as s that we are related to apes? Well, we have that right to hear that information based on evidence but we also have the right to hear about religion. And not just modern religion but the whole deal since ancient times. Way before modern humans edited the the original scripts. Well, that is asking for too much but at least don't make it seem like religion is nothing since science was born from religion. Science is going against it's "dad."

Have you not see printed on money (in the USA) "in god we trust?" Do you understand that the Olympics are rooted based on gods? Did you know that our 7 days of the week are based on religious calendars. Etc. etc.

If scientist really want to shrug religion out of the equation I sugest they get rid of the Olympics, change our 7 days calendar and get the "in god we trust" erased from the money. Also, I would like for someone to explain in great detail with evidence (like they explain gravity...lol... mass (earth) warping the fabric of space)

Which reminds me of the big bang theory :| which I believe there are like five theories about it. Key point, theories. Hey, and they do have reasons as to why to believe that as to religious people to believe in god.

What if I was to tell you that god is an alien? Would you believe in a god or not?

Or what if I was to say that god is a micro organism that controls our brain waves and manipulates us? I mean, you may say to yourself, yes I can believe somewhat in that, but would that "controlling" organism stop being god to you if you acknowledged it? Of course, any sane person believes in god because they want help with their "problems." And any logical person will find god as the "ruler" of all humans. So if an organism controls us, then he is still god by default no matter if you complain about it, he will shut you up! Hypothetically.

Moving on, you are blind if you only take to insult that ID want to shi t on your parade, but that is not the case. From whay I understand the people who first started the ID movement where some scientists themselves. That does make sense since they would have to know both about religion and science to propose such a thing. I believe that they are baffled by what mainstream "theory of evolution" proponents just chose to ignore ot no fully well comprehend. So you come and tell me that the only reason you go against ID is because of that "proponents of ID were trying to do in public schools." hmm...k.



> The only comparison I was making with sharks and alligators is that they too are organisms that have not changed much over vast periods of time.


 Like I din't understand that.



> Let me remind you that your question was why are prokaryotes still the same after 4 billion years, implying they stopped evolving. My response is that an organism that is successful enough to survive and reproduce need not change if their current condition still allows them to survive and reproduce in their existing environment.


 Again, if alligators or crocodiles or whatever animal else you mentioned, not be put under control by us humans, they would all be extinct by now. If your intelligence cannot see the obvious truth, hey, ok.



> Some may change anyways through mutations and the like and those may survive and reproduce as well, potentially becoming a new species. Meanwhile the others who have not changed continue on.


 So what you are telling me is that evolution stops evolving when it reaches a certain point? So evolution has a brain that says, "hey, everything is kool, lets stop mutating."

Is that what you are saying? Of course that is what you are saying. You are saying that evolution stops evolving when "the others who have not changed continue on."



> You see how something can evolve into a new species while the species it evolved from can still exist too?


 Not based on your evidence provided, no!



> There are many ways this can happen. Sometimes it's geographic, when a group of a particular species finds itself in a new environment for example and through the processes of natural selection different traits are more advantageous than in the "other" environment, so the species evolves differently in this environment than the others in the "old" environment.


 that does not sound like "there are many ways this can happen." that sounds more like being redundant. 
So you are telling me that if I put a fly in a jar with all it's necessities it needs to survive (including it's maggots) the fly will exists for infinity?

You will say yes of coursed based on your input, but then am I not god to the fly? Because I am providing what the fly needs, a jar, and the environment. Now, by natural selection, i'm guessing there is a jar our there somewhere with a fly in it that has all it's necessities for life. Also, there is a colony of monkeys that have build a 747. and not only that, if we put all the monkeys in the world in front of type writers, they will write by dumb luck all of the books in the world. Of course they would based on dumb luck.



> Following?


 i'm trying but you are too smart dude. Slow it down a bit will you?



> Need more specifics, more details, more why/how? This is all basic, fundamental stuff. Like I said before, we could go on for ages drilling down through these basics.


 Is there even more after all the evidence that you have provided? Sounds like you are just repeating yourself there moneymaker, that is even if you make that much money. 



> Further, a species that is unable to respond rapidly enough to survive and reproduce in a changing environment will, you guessed it, die out and go extinct. For example if a predator comes along that is superior at killing it and wipes it out before it has had time to adapt. Or the environment changes much too rapidly and severely for a species to adapt well enough to survive in it. This is not a difficult concept. These are basic concepts of natural selection. I don't know how much more simple to make it for you, I am not a teacher. I can point you to resources you can study yourself, like I said before. Much more efficient than us going back and forth. But then it's less of a discussion and more of a teaching session. I am not a teacher.


 Yes this is simple to understand coming from a simplistic person. You are just repeating yourself.

If you take notice, us humans are all over the planet. And we can adapt to all environment in this planet with out evolving.

By your logic, a crocodile would have to adapt (or go extinct) to it's environment if it's home sweet home was to become dry land or ice cold like the north pole. But we adapt all over the world with out having to change physically but instead adapt by using out intelligence.

Oh yeah, you speak the truth.


----------



## mindsanitizer

> I have a very difficult time believing that you have studied and understood much of anything about natural selection when you have questions such as these or difficulty grasping this concept. It seems you are more concerned with arguing than understanding.


 There is really nothing hard to understand about it. What is hard is to understand that all of your "evidence" does not mean "the theory of evolution."



> You asked why are they the same after all this time.


 yes I did.



> I told you why.


 yes you did. You told me the same thing like 3 times already.



> They are able to survive and reproduce in their environment just as they are.


 make it four times.



> Do you need more explanation?


 I don't think you can explain any further. You keep on repeating yourself. You have not even quoted a paragraph from a book of the many that you have read about "evolution."



> I was referring to the process of evolution being one of the most well understood scientific processes known. You seem to have some grasp of this as you stated yourself "we humans run the show". *We "run the show" in this context because of our understanding of the process of evolution.* Genetics, breeding, medicines, pretty much all of biology for example. But you can just say that it's my opinion if you'd like, I'm ok with that.


 wow wow wow hold your horses there moneymaker (who doesn't make money?), lest break it down a bit...



> I was referring to the process of evolution being one of the most well understood scientific processes known.


 The "theory of evolution" only got it's hype when Darwin proposed it. We knew about "evolution" already. That is why I say that "evolution" and the "theory of evolution" are two different things. But you don't see that although you know your history :|



> You seem to have some grasp of this as you stated yourself "we humans run the show".


 huh.... you miss understand grasshopper. If we run the show, we are beyond dumb logic and dumb natural selection. We are not waiting for natural selection but are selecting ourselves what we want. We run the show based on us being in control and not by dumb natural selecting shi t.



> *We "run the show" in this context because of our understanding of the process of evolution.* Genetics, breeding, medicines, pretty much all of biology for example. But you can just say that it's my opinion if you'd like, I'm ok with that.


 So all of a sudden "the theory of evolution" is intelligent. Which is what I was trying to point out about us humans running the show, that we we are intelligent is based on intelligence and not based on dumb roll of the dice. I mean, intelligence should spread intelligence. While roll of the dice only spreads ignorance.

So how can there be evolution if we run the show now? Remember the fly in a jar example I gave somewhere above. Well, what would happened if the fly all of a sudden knew from what the jar was made and found out that it could sustain itself with out needing a human to feed it?

That would only indicate that the fly became intelligent and the human allowed it to become intelligent and not just throw it in the trash in the jar.



> You said humans "run the show", there is "no natural selection anymore". If we run the show, shouldn't we be able to kill all insects on the planet?


 I though I was very clear about this when I said crocodiles are/have-been put in the in-danger species by us humans because us humans running the show would extinct them if we really wanted to.

So lets say we extinct them from their environment, was that natural selection that did that? You don't get it. (yet again) is not like a meteor would just extinct one species lol.



> Aren't we running the show?


 isn't that what I already said?



> And if we did kill all the insects on the planet, why would we die?


 This is a very elementary question to ask, do your homework kid.



> I thought we were running the show. We wouldn't die if we ran the show, because we're in control, not natural processes. Didn't you say we run the show? Do you have a different interpretation of the phrase "running the show"? Because I take it to mean we are in control. You get that logic now? Need more back up?


 so is there other animal that builds atom bombs?

By that same principal, if the "theory of evolution" is correct, there should be a cow building an atom bomb too. Same with monkeys, specially moneys since they are more related to us. But humans are the only species out of this whole earth that can do that? Of course, natural selection does not explain that because even if it tried to, that would not make sense based on the facts.

Oh by the way, stop sounding like you have everything figured out. Kids say the funniest things 



> Care to back up your statement there is no "natural selection anymore"? And does that mean you believe there once was natural selection, and now there isn't? Care to explain that logic?


 simple, god/s came and made us dumb animals intelligent. Well, some more intelligent than others.



> PS - you never explained why you would believe 100% in evolution if you saw cows and horses using tools. Can you? I'd really like to know, because it would give me an idea of what your thought processes are on this subject and where some of your blatant misunderstandings are (although I have a pretty good idea). So what's the explanation?


 First of all, what animal does not use "tools?" Are your hands tools? Are your feet not tools?

The tools can be made by "natural selection" or by intelligence. They can be attached to your body or can be made from the natural world. So if natural selection is correct, should there not be other animals as "advanced" as us humans? Os is that a "natural selection" selecting who can and who can't?

So we all need "tools" to survive. "natural selection" gives them to us attached to our flesh, but intelligence gives us the ability to make them first with out having to wait for dumb "natural selection" to make our flesh and bone grow them for our purposes.

Do I even have to explain how we can manipulate this earths resources like no other animal can. I mean common, random chance made only us be able to do that and not any other type of animal?

How does that makes any sense based on "the theory of evolution" or "natural selection?"


----------



## mindsanitizer

> That link will show you a few diseases that have been cured. Do you even research anything before you post? And of course pharmaceutical companies peddle medicine to people, that's how they make money. People will buy them whether they "cure" or not, if they provide any sort of relief.
> 
> So how on earth do you make the leap that "evolution is not true... all medicines out there are not really cures". First, your medicine statement is false, and second, what does that have to do with "evolution is not true"? You are really a trip.


 First of all, howstuffworks.com is one of the web pages I have visited before many times starting when on it's infancy before it "evolved"  to the web page it is today.

Ok, now tot he logic side of things. That web page does not show proof of any diseases being cured, what that shows are misconceptions that I don't really want to teach.

Also, the tittle is misleading since a vaccine does not cure a disease but rather your body does. Complicated stuff I know... but stay with me smart guy. E.G. The flu vaccine is not a miracle cure by a long shot. All it is is a shot of the most spread strand flu virus at that time chopped into little pieces (dead) being injected in your body so your body immune system can... well get immune to it. It is not a miracle shot that makes your body immune. After you get the flu shot, your body becomes immune to that particular strand of the flu virus based on you getting injected the virus itself (getting injected a dead virus. well, nasal spray "flu shots" spray barely still alive flu viruses).... but also that does not mean that you wll not get the flu after a flue shot..... ahhhh... whatever!

Is this your proof of "the theory of evolution?"

I give up.


----------



## moneyman

Don't give up - you clearly have won! 

You have soundly and logically refuted all of my arguments, and your understanding of both sides of the issue is downright impressive. Your style of debate is simply superb (are you an attorney?) I can see now why you always come out on top in every debate you have.

I have a feeling you'll go very far in life. You are amazing. You've helped me see just how backwards my thinking was. Congratulations 

Best wishes. Keep spreading the good word.


----------



## moneyman

Seriously, I just went back through and read our little discussion. You've demonstrated, exceptionally well, the thought processes of intelligent design proponents. I couldn't have done better than you if I tried. 

Anyone interested in where the heads are of the people who argue against the process of evolution need go no further than to read back through our banter.

So kudos to you my friend!


----------



## Neptunus

This thread seems to be de-evolving.


----------



## moneyman

Neptunus said:


> This thread seems to be de-evolving.


lol!

Did it ever really stand a chance? Consider the subject line... 

I like your Epictetus quote by the way, in your signature. He had some good stuff to say.


----------



## fdsafdsaf

The thread evolved into evolution crushing creationists, as in all such threads. GG.


----------



## lonelyjew

I think this link explains a lot, and why there is no reason to continue to type long winded responses, which will not be absorbed in the least.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect


----------



## ValiantThor

When you look at how insignificant and accidental human life is, it seems most impossible that their could be a creator. Stephan hawking said something like that. We exist because dinosaurs died off allowing mammals to rise.


----------



## coldsorehighlighter

ValiantThor said:


> When you look at how insignificant and accidental human life is, it seems most impossible that their could be a creator. Stephan hawking said something like that. We exist because dinosaurs died off allowing mammals to rise.


But who are we to determine if we are insignificant and/or accidental? 
If there is a creator, who is to say that how we came to be(evolution) wasn't exactly what he had planned? Because evolution discounts some claims made in an old book?
Time started at the Big Bang(so the theory goes), so if there is a creator, he exists outside of time. He must, in order to have created time itself. And to assume that we can know the intentions of something that exists "outside of time", is just a little absurd.
Now, I have my beliefs on why something that exists "outside of time" would want to create something like "time"...but I could be wrong. Stephan Hawking is a smart man, but I'm surprised his ego even fits inside of our galaxy.


----------



## moneyman

lonelyjew said:


> I think this link explains a lot, and why there is no reason to continue to type long winded responses, which will not be absorbed in the least.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect


Indeed.

However, note how even in those cases, one can provide plenty of rope for which the other party can then hang themselves upon?

Thus the value is not in attempting to convince the unconvinceable, but rather to demonstrate to the audience what is occurring. Hopefully in an entertaining fashion.


----------



## danberado

moneyman, you have the patience of a saint.


----------



## moneyman

danberado said:


> moneyman, you have the patience of a saint.


Thank you.

I find that one has to be patient - in a world filled with misinformation, misunderstanding, lack of critical thinking and lack of healthy skepticism - in order to maintain one's sanity.


----------



## twitchy666

*Hmmmmmmmmm...*

no giggles or smiles or politics 

facts

evidence

statistics


----------



## HabitableExoplanet

False dichotomy. There's nothing about the universe that suggests design by a divine intelligence.


----------



## Cuban FL Cracker

Creationism is the only truth of how we came to be about. The Bible is the word of God and He does not lie. The Devil put dinosaur bones in the ground and aged the earth to try to turn people away from God.

We did come from Adam & Eve but as different groups settled in different parts of the world, our bodies adapted to the surrounding environment.


----------



## Foh_Teej

Cuban FL Cracker said:


> Creationism is the only truth of how we came to be about. The Bible is the word of God and He does not lie. The Devil put dinosaur bones in the ground and aged the earth to try to turn people away from God.
> 
> We did come from Adam & Eve but as different groups settled in different parts of the world, our bodies adapted to the surrounding environment.


Sometimes it's hard to tell between an extremely dense creationist or troll. If you are trolling, you've been called. If you are serious, you better substantiate these claims. Otherwise, I'll go to town on you.


----------



## ugh1979

Cuban FL Cracker said:


> Creationism is the only truth of how we came to be about. The Bible is the word of God and He does not lie. The Devil put dinosaur bones in the ground and aged the earth to try to turn people away from God.
> 
> We did come from Adam & Eve but as different groups settled in different parts of the world, our bodies adapted to the surrounding environment.


:lol

You better be trolling.


----------



## Cuban FL Cracker

Foh_Teej said:


> Sometimes it's hard to tell between an extremely dense creationist or troll. If you are trolling, you've been called. If you are serious, you better substantiate these claims. Otherwise, I'll go to town on you.





ugh1979 said:


> :lol
> 
> You better be trolling.


It's not funny at all and like I said, God does not lie.


----------



## Foh_Teej

Cuban FL Cracker said:


> It's not funny at all and like I said, God does not lie.


It's hilarious that we still have people believing in nonsense, pushing 2015. Anyhow, the awesome thing about fiction is the ability to assign attributes and characteristics however you want.


----------



## ugh1979

Cuban FL Cracker said:


> It's not funny at all and like I said, God does not lie.


Either does Harry Potter. In _Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix_, he etched "I must not tell lies", on his hand with a blood quill.

Do you see how this works?

Coming back to your earlier statement, "We did come from Adam & Eve but as different groups settled in different parts of the world, our bodies adapted to the surrounding environment."

There is hard empirical evidence in our genetics that we evolved in Africa and there was no Adam & Eve who gave rise to the rest of humanity. I know that with you being a Creationist facts probably don't really make much of a difference to your beliefs, but I wonder what your thoughts are on such facts.

Is it anything to do with a racial issue? I know many Creationists have an issue with having black ancestors, just as they have an issue with having monkey like ancestors.

Is there anything that would make you not believe in Creationism?


----------

