Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(   Man offers $250,000 if you can prove evolution.   ( divider line
    More: PSA  
•       •       •

4888 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Mar 2002 at 12:46 AM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

414 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

2002-03-01 02:20:41 AM  
sure it's prossible, anything's possible right? well here's my question, where are the transitional forms, not even one? supposedly billions of years of evolution, not one transitional form, seems odd, there's no proof or evidence that macro evoltuion ever occured, and how do u account for all the plant life? if evolution is the process of adapting to your enviroment and changing into new creatures, then why would a single cell amoeba ever evolve at all, it's already perfect for a barren planet of rock and water, no need to evolve or adapt
2002-03-01 02:22:03 AM  
Jer780:that evolution can't be proven and therefore it takes faith to believe it actually happened

Yeah, like the faith I have when I think I'll come back to earth when I jump.

Jer780:, so he doesn't believe evolution shouldn't be taught in school's, even as a theory,

I guess we should just remove all science from schools since it's all built on theories, which, by the way, are the farthest that major concepts can get.

Jer780: i also agree that any other idea on the subject of origin should be taught in schools either, let the kids the learn and decide about such things on their own

I bet you'd also agree to us teaching children that super invisible rubber bands made out of magic rubber taken from magic tireyards keeps us near the earth instead of gravity. You know, since we have to allow all ideas.

These ideas are not on equal footing. The Theory of Evolution is what science has to offer. If you want to go against what thousands of people have spent their lives researching and choose instead from the vast collection of religious myths, GO AHEAD. But I'll thank you for not forcing the rest of us to have to do it too.
2002-03-01 02:23:34 AM  
Jer780: well here's my question, where are the transitional forms, not even one?

Actually, according to the theory of evolution, all living things are transitional forms.
2002-03-01 02:24:07 AM  
By the way, I'm not saying that Creationism doesn't have merits. I'm saying that Kent Hovind is scum that should be wiped off the face of the earth. Why? Well, he thinks evolution is a Communist conspiracy for one...
2002-03-01 02:24:54 AM  
Evolution did occur, is occurring, and will occur. Even Kunt Hovind admits "micro-evolution" (a term coined by Creationists) occurs. It's a fact; the "theory" is how it progressed.

People that call Creationism a valid theory or dismiss evolution as "only a theory" DO NOT UNDERSTAND what the word "theory" means. It doesn't mean a hypothesis, an idea, or something thought up during drug-induced high. A theory, in the legitimate, scientific sense, is produced as the result of evidence and logic.

A loose analogy: If I were to write down "1, 2, x, y, z, 6" and ask you what x y and z represent, you'll say 3 4 and 5. Why? Where's your evidence that 3 4 and 5 go there? Prove to me that 3 4 and 5 go between 1 and 6.

You come to your conclusion through logic and previous evidence. We have proof in the premise that 1 and 2 exist, much like the homo habilis and neanderthais have been proven to exist ages ago. We have proof in the premise that 6 exists, in the same way we have self-evident proof that homo sapiens exist. 1, 2, and 6 are all numbers, just like the homo habilis, homo neanderthalis and homo sapien are human. Logic simply fills the gap, and that logic is evolution.

Of course, admittantly, that is a loose analogy. We have more proof evolution occurs than that 1 and 2 are precursors to 6. Creationism denies that 1 and 2 are numbers.
2002-03-01 02:26:11 AM  
Jer780: You want a transitional form? I just have one word for you: Archaeopteryx. Transitional form from reptile to bird.

Done and done.
2002-03-01 02:26:39 AM  
Creationism denies that 1 and 2 are numbers.

Such rapier wit, boy!
2002-03-01 02:27:14 AM  
There are plenty of important transitional forms to be round in the fossil record. Do some research on it. I mean, if you really get down to it, everything is a transitional form between its parents and its offspring. It's just that there isn't an obvious change in only a generation.
Also, regarding macroevolution:
1) macroevolution works on the same principles as microevolution. If you say you accept micro and not macro, it's similar to say you believe 1+1 = 2, but if you keep adding 1's, you'll never get to 10.
2) macroevolution, defined as a change in the level of species or higher (speciation), HAS been observed numerous times in both the lab and nature.
2002-03-01 02:28:27 AM  
i don't know if this has anything to do with evolution, but in AP biology my senior year we did some experiments on fruit flies. My group had a vial of virgin female flies (flies can't reproduce until they are a few days old, and we separated them as soon as we could tell they were female), and we accidentally killed them all with the FlyNap. A few days later, we had larva all over in the jar. How does that work? They were all virgin females, and dead for several days when the larva appeared. Abiogenesis? Spontaneous reproduction?
2002-03-01 02:29:46 AM  
Blah blah blahdee blah God. But, bloo bloo bloodee blah Darwin. Given the parameters of the yammer yammmer blah yammer, one can only summize that yadda yadda yadda.

Nietschze said it best when he said, "fart fart, flatulence and fart." Creationists have never been able to comprehend that gag gag, cough, gag and cough. Any normal herman bean could prove the theory of edda medda pah.

So in closing, genuflect, genuflect, genuflect, bow. I simply have to side with the oogah chaka oogah chaka's. I hope this clears up my viewpoint.

They call the wind "Mariah". Or "fark creation/evolution thread".
2002-03-01 02:30:07 AM  
Mugen: The point is not that he can choose to be able to lift the rock, but that he can choose NOT to be able to. The question is, "If God is all-powerful and omnipotent, can he create a rock he cannot lift?" I say the answer is yes because, even if it is temporary, God can choose to be too weak to lift the rock. Therefore, he can, indeed, create a rock he cannot lift.

In a nutshell, if God is omnipotent, then he has control of everything. If he has control of everything, then he has control over his own abilities. Therefore, if God is omnipotent, then he has control over his own abilities. God, according to your definition, is omnipotent, and thus does have control over his own abilities. Therefore, God can control whether or not he is able to lift a rock.

Okay, now, I haven't thought about this for a while, so give me some time to sleep on it. :)

Philosophy is fun.
2002-03-01 02:33:19 AM  
Certain christians loose credibilty in my book when they try to convince me that 1 (god) + 1 (jesus) + 1 (holy spirit) = 1. The whole trinity dogma really throws a veil of unbelievability on their other statements.

Oh god, I heard the Joey told Rachel he loved her. Did you cry or WHAT?
2002-03-01 02:34:45 AM  
Jer780, you claim there are no transitionals. Every single fossil is transitional, but I suspect you're looking for something like a dramatic-looking bird-cow.

Read this, unless you're happy in your ignorance:

Hell, read all of Evolutionary theory exists not because of some evil atheist conspiracy as Creationists insinuate, but because it's the only common-sense and rational theory in existance.

And if you think that evolution explains the origins of the universe, the planets, and live (like Hovind does), it doesn't. It explains speciation.
2002-03-01 02:37:01 AM  
Ok, I'll throw a bone to the creationists.

God can turn into a rock. Hence, a rock he cannot lift.
2002-03-01 02:37:26 AM  
But, then again, it took a Deist to think of that.
2002-03-01 02:39:43 AM  
GoMegGo: Must be the immaculate conception. It's in the bible too. :-)

Trowshep: You're indicating another contradiction to God's existance, which only goes to further prove that God's existance is impossible. It's a very good point though.
2002-03-01 02:41:05 AM  
jer780...evolution isn't exaclty adapting to your environment and changing into new creatures. it's not that at all really....its about genetic variation, with some variances producing more offspring than its not a question of whether an amoeba "needs" to happens
2002-03-01 02:41:44 AM  
Awww crap there is talk of transitional forms ... to those posting now would be a good time to use my tip and cut the argument short ;)

MedicineMan, I tend not to suggest literature; the right books tend to find the right people. My point was why _argue_ about it here (and with Farkers!) when you can find so many better resources to challenge these old ideas. This road has been tread a thousand times. Why go over it again and in the same dull manner? If you have something original to post that would be great but I'm not interested in seeing the same parade over again and if I have a voice here I'll certainly make mention of it.

"A very popular error: having the courage of one's convictions; rather it is a matter of having the courage for an attack on one's convictions!"
2002-03-01 02:42:06 AM  
back to my question does Johnny 5 believe in God or man as god
2002-03-01 02:42:41 AM  
This guy is a wako, you could never convince a religious fanatic like that of anything.
2002-03-01 02:44:34 AM  
Couple of quotes of interest:

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "Does not!" ~D­r*P­epp­er­[nospam-﹫-backwards]1­42f*n103*z1*fido­net*org

If we are going to teach 'creation science' as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction. ~Judith Hayes, In God We Trust: But Which One?
2002-03-01 02:44:41 AM  
Then again, you can tell all of us crazy bastards are from first world countries because we take out our aggressions an stupid message boards as opposed to terrorism.
2002-03-01 02:49:53 AM  
See, all, the arguments we make prove the creationist guy's actual point. You shouldn't teach Origin theories in school, any more than "what happens after we die". That's not the school's job. It's too tied up in our religious beliefs.

Evolution takes faith to believe, and flies in the face of pretty much every religion. Public schools should leave it alone. Mention the several theories of Origin and give the kids some info on how to find out more on their own. Don't have them preach evolution. It's not much different than preaching buddhism or christianity. So the schools should avoid the conflict of interest.

btw, assuming that micro-evolution somehow supports macro-evolution is plain ignorance. If I trace the path of a water particle in a pipe, i might see it go up, down, sideways, backwards. Watching it for 2 inches, I can't try to predict what it will do next or where it came from exactly. Only when I look at it from the whole pipe do I see it basically goes in a straight line, with some bumps along the way. Same goes for micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

Welstradamus, your 1+1+...=10 analogy assumes that macro-evolution is a direct path through organized micro-evolution. Even the evolution scientists will tell you that is not true. And no scientist has EVER seen a bacteria turn into a plant, or a lizard turn into a bird in any laboratory setting.

HeartburnKid, remember, the transition from reptile to bird is not a proven fact. Just becuase an animal (might have) existed that looks like a cross between them doesn't support the idea. Otherwise I'd hypothesize George W. Bush is just his dad morphing into a younger, stronger (less articulate, comical) lifeform.

Just because bacteria adapt to drugs and mountain-dwellers breed big lungs doesn't mean a fish grew legs and one day built the atomic bomb.

Farkistan's gonna catch on fire. This topic could pull in record flame... :)
2002-03-01 02:51:47 AM  
Mugen: This is only operating under the assumption that God (if there is one) is omnipotent. It is equally likely that, if there is a God, that its powers are so incredibly vast and far-reaching that they are beyond human comprehension, but that those same powers are not infinite. Just because it seems like infinity does not mean that it IS infinity.

But that's a whole new kettle of fish, isn't it?

Time for me to go to bed, but I would like to continue this discussion at some point.

If you like, I will e-mail you my AIM alias. :)
2002-03-01 02:54:18 AM  
First: Trowshep: I took a Philosophy course last semester here at college. My professor said in philosophy there are non-sensical questions. I tend to regard God lifting a rock non-sensical. The question proves nothing, means nothing, and has absolutely no answer.

Second: Those thinking Evolution isn't spouted about school/College. While some teachers may not feel the need to continuously and constantly pound evolution into people's heads like "religious" people do the bible, I'm here at a College where I hear the word evolution every single day in class. I am not lying here, I am not exagerating. I hear it in Biology, I've heard it (albeit rare) in Chemistry, in Philosophy, in Art... To me, a creationist, it's about as annoying as heck as those who don't believe in God hearing about God. Christianity? Oh.. that's left to the few classes for Christianity credit.

Now, I would like to A) thank those who agree that neither evolution or creation should be bashed into the ground and B) it's a fundamental flaw to base things off the past in regards to christianity and/or evolution. I think it's a poor sappy excuse to go off saying "Christianity is evil because of the crusades or because of [this this this and this of the past]." I think we can all agree Creation-believeing faiths and evolutionary-faith have both had their horrible misuses of the past. Now are you goin to base what you believe off whether a crack pot decides to open his mouth and do something horrible, or if you're really going to look at the subjects, examine them for yourself, and decide?
2002-03-01 02:56:51 AM  
Townshrep: Very good point. I was using Descartes' absolutist view of God. Too... much... philosophy! I don't use AIM, just ICQ, but you're definitely welcome to e-mail me. :-)
2002-03-01 03:00:38 AM  
I am god. I was bored. Cable was out. So I did it. I created the universe.
2002-03-01 03:01:21 AM  
All hail Dilipb!

I'm off to bed. :-)
2002-03-01 03:02:40 AM  
Starless: 1. Nonsensical questions are fun, and a good way to make one's brain hurt... er... work. They are puzzles, and I happen to like them. 2. I brought up the question because I felt that the dilemma was analagous (sp?) to Mugan's proof of the non-existance of God. 3. I'm tired, and I happen to like that dilemma.

4. I'm tired and I need to go to BED.
2002-03-01 03:04:36 AM  
MedicineMan: And no scientist has EVER seen a bacteria turn into a plant, or a lizard turn into a bird in any laboratory setting.

Of course not. That would (according to the theory of evolution) take millions of years.

Now, has any scientist ever seen God create something in a laboratory setting?
2002-03-01 03:05:26 AM  
God has the shiattiest followers.
2002-03-01 03:05:51 AM  
I've seen a portfolio turn into a steaming pile of shiat.

Does that count?
2002-03-01 03:06:18 AM  
I bet God is like, "Why the hell does Falwell believe in me? I don't believe in him... that dumb farker."
2002-03-01 03:07:23 AM  
about the archaeopteryx, here's a link that shows the debate among that, it's not a creationist site and supports neither side, it's just an article about the debate, so don't be afraid to visit it
now, let's just clarify one thing jre, i am very happy in my ignorance, however, i have visited that site many times(, i have to wonder though how many times you have considered the other side of the coin? i've seen scientific evidence that debunks evolution and an old earth, i've seen rebuttals to that evidence, and i've seen rebuttals to the rebuttals, i've seen evidence that debunks creationism, i've seen rebuttals to that evidence and i've seen rebuttals to those rebuttals, i've read and seen it all, so who do you believe? how many people posting on this thread can claim to have read the Bible through at least once? i can, i don't take other peoples word for what it says, many times things are taken out of context, i read the Bible daily and prayerfully, you may think i'm ignorant and that's fine, that's your right, but until you read the Bible prayerfully you won't understand it, i look at science and i look at the Bible, science cannot disprove anything the Bible says, although it has been tried, yet true science backs up what is in the Bible and i know i'll get slammed for that one, but i don't expect anyone to believe me, i know i'm just an ignorant believer in the Bible, the one thing i can suggest, whether you're aetheist, agnostic, think your a Christain, or whatever you may belive, just think for a momement that maybe there is a God, go ahead and question him in prayer and ask that if he really exists to lead you to the truth, it maybe a day or a couple a years, but if you were sincere about it, he'll lead you there, and if he doesn't, well then maybe i am a fool and i am wrong, but it doesn't hurt to pray at least once, maybe we'll be lucky if we live til 80, then what, we die, if there's not God, that's the end of the ride, but i'd hate to be an aetheist and be wrong, i'd much rather be wrong and believe, so i'll just live my simple life in ignorance and get ready for the all the bashing i will receive and i'm sure each line of my post will be torn apart and thrown back in my face, i have nothing against anyone posting, you're all good people i'm sure and you do some good research to support your ideas, unfortunately not everyone can be right, i have a friend who i own a business with, he's an aethiest and an evolutionist but obviously we get along just fine, arguing about the topic is fine, just some people take it too far, on both sides by trashing each other personally, believe what you will believe and keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out
2002-03-01 03:09:16 AM  
Why can't we all be athiests, agnostics, buddhists, and deists? The world would be so much more peaceful. And, if there is a God, he'd probably rather have a world full of kind atheists than farked up followers.
2002-03-01 03:09:25 AM  
You shouldn't teach Origin theories in school,

Evolution isn't an "origin theory", it explains how species progress through time to the present.

Evolution takes faith to believe,

No it doesn't, it's been proven.

and flies in the face of pretty much every religion.

Only to those who think it does, to those who are too clueless to separate myth from religion.
2002-03-01 03:10:26 AM  
Jer780: So, what evidence do you have for creationism? (other than the Bible)
2002-03-01 03:11:25 AM  
One question, jer780, with a possible followup:

Do you consider the study of history a science?
2002-03-01 03:19:01 AM  
Neither Evolution or Creationism can be empirically proven.

Evolution makes more sense in terms of observable phoenomena.

Creationism makes more sense in terms of spirtuality.

The funny part is when we die we find out both are wrong (or right).
2002-03-01 03:20:35 AM  
You know, I saw this post and thought "fantastic surely by now they've nutted out the origin of the universe." Man was I dissapointed, I read through the posts and all I found was the usually ranting of Creationists followed by the usual response of evolutionists of "I don't think you quite understand how science works."
So here's my summary; science proves nothing, it only disproves things. Thus evolution can never be proved but other theories can be dismissed.
Or God created the universe on an omnipitant whim.

Everyone then tries to claim Occam's razor as supporting their own argument and goes home satisfied.
2002-03-01 03:23:41 AM  
history is what we have recorded of our past, science is an ATTEMPT to explain the unknown, we know the U.S. declared it's independence in 1776, we have the document to prove it, we are told dinosaurs lived over 65 million years ago based on assumption and flawed dating, yet it there is nothing to support that this is the true history of dinosaurs
2002-03-01 03:25:16 AM  
Jer, you're ignorance amazes me.
2002-03-01 03:26:02 AM  
We can see a demonstration of evolution in events creationist call "microevolution".

But can they show proof of creation, do they have anything like "microcreation" to back them? Is god creating anything anymore?
2002-03-01 03:26:04 AM  
Does anyone else here feel like they're on a Merry-Go-Round?
2002-03-01 03:28:12 AM  
Being religious is like running in the special olympics, even if you win, you're retarded.
2002-03-01 03:31:01 AM  
So you don't consider history a science. That's quite convienent, since recorded history makes no mention of Herod's slaughter of the infants in an attempt to destroy Jesus, makes no mention of the sun standing still, nor makes no mention of a global-flood some 4000 years ago. All of those things which would at least raise some eyebrows chug along without even warranting a footnote in the records of the time.

Now that I think of it, how does science science explain the sun standing still?
2002-03-01 03:31:25 AM  
03-01-02 12:55:04 AM Trowshep

What an interesting proposition that is.

Someone should counter with an offer of 250k to whomever can prove that:

1. God exists and is all-powerful.


2. God created everything.

Anyway, don't public schools acknowledge that there are different theories about the origin of life, the universe, and everything?

I think all public schools should teach the origin of Life, The Universe, and Everything is Douglas Addams, and I would be especially please to see the Hitchiker

series offered as potential literature. Then more people would get my jokes :-)

The secret of flying is to be able to throw yourself at the ground, and miss.

Also, from a quantum physics point of view, the universe is, always has been, and always will be a figment of its own imagination -- even if there is a restaurant at the end of it :-)

2002-03-01 03:31:39 AM  
MysticJackal: here's your scientific evidence
2002-03-01 03:33:13 AM  
Jer, link to a respectable scholarly, scientific journal such as Scientific American or National Geographic
2002-03-01 03:34:20 AM  
I believe this person misunderstands evolution.

He's broadening evolution to include an origin theory. Apparently on purpose, as well, to discourage submittal of proof.

Evolution only applies to living things as they've been observed on Earth. It does not apply to, nor have I seen anyone respectable try to apply it to, an origin theory of the Universe.

You can say an invisible pink unicorn created the Universe for all I care. You can say the entire universe is a macrocosm of a vacuum fluctuation. You can say that reality is your dog's day dream. The fact is that we don't know for sure, and all we can do is try to understand. For all we know, we may not even be capable of understanding the origins of the Universe.

Evolution, as far as I'm concerned, is a set of generalizations explaining that offspring which are less suited to their environment are less likely to survive, therefore, over time, stronger members of a species reproduce more than the less-capable of their species and spread their genetic benefits to future generations of that species.

Does anyone have anything constructive to say?
Displayed 50 of 414 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.