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.

(Scientific American)   Is the answer A) You're a moron, B) You're a moron, or C) You're a moran?   (blogs.scientificamerican.com) divider line 290
    More: Stupid, literal interpretations, evolution, pseudosciences, necessarily true, Darwinian, draw backs, history of science, frame of references  
•       •       •

9012 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Nov 2012 at 8:55 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



290 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-21 01:52:56 PM  

Millennium: DAD 20165: I'm not saying it's not fact but it seems to me if people were confident in evolution it would be the laws of evolution not still a theory.

It's not a matter of confidence; it's a matter of how direct the experience we have with it is. Facts are data, while theories are interpretations of that data (specifically, interpretations that stand up under testing; interpretations that haven't been tested are hypotheses).

Evolution is a theory: an interpretation of the facts at hand that has, so far, stood up under the testing we've put it to. To "promote" it to a fact, we'd have to see one species split off from another in the lab as it happens, but evolution happens over such large time scales that this isn't currently practical (and might never be).


Not always.
 
2012-11-21 02:10:01 PM  

wippit: vactech: Even children instinctively know that Darwin's theory of big bang evolution does not account for our unintentional creation in the "magical puddle of mud" Darwin proposed.

Can it be an intentional creation in a magical puddle of mud?


As long as the creation is a clock and mud is actually sand, then I'm ok your ok.
 
2012-11-21 02:27:30 PM  

RussianPooper: It's more like saying you don't believe in gravity because it doesn't explain the origin of matter. They aren't completely unrelated.


Allow me to submit another analogy then: its like asking a plumber to perform bowel surgery because he's used to dealing with tubes full of shiat. There may be a superficial resemblance, but no reasonable person should consider that they make the two the same thing. The average plumber never intended to be a surgeon, and asking him to be one would be unreasonable, no matter what the resemblances are. The theory of evolution was never intended to explain the origins of life and it would be unreasonable to ask it to do so, no matter what the resemblances are.
 
2012-11-21 02:37:57 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-21 02:40:49 PM  

Millennium: Evolution is a theory: an interpretation of the facts at hand that has, so far, stood up under the testing we've put it to. To "promote" it to a fact, we'd have to see one species split off from another in the lab as it happens, but evolution happens over such large time scales that this isn't currently practical (and might never be).


Scientific facts supposedly tend to be very absolute. The existence of gravity is a scientific fact. How gravity works is a scientific theory, even though we know how forces act at the atomic level.

It could be stated that the existence of evolution is a scientific fact, but how it operates remains a scientific theory. Its operation may always be a scientific theory, just as with how gravity operates. That is simply the nature of science.
 
2012-11-21 02:42:28 PM  

give me doughnuts: I drunk what: IC Stars: Humans are apes

are apes rats?

are rats lizards?

are lizards fish?

are fish amoebas?

are amoebas primordial soups?

therefore humans are primordial soups just like fish are soups because you know for a scientific fact that they all have the same universal common ancestor?

There are four currently extant genera of "Great Apes":

1) Pongo - orangutans
2) Pan - chimpanzees and bonobos
3) Gorilla - duh
4) Homo - humans

Humans are apes.


Western lowland gorillas are my favorite because their scientific name is Gorilla gorilla
 
2012-11-21 02:43:06 PM  

vactech: Even children instinctively know that Darwin's theory of big bang evolution does not account for our unintentional creation in the "magical puddle of mud" Darwin proposed.

I always find it amazing that even from a very young age kids KNOW that God exists, exists in a state of absolute isness. Beyond time, beyond space. God creates infinite reality, finite reality. He is beyond both. Beyond limitation.


"Darwin's theory of big bang evolution", eh?

Is that anything like Einstein's theory of punctuated equilibrium Relativity?
 
2012-11-21 02:43:45 PM  

DAD 20165: I'm not saying it's not fact but it seems to me if people were confident in evolution it would be the laws of evolution not still a theory.


Okay, Dr. Banjo. 

i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-21 02:45:34 PM  
Some creationists believe evolution as well
 
2012-11-21 02:52:57 PM  
What a steaming pile of bull.

Life did not start from non life to become a singe celled creature then evolve to multi celled then evolved into simpler animals and plants then evolve into land animals and plants then evolve into dinosaurs then evolve into mammals which then evolved into ape which then evolved into us. That is evolution theory in a nutshell. Evolutionists say there are many questions to be answered for the in between steps but that is 10 thousand foot picture.

Bullcrap. Not one single step of that chain can be proven in any way shape or form. Every attempt to test or verify or reproduce any part of that chain of events has resulted the only way it can. In abject failure. It didnt happen people. Stop trying to convince us or intimidate or indoctrinate others into believing that it did. It didnt happen, it cannot happen and that is just it. Sorry to burst your bubble.
 
2012-11-21 03:00:27 PM  

walkingtall: What a steaming pile of bull.

Life did not start from non life to become a singe celled creature then evolve to multi celled then evolved into simpler animals and plants then evolve into land animals and plants then evolve into dinosaurs then evolve into mammals which then evolved into ape which then evolved into us. That is evolution theory in a nutshell. Evolutionists say there are many questions to be answered for the in between steps but that is 10 thousand foot picture.

Bullcrap. Not one single step of that chain can be proven in any way shape or form. Every attempt to test or verify or reproduce any part of that chain of events has resulted the only way it can. In abject failure. It didnt happen people. Stop trying to convince us or intimidate or indoctrinate others into believing that it did. It didnt happen, it cannot happen and that is just it. Sorry to burst your bubble.


I'll bet you don't travel on trains that go faster than 25MPH because you're afraid of asphyxiation, don't you?
 
2012-11-21 03:01:34 PM  

babtras: If you're teaching a class on evolution, then teach evolution. Don't go out of your way to bring religion into it by asking retarded questions like "how do you reconcile your beliefs with evolution". The only thing you accomplish is to put the religious folks into a defensive mode and make them more difficult to teach. Just teach your course material without the anti-religious crusade, and those students who dismiss your course material and evidence based on their beliefs, will fail the course and weed themselves out of the pool of qualified scientists that graduate.

Summary: the professor is an attention whore.


FTA: "I'm teaching Darwin again this semester, in two separate courses, and I'm confronted with a familiar dilemma: How should I respond to students who reject evolutionary theory on religious grounds?

One course is a freshman survey of the humanities and social sciences, and the other reviews the history of science and technology."

He's no t teaching a class on evolution.
 
2012-11-21 03:01:49 PM  

walkingtall: What a steaming pile of bull.

Life did not start from non life to become a singe celled creature then evolve to multi celled then evolved into simpler animals and plants then evolve into land animals and plants then evolve into dinosaurs then evolve into mammals which then evolved into ape which then evolved into us. That is evolution theory in a nutshell. Evolutionists say there are many questions to be answered for the in between steps but that is 10 thousand foot picture.

Bullcrap. Not one single step of that chain can be proven in any way shape or form. Every attempt to test or verify or reproduce any part of that chain of events has resulted the only way it can. In abject failure. It didnt happen people. Stop trying to convince us or intimidate or indoctrinate others into believing that it did. It didnt happen, it cannot happen and that is just it. Sorry to burst your bubble.


Thanks for clearing that up for us.
 
2012-11-21 03:05:53 PM  

walkingtall: What a steaming pile of bull.

Life did not start from non life to become a singe celled creature then evolve to multi celled then evolved into simpler animals and plants then evolve into land animals and plants then evolve into dinosaurs then evolve into mammals which then evolved into ape which then evolved into us. That is evolution theory in a nutshell. Evolutionists say there are many questions to be answered for the in between steps but that is 10 thousand foot picture.

Bullcrap. Not one single step of that chain can be proven in any way shape or form. Every attempt to test or verify or reproduce any part of that chain of events has resulted the only way it can. In abject failure. It didnt happen people. Stop trying to convince us or intimidate or indoctrinate others into believing that it did. It didnt happen, it cannot happen and that is just it. Sorry to burst your bubble.


Point: Evolution is the mechanism by which simple self-replicating molecules progressed into the biodiversity we see today, for the following reasons.....

Counterpoint: No it didn't, because shut up.

I like to read intelligent counterarguments. Yours is not one.
 
2012-11-21 03:07:08 PM  

pastorkius: give me doughnuts: I drunk what: IC Stars: Humans are apes

are apes rats?

are rats lizards?

are lizards fish?

are fish amoebas?

are amoebas primordial soups?

therefore humans are primordial soups just like fish are soups because you know for a scientific fact that they all have the same universal common ancestor?

There are four currently extant genera of "Great Apes":

1) Pongo - orangutans
2) Pan - chimpanzees and bonobos
3) Gorilla - duh
4) Homo - humans

Humans are apes.

Western lowland gorillas are my favorite because their scientific name is Gorilla gorilla


You left off a "gorilla."

Western lowland gorilla: Gorilla gorilla gorilla
Cross River gorilla: Gorilla gorilla diehli


/hope it doesn't work like "Beetlejuice" or "Candy Man" or "Biggie Smalls."
 
2012-11-21 03:10:42 PM  

poorjon: "Even when bolstered by modern genetics, evolutionary theory does not explain why life emerged on Earth more than 3 billion years ago, or whether life was highly probable, even inevitable, or a once in a universe fluke."

It pisses me the hell off when people bring this up. Evolutionary theory does not even attempt to explain the origins of life. That is not why the theory was developed. Its like saying that you don't believe in gravity because it doesn't explain how pop-rocks work.


Uh, wasn't he just saying the same thing you are? Personally, I like to point out that high school science class teaching evolution is barely scratching the surface. Pulling up some 'mistake' or 'admission' on the part of Charles Darwin doesn't really help, the actual science behind it has advanced incredibly far since then. I mean, we were barely figuring out how heredity worked(dominant and recessive traits) and had no clue about DNA and microbiology.

Tigger: Taxonomy is a bugger and exactly what a species is can be defined in any number of ways. Using genotype to classify species is less common than using phenotype - ie two creatures are the same species if they can produce young that can reproduce.


Indeed; amplifying this is stuff like ring species - A can breed with B that can breed with C which can breed with D which can breed with A and produce fertile offspring, but A can't breed with C and do so. Then there's plant hybridization, the ability for bacteria to hand off chunks of DNA, variable mutation rates depending on stress levels, and it gets complicated even for doctorates specializing in it.

One false conception that many people have, and it's pronounced in creationists, is the idea that 'species' is some sort of hard line in biology. It's not; it's an artificial categorization system created by humans, and flawed at that(though still useful).
 
2012-11-21 03:13:44 PM  

kid_icarus: Evolution and faith can be compatible, as long as faith is willing to abandon literal interpretations of scripture.


Sorry, I know the video must be worn out by now (Youtube link), but I've got to do it!
 
2012-11-21 03:14:27 PM  

skinbubble: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x400]


i457.photobucket.com

It's real
 
2012-11-21 03:20:13 PM  

Egoy3k: Thanks for clearing that up for us.


If I told you that I could flap my wings and fly to the moon it is up to me to prove it. Evolutionists have put forth the theory that life began from non life and over time became more and more complex. There is nothing in nature and nothing in all of human experience and science as we know it today that would make that possible. There are no natural laws that provide chances for it to happen. The theory basically violates every single thing we currently know about how things work. Yet, here we are. So I put forth I would need proof of this theory that flies in the face of everything we can see and touch and violates all logic. Nature doesnt create codes. Yet we are to believe the most complex code in the universe, DNA, just happened all on its own. Corollary to that there is nothing in nature or logic to indicate that random natural processes can add to an existing code. For evolution to happen it must happen though. ON and on it goes with the flagrant disregard for all we know about science to try and shoe horn a terrible theory in for the simple reason that it MUST be true. That is not science and you can keep beating me and my kind upside the head with all the monkey poo you want but Im not buying it. I respect science too much to buy it.
 
2012-11-21 03:27:09 PM  

CheekyMonkey: vactech: Even children instinctively know that Darwin's theory of big bang evolution does not account for our unintentional creation in the "magical puddle of mud" Darwin proposed.

I always find it amazing that even from a very young age kids KNOW that God exists, exists in a state of absolute isness. Beyond time, beyond space. God creates infinite reality, finite reality. He is beyond both. Beyond limitation.

"Darwin's theory of big bang evolution", eh?

Is that anything like Einstein's theory of punctuated equilibrium Relativity?


I suggest The Theory of Darwalkin's BangExpandEvolveGenesis.
 
2012-11-21 03:27:44 PM  

walkingtall: There are no natural laws that provide chances for it to happen.


So I take it you don't believe in chemical reactions either?
 
2012-11-21 03:29:01 PM  
hmmmm?

vactech: BangExpandEvolveGenesis

BangExpandEvolve-a-Genesis


Has a nice ring to it.
 
2012-11-21 03:32:59 PM  

walkingtall: The theory basically violates every single thing we currently know about how things work.


Are you saying that bacteria that cause us a variety of afflictions are not becoming resistant to antibiotics? It is the same mechanism and it demonstrates that it is possible. When we dope ourselves up on antibiotics to kill an infection, all the bacteria die except those that have variations that make them resistant to the antibiotic. For them, the antibiotics are an evolutionary pressure. Since only the resistant survivors reproduce, you end up with an entirely new, resistant colony of the bacteria and, by this process, eventually a new strain.

It is clearly demonstrable. There is no question that evolution happens. The only question is whether that was the mechanism by which we came into existence.
 
2012-11-21 03:33:03 PM  

walkingtall: Egoy3k: Thanks for clearing that up for us.

If I told you that I could flap my wings and fly to the moon it is up to me to prove it. Evolutionists have put forth the theory that life began from non life and over time became more and more complex. There is nothing in nature and nothing in all of human experience and science as we know it today that would make that possible. There are no natural laws that provide chances for it to happen. The theory basically violates every single thing we currently know about how things work. Yet, here we are. So I put forth I would need proof of this theory that flies in the face of everything we can see and touch and violates all logic. Nature doesnt create codes. Yet we are to believe the most complex code in the universe, DNA, just happened all on its own. Corollary to that there is nothing in nature or logic to indicate that random natural processes can add to an existing code. For evolution to happen it must happen though. ON and on it goes with the flagrant disregard for all we know about science to try and shoe horn a terrible theory in for the simple reason that it MUST be true. That is not science and you can keep beating me and my kind upside the head with all the monkey poo you want but Im not buying it. I respect science too much to buy it.




There are a ton of data showing how random changes in the genetic code produce better functioning enzymes which are selected for due to more offspring. There has even been the introduction of unnatural amino acids into a cell culture which resulted in nearly immediate evolution of new cellular machinery to incorporate it into functional enzymes. DNA is a simple code that encodes a large amount of complex information.
 
2012-11-21 03:34:31 PM  

walkingtall: Egoy3k: Thanks for clearing that up for us.

If I told you that I could flap my wings and fly to the moon it is up to me to prove it. Evolutionists have put forth the theory that life began from non life and over time became more and more complex. There is nothing in nature and nothing in all of human experience and science as we know it today that would make that possible. There are no natural laws that provide chances for it to happen. The theory basically violates every single thing we currently know about how things work. Yet, here we are. So I put forth I would need proof of this theory that flies in the face of everything we can see and touch and violates all logic. Nature doesnt create codes. Yet we are to believe the most complex code in the universe, DNA, just happened all on its own. Corollary to that there is nothing in nature or logic to indicate that random natural processes can add to an existing code. For evolution to happen it must happen though. ON and on it goes with the flagrant disregard for all we know about science to try and shoe horn a terrible theory in for the simple reason that it MUST be true. That is not science and you can keep beating me and my kind upside the head with all the monkey poo you want but Im not buying it. I respect science too much to buy it.


Did you know that if you flip a fair coin 1,000,000 times, you'll get several dozen occurrences of 100+ heads in a row. Purely by chance. You'll even get a few 1000+ heads in a row results. Looks like something is up with a coin if you get 1000 or even 100 heads in a row, but it happens.

How many times do you think a coin can be flipped in the 3.8 billion years life has existed on earth? How about in the 4.5 billion years the earth has been around? Or what about the 13.7 billion years the universe appears to have existed?
 
2012-11-21 03:40:04 PM  

Kome:
How many times do you think a coin can be flipped in the 3.8 billion years life has existed on earth? How about in the 4.5 billion years the earth has been around? Or what about the 13.7 billion years the universe appears to have existed?


I think creationists just can't understand how much time that is. To paraphrase Adams, You may 6,000 years is a long time, but that just peanuts compared to the age of the Earth.
 
2012-11-21 03:41:47 PM  
I was going to say something on this thread, before I realized that I'm seeing the same BS on a different day..

People of faith being relatively open-minded, (NOW THAT BEVETS IS GONE)

People without faith openly attacking those who have faith.

Sorry atheists, but you're even worse than those who believe in Intelligent Design.

/believes everything she reads on science
//believes some of what she reads in the bible
///still called a religious nutjob by people like Ed Grubermann
 
2012-11-21 03:46:30 PM  
walkingtall:

Oh god, I'm feeding a troll, but here we go...

If I told you that I could flap my wings and fly to the moon it is up to me to prove it.
I agree 100%. Let me know if you see a teapot while you're up there.

Evolutionists have put forth the theory that life began from non life and over time became more and more complex.
Actually, no. See above for discussions about the theory of evolution vs. theories of the origin of life and how the two address two fundamentally different processes.


There is nothing in nature and nothing in all of human experience and science as we know it today that would make that possible. There are no natural laws that provide chances for it to happen. The theory basically violates every single thing we currently know about how things work.

Do you care to elaborate with specific examples of these violations?

Yet, here we are. So I put forth I would need proof of this theory that flies in the face of everything we can see and touch and violates all logic.
We witness evolutionary adaptation all the time. See the E. coli long-term evolution experiment for just one example. Or do we have to ignore that because it's "micro-evolution"?

Nature doesnt create codes.
What does that even mean?

Yet we are to believe the most complex code in the universe, DNA, just happened all on its own.
No, there were several intermediates proposed. No one seriously suggests that any particular organism's genome appeared fully formed as if by magic.

Corollary to that there is nothing in nature or logic to indicate that random natural processes can add to an existing code.
Again, what does this even mean?

For evolution to happen it must happen though. ON and on it goes with the flagrant disregard for all we know about science to try and shoe horn a terrible theory in for the simple reason that it MUST be true. That is not science and you can keep beating me and my kind upside the head with all the monkey poo you want but Im not buying it. I respect science too much to buy it. 

I'm beginning to think you don't really know all that much about science.
 
2012-11-21 03:46:58 PM  

satanorsanta: There are a ton of data showing how random changes in the genetic code produce better functioning enzymes which are selected for due to more offspring. There has even been the introduction of unnatural amino acids into a cell culture which resulted in nearly immediate evolution of new cellular machinery to incorporate it into functional enzymes. DNA is a simple code that encodes a large amount of complex information


I have read about that. Interesting read but your conclusions are FAR from having any real proof. I can cite 50 things science touted as absolute fact that prove evolution that either proved to be wildly overstated or outright false or even completely made up. If you take a simple computer code and just randomly replace an e with i or remove a semicolon those are called bugs. Mutations are same thing. No computer programmer worth his salt would try and claim that if you scramble enough of the computer code eventually you will get a better code. It doesnt work that way. DNA is same thing. Why you try and apply laws to DNA that do not work with any other code is beyond me. That is simply one very simple very tiny example of the complete illogic of macro evolution that I am being sold as the reason I exist.
 
2012-11-21 03:47:07 PM  

0z79:
/believes everything she reads on science


Believing everything you read on science is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
 
2012-11-21 03:51:09 PM  

FloydA: The person to which you are replying is not willing or able to engage in reasonable or informed discussion, but the fact is that humans are apes, and apes are mammals. If we want to use the colloquial definition of "reptiles," then mammals are a subset (descendants of Synapsida) of Reptilia, since some extinct reptiles are more closely related to mammals than they are to other reptiles. And if we use the colloquial definition of "fish," then all of the amniotes are a sub-set of fish as well, since the amniote tetrapods are all vertebrates, and the bony, jawed fish (also vertebrates) are more closely related to the terrestrial tetrapods than they are to the Agnatha and Chondrichthyes.


In newer cladistic models, the term "fish" is actually polyphyletic. The only way they can fit all species of what we now deem "fish" in the same classification makes the "fish" class synonymous with "chordates". Humans are also chordates. It's kinda hard to believe that we're fish.

Of course, many in the scientific community are still struggling with the fact that humans are monkeys, because apes must be a subset of monkeys. Think of it this way: The ancestor for all "old-world primates" and "new-world primates" would be classified as a monkey. If she was not, then the monkey class evolved separately twice (once at the old-world/new-world split, and once after apes branched off the old-world primate line), the odds of which are on the scale of the number of quarks in the universe to one. Meaning either monkey is a polyphyletic term (such as fish is), or apes are monkeys, too.
 
2012-11-21 03:51:30 PM  

poorjon: Actually, no. See above for discussions about the theory of evolution vs. theories of the origin of life and how the two address two fundamentally different processes.


Bullcrap and this is the newest cop out so evolutionists dont have to fight a battle they cannot win. For 140 years evoluiion theory stated in every textbook in the world that life evolved from some kind of organic soup. If you put forth a theory that goes from simple dna strands to us and yet you try and claim you are not putting forth a theory for the origin of life that is just insane. Completely against all laws of logic also. Insincere and simply shows how weak the theory really is.
 
2012-11-21 03:52:42 PM  

Ennuipoet: slayer199: Ennuipoet: I still say the only way to truly demonstrate evolution to a Fundie is infect them with a drug resistant strain of gonorrhea and ask if them if they want to change their answer.

You're truly an evil genius.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am pretty sure I stole the idea from a Doonesbury strip, I just added the gonorrhea for spice.


Please choose from the below:
A) Spicy gonorrhea
B) "The worms... the spice... is there a connection?"
C) Little known fact, Diane. According to the Spice World movie, Scary Spice's full name is Scary Gongorrhea Spice
 
2012-11-21 03:53:14 PM  

walkingtall: satanorsanta: There are a ton of data showing how random changes in the genetic code produce better functioning enzymes which are selected for due to more offspring. There has even been the introduction of unnatural amino acids into a cell culture which resulted in nearly immediate evolution of new cellular machinery to incorporate it into functional enzymes. DNA is a simple code that encodes a large amount of complex information

I have read about that. Interesting read but your conclusions are FAR from having any real proof. I can cite 50 things science touted as absolute fact that prove evolution that either proved to be wildly overstated or outright false or even completely made up.


[citations needed]

If you take a simple computer code and just randomly replace an e with i or remove a semicolon those are called bugs. Mutations are same thing. No computer programmer worth his salt would try and claim that if you scramble enough of the computer code eventually you will get a better code. It doesnt work that way. DNA is same thing. Why you try and apply laws to DNA that do not work with any other code is beyond me. That is simply one very simple very tiny example of the complete illogic of macro evolution that I am being sold as the reason I exist.

You mean that evolutionary computation doesn't work?Link
 
2012-11-21 03:53:55 PM  

0z79: Sorry atheists, but you're even worse than those who believe in Intelligent Design.


The great significance of your post requires us to recogonize your establishment of a method of awareness of an intellectual excellence over both groups referenced.
 
2012-11-21 03:54:43 PM  

Bhruic: If he sincerely wants to avoid questioning their beliefs, there's a pretty easy out. Explain how evolution works. Then say that it's possible that God could have created everything so that all evidence would lead to evolution without there actually having been any evolution.


There is an even easier way to explain it, that even the most die-hard creationist would have a hard time refuting

How you do know that when God created life, he didn't imbue them with the ability to evolve over time? How do you know that the process we call "evolution" isn't, in fact, part of His grand design?

Science attempts to explain the universe in terms that we can observe, test, and verify. I believe that Creationists rail against Science because they fear Science will find a way to prove God doesn't exist. But I wonder, what if Science finds a way to prove god *does* exist, even if not in the form we current envision?
 
2012-11-21 03:58:23 PM  

walkingtall: If you take a simple computer code and just randomly replace an e with i or remove a semicolon those are called bugs.


Oh my god, are you really trotting out that old chestnut? Seriously? That cuts it, you're either turning the trolling up to potato, or are just being willfully ignorant. I'm out.
 
2012-11-21 04:04:07 PM  

pastorkius: You mean that evolutionary computation doesn't work?


You need to read better. This is a perfect example of the lies of evolution. It mixes real science in with crap and tries to sell the resulting mess as science. Evolution DOES happen. It can be observed and studied and as this theory showed it can be replicated mathmatically. In terms of evolution this has to do with how a trait would spread throughout a population. An example would be a new antibiotic that bacteria develop a resistance to and how that would spread throughout the population. That is real and it happens. What it doesnt address and cant address is how new code would be created. Every single trait we have ever observed is a result of existing code and in some very very complex examples interworking of many systems to enable the organism to do things it couldnt do before. However the ability to do these amazing things was already in the code to begin with. Pressure was simply brought to bear and it went about its preprogrammed ability to adapt. And that is the big lie of evolution. That process has limits. There is no scenario in which humans could live underwater. not in a billion years not in a trillion years. We simply dont have the ability to adapt that far. We dont have the code to do so.
 
2012-11-21 04:08:53 PM  

walkingtall: What a steaming pile of bull.

Life did not start from non life to become a singe celled creature then evolve to multi celled then evolved into simpler animals and plants then evolve into land animals and plants then evolve into dinosaurs then evolve into mammals which then evolved into ape which then evolved into us. That is evolution theory in a nutshell. Evolutionists say there are many questions to be answered for the in between steps but that is 10 thousand foot picture.

Bullcrap. Not one single step of that chain can be proven in any way shape or form. Every attempt to test or verify or reproduce any part of that chain of events has resulted the only way it can. In abject failure. It didnt happen people. Stop trying to convince us or intimidate or indoctrinate others into believing that it did. It didnt happen, it cannot happen and that is just it. Sorry to burst your bubble.


You have repeatedly demonstrated that you lack any actual understanding of the subject of evolution. You have done so again by including the origin of life, which evolution does not and has never addressed, as part of what you claim to be "evolution in a nutshell". Because you have been informed previously that the theory of evolution does not and has never addressed the origin of life, your claim constitutes a willful lie. You are, therefore, a liar, and your assessment of the viability of the theory lacks any credibility.
 
2012-11-21 04:09:43 PM  

walkingtall: poorjon: Actually, no. See above for discussions about the theory of evolution vs. theories of the origin of life and how the two address two fundamentally different processes.

Bullcrap and this is the newest cop out so evolutionists dont have to fight a battle they cannot win. For 140 years evoluiion theory stated in every textbook in the world that life evolved from some kind of organic soup. If you put forth a theory that goes from simple dna strands to us and yet you try and claim you are not putting forth a theory for the origin of life that is just insane. Completely against all laws of logic also. Insincere and simply shows how weak the theory really is.


I'm positive you're not an unintelligent person, but Christ on a Cracker you sound like a farking moran in this thread.
 
2012-11-21 04:14:02 PM  

walkingtall: poorjon: Actually, no. See above for discussions about the theory of evolution vs. theories of the origin of life and how the two address two fundamentally different processes.

Bullcrap and this is the newest cop out so evolutionists dont have to fight a battle they cannot win. For 140 years evoluiion theory stated in every textbook in the world that life evolved from some kind of organic soup. If you put forth a theory that goes from simple dna strands to us and yet you try and claim you are not putting forth a theory for the origin of life that is just insane. Completely against all laws of logic also. Insincere and simply shows how weak the theory really is.


The theory of evolution has never included the origin of life. Even Charles Darwin wrote, in the original version of On the Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.", establishing the process of evolution as occurring after life existed, and not as part of the process by which life came to exist. Your claim is a lie, and you are therefore a liar for issuing it.
 
2012-11-21 04:15:08 PM  

mooseyfate: walkingtall: poorjon: Actually, no. See above for discussions about the theory of evolution vs. theories of the origin of life and how the two address two fundamentally different processes.

Bullcrap and this is the newest cop out so evolutionists dont have to fight a battle they cannot win. For 140 years evoluiion theory stated in every textbook in the world that life evolved from some kind of organic soup. If you put forth a theory that goes from simple dna strands to us and yet you try and claim you are not putting forth a theory for the origin of life that is just insane. Completely against all laws of logic also. Insincere and simply shows how weak the theory really is.

I'm positive you're not an unintelligent person, but Christ on a Cracker you sound like a farking moran in this thread.


You are mistaken: walkingtall has consistently demonstrated himself to be irrational, dishonest, willfully ignorant and paranoid in numerous discussions.

He has claimed that individuals who accept the validity of the theory of evolution think just like Hitler.
 
2012-11-21 04:19:42 PM  

walkingtall: Some creationists believe evolution as well


Having said that earlier, and then having been corrected in a Politics thread about young earth....

Some people who believe in Creation also believe accept evolution. (I'm in this group)

Creationists are a religious midset, who also happen to believe in young Earth.
 
2012-11-21 04:20:13 PM  

walkingtall: pastorkius: You mean that evolutionary computation doesn't work?

You need to read better. This is a perfect example of the lies of evolution. It mixes real science in with crap and tries to sell the resulting mess as science. Evolution DOES happen. It can be observed and studied and as this theory showed it can be replicated mathmatically. In terms of evolution this has to do with how a trait would spread throughout a population. An example would be a new antibiotic that bacteria develop a resistance to and how that would spread throughout the population. That is real and it happens. What it doesnt address and cant address is how new code would be created. Every single trait we have ever observed is a result of existing code and in some very very complex examples interworking of many systems to enable the organism to do things it couldnt do before. However the ability to do these amazing things was already in the code to begin with. Pressure was simply brought to bear and it went about its preprogrammed ability to adapt. And that is the big lie of evolution. That process has limits. There is no scenario in which humans could live underwater. not in a billion years not in a trillion years. We simply dont have the ability to adapt that far. We dont have the code to do so.


I'm not (and no one else in this thread) will convince you that you don't really understand evolution or the processes behind it. You've conflated abiogensis with evolution multiple times and then make the claim that unless everything is pre-coded into your DNA, nothing is capable of changing. The very fact that bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics is proof that change is possible without pre-programming. I'm not getting your argument on that at all.

And in respect to humans living underwater, where do you think modern whales came from?
evolution.berkeley.edu
 
2012-11-21 04:29:54 PM  

walkingtall: Evolutionists have put forth the theory that life began from non life and over time became more and more complex.


No, they have not. Evolution says nothing about the origins of life. They do say that they were, based on the available evidence, rather simple single-celled forms.
Evolution is concerned with how life has changed over the past billion years, or so.
 
2012-11-21 04:30:19 PM  

walkingtall: There is no scenario in which humans could live underwater


I lived in water once.

...
...
...
then I was born.
 
2012-11-21 04:32:25 PM  

poorjon: It pisses me the hell off when people bring this up. Evolutionary theory does not even attempt to explain the origins of life.


I agree, they are two different things. Even for Young Earth disciples who agree that evolution has occurred during the past 6000 years (see: domesticated dog breeds), they understand that it is different from when God made life from dirt.
 
2012-11-21 04:35:07 PM  

Dimensio: mooseyfate: walkingtall: poorjon: Actually, no. See above for discussions about the theory of evolution vs. theories of the origin of life and how the two address two fundamentally different processes.

Bullcrap and this is the newest cop out so evolutionists dont have to fight a battle they cannot win. For 140 years evoluiion theory stated in every textbook in the world that life evolved from some kind of organic soup. If you put forth a theory that goes from simple dna strands to us and yet you try and claim you are not putting forth a theory for the origin of life that is just insane. Completely against all laws of logic also. Insincere and simply shows how weak the theory really is.

I'm positive you're not an unintelligent person, but Christ on a Cracker you sound like a farking moran in this thread.

You are mistaken: walkingtall has consistently demonstrated himself to be irrational, dishonest, willfully ignorant and paranoid in numerous discussions.

He has claimed that individuals who accept the validity of the theory of evolution think just like Hitler.


Ah... Well. Passive-aggressive half-compliment withdrawn. Guess he's just a full-blown tard.
 
2012-11-21 04:45:41 PM  

vactech: walkingtall: There is no scenario in which humans could live underwater

I lived in water once.

...
...
...
then I was born.


3.bp.blogspot.com

Some odd reason.. I thought of this
 
2012-11-21 04:49:18 PM  

Dinjiin: yves0010: We can not see what "time" means to God.

Not only can we not know what frame of reference God uses, but we cannot know if God sees time as a linear unidirectional dimension. For all we know, God can see all of time at once.


I always viewed the concept of God seeing the past, present and future all at once. All the out comes that we would have. The choices we make and the ones we didn't. The idea that God, being on a spiritual plane, sees the physical plan all at once like someone looking down into a fish tank but it is time and space.
 
Displayed 50 of 290 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  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.

Report