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.

•       •       •

9021 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Nov 2012 at 8:55 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:    more»

 Paginated (1/page) Single page Single page, reversed Normal view Change images to links Show raw HTML
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Is there any way to speak to a true believer to get them to open their mind? Offhand, I can't think of one... so moron fits.

slayer199: Is there any way to speak to a true believer to get them to open their mind? Offhand, I can't think of one... so moron fits.

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.

"The reason Darwin encounters so much opposition today is due to proof as well as logic."

Neither of which you possess

DNRTFA but teachers should explain that this is our best theory and while we cannot prove it as an absolute certainty there is a hell of a lot more evidence for it that anything else including creationism.

You are now free to go to church on Sunday.

Evolution... brainwaves... tinfoil hat... something .. god...

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.

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

Therein lies the main problem, IMHO. Evolution is only incompatible with religion when you insist on interpreting the bible literally. (Which hardly any Christian sect actually does, btw...I don't care what they tell you.) This is only a wedge issue for political reasons. Christians are easier to herd and manage when they feel threatened and embattled over some moral panic crisis.

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.

None of the above. Science feeds on doubt.

For those literal bible interpreters I like to ask them about the flood and how there was enough food for all the animals to re-populate considering many of them are natural predators of each other. I know there are a lot of components missing from my argument (like plants and trees, how did they come back?)

However in college we had to argue a topic in philosophy class and creation vs evolution was the one my group got. So we brought in a chemical engineer who was also a young earth creationist and asked that question....and stumped him. He had no idea how to answer it.

/CSB

You can say what my ethology (animal behavior) professor said, to some Creationist asshat that obviously took the class so he could raise his hand on the first day, and question evolutionary theory outright. Another attention-whore whose beliefs require that he make a martyr [asshole] out of himself to prove his faith.

"The ideas presented in this course regarding the development of both animal behavior and physiology will be based on the theories, and whenever possible, evidence that is currently accepted by the majority of scientists in the biological fields. Development of traits in subsequent generations is considered critical to this process. If you have a problem accepting this theory, especially as it pertains to the material presented in this course, then this may not be the course for you."

I was tempted to raise my hand and demand that the professor not teach any of that "Earth revolving around the Sun crap, either", but I think he proved his point. In any case, that ignorant asshat didn't show up for the rest of the semester, so I guess he had done enough to get into heaven.

I don't think telling students they're morons is the answer. They're farking students. I can give students a break, because they are in the process of learning not just about concrete things, but about ways of thinking and how to understand the world. There should be some appreciation for that when talking to students in a way that will help them to learn to think critically.

/Once gave a speech defending creationism in high school, but gave up on the whole Christian thing in college because I became more rigorous with the answers I was given in regards to Christian beliefs.

I grew up in a suburb in Connecticut. Among those in my class of 350 or so, there were Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and non-religious. There might have been some that belonged to other groups, but it didn't really matter all that much what group you belonged to. Out of those 350 or so teenagers I graduated with, I am fairly convinced that all 350 believed that humans evolved over a long period of time, and I am also fairly convinced that all 350 could tell you that the Earth was more than 6,000 years old. Since then, I've lived in Virginia, Tennessee and now Utah. So I know that creationists actually exist, but I never experienced this as a teenager. The idea that someone in my teenage peer group would have actually denied evolution boggles my mind.

Tell them to stfu and just memorize it so they can pass the test. It'll all be forgotten by most students the next semester anyhow.

Tell them that denying evolution is the same as denying the idea that God is active in our everyday lives.

You know... blasphemy.

So, why aren't apes still evolving into humans?

e) Allah Ackbar!

f) you fail

"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.

bikerbob59: So, why aren't apes still evolving into humans?

Because they evolved into apes. We evolved into humans. They chose...poorly.

Happy Hours: DNRTFA but teachers should explain that this is our best theory and while we cannot prove it as an absolute certainty there is a hell of a lot more evidence for it that anything else including creationism.

You are now free to go to church on Sunday.

Evolution is not a theory, it's a fact. It's like gravity, there is no doubt that it exists.

The "theory" part of the theory of evolution is the same as the "theory" part of gravity, it deals with the how evolution works, not whether it exists or not.

The theory of gravity is the same, it attempts to explain how gravity works, that is exists is not a question.

Currently the most widely accepted theory of gravity is...anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Three Crooked Squirrels: I grew up in a suburb in Connecticut. Among those in my class of 350 or so, there were Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and non-religious. There might have been some that belonged to other groups, but it didn't really matter all that much what group you belonged to. Out of those 350 or so teenagers I graduated with, I am fairly convinced that all 350 believed that humans evolved over a long period of time, and I am also fairly convinced that all 350 could tell you that the Earth was more than 6,000 years old. Since then, I've lived in Virginia, Tennessee and now Utah. So I know that creationists actually exist, but I never experienced this as a teenager. The idea that someone in my teenage peer group would have actually denied evolution boggles my mind.

It's not all that hard to understand, hardly mind-boggling. The 6000 year thing is kind of a fringe, but still, you don't get to choose who raises you and where you grow up, so you are at the mercy of the information that is provided to you. And let's not act as if there aren't societal pressures in regards to belief as well that can keep people from bothering to question, at least for a while, and an evolutionary tendency to trust your family and the people in your group. There are people who believe the earth is old and that evolution exists within small parameters, but still believe god created everything and that species don't evolve into different species. They're unfortunately close to the majority, in fact, so I'm guessing not all your 349 classmates all believed as you expect.

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.

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.

Barfmaker: Currently the most widely accepted theory of gravity is...anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

It's kind of a downer.

"Well Jimmy, this is a science class and I am going to teach science. Your grade will be based on your understanding of that science so I suggest you pay attention. Whether you believe it or not, this material will be on the test. "

Evolution is stoopid!

I ain't no monkey! I ain't no monkey man!

I is a HUMAN, forged in the image of Jebus in the sky.

I AIN'T NO MONKEY!!!!

Try pointing them to the writings of the many evangelicals who are also "evil"utionists, like Francis Collins.

(If they're Catholic, of course, just tell them about how the Vatican is cool with evolution. I'm assuming the students in question are evangelicals)

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.

/Once they've agreed to that, ask them why God would have deliberately created everything in such a way as to lead to an answer that's incorrect
//Although if you've bought into the whole "Kill your son! Haha, just kidding!" story, it wouldn't be hard to imagine God as the ultimate Troll

Did anyone watch the Moral Oral special the other night? I thought it was a very clever jab at faith vs. proof and the idiocy of people that blindly follow the bible.

ghall3: For those literal bible interpreters I like to ask them about the flood and how there was enough food for all the animals to re-populate considering many of them are natural predators of each other. I know there are a lot of components missing from my argument (like plants and trees, how did they come back?)

However in college we had to argue a topic in philosophy class and creation vs evolution was the one my group got. So we brought in a chemical engineer who was also a young earth creationist and asked that question....and stumped him. He had no idea how to answer it.

/CSB

Wait, so you're telling me he can believe that a 600 year old man gathered 2 of every unclean animal and 7 pairs of clean animals in the span of a year, built an ark 300 cubits x 80 cubits x 40 cubits* - by hand, at age 600 - in preparation for a 40-day deluge (complete with ground-level hotsprings bursting for another few days or weeks after that)...but how to feed them and make sure none of them eat each other is suddenly the unanswerable question?

*if a cubit is 18", we're talking total internal volume of 285,000 ft2. If it's 24", 120,000 ft2. There were 3 floors in the ark, the bottom for refuse. You do the math on how that works.

You don't tell them a, b or c.

You tell them F.

What Should Teachers Say to Religious Students Who Doubt Evolution?

Nothing, just give them a list of local religious schools and information about how to home-school and send them home.

Tigger: You don't tell them a, b or c.

You tell them F.

Nice.
If this is high school we're talking about, the answer is simple.
"Class, we will be learning about Darwinian evolution. You can choose to believe or disbelieve as you like, but you will be expected to know the theory. You are free to hedge all answers on the tests with an 'according to' if that makes you more comfortable. If anyone would like to discuss the merits of creationism vs evolution, I would be happy to do so outside of class, with your parents' permission. If you'd like to discuss intelligent design, you'll receive an F."

It's okay if they doubt it coming in. Don't just call them a moran. These are students and reading their responses tells me that some of them were never given a thorough lesson of Darwinism and evolution from anyone except a religious nay-sayer.

CSB: Grew up with uber christian people and kids who went to bible college. One girl said their school teaches evolution and its theories including the ones where evolution makes a sudden change rather than slow, multi-millennial changes. Students went from a preconceived notion that Darwin is full of it to understanding that their faith and evolution can co-exist. That's what you need. Not auto-shunning them because of what they were taught as kids.

Barfmaker: Happy Hours: DNRTFA but teachers should explain that this is our best theory and while we cannot prove it as an absolute certainty there is a hell of a lot more evidence for it that anything else including creationism.

You are now free to go to church on Sunday.

Evolution is not a theory, it's a fact. It's like gravity, there is no doubt that it exists.

The "theory" part of the theory of evolution is the same as the "theory" part of gravity, it deals with the how evolution works, not whether it exists or not.

The theory of gravity is the same, it attempts to explain how gravity works, that is exists is not a question.

Currently the most widely accepted theory of gravity is...anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Matter distorting the space-time continuum.

"Science is true whether you believe in it or not."

bikerbob59: So, why aren't apes still evolving into humans?

Who said they aren't

Dr Dreidel: Wait, so you're telling me he can believe that a 600 year old man gathered 2 of every unclean animal and 7 pairs of clean animals in the span of a year, built an ark 300 cubits x 80 cubits x 40 cubits* - by hand, at age 600 - in preparation for a 40-day deluge (complete with ground-level hotsprings bursting for another few days or weeks after that)...but how to feed them and make sure none of them eat each other is suddenly the unanswerable question?

*if a cubit is 18", we're talking total internal volume of 285,000 ft2. If it's 24", 120,000 ft2. There were 3 floors in the ark, the bottom for refuse. You do the math on how that works.

Hey, I didn't say it made sense. It's just that's the part that stumped him. Clearly since we started from a position of "he believes the earth is 6000yrs old, there were bound to be some inconsistencies in his beliefs" Interestingly, he also believed that light slows down as it move through space

The sad part is in our group of 6 only 2 of us were on the side of evolution, they wanted to argue for creationism against someone who doubted it. Luckily I convinced them that since we would have no real evidence for creation it would be tough to get a good grade.

/They still didn't see how they were wrong though

s2s2s2: None of the above. Science feeds on doubt.

This, with encouragement to go on and disprove the theory they doubt so much. We'll wait. Science needs its rogues.

bikerbob59: So, why aren't apes still evolving into humans?

Why should they?

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.

/Once they've agreed to that, ask them why God would have deliberately created everything in such a way as to lead to an answer that's incorrect
//Although if you've bought into the whole "Kill your son! Haha, just kidding!" story, it wouldn't be hard to imagine God as the ultimate Troll

Creationists are willfully ignorant and dishonest. They deny that physical observations support a conclusion of evolution, though they themselves have not actually made any physical observations to justify such a claim.

Classes like these should be prefaced with a singular Socratic question asked by the prof; "If you 'choose' to take a class on Religion, and reply to every question and discussion that the entire premise before you is the sum of a lying falsehood, would you by any means expect to gain a passing grade, or be surprised if you didn't? Think for a moment on where you chose to sit today before you answer."

Hey, here's an idea: You don't have to agree with it, but you do have to explain the evidence for it and how it works.

Not learning about something because you don't agree with it is silly. I don't agree with Marxism, or the mindset that brought Hitler to power, or slavery. That doesn't mean I get to skip the class.

Dimensio:
Creationists are willfully ignorant and dishonest. They deny that physical observations support a conclusion of evolution, though they themselves have not actually made any physical observations to justify such a claim.

Some creationists believe evolution as well.

When they can answer any inaccuracies with their beliefs and precepts with, "because an infinitely powerful being that there is no evidence of willed it to be that way", there's really no point in treating these people like adults.

They aren't morons, but they have been deceived from an early age. I was reading excerpts from an elementary level textbook from the Louisiana public school system the other day. It was basically saying that scientists believed in evolution in spite of obvious evidence to the contrary and that they were essentially stupid for not being able to see it. Elementary school students aren't going to be going to Wikipedia and then clicking on the citations section. They are going to believe what their school books tell them, especially when they go home and to church and hear the exact same thing. So they grow up believing that scientists are stupid and that their data can be trumped by common sense. It is the same system of thought that makes them 100% confident that their gut level reactions trump Nate Silver's mountains of statistical evidence and theory.

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.
Science and religion are not opposed science is just too young to understand. I heard this quote somewhere and I believe it will eventually be a truism

ghall3: Dr Dreidel: Wait, so you're telling me he can believe that a 600 year old man gathered 2 of every unclean animal and 7 pairs of clean animals in the span of a year, built an ark 300 cubits x 80 cubits x 40 cubits* - by hand, at age 600 - in preparation for a 40-day deluge (complete with ground-level hotsprings bursting for another few days or weeks after that)...but how to feed them and make sure none of them eat each other is suddenly the unanswerable question?

*if a cubit is 18", we're talking total internal volume of 285,000 ft2. If it's 24", 120,000 ft2. There were 3 floors in the ark, the bottom for refuse. You do the math on how that works.

Hey, I didn't say it made sense. It's just that's the part that stumped him. Clearly since we started from a position of "he believes the earth is 6000yrs old, there were bound to be some inconsistencies in his beliefs" Interestingly, he also believed that light slows down as it move through space

The sad part is in our group of 6 only 2 of us were on the side of evolution, they wanted to argue for creationism against someone who doubted it. Luckily I convinced them that since we would have no real evidence for creation it would be tough to get a good grade.

/They still didn't see how they were wrong though

Having grown up Orthodox Jewish, there are "extra-textual" answers - traditional supplemental stories (collectively termed "midrash" [from the Hebrew for "to explain in depth"]) that address some very obvious questions.

In the Noah/ark story, most of it is "a miracle". Animals didn't eat each other because god tells them not to, Noah's food stores were enough to feed the 9 people and thousands of animals (though they got very little sleep that year - one story has Noah biatching about having to work so hard, so god has a lion kick him in the shins [YA RLY] to remind him that he could very easily have it worse), that god gave Noah a younger man's strength (if you've ever seen "Two By Two", this is the story behind the song "I Feel Like I'm 90 Again") to help him build the ark, that animals willingly came to the ark...

// learned all about evolution in religious school
// also how the Earth was 4.5B years old, and the universe over 3x that age

Funbags: When they can answer any inaccuracies with their beliefs and precepts with, "because an infinitely powerful being that there is no evidence of willed it to be that way", there's really no point in treating these people like adults.

Once you have eliminated everything that is impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Ennuipoet: slayer199: Is there any way to speak to a true believer to get them to open their mind? Offhand, I can't think of one... so moron fits.

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.

wippit: Once you have eliminated everything that is impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Anyone who's eliminated the impossible and is only left with one other option is severely lacking in imagination.

Bhruic: wippit: Once you have eliminated everything that is impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Anyone who's eliminated the impossible and is only left with one other option is severely lacking in imagination.

I agree. But it's still an option.

wippit: Once you have eliminated everything that is impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

And just what are you arguing for here?

We have theories on how the universe could be self creating (it has to do with QCD theory)

Is it simpler to believe the universe was created using self-consistent methods and laws with how we experience the rest of reality or that an infinitely powerful being we have no evidence for existing did it?

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.
Science and religion are not opposed science is just too young to understand. I heard this quote somewhere and I believe it will eventually be a truism

This is a fairly effective troll. I award you 8/10.

With the caveat that you're a pointless childish attention whore.

1) Audibly sigh.

2) Type in http://www.biologos.com/ into your most-liked web browser

3) Set student in front of PC

/Rise, repeat, etc.

Bhruic: wippit: Once you have eliminated everything that is impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Anyone who's eliminated the impossible and is only left with one other option is severely lacking in imagination.

Operative word emboldened.

Imagination=Fantasy

Picture falls off a wall, must be ghosts.

bikerbob59: So, why aren't apes still evolving into humans?

First, we are still apes. Second, other modern day apes are just as evolved as we are from our common ancestor. Just because we are more intelligent doesn't mean that we are more evolutionarily advanced than our contemporary species.

bikerbob59: So, why aren't apes still evolving into humans?

"It is inaccurate to say that humans were once other similar apes such as gorillas or chimpanzees. Instead, evolution states that our species and other species of great apes share a common ancestor.

That means at some point a long time ago, our three species were one species and over time, we diverged into what we are today. It is exceedingly unlikely for any of the current species of great apes to retrace millions of years of evolution back to that common ancestor and begin to evolve on the exact same path as humans. Instead, they will continue on their own evolutionary path that is parallel to others and will not converge."

ltdanman44: "It is inaccurate to say that humans were once other similar apes such as gorillas or chimpanzees. Instead, evolution states that our species and other species of great apes share a common ancestor.

That means at some point a long time ago, our three species were one species and over time, we diverged into what we are today. It is exceedingly unlikely for any of the current species of great apes to retrace millions of years of evolution back to that common ancestor and begin to evolve on the exact same path as humans. Instead, they will continue on their own evolutionary path that is parallel to others and will not converge."

Exactly, we share a common ancestor with birds too but no one ever asks why aren't birds evolving into humans.

/We share a common ancestor with everything if you go back far enough since we are all left-handed
//I think, it's been awhile since my HS bio class

Wall of text ahead, but I just want to highlight this response he got from one of his students:

"I personally do not believe in the theory of evolution. Nevertheless I am open to changing that belief if presented convincing evidence."

We all like to think that about ourselves, but the reality is that's not true. For most of us most of the time, at least.

For starters, as long as you are setting the standard for "convincing", you never have to change your beliefs at all. We move the goalposts all the time. On top of that, we rationalize away evidence of things we don't like. Like a wife who comes up with very fanciful explanations for a husband's odd behavior when anyone outside of that relationship can clearly see that he's cheating on her. Or like a person who is so damned sure that he is a good driver, in spite of a half dozen wrecks on his record where each one was determined to be his fault. We are very emotionally attached to our beliefs, whether they are political, religious, scientific, social, personal, or whatever. Each of them makes us who we are, and on the whole most of us like who we are (or at least, are comfortable enough with who we are that we don't enjoy the prospect of going through a radical change). And ultimately, we don't like to admit we were ever wrong about something so serious. A lot of us hold out on relationships well past the point when they should have ended, bad drivers don't want to admit that they suck at someone most people do well at every day, and most people are not going to be convinced that the beliefs their parents instilled in them from a young age about the nature of reality (e.g. a religious belief) are simply wrong (or, at best, purely speculative).

And I don't want to pretend that scientists are immune to this. A good number of scientists hold on to their own theories well past the point that they should have been abandoned, but because they are typically more intelligent they are also much better at rationalizing away the evidence that should have convinced them that they were wrong. It has been said that science advances funeral by funeral, as cliques of researchers who stubbornly hold to erroneous theories dies off and are replaced by younger generations that were less likely to be exposed to those falsified theories. But on the whole, they tend to be that way about scientific beliefs that are very esoteric - as in you'd really only care one way or the other if you were a student or researcher currently in that field - and not about something as basic as whether evolution is real, or the age of the earth, or whether global warming is happening.

So when someone says they just need to be presented with something "convincing" I always ask them to come up with an example of something they would consider convincing. For the most part, most of them either can not or will not. Which suggests (though not always very strongly) to me that they aren't serious about examining their beliefs and are more concerned about protecting their ego. At least with regards to the evolution question, the few people who are able to come up with some example of "convincing" evidence almost always come up with some example that would ironically disprove current evolutionary theory - e.g. a bird giving birth to a monkey or something equally silly. In that regard, creationists have always looked to me like the conspiracy theorists who think the moon landing was faked or that 9/11/01 was an inside job because it's the same process (side note: sadly, nowadays I feel I must specify which 9/11 since the GOP seems to be trying to hard to make the Benghazi thing on 9/11/12 a scandal of some nature), just different content. Incidentally, a study was published recently this year that made the connection between other types of science deniers - global warming deniers - and conspiracy theorists (Lewandowsky et al. (2012). NASA faked the moon landing-Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science. Published in Psychological Science), and I'm finishing up another study looking at the same thing, just across a wider array of pseudoscience, science denial, paranormal ideation, and conspiracy theory adherence, which has found many of the same things. Whatever they come up with that would be convincing is oddly enough something that would make the official explanation of what happened wrong. And honestly, most can't; there's some interesting research on conspiracy theorists who hold mutually exclusive conspiracy theories to be true at the same time - (Wood, Douglas, & Sutton (2012). Dead and Alive: Belief in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories. Published in Social Psychology and Personality Science)

But, with that said, I usually respond to those claims - "give me convincing evidence and I'll change my mind" - with the question I mentioned above. Asking someone "what evidence would I need to show you for you to admit you were wrong" is a very good way to learn just how serious someone is about critically examining their deeply held beliefs.

Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter.

ghall3: wippit: Once you have eliminated everything that is impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

And just what are you arguing for here?

We have theories on how the universe could be self creating (it has to do with QCD theory)

Is it simpler to believe the universe was created using self-consistent methods and laws with how we experience the rest of reality or that an infinitely powerful being we have no evidence for existing did it?

Yes, it is simpler. It doesn't mean it's correct
And I don't believe you'll ever reach the point where "it's God" is the only answer left to us. I'm simply saying it's still a possible answer.

PreMortem: Bhruic: wippit: Once you have eliminated everything that is impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Anyone who's eliminated the impossible and is only left with one other option is severely lacking in imagination.

Operative word emboldened.

Imagination=Fantasy

Picture falls off a wall, must be ghosts.

I don't think the word "everything" changes anything. I mean, first off, very, very few things are actually impossible. That makes the realm of the possible so overwhelming large that eliminating the impossible does absolutely nothing to narrow down reality. Unless, as I said, you have an extremely poor imagination.

And everyone knows it's the aliens that make the pictures fall off the walls.

Are we not men?

Are we not men?

No! We are Devo!

eschatus: Are we not men?

Are we not men?

No! We are Devo!

Oh look. My name is relevant (my email address even more so)

One fossil of a modern dog,cat,rabbit etc. That's all they need to find to disprove evolution. Were waiting......

As far as what to say, I had a nice discussion back when I taught a summer chemistry course at a local CC in Lynchburg VA. A bunch of my students were from the Falwell-based community, but when discussing thermodynamics I went through the "evolution is impossible because of entropy" argument in some detail and showed exactly why it's not only wrong, but that it's obvious why it is and that anyone using the argument is ignorant. I even pointed to the page where some of the anti-evolution folks tell folks *not* to use that argument because it's so easily refuted, then asked them to think carefully the next time they heard it.

Had a nice discussion with one of them after class about it. He was a typical unsophisticated ID type and so I got to go into how Intelligent Design is a god of the gaps argument and why this is a *terrible* place for theists to work from- after all, every time you manage to figure out something that you were told God did you diminish God a little bit. There's a good reason we don't worship the god of thunder anymore.

wippit: eschatus: Are we not men?

Are we not men?

No! We are Devo!

Oh look. My name is relevant (my email address even more so)

Good.

bikerbob59: So, why aren't apes still evolving into humans?

Why aren't dogs still evolving into german shepherds?

Why aren't ducks still evolving into mallards?

Why aren't snakes still evolving into king cobras?

Glockenspiel Hero: As far as what to say, I had a nice discussion back when I taught a summer chemistry course at a local CC in Lynchburg VA. A bunch of my students were from the Falwell-based community, but when discussing thermodynamics I went through the "evolution is impossible because of entropy" argument in some detail and showed exactly why it's not only wrong, but that it's obvious why it is and that anyone using the argument is ignorant. I even pointed to the page where some of the anti-evolution folks tell folks *not* to use that argument because it's so easily refuted, then asked them to think carefully the next time they heard it.

Had a nice discussion with one of them after class about it. He was a typical unsophisticated ID type and so I got to go into how Intelligent Design is a god of the gaps argument and why this is a *terrible* place for theists to work from- after all, every time you manage to figure out something that you were told God did you diminish God a little bit. There's a good reason we don't worship the god of thunder anymore.

How dare you not worship Thor, God of Thunder. He will strike you down with his hammer like he does the frost giants.

I've just realized: No Bevets sighting in this thread.

Glockenspiel Hero: There's a good reason we don't worship the god of thunder anymore.

It's because he weareth mother's drapes.

IlGreven:
Why aren't dogs still evolving into german shepherds?.

Legitimate question: is there a genetic difference between a German shepherd and a toy poodle?

Simple.

You are entitled to your own beliefs, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Ok, that's not that simple, because it's just going to make a person bristle and defend their beliefs with opinion and bad logic.

I'd simply inform them that this is a science class and they will be tested on science. They are expected to understand the material as it is presented in the class. If they cannot or will not do this then they will receive a failing grade.

wippit: IlGreven:
Why aren't dogs still evolving into german shepherds?.

Legitimate question: is there a genetic difference between a German shepherd and a toy poodle?

And has Raul ever tried teaching German shepherds how to fly?

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

Therein lies the main problem, IMHO. Evolution is only incompatible with religion when you insist on interpreting the bible literally. (Which hardly any Christian sect actually does, btw...I don't care what they tell you.) This is only a wedge issue for political reasons. Christians are easier to herd and manage when they feel threatened and embattled over some moral panic crisis.

RussianPooper:
It's not all that hard to understand, hardly mind-boggling. The 6000 year thing is kind of a fringe, but still, you don't get to choose who raises you and where you grow up, so you are at the mercy of the information that is provided to you. And let's not act as if there aren't societal pressures in regards to belief as well that can keep people from bothering to question, at least for a while, and an evolutionary tendency to trust your family and the people in your group. There are people who believe the earth is old and that evolution exists within small parameters, but still believe god created everything and that species don't evolve into different species. They're unfortunately close to the majority, in fact, so I'm guessing not all your 349 classmates all believed as you expect.

I know it feels good to believe that people are educated and intelligent, but the most recent poll I can find shows that 46% of those within the United States are young earth creationists. We'd all like to believe that people are intelligent, think through their positions, and are in general agreement with knowledge acquired over the years. However, as George Carlin said, "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." So, no, YEC is not a fringe belief (at least in the US), it's a mainstream Christian belief that should not have existed since the foundation of modern geology, but seems to have been fairly steady since 1942.

eschatus: Are we not men?

Are we not men?

No! We are Devo!

I'm 40% potato

Dead for Tax Reasons: eschatus: Are we not men?

Are we not men?

No! We are Devo!

I'm 40% potato

Oh, like a Pringle?

FTFA: I feel a bit queasy, I admit, challenging their faith, from which some of them derive great comfort. Part of me agrees with one student who wrote: "Each individual is entitled to his or her own religious beliefs... Authority figures teaching America's youth should not be permitted to say certain things such as any religion being simply 'wrong' due to a certain scientific explanation."

This is the part that boggles my mind.

Here is a man who has studied and worked and striven his entire professional life to assimilate and understand a vast field of knowledge, and he has been certified as a bona fide expert in the discipline. It is his job to teach youngsters a little of what he knows.

Now, name me one other field of endeavor where someone so accomplished, experienced, respected and certified has to tread lightly and mince his words around some pimply-faced goddamn first-year kids who don't know jack shiat.

Can you imagine a Master Mechanic being compelled to watch his words around some teenage imbecile who thinks steam-power is cutting-edge automotive technology?

DjangoStonereaver: I've just realized: No Bevets sighting in this thread.

You fool! Speak not his name, lest you draw him and his walls of copypasta into the thread.

SpectroBoy: "Well Jimmy, this is a science class and I am going to teach science. Your grade will be based on your understanding of that science so I suggest you pay attention. Whether you believe it or not, this material will be on the test. "

Egoy3k: I'd simply inform them that this is a science class and they will be tested on science. They are expected to understand the material as it is presented in the class. If they cannot or will not do this then they will receive a failing grade.

Except that it's not a science class. It's a pair of humanities class (one general survey of the humanities and one on the history of science) where the students were asked to write an essay on "why is evolution controversial".

kevinatilusa: SpectroBoy: "Well Jimmy, this is a science class and I am going to teach science. Your grade will be based on your understanding of that science so I suggest you pay attention. Whether you believe it or not, this material will be on the test. "

Egoy3k: I'd simply inform them that this is a science class and they will be tested on science. They are expected to understand the material as it is presented in the class. If they cannot or will not do this then they will receive a failing grade.

Except that it's not a science class. It's a pair of humanities class (one general survey of the humanities and one on the history of science) where the students were asked to write an essay on "why is evolution controversial".

OK I went and RTFA now and I'll say this:

He shouldn't say a damn thing. He should grade their papers based on their ability to discuss the question of why it's controversial. Actually the fact that he could tell how each student felt about evolution personally when grading a paper based on the question of why it's controversial seems like a bigger problem. Clearly none of his students know how to write.

Biblically speaking, if you do read how the Earth was created, there is room for evolution to have happened. I know I have commented on this in last weeks Evolution Vs Creation thread. But if you look at how God created Eve. It is possible that God did that for every species on Earth.

We humans were the last things created by God on the 6th day. Now the issue many people have is that one word at the end, day. There is a passage in the Bible that says something along the lines as a day in Heaven is like 10,000 years on Earth. The idea is that God himself created everything and guided life to how it is now a days. Using a from of creation of create the other creatures we see today.

I personally believe we were created in His image pre-fall into sin. And after that, though no physical changes happened on the macro scale of evolution, micro evolution did happen. We got taller, stronger and can withstand more harsh environments.

The problem is that the author of that article is approaching evolution as an enemy of religion.. and it isn't. Religion may hate evolution, but science shouldn't reciprocate... when it does, all it does is embolden the religous fanatics.

Science should not engage the religious community at all.

Wait! You are trying to tell that Darwin Mayflower was Neutral Evil?

I don't know what to think.

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.

yes but isn't that an adaptation rather than evidence of evolution

/ducks

yves0010: Biblically speaking, if you do read how the Earth was created, there is room for evolution to have happened. I know I have commented on this in last weeks Evolution Vs Creation thread. But if you look at how God created Eve. It is possible that God did that for every species on Earth.

We humans were the last things created by God on the 6th day. Now the issue many people have is that one word at the end, day. There is a passage in the Bible that says something along the lines as a day in Heaven is like 10,000 years on Earth. The idea is that God himself created everything and guided life to how it is now a days. Using a from of creation of create the other creatures we see today.

I personally believe we were created in His image pre-fall into sin. And after that, though no physical changes happened on the macro scale of evolution, micro evolution did happen. We got taller, stronger and can withstand more harsh environments.

Now when he created the scale of Earth days/years to Heaven time, was he using the orbital and rotational velocities of Earth when it was first created, during times of immense turbulence when momentum was added to the moving body, or our current standard time lengths that were in effect when the group of religious and political hustlers made all that shiat up?

Zombalupagus: Hey, here's an idea: You don't have to agree with it, but you do have to explain the evidence for it and how it works.

Not learning about something because you don't agree with it is silly. I don't agree with Marxism, or the mindset that brought Hitler to power, or slavery. That doesn't mean I get to skip the class.

bears repeating

/bearsbearsbearsbearsbears

How should I respond to students who reject evolutionary theory on religious grounds? ~FTA

the same way you should respond to students who accept evolutionary theory on religious grounds

it may also help, not to teach students theories that have been scientifically proven wrong or desperately cling to them with your unscientific butt-hurt

avoid adding your unproven wish-beliefs into the giant umbrella of "evolution" and pretending that it is Science, and learn some terms while you're at it

bikerbob59: So, why aren't apes still evolving into humans?

If you are still asking this question you're an idiot who chooses to be an idiot.

yves0010: We humans were the last things created by God on the 6th day. Now the issue many people have is that one word at the end, day. There is a passage in the Bible that says something along the lines as a day in Heaven is like 10,000 years on Earth. The idea is that God himself created everything and guided life to how it is now a days. Using a from of creation of create the other creatures we see today.

The Bible (Genesis) also has night coming before day (which is why in Judaism, the calendar day starts with sunset). Also, the sun/moon were not created until Day 4, making the marking/passage of time...difficult to mark for the first 3 days - were they 3 24-hour periods of darkness? Why bother marking time that early at all?

Literalism is fraught with questions like these - the stories all have holes, unless you see them as allegory. That's part of the purpose of those extra-textual stories I mentioned above - they impart some deeper understanding or explanation(s) for obvious questions.

(The line, from Isaiah IIRC, is that "in heaven, a day is as 1,000 years". Which is the source for Maimonedes' opinion that the Earth can only exist for a maximum of 6,001 or 7,000 years [6 full millenia or into the 6th millenium], one for each "day" of creation. TMYK.)

H31N0US: bikerbob59: So, why aren't apes still evolving into humans?

Because they evolved into apes. We evolved into humans. They chose...poorly.

why aren't amoebas evolving into fish?

why aren't fish evolving into lizards?

why aren't lizards evolving into birds?

why aren't primordial soups evolving into amoebas?

if Nature can accomplish all of this stuff by itself accidentally, surely someone can Intelligently reproduce similar results? how hard could it be?

Ask them where in the Bible it proves evolution wrong. Correct answer: nowhere.

I don't understand why people think there is a conflict between Science and Faith. Nonetheless, I've seen how discussion about evolution in the classroom (this is in my College lab) make people become stupider overtime. I'm not sure why. Anyone who doesn't accept evolution is ignoring the evidence. Anyone who claims faith and science are not compatible are fools.

wippit: Some creationists believe evolution as well.

don't bother with that one, some are beyond help

I think I'd just say "That is not the conclusion supported by prevalent scientific findings and you are free to draw your own conclusions. There will however be a test on this material and if you want to pass, I can only offer the phrase 'Know thine enemy'."

damndirtyape: I think I'd just say "That is not the conclusion supported by prevalent scientific findings and you are free to draw your own conclusions. There will however be a test on this material and if you want to pass, I can only offer the phrase 'Know thine enemy'."

Ooh, I like that one.

Bhruic: PreMortem: Bhruic: wippit: Once you have eliminated everything that is impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Anyone who's eliminated the impossible and is only left with one other option is severely lacking in imagination.

Operative word emboldened.

Imagination=Fantasy

Picture falls off a wall, must be ghosts.

I don't think the word "everything" changes anything. I mean, first off, very, very few things are actually impossible. That makes the realm of the possible so overwhelming large that eliminating the impossible does absolutely nothing to narrow down reality. Unless, as I said, you have an extremely poor imagination.

And everyone knows it's the aliens that make the pictures fall off the walls.

Actually there is an equal number of possible and impossible "things", but I doubt you can get your head around that.

Oh, I think I know what the problem is here, you think imagination is what I call using your brain and logic. I think having an imagination is going on a neverending story.

bikerbob59: So, why aren't apes still evolving into humans?

Humans are apes, so your question is the same as "why aren't humans still evolving into humans?"

Schroedinger's Glory Hole: yves0010: Biblically speaking, if you do read how the Earth was created, there is room for evolution to have happened. I know I have commented on this in last weeks Evolution Vs Creation thread. But if you look at how God created Eve. It is possible that God did that for every species on Earth.

We humans were the last things created by God on the 6th day. Now the issue many people have is that one word at the end, day. There is a passage in the Bible that says something along the lines as a day in Heaven is like 10,000 years on Earth. The idea is that God himself created everything and guided life to how it is now a days. Using a from of creation of create the other creatures we see today.

I personally believe we were created in His image pre-fall into sin. And after that, though no physical changes happened on the macro scale of evolution, micro evolution did happen. We got taller, stronger and can withstand more harsh environments.

Now when he created the scale of Earth days/years to Heaven time, was he using the orbital and rotational velocities of Earth when it was first created, during times of immense turbulence when momentum was added to the moving body, or our current standard time lengths that were in effect when the group of religious and political hustlers made all that shiat up?

Dr Dreidel: yves0010: We humans were the last things created by God on the 6th day. Now the issue many people have is that one word at the end, day. There is a passage in the Bible that says something along the lines as a day in Heaven is like 10,000 years on Earth. The idea is that God himself created everything and guided life to how it is now a days. Using a from of creation of create the other creatures we see today.

The Bible (Genesis) also has night coming before day (which is why in Judaism, the calendar day starts with sunset). Also, the sun/moon were not created until Day 4, making the marking/passage of time...difficult to mark for the first 3 days - were they 3 24-hour periods of darkness? Why bother marking time that early at all?

Literalism is fraught with questions like these - the stories all have holes, unless you see them as allegory. That's part of the purpose of those extra-textual stories I mentioned above - they impart some deeper understanding or explanation(s) for obvious questions.

(The line, from Isaiah IIRC, is that "in heaven, a day is as 1,000 years". Which is the source for Maimonedes' opinion that the Earth can only exist for a maximum of 6,001 or 7,000 years [6 full millenia or into the 6th millenium], one for each "day" of creation. TMYK.)

That is exactly what I was trying to explain. We can not see what "time" means to God. We are human and can only understand what time is relative to us. A day to God could be 1000 years to us (Standard 365.25 days / year) or it could be something far greater then we can even imagine.

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?

\what's the matter with you people?

yves0010: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: yves0010: Biblically speaking, if you do read how the Earth was created, there is room for evolution to have happened. I know I have commented on this in last weeks Evolution Vs Creation thread. But if you look at how God created Eve. It is possible that God did that for every species on Earth.

We humans were the last things created by God on the 6th day. Now the issue many people have is that one word at the end, day. There is a passage in the Bible that says something along the lines as a day in Heaven is like 10,000 years on Earth. The idea is that God himself created everything and guided life to how it is now a days. Using a from of creation of create the other creatures we see today.

I personally believe we were created in His image pre-fall into sin. And after that, though no physical changes happened on the macro scale of evolution, micro evolution did happen. We got taller, stronger and can withstand more harsh environments.

Now when he created the scale of Earth days/years to Heaven time, was he using the orbital and rotational velocities of Earth when it was first created, during times of immense turbulence when momentum was added to the moving body, or our current standard time lengths that were in effect when the group of religious and political hustlers made all that shiat up?

Dr Dreidel: yves0010: We humans were the last things created by God on the 6th day. Now the issue many people have is that one word at the end, day. There is a passage in the Bible that says something along the lines as a day in Heaven is like 10,000 years on Earth. The idea is that God himself created everything and guided life to how it is now a days. Using a from of creation of create the other creatures we see today.

The Bible (Genesis) also has night coming before day (which is why in Judaism, the calendar day starts with sunset). Also, the sun/moon were not created until Day 4, making the marking/passage of time...difficult to mark for the fi ...

No, you missed my point. No god would even use the concept of a day because it is only relevant to beings on rotating bodies. What would beings on a tidally locked body say about days? Also, if god is supposed to be omnipresent, he is everywhere at once, including both sides of a non tidally locked body. How is he/she supposed to understand the concept of a day which only exists in the conscience of creatures that evolved in a world that has days. Also if god existed before the observable universe came into existence, then he created everything before time existed, yet he always has a perfect understanding on the intricacies of it, even if his followers only tenuously so. You are a delusional idiot that has no practical understanding of science but want to appear open minded enough so that people will at least call you on your bullshiat politely "because you're trying." Grow the fark up.

\seriously, you're slipping

\do I have to do everything?

\ugh, I've met this one

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?

What the hell are you going on about?

"Apes" represents a group of species, Orangutangs, Gorillas, Chimps, Humans, etc.

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.

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.

Which lends credence to the idea that the book was written largely allegorically (especially when it comes to descriptions of god) so that people could understand it. Things like what "a day" means in the Genesis context (when there was no way to measure time), things like "if god has no physical form, why do Biblical authors reference the 'hand' or 'arm' of god?"

// the explanation I got to the free will problem is that god sees all of "time" as a tapestry

RussianPooper: I don't think telling students they're morons is the answer. They're farking students.

I disagree.

There is a difference between ignorant and stupid. Being ignorant shows a lack of knowledge, but the potential to gain it. Being stupid not only shows a lack of knowledge, but the inability to ever learn it.

Obviously we look at most stupid people as those having low IQs, which results in an inability to memorize facts and understand their meaning. But I'd argue that it also includes people so close minded that they refuse to learn. They're intellectually stunted. That counts as stupid in my book.

Lastly, if I taught a course and a student announced on the first day that they believed my lesson plan was inherently false, I'd ask them to leave.

doczoidberg: Evolution is stoopid!

I ain't no monkey! I ain't no monkey man!

I is a HUMAN, forged in the image of Jebus in the sky.

I AIN'T NO MONKEY!!!!

IC Stars:

What the hell are you going on about?

"Apes" represents a group of species, Orangutangs, Gorillas, Chimps, Humans, etc.

To be precise, the superfamily Hominoidea includes all of those living species, and several genera of extinct apes. The living non-human apes are not evolving into humans- they are evolving, but humans are not a "goal" toward which the other species are striving. (You know this, of course, I'm just adding it for completeness.) Some of the extinct Hominoids are ancestral to humans, while others are not- they are instead "cousins of our ancestors."

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.

None of that has anything to say about the actions, operations, and/or existence of any supernatural entities, of course.

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.

Dinjiin: Lastly, if I taught a course and a student announced on the first day that they believed my lesson plan was inherently false, I'd ask them to leave.

If you knew it was true, then wouldn't you try and do your job and farking teach them?

Many teachers could have asked me if I thought certain things they were going to teach me were inherently false and I would have said yes. For some of these students, it could be the first time they actually had someone challenge the pure creationists evolution is bull doctrine. As shut out as that side of the culture is, some farkers in this thread are similarly as shut out that some of them can learn that their faith and this theory can co-exist. Or at least farkers aren't reading the article. But that would NEVER happen.

TommyJReed: DjangoStonereaver: I've just realized: No Bevets sighting in this thread.

You fool! Speak not his name, lest you draw him and his walls of copypasta into the thread.

It is too late. He has been summoned. Like the great storm of the 2012 Election, the forces of the religious derp will descend upon the Science's minions. The stars will tremble at their passage and the mighty armadas of the Warmaster Bevets will bring annihilation to a hundred threads. Know this, for these things will come to pass.

The Billdozer: http://www.biologos.com/

You want the kids to do your lab materials shopping?

Dr Dreidel: ghall3: For those literal bible interpreters I like to ask them about the flood and how there was enough food for all the animals to re-populate considering many of them are natural predators of each other. I know there are a lot of components missing from my argument (like plants and trees, how did they come back?)

However in college we had to argue a topic in philosophy class and creation vs evolution was the one my group got. So we brought in a chemical engineer who was also a young earth creationist and asked that question....and stumped him. He had no idea how to answer it.

/CSB

Wait, so you're telling me he can believe that a 600 year old man gathered 2 of every unclean animal and 7 pairs of clean animals in the span of a year, built an ark 300 cubits x 80 cubits x 40 cubits* - by hand, at age 600 - in preparation for a 40-day deluge (complete with ground-level hotsprings bursting for another few days or weeks after that)...but how to feed them and make sure none of them eat each other is suddenly the unanswerable question?

*if a cubit is 18", we're talking total internal volume of 285,000 ft2. If it's 24", 120,000 ft2. There were 3 floors in the ark, the bottom for refuse. You do the math on how that works.

Didn't you see Evan Almighty? God had the animals come to him silly.

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?

Dinjiin: RussianPooper: I don't think telling students they're morons is the answer. They're farking students.

I disagree.

There is a difference between ignorant and stupid. Being ignorant shows a lack of knowledge, but the potential to gain it. Being stupid not only shows a lack of knowledge, but the inability to ever learn it.

Obviously we look at most stupid people as those having low IQs, which results in an inability to memorize facts and understand their meaning. But I'd argue that it also includes people so close minded that they refuse to learn. They're intellectually stunted. That counts as stupid in my book.

Lastly, if I taught a course and a student announced on the first day that they believed my lesson plan was inherently false, I'd ask them to leave.

Personally, when that happens in my classes (which it does rather often), I view it as an opportunity to test my own ability to convey information and explain complex ideas. Typically, by the end of the quarter, the overwhelming majority of the students understand what evolution is, why it works, and how it works. (They often retain extra beliefs in supernatural phenomena that are not necessary, but at least not in conflict with the facts.) The students who choose to ignore the explanations may not be "stupid," per se, but they are choosing to remain uninformed, so they are certainly "unwise." An inability to process information is distinct from an unwillingness to do so, IMO. In some cases, it actually requires a substantial degree of intelligence, or at least intellectual creativity, to be able to be exposed to the facts and still make up excuses for rejecting the obvious conclusions. (See Michael Behe, for example.)

The real problem is insults. Athiests believe only in pure science, and believe that everyone who has a religious belief is delusional/psychotic/etc. and they have no problem saying that to people. When people get insulted, they simply shut down the logical side of their brain, and nothing can penetrate that wall. People have selective hearing/thought. Athiests fail to realize that "Darwin's theory of evolution" has the big old word theory in it, and Believers think that because it has the word theory in it that there is no merit to it. Both are clearly wrong. People cannot come together with intelligent discourse unless both parties are willing to hear the other's arguments (based in science, belief, whatever)... otherwise it's like this:

wippit: IlGreven:
Why aren't dogs still evolving into german shepherds?.

Legitimate question: is there a genetic difference between a German shepherd and a toy poodle?

Hate to break it to you but there's a genetic difference between a German shepherd and ANOTHER GERMAN SHEPHERD

IC Stars: 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?

What the hell are you going on about?

"Apes" represents a group of species, Orangutangs, Gorillas, Chimps, Humans, etc.

I remember this guy from another thread. It's going to take a whole lot more of these posts before he figures out he isn't as smart as he thought.

vactech: 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.

Even from a young age kids KNOW santa claus exists, beyond time beyond space, beyond limitation to deliver presents to them
Then we grow up and realize that was just a social construct designed to deceive us.

Sounds familiar....

browntimmy: IC Stars: 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?

What the hell are you going on about?

"Apes" represents a group of species, Orangutangs, Gorillas, Chimps, Humans, etc.

I remember this guy from another thread. It's going to take a whole lot more of these posts before he figures out he isn't as smart as he thought.

Speciation is inherently difficult.

for tards.

thecpt: Many teachers could have asked me if I thought certain things they were going to teach me were inherently false and I would have said yes. For some of these students, it could be the first time they actually had someone challenge the pure creationists evolution is bull doctrine.

The difference between hypothetical situations is, you were asked as opposed to announcing it. I think someone who comes up to me and says that my coursework is bull is confrontational and would detract from the rest of the class. It is like a challenge to prove them wrong. I don't need that sort of drama. For everyone else, there might be a chance.

FloydA: The students who choose to ignore the explanations may not be "stupid," per se, but they are choosing to remain uninformed, so they are certainly "unwise." An inability to process information is distinct from an unwillingness to do so, IMO.

Fair enough, but the end result is generally the same: any transfer of knowledge will be lost. So from a high level standpoint, I'd have no qualms lumping them together.

Tigger:
Hate to break it to you but there's a genetic difference between a German shepherd and ANOTHER GERMAN SHEPHERD

Let me rephrase the question.

If I gave you the genetic code for a German Shepherd, and the genetic code for a Toy Poodle, would someone be able to make a 100% statement as to which is which? Or would the result each simply be "domesticated dog"

IE: would they be classified as separate species?

Anyone who uses the phrase "just a theory" is clueless.

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.

Our imaginary friends can do anything.

wippit: Tigger:
Hate to break it to you but there's a genetic difference between a German shepherd and ANOTHER GERMAN SHEPHERD

Let me rephrase the question.

If I gave you the genetic code for a German Shepherd, and the genetic code for a Toy Poodle, would someone be able to make a 100% statement as to which is which? Or would the result each simply be "domesticated dog"

IE: would they be classified as separate species?

If we had dog genetics well mapped (idk if we do) you would be able to tell them apart, but that doesn't make them different species. They are still chemically interfertile, are mechanically able to breed(albiet with difficulty) and will produce fertile offspring. Subspecies at most.

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.

browntimmy: I remember this guy from another thread. It's going to take a whole lot more of these posts before he figures out he isn't as smart as he thought.

You're better off trying to teach a pig to sing than you are trying to reason with trolls like IDW.

wippit: Tigger:
Hate to break it to you but there's a genetic difference between a German shepherd and ANOTHER GERMAN SHEPHERD

Let me rephrase the question.

If I gave you the genetic code for a German Shepherd, and the genetic code for a Toy Poodle, would someone be able to make a 100% statement as to which is which? Or would the result each simply be "domesticated dog"

IE: would they be classified as separate species?

They're close enough to be considered the same species: you could even interbreed them if you could overcome the mechanical problems inherent in the size difference. There are some consistent genetic differences between the two breeds, but they're roughly analogous to the consistent differences you'd find between two humans of different ethnicities: enough to look different, but not much else.

Holocaust Agnostic: Subspecies at most.

Not even that far apart. Dog DNA is incredibly malleable. Domestic dogs can still viably breed with wolves.

Dinjiin: The difference between hypothetical situations is, you were asked as opposed to announcing it. I think someone who comes up to me and says that my coursework is bull is confrontational and would detract from the rest of the class. It is like a challenge to prove them wrong. I don't need that sort of drama. For everyone else, there might be a chance.

Maybe what you're talking about and what I'm talking about are different. I'm talking about these students and the idea (from what I read in the article) that it doesn't sound like they were truthfully educated by a scientist but more like someone taught them the theory while teaching them how to argue against it. They weren't causing drama and a lot of people in this thread are projecting.

And about me, I know I had some moments at the end of classes when my opinion or belief of something was absolutely upended and that I had to accept the new facts.

wippit: Tigger:
Hate to break it to you but there's a genetic difference between a German shepherd and ANOTHER GERMAN SHEPHERD

Let me rephrase the question.

If I gave you the genetic code for a German Shepherd, and the genetic code for a Toy Poodle, would someone be able to make a 100% statement as to which is which? Or would the result each simply be "domesticated dog"

IE: would they be classified as separate species?

Nope they are the same species but a different breed.

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.

Ed Grubermann: Holocaust Agnostic: Subspecies at most.

Not even that far apart. Dog DNA is incredibly malleable. Domestic dogs can still viably breed with wolves.

Then again, the fertility of hybrids such as ligers makes the idea of speciation a bit more fluid than it used to be.

I drunk what:
why aren't amoebas evolving into fish?
why aren't fish evolving into lizards?
why aren't lizards evolving into birds?

Because they're evolving into something else or going extinct. Stick around for millions of years and you'll find out what happens. That's a very easy question for evolutionary theory to answer: things are always evolving.

wippit: Tigger:
Hate to break it to you but there's a genetic difference between a German shepherd and ANOTHER GERMAN SHEPHERD

Let me rephrase the question.

If I gave you the genetic code for a German Shepherd, and the genetic code for a Toy Poodle, would someone be able to make a 100% statement as to which is which? Or would the result each simply be "domesticated dog"

IE: would they be classified as separate species?

Not separate species but they should be able to tell big dog from little dog. There was a study a few years ago about the specific gene in dogs that regulates size

satanorsanta: wippit: Tigger:
Hate to break it to you but there's a genetic difference between a German shepherd and ANOTHER GERMAN SHEPHERD

Let me rephrase the question.

If I gave you the genetic code for a German Shepherd, and the genetic code for a Toy Poodle, would someone be able to make a 100% statement as to which is which? Or would the result each simply be "domesticated dog"

IE: would they be classified as separate species?

Not separate species but they should be able to tell big dog from little dog. There was a study a few years ago about the specific gene in dogs that regulates size

The pertinent issue is that you have to have linked that gene to a phenotypic effect.

You cant just eyeball a string of A C T and G and go "yep different species"

"Do I come into your church when they read Genesis to tell you that they're full of shiat? ...no? Then sit down and shut the fark up."

Tigger: You don't tell them a, b or c.

You tell them F.

Farking that.

Fail them, and spend your time educating students that want to learn, rather than trying to educate those that think they already know the answers.

Science believes in evolution and you are in a science class. You will be taught the theory of evolution in this class. If your religion does not believe in evolution, your religion is free to teach that, but not in this class. This is a science class.

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.
Science and religion are not opposed science is just too young to understand. I heard this quote somewhere and I believe it will eventually be a truism

favorited!

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.
Science and religion are not opposed science is just too young to understand. I heard this quote somewhere and I believe it will eventually be a truism

Evolution is a fact. It's how it happened that's a theory.

whatshisname: 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.
Science and religion are not opposed science is just too young to understand. I heard this quote somewhere and I believe it will eventually be a truism

Evolution is a fact. It's how it happened that's a theory.

Apparently you do not undestand science either.

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.

Not this again.

ghall3: vactech: 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.

Even from a young age kids KNOW santa claus exists, beyond time beyond space, beyond limitation to deliver presents to them
Then we grow up and realize that was just a social construct designed to deceive us.

Sounds familiar....

pfft!

I'm going to ignore any point you may be trying to assert here, and instead suggest that further comments of this type include a reference to a unforeseeable, enchanted cloud sorcerer.

whatshisname: 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.
Science and religion are not opposed science is just too young to understand. I heard this quote somewhere and I believe it will eventually be a truism

Evolution is a fact. It's how it happened that's a theory.

You're confusing the nomenclature. Suffice it to say that Evolution is both a Scientific Theory and a Fact.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

Some creationists believe evolution as well

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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."

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).

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!

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

It's real

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.

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.

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?

hmmmm?

vactech: BangExpandEvolveGenesis

BangExpandEvolve-a-Genesis

Has a nice ring to it.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

0z79:
/believes everything she reads on science

Believing everything you read on science is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

I lived in water once.

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

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.

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.

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

I lived in water once.

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

Some odd reason.. I thought of this

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.

Kome: 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.

I think that you are bad at statistics. Odds of flipping a fair coin and getting 100 heads in a row is 0.5^100 or 7.88^-31. One in a million is more like flipping a coin and getting 20 heads in a row.

IC Stars: 0z79:
/believes everything she reads on science

Believing everything you read on science is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

You do realize that 7/10th of the bible is written as it is written because mankind TEN THOUSAND+ YEARS AGO couldn't understand most of what went into this universe, right?

Half of civilization didn't even see the point of the wheel when most of the stories in the Bible were written.

That doesn't diminish the points of those stories in the least, or my faith; wish and pray all you want but up is still up, down is still down and both are only relative when you're a tiny being stuck to a mote of dust, orbiting a point of light..

God exists, I acknowledge His existence; yet I have observed with my own senses that this universe has very strict laws, none of which are governed by magic. And now I feel like Harry's uncle in the Harry Potter series, telling young Harry there's no such thing as magic..

Yet we live in the real universe. In this universe, there really is no such thing as magic and to say that God simply waved His hand and willed things into being a-la-carte is what most people like to call "magical thinking".

IC Stars: 0z79:
/believes everything she reads on science

Believing everything you read on science is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

You do realize that 7/10th of the bible is written as it is written because mankind TEN THOUSAND+ YEARS AGO couldn't understand most of what went into this universe, right?

Half of civilization didn't even see the point of the wheel when most of the stories in the Bible were written.

That doesn't diminish the points of those stories in the least, or my faith; wish and pray all you want but up is still up, down is still down and both are only relative when you're a tiny being stuck to a mote of dust, orbiting a point of light..

God exists, I acknowledge His existence; yet I have observed with my own senses that this universe has very strict laws, none of which are governed by magic. And now I feel like Harry's uncle in the Harry Potter series, telling young Harry there's no such thing as magic..

Yet we live in the real universe. In this universe, there really is no such thing as magic and to say that God simply waved His hand and willed things into being a-la-carte is what most people like to call "magical thinking".

vactech: 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.

Imagine this: You hold deep-seated, personal beliefs that you're attacked over when you go to school.
You learn things in school that you share with family members, only to be told "You = teh DEBBIL!!"

Neither group will stop harassing you. You know they're both full of shiat, just in different ways; atheists don't believe in the "heart"; creationists don't believe whatever conflicts with their (incomplete) interpretation of the Bible.

You HAVE to deal with both groups without hurting any feelings.

YOU try NOT developing contempt for both, asscheese.

IlGreven: 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.

Exactly my point. If you want to call "fish" a clade, then humans are part of it Ditto Chordates. Vertebrates, tetrapods, amniotes, reptiles, mammals, monkeys, and apes.

If my "cousin" is a relative, my sibling must be a relative too.

0z79: IC Stars: 0z79:
/believes everything she reads on science

Believing everything you read on science is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

You do realize that 7/10th of the bible is written as it is written because mankind TEN THOUSAND+ YEARS AGO couldn't understand most of what went into this universe, right?

Half of civilization didn't even see the point of the wheel when most of the stories in the Bible were written.

That doesn't diminish the points of those stories in the least, or my faith; wish and pray all you want but up is still up, down is still down and both are only relative when you're a tiny being stuck to a mote of dust, orbiting a point of light..

God exists, I acknowledge His existence; yet I have observed with my own senses that this universe has very strict laws, none of which are governed by magic. And now I feel like Harry's uncle in the Harry Potter series, telling young Harry there's no such thing as magic..

Yet we live in the real universe. In this universe, there really is no such thing as magic and to say that God simply waved His hand and willed things into being a-la-carte is what most people like to call "magical thinking".

I do believe you missed the point. If you "believe everything" you read in science books, then I don't think you really understand science.

IC Stars: 0z79: IC Stars: 0z79:
/believes everything she reads on science

Believing everything you read on science is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

You do realize that 7/10th of the bible is written as it is written because mankind TEN THOUSAND+ YEARS AGO couldn't understand most of what went into this universe, right?

Half of civilization didn't even see the point of the wheel when most of the stories in the Bible were written.

That doesn't diminish the points of those stories in the least, or my faith; wish and pray all you want but up is still up, down is still down and both are only relative when you're a tiny being stuck to a mote of dust, orbiting a point of light..

God exists, I acknowledge His existence; yet I have observed with my own senses that this universe has very strict laws, none of which are governed by magic. And now I feel like Harry's uncle in the Harry Potter series, telling young Harry there's no such thing as magic..

Yet we live in the real universe. In this universe, there really is no such thing as magic and to say that God simply waved His hand and willed things into being a-la-carte is what most people like to call "magical thinking".

I do believe you missed the point. If you "believe everything" you read in science books, then I don't think you really understand science.

I understand that science is the discipline of finding an answer that works for now, unless we learn differently... and provides nifty things like the computers we're typing on, plus the internet that allows us to communicate.

I also understand that opinions like those that you seem to cling to, are what make people who don't see how someone can have faith, turn to contempt.

0z79: IC Stars: 0z79: IC Stars: 0z79:
/believes everything she reads on science

Believing everything you read on science is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

You do realize that 7/10th of the bible is written as it is written because mankind TEN THOUSAND+ YEARS AGO couldn't understand most of what went into this universe, right?

Half of civilization didn't even see the point of the wheel when most of the stories in the Bible were written.

That doesn't diminish the points of those stories in the least, or my faith; wish and pray all you want but up is still up, down is still down and both are only relative when you're a tiny being stuck to a mote of dust, orbiting a point of light..

God exists, I acknowledge His existence; yet I have observed with my own senses that this universe has very strict laws, none of which are governed by magic. And now I feel like Harry's uncle in the Harry Potter series, telling young Harry there's no such thing as magic..

Yet we live in the real universe. In this universe, there really is no such thing as magic and to say that God simply waved His hand and willed things into being a-la-carte is what most people like to call "magical thinking".

I do believe you missed the point. If you "believe everything" you read in science books, then I don't think you really understand science.

I understand that science is the discipline of finding an answer that works for now, unless we learn differently... and provides nifty things like the computers we're typing on, plus the internet that allows us to communicate.

I also understand that opinions like those that you seem to cling to, are what make people who don't see how someone can have faith, turn to contempt.

You're still not understanding what he's saying. He is neither attacking you nor defending religion. He only pointed out the error in "/believes everything she reads on science". He's pointing out that, while you should embrace science as you have, you should remain somewhat skeptical of scientific claims as well, as there will always be mistakes and errors.

It's late in the thread, so I was conflating IC pointing out that I should remain skeptical with someone else telling me I'm conceited because I see 'tards on both sides of the debate.

0z79: It's late in the thread, so I was conflating IC pointing out that I should remain skeptical with someone else telling me I'm conceited because I see 'tards on both sides of the debate.

OK, that's an opinion.

Here is one "side" of the debate:

Would you be so kind as to tell me which of those 14 points you consider "tarded"? Thanks in advance.

red5ish: Science believes in evolution

Terrible word usage. Evolution isn't a belief system, it is a theory accepted by scientific methodology. You don't "believe" in evolution, you accept it as the most plausible theory.

Moreover, science doesn't "believe" in anything. It is a process for understanding the natural world and its faculties.

FloydA: 0z79: It's late in the thread, so I was conflating IC pointing out that I should remain skeptical with someone else telling me I'm conceited because I see 'tards on both sides of the debate.

OK, that's an opinion.

Here is one "side" of the debate:

[i105.photobucket.com image 533x640]

Would you be so kind as to tell me which of those 14 points you consider "tarded"? Thanks in advance.

I see nothing in that which I can call bulls**t on, except for the hostility which came with that .jpg.

I'm not calling bullshiat on anything, except unwarranted hostility. You know, like yours.

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,

Science doesn't prove certainties, only high probabilities, and a Theory in science is the HIGHEST form of probability that science can bestow.

A Theory in science is a framework of laws that explain a natural process. There is nothing more robust and more reliable in scientific discourse than a Theory.

walkingtall: Nature doesnt create codes. Yet we are to believe the most complex code in the universe, DNA,

DNA isn't a code.

We just call it that for ease of human understanding and classification. It's still just biochemical logic which happens naturally (tetravalent carbon chains, etc.)

0z79: FloydA: 0z79: It's late in the thread, so I was conflating IC pointing out that I should remain skeptical with someone else telling me I'm conceited because I see 'tards on both sides of the debate.

OK, that's an opinion.

Here is one "side" of the debate:

[i105.photobucket.com image 533x640]

Would you be so kind as to tell me which of those 14 points you consider "tarded"? Thanks in advance.

I see nothing in that which I can call bulls**t on, except for the hostility which came with that .jpg.

I'm not calling bullshiat on anything, except unwarranted hostility. You know, like yours.

OK. I put forward the mainstream science position. You responded by claiming that presenting this case is, in your opinion, "unwarranted hostility."

Is there any way, in your mind, that disagreement with your claims might be something other than hostility? Or do you consider all disagreements "hostile"?

If you start from the assumption that your opponents are being "hostile" for not simply accepting your assertions or for holding a different opinion, then I'm not sure we can ever proceed.

Is it possible for you to disagree with me without hostility?

walkingtall: For 140 years evoluiion theory stated in every textbook in the world that life evolved from some kind of organic soup.

Well, yes, if by "evolved from some kind of organic soup" you mean "developed over two billion years through complex chemical reactions based on really long, tetravalent carbon chains that bond well with nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen molecules in the freewheeling, swash-buckling liberation of an aquatic 3D environment that thanks to the turbulent, volcanic nature of early earth, frequently smashed together and through heat and pressure fused into organic peptides that were simple chemical polymers (repeating molecular structures, which occur naturally) that actively folded into globular or fibrous patterns to become proteins which were used as enzymes to catalyze the chemical process to make more of themselves, and in time the accumulating size of these proteins attracted lipids for use as insular membranes against harm that eventually became hardened cellular walls which permitted the formation of more symbiotic structures within to improve replication and energy consumption including nucleic acid and ribosomes, and once self-replication was mastered, everything thereafter was simple refinement and improvement."

Three Crooked Squirrels: The idea that someone in my teenage peer group would have actually denied evolution boggles my mind.

So, now you know how an evolution-denier feels when someone tries to explain evolution to them. ;-)

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

Really. Because that actually happened.

This is himalayacetus:

It lived about 55 million years ago. Despite the limbs, it spent most of its time in water. Its fossil was found in the Himalayas (hence the name).... back when the mountain range was under water. It is considered the world's oldest cetacean, because it has a lot of similar characteristics to modern whales.

Now, according to evolutionary theory, we can make predictions based on this finding: If we look in rock dated between 50 million years ago and today, we should find similar fossils from the same family, and moreover, that these animals show a progressive gradation to modern whales.... gaining size, limbs transmogrifying to flippers, noses moving to the top of the head, that sort of thing. And so we go and look... and lo! That is EXACTLY what we find! The animals, in chronological order, that show this progression are:

Himalayacetus (55 mya)
Ambulocetus (50 mya)
Ichthyolestes (48 mya)
Rodhocetus (47 mya)
Artiocetus (46 mya)
Takracetus (45 mya)
Protocetus (44 mya)
Gaviacetus (42 mya)
Pakicetus (41 mya)
Nalacetus (40 mya)
Kutchicetus (39 mya)
Cynthiacetus (38 mya)
Remingtonocetus (37 mya)
Dalanistes (36 mya)
Georgiacetus (35 mya)
Basilosaurus (34 mya)
Dorudon (33 mya)
Zygorhiza (32 mya)
Simocetus (31 mya)
Pontogeneus (30 mya)
Waipatia (29 mya)
Kentriodon (28 mya)
Sulakocetus (26 mya)
Prosqualodon (25 mya)
Aulophyseter (23 mya)
Orycterocetus (21 mya)
Kogiopsis (20 mya)
Eurhinodelphis (18 mya)
Macrodelphinus (15 mya)
Livyatan melvillei (13 mya)
Goniodelphis (11 mya)
Brygmophyseter (10 mya)
Zygophyseter (8 mya)
Acrophyseter (6 mya)
Orcinus citoniensis (5 mya)
Odobenocetops (3 mya)
Parapontoporia (2 mya)

And this is only a fraction of the hundreds and hundreds of fossils found.

Now, what's fascinating isn't how many there are or how they're all different, but how they all line up in a perfect chronological pattern, that an animal, which once dwelt on land, slowly morphed into an apex predator of the sea. The theory of evolution predicted that we would find evidence like this, and we have, confirming its assertions.

FloydA: 0z79: FloydA: 0z79: It's late in the thread, so I was conflating IC pointing out that I should remain skeptical with someone else telling me I'm conceited because I see 'tards on both sides of the debate.

OK, that's an opinion.

Here is one "side" of the debate:

[i105.photobucket.com image 533x640]

Would you be so kind as to tell me which of those 14 points you consider "tarded"? Thanks in advance.

I see nothing in that which I can call bulls**t on, except for the hostility which came with that .jpg.

I'm not calling bullshiat on anything, except unwarranted hostility. You know, like yours.

OK. I put forward the mainstream science position. You responded by claiming that presenting this case is, in your opinion, "unwarranted hostility."

Is there any way, in your mind, that disagreement with your claims might be something other than hostility? Or do you consider all disagreements "hostile"?

If you start from the assumption that your opponents are being "hostile" for not simply accepting your assertions or for holding a different opinion, then I'm not sure we can ever proceed.

Is it possible for you to disagree with me without hostility?

Dude, I AGREE WITH YOU. WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE.

CAN YOU ANSWER THE PREVIOUS TWO QUESTIONS AND RESPOND WITH "YES" OR "NO"?

Okay then. We're on the same page so far.

Just because I don't agree with you on all points (which apparently include the fact that if you can't see it, eat it or fark it, it doesn't exist) doesn't mean I disagree with all of your points.

I think our difference is that, with every fundamental thing we, as a species, learn about the universe, you go "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"

I go "Hmm, interesting... so that's how He did it..."

H31N0US: bikerbob59: So, why aren't apes still evolving into humans?

Because they evolved into apes. We evolved into humans. They chose...poorly.

This is so much better than the response I was going to give.

satanorsanta: Kome: 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.

I think that you are bad at statistics. Odds of flipping a fair coin and getting 100 heads in a row is 0.5^100 or 7.88^-31. One in a million is more like flipping a coin and getting 20 heads in a row.

Yes, I was exaggerating a psychotically massive deal (the actual equation is AN = 2N + 1 - 2 number of flips of a fair coin to get a streak of N; one would need over one nonillion - 1 followed by 30 zeros - flips to confidently expect a streak of 100), but in my defense I was mostly trying to get across a point about how over massive intervals of time when each second has a massive number of events occurring very improbable things do occur, with the unstated implication being that the evolutionary process of non-living, physical & chemical reactions eventually resulting in living, biological & chemical reactions eventually resulting in something akin to human beings is no different (at least, when trying to appeal to the chance argument). I suppose I could have used, as a different comparison, Littlewood's Law to get at that and come across as less of a moron, but it is what it is. Your critique is taken with appreciation, however, because I am often a stickler for precision in others and shouldn't try to justify my own lack of it.

0z79: FloydA: 0z79: FloydA: 0z79: It's late in the thread, so I was conflating IC pointing out that I should remain skeptical with someone else telling me I'm conceited because I see 'tards on both sides of the debate.

OK, that's an opinion.

Here is one "side" of the debate:

[i105.photobucket.com image 533x640]

Would you be so kind as to tell me which of those 14 points you consider "tarded"? Thanks in advance.

I see nothing in that which I can call bulls**t on, except for the hostility which came with that .jpg.

I'm not calling bullshiat on anything, except unwarranted hostility. You know, like yours.

OK. I put forward the mainstream science position. You responded by claiming that presenting this case is, in your opinion, "unwarranted hostility."

Is there any way, in your mind, that disagreement with your claims might be something other than hostility? Or do you consider all disagreements "hostile"?

If you start from the assumption that your opponents are being "hostile" for not simply accepting your assertions or for holding a different opinion, then I'm not sure we can ever proceed.

Is it possible for you to disagree with me without hostility?

Dude, I AGREE WITH YOU. WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE.

CAN YOU ANSWER THE PREVIOUS TWO QUESTIONS AND RESPOND WITH "YES" OR "NO"?

Okay then. We're on the same page so far.

Just because I don't agree with you on all points (which apparently include the fact that if you can't see it, eat it or fark it, it doesn't exist) doesn't mean I disagree with all of your points.

I think our difference is that, with every fundamental thing we, as a species, learn about the universe, you go "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"

I go "Hmm, interesting... so that's how He did it..."

Damn, you are an insufferable twat.

0z79: I think our difference is that, with every fundamental thing we, as a species, learn about the universe, you go "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"

I go "Hmm, interesting... so that's how He did it..."

Except for two points:
1) He doesn't do that. At least not on Fark. At the worst, someone could just reasonably point out that since we now understand a little more about X, there is less of a reason to appeal to unnecessary assumptions as explanatory devices. And while I consider myself a very strident and militant atheist, even I've never come to understand a phenomenon and have my reaction be "Ha ha, there is no god." Usually it's "Damn, reality is f*cking awesome. I'm glad I'm learning about it."
2) Your reaction requires unproven and unnecessary assumptions to be true and necessary.

At the end of the day, polite tone or hostile tone, your reaction is not logically valid even if you end up agreeing with FloydA on the understanding of the phenomenon in question. That is until you prove that the "He" you believe in exists (and remember, that's a lot harder to prove than just whether or not any "He" that has ever been believed in exists) and is a necessary casual factor in X, there is no reason to give your interpretation of X any credence. In other words, you may get the "correct answer" but you did so for wrong reasons.

And, on another note, if you see requiring logical consistency in an argument, or parsimony in an explanation, or meeting the burden of proof when making a claim as (in your own words earlier in the thread) "attacking those who have faith," then, quite frankly, no matter what your views about the natural world, you're a f*cking moron.

Ugh.
I saw the headline and assumed he was teaching middle school or maybe even high school.
To deal with this crap with college-aged kids?
Pathetic.

Nuke them. Corral all of them into their holy land and give them a month to renounce their animus towards civilization or face erasure.

0z79: YOU try NOT developing contempt for both

Don't try on my account.

Please. By all means, let the butt hurt flow.

//0z79 reminds me of waldopepper. I miss that kid.

i am entertained by educated people who cannot discern between fact and theory. you God haters can piss on the bible all you want but hey, you weren't there, it's all man-made shiat (theory) you are insisting is a big brick wall of truth and fact. grow up. scientific theories are proven wrong every year.

ShuyaNanahara: 0z79: FloydA: 0z79: FloydA: 0z79: It's late in the thread, so I was conflating IC pointing out that I should remain skeptical with someone else telling me I'm conceited because I see 'tards on both sides of the debate.

OK, that's an opinion.

Here is one "side" of the debate:

[i105.photobucket.com image 533x640]

Would you be so kind as to tell me which of those 14 points you consider "tarded"? Thanks in advance.

I see nothing in that which I can call bulls**t on, except for the hostility which came with that .jpg.

I'm not calling bullshiat on anything, except unwarranted hostility. You know, like yours.

OK. I put forward the mainstream science position. You responded by claiming that presenting this case is, in your opinion, "unwarranted hostility."

Is there any way, in your mind, that disagreement with your claims might be something other than hostility? Or do you consider all disagreements "hostile"?

If you start from the assumption that your opponents are being "hostile" for not simply accepting your assertions or for holding a different opinion, then I'm not sure we can ever proceed.

Is it possible for you to disagree with me without hostility?

Dude, I AGREE WITH YOU. WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE.

CAN YOU ANSWER THE PREVIOUS TWO QUESTIONS AND RESPOND WITH "YES" OR "NO"?

Okay then. We're on the same page so far.

Just because I don't agree with you on all points (which apparently include the fact that if you can't see it, eat it or fark it, it doesn't exist) doesn't mean I disagree with all of your points.

I think our difference is that, with every fundamental thing we, as a species, learn about the universe, you go "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"

I go "Hmm, interesting... so that's how He did it..."

Damn, you are an insufferable twat.

I've found a way to reconcile two belief systems, won't take crap from people like you and that makes me insufferable?

Should I just lie down and take it?

/duh

0z79: I think our difference is that, with every fundamental thing we, as a species, learn about the universe, you go "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"

No, that's me who does that.

I go "Hmm, interesting... so that's how He did it..."

Which is a reasonable stance for a religious person to take.

KrispyKritter: i am entertained by educated people who cannot discern between fact and theory. you God haters can piss on the bible all you want but hey, you weren't there, it's all man-made shiat (theory) you are insisting is a big brick wall of truth and fact. grow up. scientific theories are proven wrong every year.

Which is why we don't treat theories as Gospel. You might not understand this, but evolutionary theory has gone through a lot of revisions and changes over the years as we've learned more about the history and workings of life. There are many things we know about today that Darwin never could have known. But none of the things we've learned has invalidated the fundamentals of Darwin's theory. They've only modified and strengthened it.

Ed Grubermann: 0z79: I think our difference is that, with every fundamental thing we, as a species, learn about the universe, you go "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"

No, that's me who does that.

I go "Hmm, interesting... so that's how He did it..."

Which is a reasonable stance for a religious person to take.

*snerk*
Stay classy.

*wink*

0z79:
I've found a way to reconcile two belief systems, won't take crap from people like you and that makes me insufferable?

I'm sorry, but what part of science is a "belief system"?

Ed Grubermann: 0z79:
I've found a way to reconcile two belief systems, won't take crap from people like you and that makes me insufferable?

I'm sorry, but what part of science is a "belief system"?

Ostensibly? None.

KrispyKritter: i am entertained by educated people who cannot discern between fact and theory. you God haters can piss on the bible all you want but hey, you weren't there, it's all man-made shiat (theory) you are insisting is a big brick wall of truth and fact. grow up. scientific theories are proven wrong every year.

I know you're a troll, but I'll bite anyway:

Understand that the people who attack evolution the most are evolutionary scientists. Every single serious scientist at the forefront of their research does not accept evolution at face value like some belief system. They attack it, often with extreme prejudice, and it keeps withstanding their attacks. If there were holes in the theory, the millions of studies done on a weekly basis would have found them by now. Instead, predictions are made -- and then proven -- that correctly validate evolutionary assertions.

That's what makes a theory a "Theory".

Ishkur: walkingtall: Nature doesnt create codes. Yet we are to believe the most complex code in the universe, DNA,

DNA isn't a code.

We just call it that for ease of human understanding and classification. It's still just biochemical logic which happens naturally (tetravalent carbon chains, etc.)

this.

I just realized something: I'm arguing deeply held beliefs on a web forum.

WHY OH WHY DO I ARGUE THAT WHICH I HOLD DEAR, WHY DO I INSIST IT = PENIS ON THE WEB!?

ON THE WEB PENIS ALWAYS = ANSWER!!!

/just realized that floyda is a masterful troll, not the college kid he pretends to be

0z79: I just realized something: I'm arguing deeply held beliefs on a web forum.

WHY OH WHY DO I ARGUE THAT WHICH I HOLD DEAR, WHY DO I INSIST IT = PENIS ON THE WEB!?

ON THE WEB PENIS ALWAYS = ANSWER!!!

vactech: 0z79: I just realized something: I'm arguing deeply held beliefs on a web forum.

WHY OH WHY DO I ARGUE THAT WHICH I HOLD DEAR, WHY DO I INSIST IT = PENIS ON THE WEB!?

ON THE WEB PENIS ALWAYS = ANSWER!!!

[i1234.photobucket.com image 850x414]

I don't get the reference. That must mean that I'm not as knowledgeable about pop culture as you.

I feel so insecure... really, I do.

0z79: vactech: 0z79: I just realized something: I'm arguing deeply held beliefs on a web forum.

WHY OH WHY DO I ARGUE THAT WHICH I HOLD DEAR, WHY DO I INSIST IT = PENIS ON THE WEB!?

ON THE WEB PENIS ALWAYS = ANSWER!!!

[i1234.photobucket.com image 850x414]

I don't get the reference. That must mean that I'm not as knowledgeable about pop culture as you.

I feel so insecure... really, I do.

No I'm sorry. I was also confused (and aroused).

You were saying something about deeply held penis and feeling insecure...do go on.

Time to abandon this thread. The 12 year olds have found it

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).

Yours is the first good argument I've seen to this. I think it's obvious that we and all living things have evolved. You can't argue that. We're bigger and smarter ( well kind of after reading some these post I have doubts) but my other statements still holds true as well the bible isn't just a collection of good stories for the kiddies. Some of the laws and other prohibitions in it are grounded in scientific fact. Until we had developed to a point that we understood how to better preserve food or cure certain illness these laws protected us from ourselves science has proved this out time and again. So science at the time was to youg to understand what we know now. And is still to young to explain how say we evolved to what we are today.cbut that won't keep the nut jobs from saying God did it I believe it or the uber scientist from saying we evolved from organic green slime either or I don't care. But to continue fighting over stuff we don't understand at that level fully yet is just dumb. It is fun though :)) just not worth killing and fighting over.

babtras: Time to abandon this thread. The 12 year olds have found it

Too bad. The weekly fark atheist vs theist thread RUINED DAMN IT!

bie?

babtras: Time to abandon this thread. The 12 year olds have found it

Why did I let you trolls cost me reputation here?

sp86: You're confusing the nomenclature. Suffice it to say that Evolution is both a Scientific Theory and a Fact.

Here's someone much smarter than me to explain it.

Stephen Jay Gould: Evolution as Fact and Theory

I always find it amusing how hung up creationists get on how life started in scientific theory, but how unbothered they are about how God got started in their theology.

johnryan51: One fossil of a modern dog,cat,rabbit etc. That's all they need to find to disprove evolution. Were waiting......

That's interesting. I've always looked at the fossil record as a way to prove the theory of evolution, not as a way to DISprove the, um, theory of creationism. I am really liking this thread and learning some good cocktail party conversation stuff!

Kome: 0z79: I think our difference is that, with every fundamental thing we, as a species, learn about the universe, you go "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"

I go "Hmm, interesting... so that's how He did it..."

Except for two points:
1) He doesn't do that. At least not on Fark. At the worst, someone could just reasonably point out that since we now understand a little more about X, there is less of a reason to appeal to unnecessary assumptions as explanatory devices. And while I consider myself a very strident and militant atheist, even I've never come to understand a phenomenon and have my reaction be "Ha ha, there is no god." Usually it's "Damn, reality is f*cking awesome. I'm glad I'm learning about it."
2) Your reaction requires unproven and unnecessary assumptions to be true and necessary.

At the end of the day, polite tone or hostile tone, your reaction is not logically valid even if you end up agreeing with FloydA on the understanding of the phenomenon in question. That is until you prove that the "He" you believe in exists (and remember, that's a lot harder to prove than just whether or not any "He" that has ever been believed in exists) and is a necessary casual factor in X, there is no reason to give your interpretation of X any credence. In other words, you may get the "correct answer" but you did so for wrong reasons.

And, on another note, if you see requiring logical consistency in an argument, or parsimony in an explanation, or meeting the burden of proof when making a claim as (in your own words earlier in the thread) "attacking those who have faith," then, quite frankly, no matter what your views about the natural world, you're a f*cking moron.

Actually, man... I'm telling you, FloydA and all the rest to chill the fark out, because we're all on the same page.

So what if I've arrived at the same logical point as anyone else on this page, through drastically different means?

The point is, that I've arrived and am going "Hmm... so much bullshiat, but where does it come from?"

Here in the Internet age, as in every age before, the answer is: "Pride".

0z79: So what if I've arrived at the same logical point as anyone else on this page, through drastically different means?

Because reasons matter. If you don't think so, you're part of the problem.

Why you believe what you believe is important, because it illustrates whether or not you have thought critically about the stimuli you are exposed to; the same stimuli that develop your understanding and perceptions of reality (by the way, I am using "you" in the kind of collective third person sense, even though my suspicion is that it very much does apply to you specifically as well based on other posts you've made). If, for example, you just take everyone you perceive to be an authority on X, Y, and Z at their word about X, Y, and Z, then whether you're believing in correct or incorrect things about X, Y, and Z doesn't matter because you can very easily be led astray by other, more manipulative people. At that point, you haven't arrived at "the same logical point." You are merely providing the same answer on a test. The route you took to get there is not logical at all.

The point is, that I've arrived and am going "Hmm... so much bullshiat, but where does it come from?"

Except, first you haven't (reason mentioned above) and you do not appear to be doing that all anyway. You just claim that certain perspectives that differ from you, particularly atheism, are bullsh*t without providing any real reasons as to why, and personally attack those who hold those positions, as you've done with a few people in this thread who were not provocative with you in the least. I will be provocative, because I feel no reason to not treat a f*cking moron as a f*cking moron, but your responses to some other people in this thread who have merely responded to you in a neutral way in order to either (a) provide an alternative perspective or (b) ask you questions to learn a little more about where you're coming from is shameful. Grow up, child. There's so much more to life than your current pathetically narrow and condescending viewpoint.

0z79: Actually, man... I'm telling you, FloydA and all the rest to chill the fark out, because we're all on the same page.

So what if I've arrived at the same logical point as anyone else on this page, through drastically different means?

You're not even in the same book, let alone page. The means by which you've arrived at "the same" conclusions provide absolutely no useful information. "God did it" is useless. We'd still be living in caves if we accepted that answer to every question.

Kome: 0z79: So what if I've arrived at the same logical point as anyone else on this page, through drastically different means?

Because reasons matter. If you don't think so, you're part of the problem.

Why you believe what you believe is important, because it illustrates whether or not you have thought critically about the stimuli you are exposed to; the same stimuli that develop your understanding and perceptions of reality (by the way, I am using "you" in the kind of collective third person sense, even though my suspicion is that it very much does apply to you specifically as well based on other posts you've made). If, for example, you just take everyone you perceive to be an authority on X, Y, and Z at their word about X, Y, and Z, then whether you're believing in correct or incorrect things about X, Y, and Z doesn't matter because you can very easily be led astray by other, more manipulative people. At that point, you haven't arrived at "the same logical point." You are merely providing the same answer on a test. The route you took to get there is not logical at all.

The point is, that I've arrived and am going "Hmm... so much bullshiat, but where does it come from?"

Except, first you haven't (reason mentioned above) and you do not appear to be doing that all anyway. You just claim that certain perspectives that differ from you, particularly atheism, are bullsh*t without providing any real reasons as to why, and personally attack those who hold those positions, as you've done with a few people in this thread who were not provocative with you in the least. I will be provocative, because I feel no reason to not treat a f*cking moron as a f*cking moron, but your responses to some other people in this thread who have merely responded to you in a neutral way in order to either (a) provide an alternative perspective or (b) ask you questions to learn a little more about where you're coming from is shameful. Grow up, child. There's so much more to life than your current pathetically narrow and condescending viewpoint

Hey, maybe if I weren't used to all non-faith people assuming I'm an idiot..

BTW, re-read some of these posts, people here have all but called me an idiot.

DAD 20165: Yours is the first good argument I've seen to this.

Why? It's not even entirely accurate.

DAD 20165: the bible isn't just a collection of good stories for the kiddies.

I would hope not. It's one of the most perverse books ever written, full of rape, incest, genocide, torture, suffering, misery, confusion and death, and all at the behest of a vengeful, fickle, capricious jealous violent God who, for most of the book, expressed nothing other than extreme selfishness and total contempt for mankind.

DAD 20165: Some of the laws and other prohibitions in it are grounded in scientific fact.

They thought that bats were birds (Leviticus 11:13-19), insects had four legs (Leviticus 11:20), rabbits chew cud (Leviticus 11:6), doctors can't cure people as well as God (2 Chronicles 16:12-13), the number Pi was 3 (1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chronicles 4:2), ostriches didn't take care of their eggs (Job 39:13-16), stars were smaller than the Earth (Revelation 8:10), the moon had its own light source (Isaiah 13:10), the Earth existed before the sun (Genesis 1:1), and they knew absolutely nothing about female physiology (Deuteronomy 22:13-16). They also thought the heart, not the brain, was the center of thought, emotion and moral understanding (dozens of references, but especially Luke 6:45). There's also some 60 references, give or take, to the Earth being a flat circular disk, a flat square, fixed, supported by pillars or a foundation of some sort, surrounded by water, unmoving, unchanging or at the center of the solar system. Whenever they describe the dimensions of the Earth, there's never any mention of it being a sphere, circling the sun, or rotating on an axis.

DAD 20165: And is still to young to explain how say we evolved to what we are today.cbut that won't keep the nut jobs from saying God did it I believe it or the uber scientist from saying we evolved from organic green slime either or I don't care. But to continue fighting over stuff we don't understand at that level fully yet is just dumb.

Ah yes, the Argument from Ignorance.

The problem with this attitude is that it is defeatist. Since we do not know the ultimate answers now, we probably won't ever know them so why bother trying to even understand natural phenomenon? You're essentially saying we should all throw our hands in the air and give up.

But here's the thing: Once upon a time we thought that diseases were the work of sorcery, lightning was divine punishment, comets were harbingers of doom, rainbows had a pot of gold, insanity was possession by evil spirits, and the sun and moon were magical orbs that traded turns in the sky. Did science stop studying these things just because there were already sufficient answers for them and any naturalistic explanation is superfluous (or even futile)? Of course not. Science is extremely hostile to what it doesn't understand specifically BECAUSE it doesn't understand.

Today, we have annihilated the mysticism in those things because we sought to understand them and we discovered microorganisms, electricity, astronomy, the refraction of light through water molecules, psychiatric disorders, and the composition of heavenly bodies and the effects of gravity on mass. As we learn more about the Universe, the domain of the supernatural keeps shrinking.

We are now on the cusp of doing the same -- finding a naturalistic explanation -- for life origins and the ultimate beginning of everything, and we can hardly blame science for expecting this trend to continue.

ghall3: For those literal bible interpreters I like to ask them about the flood and how there was enough food for all the animals to re-populate considering many of them are natural predators of each other. I know there are a lot of components missing from my argument (like plants and trees, how did they come back?)

However in college we had to argue a topic in philosophy class and creation vs evolution was the one my group got. So we brought in a chemical engineer who was also a young earth creationist and asked that question....and stumped him. He had no idea how to answer it.

/CSB

They can actually explain anything away by saying that god is all powerful and can do anything and make anything happen. Magic in other words. Once someone believes that there can be no way to convince them of anything else.

0z79: Hey, maybe if I weren't used to all non-faith people assuming I'm an idiot..

I've met people of faith who are not idiots. So it isn't necessarily that you have faith that makes you an idiot. But you certainly do come off as an idiot. For many reasons.

BTW, re-read some of these posts, people here have all but called me an idiot.

Not necessarily the same people that you have been rude to after they have simply responded to you. But, let's be fair, you are acting like an idiot, so maybe they're just calling a spade a spade, so to speak.

You say idiotic things, you're going to be called an idiot. You believe everything you read on science? That's just dumb. Atheists are worse than creationists? F*cking stupid. Mischaracterizing someone's claim as "if you can't see it, eat it, or f*ck it, it doesn't exist"? Idiotic as hell. Stop saying stupid things and maybe people will stop calling you an idiot. Maybe, just maybe, you should reflect a little more on what someone is actually saying as opposed to what you want it to say so you can continue to cling to your unstable superiority complex.

But, anyway, since you're the type of idiot who just has to have the last word in (I guess because it means you think you win, or something) I'm okay with you having it. I'm done with you. The type of crap you've been saying in this thread are neither interesting nor original. They are the same stupid things religious apologists (note: not the same thing as "religious people") have been spouting off for a long time to try and rationalize away any possible reason they may encounter to examine themselves in with a more critical eye because, horror of horror, they might be wrong about their invisible friend.

Have a pleasant Thanksgiving.

0z79: BTW, re-read some of these posts, people here have all but called me an idiot.

To be fair, you have behaved very much like an idiot (your very Boobies called theists open-minded and criticized opponents of that so-called "open-mindedness", and then you dared to say atheists are worse than ID advocates).

The problem isn't that you're behaving like an idiot, it's that you're acting like this xkcd:

And you've been very defensive and condescending when called out on it.

You're either a Poe or a troll.

KrispyKritter: i am entertained by educated people who cannot discern between fact and theory. you God haters can piss on the bible all you want but hey, you weren't there, it's all man-made shiat (theory) you are insisting is a big brick wall of truth and fact. grow up. scientific theories are proven wrong every year.

The difference between science and religion is that when a scientific theory is disproven we come up with a new, better theory. When a religious 'fact' is disproven you attack the proof.

As said earlier Scientists try to disprove evolution all the time. They manage to 'disprove' various bits on how we think evolution precisely works, but the high school level version has thus far stood the test of time. Most of the adjustments at this point are at the college level.

I mean, look at dinosaurs. They've gone from the gray lumbering beasts to colorfully feathered and nimble creatures since I was a kid. What happened? Scientists found more evidence, learned how to read the evidence they already had better, which disproved the theories. Theories on dinosaur's actual existence and their time period have remained mostly unaltered.

whatshisname: You're not even in the same book, let alone page. The means by which you've arrived at "the same" conclusions provide absolutely no useful information. "God did it" is useless. We'd still be living in caves if we accepted that answer to every question.

My ancestors lived in The Garden of Eden, not some dirty cave! It's Adam and Eve, not Unga and Bunga!

But, seriously...I just like to give people who take the bible too literally a hard time. I consider myself to have an open mind. I accept that science is not perfect, but it is actually searching for answers rather than saying "God did it." I'm not saying that there isn't some force in the universe greater than us. But as complex a life form as we are, how could men from ten thousand years ago even begin to comprehend what our "creator" might be? Religion was a way to explain the unexplainable and provide comfort. We've come a long way since then, and to now claim that evolution is crap when science has proved it time and time again to be true is the same as saying the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around us.

Ishkur: 0z79: BTW, re-read some of these posts, people here have all but called me an idiot.

To be fair, you have behaved very much like an idiot (your very Boobies called theists open-minded and criticized opponents of that so-called "open-mindedness", and then you dared to say atheists are worse than ID advocates).

The problem isn't that you're behaving like an idiot, it's that you're acting like this xkcd:
[imgs.xkcd.com image 373x330]

And you've been very defensive and condescending when called out on it.

You're either a Poe or a troll.

Or maybe I'm just sick of everyone calling me an idiot; fundies for believing there's a universe beyond the solar system; atheists for believing there's a purpose behind what we see, hear and feel.

0z79: Or maybe I'm just sick of everyone calling me an idiot;

That's because you are being an idiot.

0z79: fundies for believing there's a universe beyond the solar system; atheists for believing there's a purpose behind what we see, hear and feel.

And this is what makes you an idiot: Neither fundies nor atheists believe these things; in fact in some cases they believe the exact opposite.

It's starting to look like you don't even know what a fundie or an atheist is.

Which makes you an excellent Poe. Well done.

Who cares? We're all going to die anyway, and the theory of evolution can't make me rich. Booyah.

So the scientific religion is somehow more valid than the religous religion?

Notice how no one ever calls it Darwin's FACT set of evolution?

The correct answer to the headline is "this is a scientific theory, it seems to have a great deal of credibility, and is accepted widely in society. Other people have varying beliefs based on things such as religion, but they are far less supportable using the scientific method than THIS theory is"

I sound fat: So the scientific religion is somehow more valid than the religous religion?

Trolls are a lot more fun when they come up with original material the old 'accuse scientists or atheists of having a religion' bit is getting pretty stale.

"Many people become doubtful of their religions just because there is something more 'scientific' out there. Just because Darwin's theory is scientific does not automatically mean that its findings are necessarily true."

/yes, if you choose to believe a myth written by man to control other men, rather than looking at hard scientific facts with evidence you can SEE with your own eyes. But by all means, keep praying to your invisible sky wizard who despite all the claims of "miracles" has yet to make an appearance in modern society.

0z79:

I think our difference is that, with every fundamental thing we, as a species, learn about the universe, you go "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"

I am not aware of having done so.

0z79: /just realized that floyda is a masterful troll, not the college kid he pretends to be

I am beginning to develop an opinion regarding your reading comprehension skills.

It's really simple. Just listen. Looong ago, when we as humans had NO understanding of the universe, the solar system, or the basic origins of life, let alone science, we had to make up things to give us hope, and also to explain the various questions of life that we couldn't answer at that time. Times were barbaric, life was short, and we had to have something to turn to for some kind of faith that things would be taken care of, or at least when we died, that the suck of life would be over, and we would enter some kind of nirvana, where we would live forever, fark 72 virgins, blah blah blah. Zeus and his ilk have gone out of favor. Where is their ire? Where are the thunderbolts from Olympus smiting the unbelievers? What of the druidic Gods? Where have they gone? Or even the christian God? In the bible, miracles and angelic appearances were as common as a spring rain? Where are our miracles in this modern society? I haven't seen the parting of the red sea, or one fish feeding thousands of people, or an angel appearing, let alone proof of such an appearance.

So we as a species continue to harbor such hope that there is some higher power that "looks out for us" every day, and takes down everything we do,and we are judged at the end of our lives, and we are the hero, or the goat. I'm not sure if they should be praying to Santa or Jesus. Seems to me as the evolution of Homo sapiens continues, we will slowly forget our "Gods" as we embrace evolution and see that the Godhead figure was more a sign of our ignorance and fear, and not some holy Patriarch that hovers over us and judges us. Or..we could keep killing the shiat out of each other in the name of religion, and are doomed to continue spewing herpaderp at one another because we are doomed to repeat history over and over. I hope it's the former.

/my 2 cents.

0z79: Or maybe I'm just sick of everyone calling me an idiot; fundies for believing there's a universe beyond the solar system; atheists for believing there's a purpose behind what we see, hear and feel.

Maybe don't personalize so much? Because no one called you an idiot for either of those things in this thread.

Out of curiosity, what is your reason for believing in the "purpose" that describe?

Loreweaver: 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?

Are you kidding? They go through that argument in no time. Simply because the earth is only ~7000-10000 years old, which simply isn't enough time for any sort of large-scale evolution to have taken place. As the article described, the majority of students didn't see a problem with evolution vs religion because they were able to take a viewpoint like you described. The people who couldn't are the ones being talked about, and they've already rejected the approach that you took.

There's nothing you can say to these types of people (creationists). There never will be anything you can say to these types of people. They've chosen ignorance and superstition over reason and intelligence. They're convinced of their rightness and nothing and no one can or will be able to change their tiny minds.

Men will never be free until the last creationist is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.

veryequiped: you all annoy me for being idiots that call other people idiots

I think you just divided by zero.

Ishkur: 0z79: Or maybe I'm just sick of everyone calling me an idiot;

That's because you are being an idiot.

0z79: fundies for believing there's a universe beyond the solar system; atheists for believing there's a purpose behind what we see, hear and feel.

And this is what makes you an idiot: Neither fundies nor atheists believe these things; in fact in some cases they believe the exact opposite.

It's starting to look like you don't even know what a fundie or an atheist is.

Which makes you an excellent Poe. Well done.

Saying I don't know the difference between a fundie, atheist or agnostic... really?

C'mon, admit it. Sometime in the recent past you came down on someone way harder than they deserved, to the point of abuse; you can't deal with your own guilty conscience so you're projecting onto others.

How so very sad... what a lack of self-awareness.

:p

FloydA: 0z79:

I think our difference is that, with every fundamental thing we, as a species, learn about the universe, you go "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"

I am not aware of having done so.

0z79: /just realized that floyda is a masterful troll, not the college kid he pretends to be

I am beginning to develop an opinion regarding your reading comprehension skills.

I just can't wait until someone else is drunk and rambling on here... that'll be fun.

First, it depends on what level of instruction; K-12 is a lot different fom college undergrad. Second, abysmally ignorant is always another option.

0z79: FloydA: 0z79:

I think our difference is that, with every fundamental thing we, as a species, learn about the universe, you go "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"

I am not aware of having done so.

0z79: /just realized that floyda is a masterful troll, not the college kid he pretends to be

I am beginning to develop an opinion regarding your reading comprehension skills.

I just can't wait until someone else is drunk and rambling on here... that'll be fun.

OK, so point out where I said anything that could even remotely be misinterpreted as "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"

Or were you just making things up?

FloydA: 0z79: FloydA: 0z79:

I think our difference is that, with every fundamental thing we, as a species, learn about the universe, you go "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"

I am not aware of having done so.

0z79: /just realized that floyda is a masterful troll, not the college kid he pretends to be

I am beginning to develop an opinion regarding your reading comprehension skills.

I just can't wait until someone else is drunk and rambling on here... that'll be fun.

OK, so point out where I said anything that could even remotely be misinterpreted as "AH HAH! THERE'S NO GOD!!!1111@!!"

Or were you just making things up?

Drunk, upset and projecting, man.. Apologies.

/has been harassed... a lot
//sometimes comes out in weird ways

RussianPooper: The 6000 year thing is kind of a fringe

Circa 30% in the US. Add another 15% if you include the OEC types who think that was about when humans showed up, even though the planet is older.

RussianPooper: They're unfortunately close to the majority, in fact

Counting OEC and ID, again about 30%, even excluding the 30% YEC.

TopoGigo: If you'd like to discuss intelligent design, you'll receive an F."

Probably better to dump a computational complexity textbook like Sipser on them, and saying that's the first bit of required background math; and the second will require mastering that, first.

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.

 Benchmark SC.3.N.3.1: Recognize that words in science can have different or more specific meanings than their use in everyday language; for example, energy, cell, heat/cold, and evidence. Benchmark SC.6.N.3.1: Recognize and explain that a scientific theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation of nature and is not simply a claim posed by an individual. Thus, the use of the term theory in science is very different than how it is used in everyday life. Benchmark SC.912.N.3.1: Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer.

0z79:
Drunk, upset and projecting, man.. Apologies.

/has been harassed... a lot
//sometimes comes out in weird ways

It's rare someone on Fark offers a Mea Culpa. I'll remove the unkind farky I gave you.

DjangoStonereaver: I've just realized: No Bevets sighting in this thread.

TommyJReed: You fool! Speak not his name, lest you draw him and his walls of copypasta into the thread.

Check his profile. He appears to have retired; there's a link to the final (apparent) post he made.

Eleri: I know it feels good to believe that people are educated and intelligent, but the most recent poll I can find shows that 46% of those within the United States are young earth creationists.

Actually, the way Gallup asks the question tends to lump in the ~30% Young-Earth with the ~15% Old-Earth. But that's a cosmetic detail that doesn't affect the rest of your post.

yves0010: And after that, though no physical changes happened on the macro scale of evolution, micro evolution did happen.

Sigh. Canned response....
Microevolution refers to genetic mutations which are able to diffuse (especially via reproduction) within a population group. When a population is divided by a barrier (geologic or genetic) which precludes future diffusion between subgroups, it is referred to as speciation. Microevolutionary developments in one group unable to diffuse across the species barrier are considered macroevolutionary with respect to the other group.While the rate of speciation is low (on the order of per species-megayear, depending in part on time to reproductive maturity), the large number of species on earth has resulted in several dozen speciations being recorded in the literature since Darwin's time.The most common response to this is that these are "not really" speciations, since "it's still the same kind". This response reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the theory of evolution works.When a species barrier arises, the organism does not become an ENTIRELY new species; rather, it becomes a MORE specific species. Humans, therefore, are technically a sub-species of hominid-catarrhine-primate-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral -eumetazoan-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life. After becoming distinct sub-species, any novel mutation in one is thus macroevolutionary with respect to the other.Given that we KNOW species barriers can arise with time, it is a reasonable inference that extant barriers may not have always existed. Fossil evidence supports this. EG, searching back, we can find example some fossils showing resemblance to modern seals and some to weasels; and the older those appearing ancestral to seals are, the closer they are to resembling ancestral forms of the weasels. Thus, weasels are considered mustelid-caniform-carnivore-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial- bilateral-eumetazoan-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life, whereas seals are considered pinniped-caniform-carnivore-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial- bilateral-eumetazoan-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life. This inference is additionally supported by modern genetic sequencing, which indicates considerable overlap between the modern forms, with the distinguishing sequences consistent with mutations of the same type as observed in the lab, and in an degree consistent with the expectations from observed rate-of-mutation in present and from the time estimates of the fossil record.

Rockstone: Anyone who claims faith and science are not compatible are fools.

Depends on which premises you take on "Faith".

HindiDiscoMonster: When people get insulted, they simply shut down the logical side of their brain, and nothing can penetrate that wall.

Experimentally, that's an oversimplification to the point of inaccuracy.
I can dredge up the citation, if you're really curious.

wippit: IE: would they be classified as separate species?

They wouldn't; however, the barrier between species is fuzzier than was thought in Darwin's time. You might read this comment elsewhere, along with the response, the article prompting it, and the preceding.

walkingtall: 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.

Not really. Slightly better nutshell, though it's long overdue for some work.

0z79: Saying I don't know the difference between a fundie, atheist or agnostic... really?

Kome: 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.

Your math is off. You're very unlikely to get above about 20.

walkingtall: 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.

Actually, it can; the field is called "evolutionary algorithms". (There's a simple example in this video.)

More to the point, yes, detrimental (net negative benefit) mutations are more common at the outset; however, mutations have a non-zero possibility for a net positive benefit (in the evolutionary sense of "benefit"). Furthermore, both types have the same propogation on p(t)=p0eBt (first order, until resource limits provide logistic growth curve limits) -- which means, the more detrimental mutations almost immediately (in geologic time) vanish, while beneficial mutations almost instantly take over.

Additionally, the most common mutations of all apparently have almost zero effect; the typical human has about 100 mutations not inherited from their parents. There's a slightly different equation for how those propagate.

walkingtall: What it doesnt address and cant address is how new code would be created.

Any change in code yields a "new" code. DNA replication is low-error, but non-zero; the occasional loose gamma ray can provide bit flips. What you appear to be trying to suggest is that IMPROVED code can't come about... which I address above. I'll further note, a change from AGATTA to AGCTTA is roughly as easy as the reverse. The possibility of improvement is implicit in the possibility for diminishing.

0z79: God exists

Do you take this as a primary premise ("on Faith"), or is this held justified by some priors and subject to change if they do ("as inference")? If the latter, which?

I believe because I believe, so there. :p

Sorry, not arguing with people who will consider me stupid, no matter what I say. Stuff it, prick.

0z79: I believe because I believe, so there. :p

Sorry, not arguing with people who will consider me stupid, no matter what I say. Stuff it, prick.

You could put this caption under the picture of almost any Republican politician, and it would fit like a glove.

CheapEngineer: 0z79: I believe because I believe, so there. :p

Sorry, not arguing with people who will consider me stupid, no matter what I say. Stuff it, prick.

You could put this caption under the picture of almost any Republican politician, and it would fit like a glove.

We're discussing a belief very near and dear to my heart.. considering just how condescending Ishkur, et al have been.... I believe I've been quite civil.

Jerk. >:)

johnryan51: One fossil of a modern dog,cat,rabbit etc. That's all they need to find to disprove evolution.

Actually, given the evidence for evolution, that would at best indicate a minor modification, and suggest physicists should look more into closed timelike loops.

0z79: I've found a way to reconcile two belief systems

The question is, is it more interesting than "ignore implicit/explicit inconsistencies" or than "assume something, despite it otherwise being more probably wrong"?

Ed Grubermann: I'm sorry, but what part of science is a "belief system"?

Acceptance that evidence has a pattern, among other parts. Most of the rest is inherited from mathematics, to give enough language to say "pattern".

I sound fat: So the scientific religion is somehow more valid than the religous religion?

Notice how no one ever calls it Darwin's FACT set of evolution?

The correct answer to the headline is "this is a scientific theory, it seems to have a great deal of credibility, and is accepted widely in society. Other people have varying beliefs based on things such as religion, but they are far less supportable using the scientific method than THIS theory is"

From your profile: "I am bothered by intellectually dishonest debate."

You must hate yourself right now.

abb3w: johnryan51: One fossil of a modern dog,cat,rabbit etc. That's all they need to find to disprove evolution.

Actually, given the evidence for evolution, that would at best indicate a minor modification, and suggest physicists should look more into closed timelike loops.

0z79: I've found a way to reconcile two belief systems

The question is, is it more interesting than "ignore implicit/explicit inconsistencies" or than "assume something, despite it otherwise being more probably wrong"?

Ed Grubermann: I'm sorry, but what part of science is a "belief system"?

Acceptance that evidence has a pattern, among other parts. Most of the rest is inherited from mathematics, to give enough language to say "pattern".

It's more a a gut-level thing; it certainly feels like I'm slugged there every time someone calls me stupid for having faith.

kg2095: They can actually explain anything away by saying that god is all powerful and can do anything and make anything happen.

When you get to formalizing "explanation" into mathematics, that's actually a problem, since it therefore doesn't explain why he did any particular thing.

Bhruic: Simply because the earth is only ~7000-10000 years old, which simply isn't enough time for any sort of large-scale evolution to have taken place.

Ignoring that the creationist claim of diversification from core baramin (the "kinds" saved from the flood on the Ark) has to have been a lot faster than evolution would ordinarily allow.

0z79: I believe because I believe, so there. :p

Sounds like type 2, in the Albert's formulation of the Münchausen trilemma.

Or alternatively, "assertion of confidence", considered as persuasion resistance methods, in the terminology from (doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_5).

0z79: Sorry, not arguing with people who will consider me stupid, no matter what I say. Stuff it, prick.

Was that directed at me? I'm not sure how I could have expressed my disagreement much more politely with anything resembling accuracy, and I don't think I gave much in the way of value judgements.

0z79: I believe I've been quite civil.
Jerk. >:)

Hardly turning the other cheek.

0z79: It's more a a gut-level thing; it certainly feels like I'm slugged there every time someone calls me stupid for having faith.

Well, if you want a little reassurance -- among those who believe the Bible, higher intelligence is correlated to higher religiosity. (It's reverse correlated, among those who consider it mere fables.)

You might consider why you're sensitive about that.

abb3w: kg2095: They can actually explain anything away by saying that god is all powerful and can do anything and make anything happen.

When you get to formalizing "explanation" into mathematics, that's actually a problem, since it therefore doesn't explain why he did any particular thing.

Bhruic: Simply because the earth is only ~7000-10000 years old, which simply isn't enough time for any sort of large-scale evolution to have taken place.

Ignoring that the creationist claim of diversification from core baramin (the "kinds" saved from the flood on the Ark) has to have been a lot faster than evolution would ordinarily allow.

0z79: I believe because I believe, so there. :p

Sounds like type 2, in the Albert's formulation of the Münchausen trilemma.

Or alternatively, "assertion of confidence", considered as persuasion resistance methods, in the terminology from (doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_5).

0z79: Sorry, not arguing with people who will consider me stupid, no matter what I say. Stuff it, prick.

Was that directed at me? I'm not sure how I could have expressed my disagreement much more politely with anything resembling accuracy, and I don't think I gave much in the way of value judgements.

0z79: I believe I've been quite civil.
Jerk. >:)

Hardly turning the other cheek.

Not at all, I've forgotten who it was directed at in the first place, must mean it wasn't important.

veryequiped: [imgc.allpostersimages.com image 316x488]
You know what I find hilarious???? How much you all annoy me for being idiots that call other people idiots because they don't buy into a Theory as much as the idiots that do. You're a bunch of people with a belief, who talk down to others with a different belief, while pretending you're more understanding than those you criticize.
Your country and world is going to hell in a hand basket, and the best you all can do is bicker? Pathetic. Personally all of you should be removed.
[i524.photobucket.com image 800x600]
[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 225x224]

See. That's where you're wrong. We don't think you're an idiot because you're a Christian. We think you're an idiot because you refuse to accept that science and the fundamental laws that allow our universe to exist aren't the result of magical sky-wizard. Quit believing stupid shiat and people will stop calling you out on it. Until you're ready to do that, I suggest you invest heavily in hemorrhoid donuts, cause there's nothing but butthurt for you in the future.

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

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.