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.

(Why evolution is true)   Creationist lists biologists who don't accept natural selection. Another biologist writes them and asks them if that is so. "Annie Hall" hilarity ensues he publishes the replies   (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com) divider line 179
    More: Obvious, Annie Hall, Discovery Institute, selections, Marshall McLuhan, multicellular organisms, innovations, Michael Lynch, Rick Warren  
•       •       •

10048 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Dec 2012 at 12:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-12 07:36:36 PM  

meat0918: Wouldn't the chromosome 2 fusion in humans be proof that chromosomes can, for whatever reason at least fuse and have enough viable offspring to eventually lead to us; and if they can fuse, it would not be that far out there to assume they can also split in a similar manner and have a new viable species come of it.


The devil put telomere-like structures in chromosome 2.
 
2012-12-12 07:36:41 PM  

Lord Dimwit: Uchiha_Cycliste: meat0918: Uchiha_Cycliste: No Such Agency: Uchiha_Cycliste:
Elzar: Scientists can play the devil's advocate and take the position of YEC for argument's sake at which point it quickly becomes apparent there is not a shred of physical evidence/proof for the existence of a Abrahamic god/Jesus/Holy Ghost.

what about the hummingbird?

Look, what I believe - what I believe is that the overwhelming majority of all life that has ever existed came about by the blind application of natural selection upon replicating entities. All God did was make the hummingbirds. Look, a scientist must take each case on its merits, free from prejudice. And I have to admit that hummingbirds.... Have you seen one? They're amazing! They beat their wings eighty times a second. They can fly backwards! They can't have just happened by accident, so in this extremely unusual case the most credible explanation is that they were formed by a superhuman creative intelligence.

Oh don't be ridiculous. One day a large bird that flapped its wings slowly had a bunch of eggs and one of them grew up to be a tiny bird that could hover. Amazingly, nearby, another big, slow bird had an egg that produced another tiny, fast bird just like the first except the opposite sex. This of course allowed them to mate and spawn the lineage we now know as hummingbirds. Checkmate, creationists.

I just find that to be too unbelievable, you know, as a scientist. It's just much more likely God made the humingbird. The oddest thing being I don't believe in God. But I think God having made the hummingbird is the exception that proves the rule that God doesn't exist.

Be careful of any zebra stampedes

Zebras get a bad wrap. I'll bet if they weren't half black people wouldn't think they were so dangerous.

I saw zebras mating once. It was like the Heimlich...with stripes!


I'll bet that would have kicked ass on shrooms!

\I'm so disappointed that so few people are familiar with John Finnemore. Especially with all the attention Benedict Cummberbatch gets.
 
2012-12-12 07:38:43 PM  
I see IDW is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

IDW is, essentially, the ultimate troll (with the only difference being that he's not a deliberate one). He's not interested in discussion -- he just wants to dick you around.

His MO is to seize control of the discussion and keep it, and the most basic way to do this is to withhold information from others and never acquiesce to any questions, comments or requests. By claiming some hidden truth that is beyond everyone's insight but keeping it undefined, he places himself in a role as Teacher or Guru or whatever fantasy Authority he imagines himself as. He doesn't mind arguing in his own backyard, but he'd much prefer to constantly hop from backyard to backyard, forcing you to chase him through separate, discordant arguments and fallacies of distraction. If you corner him, he'll usually chop your post up into little pieces and then reply to each piece individually with one these responses:

1) a question attacking your line of questioning, turning it back on you
2) a loaded and nonsensical analogy which may include a dodge, misdirection, or introduction of additional and usually irrelevant subject matter or
3) a sarcastic snipe at the subject and/or you (sometimes with image attached)

And then the chase begins again. There's no knowledge or wisdom to gain here (from either you or him) and he has no insights to impart. His questions have no purpose. He just wants to control you and force you to jump through his hoops that he will constantly move around on you so that you fail and he can claim superiority. You are wasting your time.

For an example, in this three year old thread he concocted a logic game similar to the Wason Selection Task with rules that he could change at any time for any reason, foisted it upon the thread, toyed with the posters for a whole day while refusing to give the answer, and then eventually revealed that everyone was wrong.

It's part of his technique to constantly assume Authoritarian control. He gets off on giving people challenges and quests with no point other than so he can withhold the non-existent answers from them (like his "True Definition of Nature" theory -- he poses this riddle to everyone but there's no answer. He just enjoys watching people struggle). It's the old schoolyard power trip: "I know something you don't and I won't tell you what it is".

That he's been doing this schtick for so long is an indication that he will never stop and there's nothing new to be garnered from him, like he's stuck in a perpetual feedback loop, recycling the same arguments in every religion thread (he's probably already posted the Wason test that he so infamously failed at solving many years ago. It's his way of dealing with the embarrassment by mocking it).

Despite the fact that he frequently loses these discussions, he'll continue posting them as if they're unsolvable, ignoring repeated and consistent replies defeating them. He has never been the type to swallow his pride and admit when he's wrong so you'll never get anywhere with him (and he'll always mock you if you try). It is very likely that he has NPD and people replying to him on Fark is how he strokes his ego so he can never stop no matter how many humiliating threads send him down in flames.

In short: He is a complete and total waste of your god damn time. Reply at your peril; I suggest ignore.
 
2012-12-12 08:08:19 PM  
I was amused by the part of the discussion where Nelson was talking to a grad student of one of the aforementioned professors and encouraged him to ask the professor about his views... and the response came back:

I asked him, and I'm afraid he asked me how my projects were doing. I interpret this as his way of telling me not to waste my time on the Internet.
 
2012-12-12 08:17:27 PM  
There seems to be a lot of "Evolution vs. Creationism" crap going on.

But shouldn't it be "Abiogenesis vs. Creationism"? I mean, even creationism doesn't exclude evolution does it?

/genuinely curious
//agonistic atheist who believes science FTW!111eleventy
///live in a country where this BS either doesn't occur (doubtful...) or doesn't get any of the spotlight (much more likely)
 
2012-12-12 08:22:11 PM  

phaseolus: "I admire your willingness to take on creationists in public; I find their views so antediluvian that I can only ignore them.

Eric"


LOL


Although, in reality, wouldn't we all be antediluvian, since the flood hasn't actually happened yet?
 
2012-12-12 08:23:48 PM  

error 303: I know a guy with a Master's of Science degree in biology from the Univesity of Alabama who's a straight up young Earth creationist. It's really weird.


That's like being a mathematician who says there are no numbers higher than ten.
 
2012-12-12 08:32:18 PM  

I Like Bread: Prison Bryan: Could evolution be a part of the Creationist plan? Lets say you created something that you wanted to last a really long time. Wouldn't it make sense to allow your creation to adapt in the changing environment that you also created?

Just a thought.

The ultimate "compromise" is that God created evolution.


See, I'm fine with that. My own way of saying it is, "Evolution is Intelligent Design!" And I'm fine with the religious using that justification to jibe the facts with their faith.
 
2012-12-12 08:53:59 PM  

Legios: I mean, even creationism doesn't exclude evolution does it?


That depends on what sort of "creationism" it is. I suppose it could be watered down so much as to allow evolution as we know it.
 
2012-12-12 09:16:43 PM  

meat0918: The Jami Turman Fan Club: Khellendros: [people.virginia.edu image 500x840]

Until a creationist has a reasonable rebuttal to this, I don't care what they have to say on the issue. Too many simply don't understand what it is they're saying, and don't understand the basics of what they're arguing against.

OK, I'll bite. #12 is wrong. This is not sufficient to explain differing numbers of chromosomes. Two creatures with a different number of chromosomes generally cannot produce fertile offspring, and any gain from that change is going to be offset by the lack of fertility. There must be something else going on as well.

/not a creationist.

Wouldn't the chromosome 2 fusion in humans be proof that chromosomes can, for whatever reason at least fuse and have enough viable offspring to eventually lead to us; and if they can fuse, it would not be that far out there to assume they can also split in a similar manner and have a new viable species come of it.


Indeed. It's not #12 that's wrong, it's that #5 is incomplete, or at least not clear enough that large-scale genomic changes (horizontal gene transfers, gene, chromosome, and even whole genome duplications, etc) do happen. Sure, while they are relatively rare (compared to point mutations), and many may not be viable, any of the few that inevitably are have a chance of being passed on and spreading in the population either by selection or drift.
 
2012-12-12 09:22:52 PM  

IlGreven: "Evolution is Intelligent Design!"


Except it's not. Unless you think the "design" of making many many more items than can possibly survive and then killing off the combinations that don't work well, while keeping and reproducing the survivors is good design. :-/

In a way, evolution is a lot like throwing shiat and seeing what sticks, except the shiat can undergo some random changes, and the ones that stick can pass on their stickiness to their offspring. Not really a good design methodology, unless you a.) don't intend to mess with the system once you start it and b.) don't care how the system ends up (i.e. have no intended design goals).

B.) is kind of the antithesis of design, no?
 
2012-12-12 10:07:07 PM  

roc6783: Please let me know what interpretation of creationism you use that does not contradict science.


well according to wikipedia (and good enough for intelligent folk):

the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being

this is my "interpretation" of creationism (though english is my primary language, so i don't have to put much effort into interpreting it)

This^ does not contradict Science

roc6783: You were wrong in assuming that entropic_existence was a fellow creationist as you noted in the quote above.


yeah we'll get back to this one, since e_e is in one of those moods, again

...to be continued

roc6783: and yet in another suggest that entropic_existence "can learn a lot from him"


well, it would certainly be illogical to suggest that anyone can learn from FloydA, you make a good point...

nah just kidding, it's actually quite logical to suggest that e_e can learn from him, as abbey so eloquently put (recently): one can learn a lot from epic failure.. [paraphrased]

sorry lad, no cookie

well skippy you're already 0/3 so far, i certainly hope your luck improves

roc6783: Your words below are in bold. If you are not being snarky in this quote, then I misinterpreted it, but it is then another example of you being illogical.


good show chap, you are correct, that was truly a snarky post, however you know must finish the claim and show that ALL of my posts are snarky responses to commentary about religion/Christianity

you can do them one at a time or all in one post, whatever you deem suitable, we'll just wait patiently here

i've got a sticker with your name on it, make us proud

roc6783: The creationism interpretation that you use that does not contradict science is the view in which I am interested in hearing more about.


well we already covered that one, though if you have any further inquiries i'd be happy to assist, unfortunately we've come to the end of your initial round of feedback, to which i must say you've done a terrible job of defending your case(s)

one thing remains unresolved with e_e (which i will be addressing shortly), however aside from that minor detail, it would seem you failed one of you primary objectives: not to be condescending and/or slanderous

so it would seem that you owe me an apology

/ready when you are

roc6783: You have so far.


you aint seen nothin yet

/i see ishkur has shown up just in time for the entertainment portion of the thread
//coincidence? i think not
///he's so cute
 
2012-12-12 10:13:06 PM  

Ishkur: They are very smart and very stupid at the same time.


Christianity has a long tradition of this, they're called "apologists". Meaning, "let's use reason and logic, except for the step where we use tautology to assume God exists and the bible is true". Even a bright, decent guy like C.S. Lewis was one of these, pondering how many angels could dance on a pinhead.

Also, being such a closed community with bans for any doubters strongly suggests they have crushingly weak faith, terrified of any challenge... which is sad for people whose only source of identity is their faith.
 
2012-12-12 10:13:32 PM  

Ishkur: I see IDW is in the thread and will probably hang around and badger people. I've prepared a disclaimer for these occasions:

IDW is, essentially, the ultimate troll (with the only difference being that he's not a deliberate one). He's not interested in discussion -- he just wants to dick you around.

His MO is to seize control of the discussion and keep it, and the most basic way to do this is to withhold information from others and never acquiesce to any questions, comments or requests. By claiming some hidden truth that is beyond everyone's insight but keeping it undefined, he places himself in a role as Teacher or Guru or whatever fantasy Authority he imagines himself as. He doesn't mind arguing in his own backyard, but he'd much prefer to constantly hop from backyard to backyard, forcing you to chase him through separate, discordant arguments and fallacies of distraction. If you corner him, he'll usually chop your post up into little pieces and then reply to each piece individually with one these responses:

1) a question attacking your line of questioning, turning it back on you
2) a loaded and nonsensical analogy which may include a dodge, misdirection, or introduction of additional and usually irrelevant subject matter or
3) a sarcastic snipe at the subject and/or you (sometimes with image attached)

And then the chase begins again. There's no knowledge or wisdom to gain here (from either you or him) and he has no insights to impart. His questions have no purpose. He just wants to control you and force you to jump through his hoops that he will constantly move around on you so that you fail and he can claim superiority. You are wasting your time.

For an example, in this three year old thread he concocted a logic game similar to the Wason Selection Task with rules that he could change at any time for any reason, foisted it upon the thread, toyed with the posters for a whole day while refusing to give the answer, and then eventually revealed that everyone was ...


I drunk IB: That person is my own special little stalker. He's apparently completely obsessed with trying to attract my attention. It's almost flattering in a way.


EL OH EL

you gotta love 'em, they are comedy gold (in a truman show sort of way)
 
2012-12-12 10:55:10 PM  

Legios: There seems to be a lot of "Evolution vs. Creationism" crap going on.
But shouldn't it be "Abiogenesis vs. Creationism"? I mean, even creationism doesn't exclude evolution does it?


To them, it's all one thing: Atheism/Evolution/Abiogenesis/BigBangTheory/Science. They see values in terms of package deals (like "liberal" and "conservative") and if you subscribe to one you automatically subscribe to all. They don't differentiate from nuance and they don't understand how someone can pick and choose their valueset based on individual issues rather than blanket full-ticket "check all" subscriptions.

And it doesn't occur to them that the rest of us don't think that way.
 
2012-12-12 10:59:36 PM  

entropic_existence: But again he wants to try and claim all Christian theists as "creationists" since they believe in God as creator. Nevermind that this flies in the face of philosophical and historical usage for at least the last 100-150 years.


Has he tried his "definition of natural" thing yet? That's just as loopy.
 
2012-12-12 11:24:59 PM  

Legios: There seems to be a lot of "Evolution vs. Creationism" crap going on.But shouldn't it be "Abiogenesis vs. Creationism"? I mean, even creationism doesn't exclude evolution does it?


This is fark, where that sort of thing is usually daily, sometimes

Of course these usually just turn into some sort of pissin contest after awhile, so don't leave yer boots out
 
2012-12-13 12:25:55 AM  

mamoru: IlGreven: "Evolution is Intelligent Design!"

Except it's not. Unless you think the "design" of making many many more items than can possibly survive and then killing off the combinations that don't work well, while keeping and reproducing the survivors is good design. :-/


Well, if you started with absolutely nothing (well, absolutely everything in a teeny tiny dot, but anyways), how would you go about finding out what works and what doesn't?
 
2012-12-13 12:32:00 AM  

IlGreven: Well, if you started with absolutely nothing (well, absolutely everything in a teeny tiny dot, but anyways), how would you go about finding out what works and what doesn't?


That depends... Am I an omnipotent being?
 
2012-12-13 12:35:25 AM  

mamoru: IlGreven: Well, if you started with absolutely nothing (well, absolutely everything in a teeny tiny dot, but anyways), how would you go about finding out what works and what doesn't?

That depends... Am I an omnipotent being?


And, regardless, design implies a purpose or a goal. Evolution does not work that way. Evolution selects for what works now, with no foresight for what might best work tomorrow.
 
2012-12-13 12:44:44 AM  
I have no problem with creationists, just like I have no problem with people at a poker table who "believe" they are good players. Being stupid/willfully ignorant of reality, does not mean that they are bad people, some of the nicest people in the world are retarded, so what?

I'm not saying that I know absolutely everything about processes that occurred millions of years ago, but I am saying that relying on the "scientific" observations of people who existed 5000 years ago is at the most retarded and at the least intellectually lazy. I'm sure that they can babble for hours with confidence on all sorts of subjects upon which they base their delusions, but don't expect a person who values his/her finite time on this planet to listen.

I'm sure the same people can explain at length why the Bible states that that pi is "exactly" 3. Being confident and strong about a lie does not make it truth. Before a creationist explains why they are right, perhaps first they should explain something simple and absolute. Mathematically, prove that pi is exactly 3. Once a creationist can do that - a simple task - then I'll start listening to them about new Earths; otherwise, you're a fairly ignorant lot.

//Note, that I did not support evolution in any fashion
 
2012-12-13 01:41:17 AM  
i49.photobucket.com

Y'all know exactly which threadschitting troll this is meant for.
 
2012-12-13 02:45:27 AM  
I can't comprehend how somebody can devote their entire life to promoting what they know to be a lie in order to prop-up their imaginary bearded sky-fairy.

I would be incredibly nervous around lunatics like this. Especially if they have guns laying around the house.
 
2012-12-13 06:15:37 AM  

TabASlotB: The saddest thing: the creationist nitwit shows up in the comments and digs in his heels.


Saddest or most completely predictable, given that it was predicted in the blog post?

Chalk another one up!
 
2012-12-13 08:17:38 AM  

IlGreven: how would you go about finding out what works and what doesn't?


cache.gawkerassets.com

nature, uhhhhhhh .. finds a way

/naturedidit
 
2012-12-13 08:36:26 AM  

cthellis: entropic_existence: But again he wants to try and claim all Christian theists as "creationists" since they believe in God as creator. Nevermind that this flies in the face of philosophical and historical usage for at least the last 100-150 years.

Has he tried his "definition of natural" thing yet? That's just as loopy.


e_e, go easy on them, they think you're being serious

mamoru: And, regardless, design implies a purpose or a goal. Evolution does not work that way.


show us one of your designs that is superior to evolution

or say nothing and expose yourself as the worthless troll that you are, i'm easy

---

FloydA: Professional creationists are, without exception, liars. They are aware that the things they are saying are false.

The majority of creationists are simply not knowledgeable about the topic, and repeat what they have been told because they have never sought out the relevant information.

If you are a creationist, you are either uninformed (most) or dishonest (the few professional creationists), but either way, you are mistaken.


Ishkur: To them, it's all one thing: Theism/IntelligentDesign/Creation/God'sWord/Religion. They see values in terms of package deals (like "liberal" and "conservative") and if you subscribe to one you automatically subscribe to all. They don't differentiate from nuance and they don't understand how someone can pick and choose their valueset based on individual issues rather than blanket full-ticket "check all" subscriptions.

And it doesn't occur to them that the rest of us don't think that way.


...wait for it... wait for it.....

...wait... there

Elzar: <slowclap.jpg>


*bows*

thank you, thank you, you're too kind, really, stop it, you're embarrassing me *blows a kiss*

//sloe clap??
 
2012-12-13 08:42:53 AM  

cthellis: Has he tried his "definition of natural" thing yet?


How would you define Nature?

Kome: Oh... It's the idiot who hasn't figured out the Wason after this many years.


upload.wikimedia.org

How many cards would you turn over?

if you need some assistance Ishkur would be happy to help...

and on that note, i'll tell ya what roc6783, i will crowbar the truth you seek out of e_e in exchange you must first crowbar the truth out of Ishkur.

Deal?
 
2012-12-13 09:26:27 AM  

error 303: I know a guy with a Master's of Science degree in biology from the Univesity of Alabama who's a straight up young Earth creationist. It's really weird.


Not weird at all. Religious beliefs are strategic, so he thinks this belief will either get him approbation (parents, friends), or money (grants), or sex (religious girls). Figure out which it is and you'll understand his passion for religion.

Likewise political beliefs. Ever considered that? Your politics is a strategic choice.
 
2012-12-13 09:40:19 AM  

Breathe Laugh Twitch: error 303: I know a guy with a Master's of Science degree in biology from the Univesity of Alabama who's a straight up young Earth creationist. It's really weird.

Not weird at all. Religious beliefs are strategic, so he thinks this belief will either get him approbation (parents, friends), or money (grants), or sex (religious girls). Figure out which it is and you'll understand his passion for religion.

Likewise political beliefs. Ever considered that? Your politics is a strategic choice.


I thought the form said "libertine party."
 
2012-12-13 10:07:52 AM  

MightyPez: I saw this bumper sticker coming home from a wedding this weekend:

[i.ebayimg.com image 300x225]

I guess the one about lying doesn't count?


"The Ten Commandments are not multiple choice"

What does that even mean? Is the Eleventh Commandment "Thou shalt chooseth 'All of thee above'"?
 
2012-12-13 10:48:19 AM  

Angry Buddha: MightyPez: I saw this bumper sticker coming home from a wedding this weekend:

[i.ebayimg.com image 300x225]

I guess the one about lying doesn't count?

"The Ten Commandments are not multiple choice"

What does that even mean? Is the Eleventh Commandment "Thou shalt chooseth 'All of thee above'"?


Yeah, I'm thinking it should really say "The 10 Commandments are not a menu" and that the author of the bumper sticker has problems expressing themselves clearly.
 
2012-12-13 11:58:15 AM  

cthellis: entropic_existence: But again he wants to try and claim all Christian theists as "creationists" since they believe in God as creator. Nevermind that this flies in the face of philosophical and historical usage for at least the last 100-150 years.

Has he tried his "definition of natural" thing yet? That's just as loopy.


The secrets of Nature are kept by a privileged few, like myself, sence the Age of Enlightenment. IDW does not keep it. Only I have the TRUE study of nature, for nature is God and is alive and intelligent. Others perhaps have sought for knowledge, and joined ranks to keep the secret within the system, not to expose it. Many women who were exploring these secrets were killed under the name witch hunt. Back then, the study of nature was considered beyond reality.
 
2012-12-13 12:41:18 PM  

vactech: cthellis: entropic_existence: But again he wants to try and claim all Christian theists as "creationists" since they believe in God as creator. Nevermind that this flies in the face of philosophical and historical usage for at least the last 100-150 years.

Has he tried his "definition of natural" thing yet? That's just as loopy.

The secrets of Nature are kept by a privileged few, like myself, sence the Age of Enlightenment. IDW does not keep it. Only I have the TRUE study of nature, for nature is God and is alive and intelligent. Others perhaps have sought for knowledge, and joined ranks to keep the secret within the system, not to expose it. Many women who were exploring these secrets were killed under the name witch hunt. Back then, the study of nature was considered beyond reality.


aw cheez not this shiate again

can't you do something useful? go play in traffic or somethin'
 
2012-12-13 12:52:47 PM  

I drunk what: vactech: cthellis: entropic_existence: But again he wants to try and claim all Christian theists as "creationists" since they believe in God as creator. Nevermind that this flies in the face of philosophical and historical usage for at least the last 100-150 years.

Has he tried his "definition of natural" thing yet? That's just as loopy.

The secrets of Nature are kept by a privileged few, like myself, sence the Age of Enlightenment. IDW does not keep it. Only I have the TRUE study of nature, for nature is God and is alive and intelligent. Others perhaps have sought for knowledge, and joined ranks to keep the secret within the system, not to expose it. Many women who were exploring these secrets were killed under the name witch hunt. Back then, the study of nature was considered beyond reality.

aw cheez not this shiate again

can't you do something useful? go play in traffic or somethin'


lulz!
Ooohh that is fresh. IDW is annoyed by my posts about a superior Nature definition.

Is it that you can't fathom God having the ability to be nature? It's probably a thought that makes you uncomfortable. Maybe it's something God can't do? Yeah! That's it! He isn't capable!

Perhaps you need some time to think it over, I drunk what. It's ok, take your time.
 
2012-12-13 12:59:15 PM  

vactech: Perhaps you need some time to think it over, I drunk what. It's ok, take your time.


can i poll the audience? phone a friend??

the answer is C the lizard king behind doors number 3
 
2012-12-13 01:11:29 PM  
I love reading discussions about religious zealots on a site that protects its precious snowflake visitors from the f-word and nudity.
 
2012-12-13 01:17:39 PM  

I drunk what: vactech: Perhaps you need some time to think it over, I drunk what. It's ok, take your time.

can i poll the audience? phone a friend??

the answer is C the lizard king behind doors number 3


Stumped huh? That's ok . I'm God's easy. He is the (A) through (Z) The Alpha all the way ------------------> to the Omega.

i1234.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-13 01:26:49 PM  

vactech: Stumped huh? That's ok .


two pair huh? i got blackjack, who wins??
 
2012-12-13 01:49:02 PM  

mamoru: IlGreven: Well, if you started with absolutely nothing (well, absolutely everything in a teeny tiny dot, but anyways), how would you go about finding out what works and what doesn't?

That depends... Am I an omnipotent being?


...does it really matter if God is for those who believe him and know that evolution is happening?

Me, I cut out the middleman. Since no God is required for literally anything, no God is used. But if you wanna shoehorn God into your business, I'll readily accept your view of things, and give you helpful slogans like mine. Just don't try and shoehorn your God into my business.
 
2012-12-13 01:59:22 PM  

vactech: I drunk what: aw cheez not this shiate again


Sorry friend, you can't escape it.

vactech: Is it that you can't fathom God having the ability to be nature?


I drunk what: can i poll the audience? phone a friend??


vactech: Alpha all the way ------------------> to the Omega.


I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. -Revelation 22:13

So ,should we amend that to say everything but nature? Would that make you more comfortable?

I drunk what: who wins??


God wins. God, lad.....

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. And yes, if God wants to be Nature, then He can and is. 

Joke all you want IDW. But you haven't really presented any logical challenge to myHis True definition. Quit fighting it young Starling. You know I've got it Right(TM)
 
2012-12-13 02:26:14 PM  

phaseolus: "I admire your willingness to take on creationists in public; I find their views so antediluvian that I can only ignore them.

Eric"


LOL


Normally for me a LOL is at best a chuckle. This one was boisterous and brought a ter to my eye.
 
2012-12-13 04:40:36 PM  

Ishkur: Legios: There seems to be a lot of "Evolution vs. Creationism" crap going on.
But shouldn't it be "Abiogenesis vs. Creationism"? I mean, even creationism doesn't exclude evolution does it?

To them, it's all one thing: Atheism/Evolution/Abiogenesis/BigBangTheory/Science. They see values in terms of package deals (like "liberal" and "conservative") and if you subscribe to one you automatically subscribe to all. They don't differentiate from nuance and they don't understand how someone can pick and choose their valueset based on individual issues rather than blanket full-ticket "check all" subscriptions.

And it doesn't occur to them that the rest of us don't think that way.


And it happens in far more than just Creationist circles. I have no qualms about calling out people for parroting Fox News talking points, and in return I've been called everything from a "dyed-in-the-wool Democrat" to a "CNN watcher".

/lives in the SF bay area, so it doesn't happen that often
 
2012-12-13 07:09:58 PM  

IlGreven: mamoru: IlGreven: Well, if you started with absolutely nothing (well, absolutely everything in a teeny tiny dot, but anyways), how would you go about finding out what works and what doesn't?

That depends... Am I an omnipotent being?

...does it really matter if God is for those who believe him and know that evolution is happening?

Me, I cut out the middleman. Since no God is required for literally anything, no God is used. But if you wanna shoehorn God into your business, I'll readily accept your view of things, and give you helpful slogans like mine. Just don't try and shoehorn your God into my business.


Wait, what? How did me pointing out that evolution is neither intelligent nor design count as me shoehorning a God (in which, FTR, I have no belief) into anything? Did we somehow switch sides in our discussion? Weren't you the one who said...

IlGreven: "Evolution is Intelligent Design!"


?

Design implies purpose or goal, of which evolution has neither (evolution is an emergent property of any system of replicators constrained by their environment). Intelligence implies some intelligent agent, which evolution neither requires nor implies.

So, I was merely refuting your statement. Evolution most certainly is not intelligent design. Not unless you want to stretch the meanings of the words "intelligent" and "design" beyond all usefulness. In which case, we already have one person in this thread, whom I thankfully cannot see thanks to the ignore function, who does that, and you can see what a laughing stock he is. ;)
 
2012-12-13 07:26:41 PM  

I drunk what: expose yourself as the worthless troll that you are

:D

mamoru: and you can see what a laughing stock he is. ;)

:D

THIS^ ;)

hence the title "worthless troll" :D

;) wink wink nudge nudge ;)

hey guys, if you need any proof of how cool and awesome i am, just let me show you my extensive ignore list, it has all kinds of people that are smarter than me and disagree with my narrowminded and intellectually disingenuous views :D

that's what makes me so clever :D ;)
 
2012-12-13 08:31:04 PM  
people.virginia.edu

in·tel·li·gent adjective \in-ˈte-lə-jənt\

Definition of INTELLIGENT

1
a : having or indicating a high or satisfactory degree of intelligence and mental capacity
b : revealing or reflecting good judgment or sound thought : skillful
2
a : possessing intelligence
b : guided or directed by intellect : rational
3
a : guided or controlled by a computer; especially : using a built-in microprocessor for automatic operation, for processing of data, or for achieving greater versatility - compare dumb 7
b : able to produce printed material from digital signals

de·sign verb \di-ˈzīn\

Definition of DESIGN

transitive verb
1
: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : devise, contrive
2
a : to conceive and plan out in the mind
b : to have as a purpose : intend
c : to devise for a specific function or end
3
archaic : to indicate with a distinctive mark, sign, or name
4
a : to make a drawing, pattern, or sketch of
b : to draw the plans for
intransitive verb
1
: to conceive or execute a plan
2
: to draw, lay out, or prepare a design
- de·sign·ed·ly adverb
See design defined for English-language learners »
See design defined for kids »

i have a question about #12 if anyone is interested
 
2012-12-13 08:50:55 PM  

Legios: 1.There seems to be a lot of "Evolution vs. Creationism" crap going on.

2. But shouldn't it be "Abiogenesis vs. Creationism"? 3. I mean, even creationism doesn't exclude evolution does it?

/4. genuinely curious
//agonistic atheist who believes science FTW!111eleventy
///live in a country where this BS either doesn't occur (doubtful...) or doesn't get any of the spotlight (much more likely)


1. Welcome to Fark
2. It should but that would require intelligent people, however see #1.
3. Nope. Only the anti-christian butthurt hatetheist trolling douchebags idiot brigade (we call them IB for short) feels the need to keep perpetuating this strawman. Of course there are some flavors particularly the YEC brand, that have great difficulty reconciling their beliefs with all of the claims, including timelines, that are swept under the "evolution" umbrella (not to mention the obvious agenda that comes with it) however in the end they really don't care that much about the fine details of the topic, but rather are more interested in combating the IB who are trying to subvert it for their own twisted objectives.

tl;dr Welcome to Fark.

4. In that case, you really don't belong here.
 
2012-12-13 08:52:58 PM  

vactech: vactech: I drunk what: aw cheez not this shiate again

Sorry friend, you can't escape it.

vactech: Is it that you can't fathom God having the ability to be nature?

I drunk what: can i poll the audience? phone a friend??

vactech: Alpha all the way ------------------> to the Omega.

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. -Revelation 22:13

So ,should we amend that to say everything but nature? Would that make you more comfortable?

I drunk what: who wins??

God wins. God, lad.....

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. And yes, if God wants to be Nature, then He can and is. 

Joke all you want IDW. But you haven't really presented any logical challenge to myHis True definition. Quit fighting it young Starling. You know I've got it Right(TM)


Oh bugger, they're trolling each other now. Maybe they'll cancel each other out and leave the rest of us alone.
 
2012-12-13 09:06:17 PM  

Bondith: they're trolling each other now. Maybe they'll cancel each other out and leave the rest of us alone.


How meta, eh?

But at least you have posted without adding anything to the discussion, that should lead to plenty of alone time for you, right skippy?

Go ahead, ignore the points I have made and links/citations I have posted. You are sure to win

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-13 09:13:41 PM  

IlGreven: ...does it really matter if God is for those who believe him and know that evolution is happening?


Oops, wait. Upon re-reading, I think I misunderstood with my previous reply. As I said above way above when I responded previously, it doesn't really matter, except that evolution gives every appearance of neither being intelligent nor following some design.

If people want to believe in a deity and evolution, power to them (so long as they stop trying to legislate their beliefs). However, it seems to me that it such a situation would mean that a.) the deity does not particularly specifically favor humans (sorry, folks, but I gotta go with the lithopic principle for this one: the universe seems to be especially suited for rocks) and we are not necessarily the goal but merely a side effect of the process, or b.) the deity is deliberately obtuse in creating a universe for us that has ever appearance not being created or guided. Chalk that up to "mysterious ways", I guess, but it has always seemed like a mind-boggling stretch to me. :-/

But, whatever. I see what you mean. I just disagree with your phrasing of "Evolution is intelligent design", for the same reasons I mentioned in my previous post: it stretches the meanings of those words nearly to the point of uselessness. :)
 
2012-12-13 09:29:23 PM  

Bondith: Oh bugger, they're trolling each other now. Maybe they'll cancel each other out and leave the rest of us alone.


actually that one is a bit more of a one way monologue, but i try to be polite
 
Displayed 50 of 179 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report