Dude. You made me laugh hysterically. Half an inch above your post is a link i gave to a very intelligent man who totally bashes intelligent design who actually gave testimony in the dover case you mentioned. -define irony-michael_ab said:
Evolution & Atheism... Is it really more plausible?
- Thread starter ICs2Xist
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Natural selection I completely agree with. That is actually what, in my mind, explains the bacteria's "development of" immunity towards antibiotics.stinkychops said:
natural selection is basically this: those that can't survive... die.
how revolutionary.
I was waiting for someone to mention natural selection. To be honest, if I could believe that the conditions for life actually did exist for eternity on several planets throughout the universe, I might be able to believe evolution through natural selection. But really, no studied scientist believes in an eternal universe (if he does, he needs to study more, THAT theory has been sufficiently disproved).
I'm not entirely sorry for making fun of people's grammar. It's a point of entertainment on my part. I don't mean for people to take it personally, and won't take it personally if someone else does it himself. I just won't make any spelling erors. See my first post if you are offended by me making fun of your grammar or spelling.
I've heard that quote before. It was made by a Greek philosopher who was such a pansy that he advocated hiding from life in order to avoid any and all suffering.vampirekid.13 said:
Why believe something, that can't be explained, Miracles are only for them, who didn't work to make them true. I think, believing in a god is a mistake, better ask until i understand something, than living in the base of a pyramide built by believing - the top stone had the original message, gave it to the next with a mistake, so we have a truth and something to believe. You see what's going on with every new mistake and believing.
Evolution is nature - Revolution made by mistakes and believers made us stupid.
Evolution is nature - Revolution made by mistakes and believers made us stupid.
What other word is there to use? Its a theory that explains hundreds of thousands of facts, pieces of evidence, and test that can be performed in any lab. Its a theory that has so much intelligent momentum behind it God himself would have to manifest and tell us its wrong before half the scientists out there would think twice about claiming its not proven yet.ICs2Xist said:
I can agree with some people here!
Intelligent design does fundamentally contradict evolution!!!
Evolution was theorized in order to provide an origin basis for the RELIGION of atheism, and so, yes, intelligent design DOES contradict evolution.
Please stop arguing for it as a viable compromise.
I do, however, view intelligent design as somewhat feasible.
Intelligent design does fundamentally contradict evolution!!!
Evolution was theorized in order to provide an origin basis for the RELIGION of atheism, and so, yes, intelligent design DOES contradict evolution.
Please stop arguing for it as a viable compromise.
I do, however, view intelligent design as somewhat feasible.
ICs2Xist said:
Atheism is not a religion, get more informed before making threads about these kinds of things. Because if not, your a tool.
I am not sure what you are getting at here.ICs2Xist said:
Are you saying that your problem with evolution is in its explanation of how life begun?
Or is your issue with the fact that the conditions for life exist on our planet at all?
GO Carl goooooo!!! He's awesome isn't he? BBBBBIllions and BBBBBillions. ROFL. Michio Kaku is the Carl Sagan of my generation though. He's awesome to listen to on the science channel.Notsomuch said:
Why not? We see cells evolve, since they have such short lifespans. We see 'species' of cells turn into other species; such as mutations of diseases into something that can outright screw us over. We are merely a colony of cells, so why can't they evolve too?ICs2Xist said:
Also, what about creatures that can mate, but the offspring are infertile? Ligers, the offspring of tiger and lion, are able to breed but the offspring is always flawed; only one has been able to successfully mate (and the resulting offspring from that creature was born sterile, for some reason) and some of the males have a fault in their testis meaning that the release of a hormone which stops growth after a certain age is restricted, meaning the animals can grow horrifically large and die quite early as a result.
The fact that these two animals from different parts of the world can mate shows they were once the same species, the fact that the offspring is sterile shows us they are drifting further apart. Most types of lemurs can breed quite happily, which would indicate that they started drifting apart in terms of genetics comparatively recently compared to the aforementioned big cats; this is also indicated in the fact that some lemurs can meet and mate in the wild; they are closer, they were not pulled into different continents by the shifting of the planet, and so they are going to continue to be genetically similar since they are in roughly the same area.
We don't have to go back in time to see evolution; we know for a fact that the appendix is a useless organ now that has the properties to help digest grass, similar to the many stomachs of a cow. However, the organ is so small and disused it has become completely without function now, except to randomly flaw and kill you.
I understand before you made the arguement that all primates should have evolved into humans if it was so beneficial, but it is simply the fact that it may not be in all locations. One theory of why humans are the way we are which holds a lot of interesting ideas is that, around the time pre-humans began to evolve, there was areas of large flooding where it is known 'humans' were residing. We know this from carbon-dating fossils. We know that such flooding would have brought in a rich new food that was previously a rare find for us; fish, crustaceans, and other ocean-dwelling nom-noms. To get these creatures, we needed to wade into areas full of water. We did this often to eat the new readily available food, learning to walk on our back legs. This experiment has been repeated in several zoos, where chimps were forced to wade out to a boat to obtain food. The chimpanzees held their hands above their head and walked out to the boat on their hind legs, sometimes carrying their offspring in a cradled position in their arms.
As a result of this new lifestyle of wading out to areas of flood, we no-longer needed hair on our bodies; it does not insulate you from the cold under the water. The hair on our faces, however, mostly remains since we had our heads out of the water. Fish and crustaceans have a lot of protein, omega-oils, and all the things that can help develop a brain. With such an excess of protein and such oils we never previous had, it needed to go somewhere. It went north, to our brains, making a more complex mind and brain. From then on, we can all work ou the rest.
This particular theory, if it holds any truth, would have occurred in only certain areas. The primates which were not subjected to such conditions did not have the extra protein for brain development, and even if they did have it they live in an environment where muscle is of much more use than a brain. While we were wading in the water, we no-longer had to climbs trees to obtain our food; we just went to the flooded floor and groped around.
The fact is, we have fossils showing a gradual change over time that is evolution. We can become separate species. Our oldest ancestors simply could not mate with our living relatives of this time; the genetic differences would be simply too much. Even if it did occur, the child would be flawed and it would be incredibly rare to have one that could produce offspring of it's own.
Evolution simply is fact. Trying to find flaw in it whilst arguing from a standpoint which has only survived because of a lack of fact strikes me as trying to have your cake and eat it. I have full faith that religion is a pile of horseshit therefore, to me, it is. Like I said, I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm just spreading my opinion to other people because I'm pretentious.
You don't know what a theory is. A theory is a collection of verified data based on a factual premise. The factual claim is that creatures evolve, this is observable. However the purpose of the theory is to find out why creatures evolve. The why is covered by natural selection.ICs2Xist said:
In response to your earlier post, evolution has happened in under 1.5 billion years and the universe is ten times as old as that. Here is a spiral column that gives the gist of the time-line on earth.
I like Michio Kaku, he's definitely up there but Carl Sagan takes the cake in my opinion. I think to fill the shoes some one would first have to combine the staggering intellect he shows coupled with the sheer accessibility of his lessons.grimsprice said:
Just wanted to mention that scientists don't really understand how DNA works all that much. And even a 2% difference or whatever in DNA is HUGE from a scientific perspective, given the complexity of even a single DNA strand.NoMoreSanity said:
Besides that, probability math might tend to disprove the long sequence of coincidences/lucky breaks we refer to as the Evolutionary process. Just think of all that can go wrong with no kind of design or plan (because if there WERE a design, that would tend to imply a designer).
Similarities in DNA could be evidence of a creator using similar materials to build his stuff as much as it could be evidence of Evolution. I mean, if you have a perfectly good method for making a hand, why change it any more than you have to?
Just throwing some ideas out there. Feel free to believe whatever you want, I'm just trying to steer this topic away from the obvious flamebait perspectives on the subject.
It has been proven. And its still called a theory.ICs2Xist said:
the⋅o⋅ry  [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
Use theory in a Sentence
?noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
The definitions that fallow this #1 definition in dictionaries are the non-scientific definitions used in common communication and are irrelevant to the scientific debate we are having.
Evolution is a proven theory.