I don't believe in evolution the way it is presented in mainstream society. Nor do I believe in creationism the way it is presented in the bible.
Poll: Evolution Yay or Nah?
- Thread starter lawrie001
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Me: "Hey AIDS, TB, and the flu, do ya'll exist despite billions of dollars across multiple generations utilized by humanity's best and brightest to wipe you off the face of the Earth?"
TB: "Why, yes we do, Poptart."
Me: "Yup, evolution is fact."
And people fighting over religion vs. evolution, they aren't mutually exclusive. No, neither really needs to other in order to be true, but the one doesn't invalidate the other. I'm an atheist (as is anyone who is) based on philosophy. "Oh, no, I've thought empirically--" Buh beh tuh ba buh!! Stop there. There is no empirical way to test god. You've looked at the facts and compared them to what you think god should or would do. You're not him. Maybe he doesn't give a shit. Maybe he's inept. Hell, who knows, maybe he really does work in mysterious ways. But whether you accept it or not is based on your personal philosophy. If the facts in combination with your philosophy suggest to you that your faith or lack thereof is true, well then whoop-dee-doo-me-too. But god, by its definition, cannot be tested empirically, no matter what Steven Hawking, brilliant as he is, may say. To say otherwise is to sully the scientific process and relegate it to the level of punditry.
If you favor the other side, tell me what you think when I say "End Times". Do you imagine a gigantic nine-headed lizard-yeti-thing stomping out of the Mediterranean Sea Godzilla-style? No? Then you clearly accept that the Bible uses highly figurative language. What precludes Genesis from such an interpretation? I don't buy into it, but if that's where you place your faith, one can find several beautiful similarities between the creation and scientific explanations on the origins of our universe, life, etc. As Galileo, brilliant scientist and very devout Christian put it, "it appears that nothing physical which [observation] sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their words. For the Bible is not chained in every expression to conditions as strict as those which govern all physical effects; nor is God any less excellently revealed in Nature's actions than in the sacred statements of the Bible."
In other words, if the Bible seems to conflict with reason, it doesn't necessarily mean either is wrong, just your interpretation. That was the case when Galileo proved, with mountains of evidence (even in his time), that all the planets, even ours, revolved around the Sun. It's the case when even greater mountains of evidence in our time verify that the mechanisms and the time were available to produce the vast biodiversity we see with only minute, incremental mutations in DNA over countless generations of life on this planet. To say otherwise is to assume you know the mind of God and commit blasphemy.
TB: "Why, yes we do, Poptart."
Me: "Yup, evolution is fact."
And people fighting over religion vs. evolution, they aren't mutually exclusive. No, neither really needs to other in order to be true, but the one doesn't invalidate the other. I'm an atheist (as is anyone who is) based on philosophy. "Oh, no, I've thought empirically--" Buh beh tuh ba buh!! Stop there. There is no empirical way to test god. You've looked at the facts and compared them to what you think god should or would do. You're not him. Maybe he doesn't give a shit. Maybe he's inept. Hell, who knows, maybe he really does work in mysterious ways. But whether you accept it or not is based on your personal philosophy. If the facts in combination with your philosophy suggest to you that your faith or lack thereof is true, well then whoop-dee-doo-me-too. But god, by its definition, cannot be tested empirically, no matter what Steven Hawking, brilliant as he is, may say. To say otherwise is to sully the scientific process and relegate it to the level of punditry.
If you favor the other side, tell me what you think when I say "End Times". Do you imagine a gigantic nine-headed lizard-yeti-thing stomping out of the Mediterranean Sea Godzilla-style? No? Then you clearly accept that the Bible uses highly figurative language. What precludes Genesis from such an interpretation? I don't buy into it, but if that's where you place your faith, one can find several beautiful similarities between the creation and scientific explanations on the origins of our universe, life, etc. As Galileo, brilliant scientist and very devout Christian put it, "it appears that nothing physical which [observation] sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their words. For the Bible is not chained in every expression to conditions as strict as those which govern all physical effects; nor is God any less excellently revealed in Nature's actions than in the sacred statements of the Bible."
In other words, if the Bible seems to conflict with reason, it doesn't necessarily mean either is wrong, just your interpretation. That was the case when Galileo proved, with mountains of evidence (even in his time), that all the planets, even ours, revolved around the Sun. It's the case when even greater mountains of evidence in our time verify that the mechanisms and the time were available to produce the vast biodiversity we see with only minute, incremental mutations in DNA over countless generations of life on this planet. To say otherwise is to assume you know the mind of God and commit blasphemy.
Very much yah for evolution.
Now for a random meaningless sentence so that my post has a sufficient amount of words.
Now for a random meaningless sentence so that my post has a sufficient amount of words.
Hehehe...It is a fact. Melt down three metals with compatible crystalline structures, mix them, and let cool. Sample portions of the structure as it cools, quench it to retain that structure, and put it under a microscope. Observe all kinds of the microstructures that evolve as the samples progress.
It's not just for organisms!
It's not just for organisms!
I believe that evolution is a real thing, responsible for the variety of life on earth. I'm not sure the specifics of the theory of evolution are necessarily spot on though. In broad strokes, yes, it is fact.
I don't 'Believe' that evoloution is a fact - I 'Know' that its a fact.
Mainly becasue its the only theory of the two with some genuine scientific evidence behind it.
Mainly becasue its the only theory of the two with some genuine scientific evidence behind it.
I didn't say he came about by chance, I said he came about out of nowhere.RidetheLightning said:
Whatever mechanism you propose by which the creator could have been created, do you not accept that the universe could have been created by that same mechanism? A mechanism capable of creating God ought also to be capable of creating a universe.
We don't know anything about "outside of time" or "before the big bang", and in all likelyhood we never will. We can only have information about after the big bang. And our current best theory says that atoms started to form more than 350,000 years after the big bang. You've gone from appearing to know quite a lot of science, to appearing not to have a clue.
I never said creationism was impossible. Of course it's possible. It's just incredibly daft to guess wildly at things we cannot possibly know.
And then we'd have scales and claws and you'd be complaining that if the Permian-Triassic extinction event (probably another meteorite) hadn't happened then the Permian tetrapods would still be roaming the Earth.
Todays lottery result was 5 7 9 10 22 47 37. The odds of that particular combination occuring are about 1 in 14,000,000. That's so unlikely that there must have been an intelligence guiding it...
No. Of course the odds of this particular Earth looking exactly like it does today are astronomically unlikely, but it has to look like something, and looking like it does now is no less unlikely than looking like something else. All we are really interested in is, what are the odds of intelligent life of any kind evolving, and given the astronomical number of planets that could support life, it seems quite likely to me.
Like I said, recombinant DNA is part of an artificial process. There is no such thing as naturally occurring recombinant DNA.
Yes?
Ignoring the recombinant bit which is nonsense in this context, of course DNA undergoes changes from one individual to another. That's how it works.
Natural selection is not the same as evolution, just as gravity is not the same as objects falling when they are dropped. The one is an explanation of the other.
Natural selection can be summed up by the statement "things which are better at reproducing will reproduce more." You are right, not even a creationist could disagree with that statement. Evolution is simply the statement that natural selection can explain the diversity of life which we observe around us. That's all.
So if you are saying, as you seem to be, that natural selection can explain feathers and lungs, then you are saying that they could have evolved.
No, evolution does not always go towards complexity. It goes towards fitness, that is, it goes towards being better able to reproduce. If more complexity leads to better fitness in a certain environment, then evolution will go towards complexity in that environment. If more simplicity leads to better fitness in another environment, then evolution will go towards simplicity in that environment.
Wot.
No-one ever said lizards evolved from dogs!
recombinant DNA = artificial DNA
naturally occurring recombinant DNA = naturally occurring artificial DNA = unicorns
trans-mutating = changing
genus = an imaginary classification of organisms having no basis in genetics
genus barrier = not what you think it is, if it's even a thing at all
There's so much wrong with this I don't know where to begin.
Stall said:
You, sir, are the reason that I don't trust the internet as a whole as a source. You sound like you know what you're talking about. Gravity is a law. And as for cells being a theory? Have you encountered every single living thing in the universe? I think not. How do you know they are composed of cells? As far as we know, sentient life could be contained within pure energy. And then there's string theory...we don't need to go there.
Evolution is a THEORY, and a THEORY is different than a FACT, by any definition. I'm not saying that I don't accept this THEORY, but if strong evidence were found to disprove it, I'd be ready to abandon evolution.
It's believed that the hardest thing for a human being to do is to abandon their beliefs in favor of others when they hold them so dear. I hope at some point, you can get past that. If not, I won't hold it against you.
You know what? I'm not going to deal with you. Your personal insults and absolute ignorance regarding scientific knowledge is not worth my time. Any explanation or rebuttal I gave you would be swiftly dismissed with some half-backed argument .CScuff said:
Like I said, look up the fucking definition of a theory. It doesn't mean what you think it does. If you took even the most basic science course and actually passed it, then you would KNOW that a theory does not mean "it hasn't been proved". It means an explanation for some phenomenon that has an extensive backing of evidence... aka A FACT. Evolution is scientific fact. If you think so otherwise, then I advise you to pick up a Biology textbook or go UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A THEORY.
Also, how can you "believe" in fact? Isn't that like saying "I believe that the sky is blue"? Do you KNOW how fucking ridiculous that sounds? How can you believe something that is a blatant truism? You don't "believe" facts. You can't "believe" facts because they are facts.
EDIT: I can tell you know next to nothing about science since you seem to think laws are more important. PROTIP: Theories are more important than laws. Laws are actually totally worthless scientifically. If you think otherwise, then please, learn to science.
I do believe you understand what a theory is, by definition. I think you may need to revise your definition of what a "FACT" consists of. Extensive backing of evidence is one thing. But undeniable proof is what makes a fact. Theory != fact. I can prove a theory to be incorrect, am I wrong? But can I prove that a fact is wrong? No. Because facts. Are. Factual. Before you go learning your fancy definitions of theories (and slightly twisting them in order to further assist your argument), try learning the four-letter word first. Please do not respond to this, as I really don't want to read what you have to say. Thank you, and have a wonderful weekend. I'm done.Stall said:
EDIT: I never said anything about the importance of facts and laws and theories. I can tell you are not very familiar with critical reading if you interpreted my statement in that manner. Take a language class or pick up a novel before you go telling me what *I* meant. You don't know what *I* meant. *I* know what *I* meant. And thinking otherwise proves a level of ignorance that I can't even deal with right now.
Because I do not think that many of the interpretations of those fossil records are correct.brandon237 said:
[small]Yes, I do believe dinosaurs existed. I'm not that crazy guy that lives under a rock and thinks that science is 'evil magic' or something, I just don't agree with the opinion of a great many scientists.[/small]
uh..not exactly. It means that it has gone before large amounts of peer review and has enough evidence to become a theory. Gravity is a theory as well as the theory of conservation of mass. All of which are generally accepted. Things like that are called theories because its impossible to prove anything in science that you cant control in a lab environment beyond a shadow of a doubt.titankore said:
The bible also says god created the kingdom of heaven literally above the earth. I could get you a quote but its in genesis and you probably know it. I dont think any part of the Christian religious story can be taken literally or even on faith that its true. its just a nice story. I myself prefer the norse story of human creation. Odin got bored and turned his trouser titan into a fig tree and those figs became humanity. Makes about as much sense as a perfect being creating an imperfect world and claiming its perfection while telling everyone to just follow him for no apparent reason.Active Schizophrenic said:
My point is they are just stories that tell a moral or...something i dont know im not a faith guy.