# Evolution: The greatest show on Earth



## Rakuen Growlithe (Nov 8, 2009)

I don't know how many of you are fans of Richard Dawkins, personally he's my favourite scientist, or have read his new book "The Greatest Show on Earth. The Evidence for Evolution". I found one or two chapters of it to be a bit of a chore to read but overall it was incredibly enjoyable, as are all of his other books, however the appendix had some incredibly scary statistics.

In 2008 44% of Americans said that god had created human beings in their present form within the last 10 000 years. (Gallup poll) This goes against both biology, geology and physics.

In addition 51% of people in Turkey don't believe that humans developed from earlier animals and 42% believe that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. (Eurobarometer survey, 2005)

I'm curious what people on this forum think about evolution. And if you doubt Evolution I'd strongly encourage you to read Dawkin's book. Of course I encourage everyone to read it but it's most important for those that don't believe in evolution.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Nov 8, 2009)

(In b4 shitstorm)

It's proven. People can't "believe" in evolution, they can accept it or choose to walk around with their fingers in their ears.
I really don't think there would be as much fuss over it if it only applied to non-human organisms. Anyone can see that a dog is related to the wolf and that viruses evolve right before our eyes.

But as soon as you include humans in the matter... oy...


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 8, 2009)

He was a moron, it was just everybody else was a bigger idiot.

We've now created segments of RNA from nothing but water and solar light, proving that life can possibly begin with nothing but water and a sun (along with a hell of a lot more other variables such as temp, planet distance from sun, etc). I believe there was no creator at all, that it exists because it's easier for something to exist than nothing.

A theory of mine, though flawed: 
Think of numbers, the absence of a number or lack thereof is zero (0), it can span into the positive infinitely and into the negative infinitely. What if when there is the absence of anything, whether it's numbers or matter, it will break off and span into infinity positive and infinitely negative, simply because "nothing" can't exist with becoming unstable, this excludes a vacuum because it's something within the positive or negative existence. Basically what I'm saying is that matter is infinite, both positive (what we're in) and negative (possibly unseen, _could_ explain some ghosts sightings or strange activity/behavior when an imbalance in the negative interacts with the positive).


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Nov 8, 2009)

> He was a moron, it was just everybody else was a bigger idiot.
> 
> We've now created segments of RNA from nothing but water and solar light, proving that life can possibly begin with nothing but water and a sun (along with a hell of a lot more other variables such as temp, planet distance from sun, etc). I believe there was no creator at all, that it exists because it's easier for something to exist than nothing.
> 
> ...



It sounds like you're replying to some other conversation. It's all a bit confusing.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 8, 2009)

Darwin was a moron, he appealed it to the general public incorrectly and was wrong in several points himself. It's a good thing it caught on -eventually- or else I fear what the world would have been like today...lol

Other than that part of my reply I don't see how it's confusing, explain?


----------



## Tewin Follow (Nov 8, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Darwin was a moron, he appealed it to the general public incorrectly and was wrong in several points himself. It's a good thing it caught on -eventually- or else I fear what the world would have been like today...lol
> 
> Other than that part of my reply I don't see how it's confusing, explain?



How was he a moron?
He was alone in these new discoveries, having to single-handedly find examples and form solid bases and evidence for every point he had to make.

 It's easy to look back on flaws, but would you have done any better from scratch?


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Nov 8, 2009)

> Darwin was a moron, he appealed it to the general public incorrectly and was wrong in several points himself. It's a good thing it caught on -eventually- or else I fear what the world would have been like today...lol
> 
> Other than that part of my reply I don't see how it's confusing, explain



Ah. It'd be amazing if he didn't get anything wrong. As it was what he did come up with was amazingly correct and unbelievably backed up. Even though it's caught on it's still far too unaccepted in the general public.

And your whole negative matter thing is just confusing.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 8, 2009)

Harebelle said:


> How was he a moron?
> He was alone in these new discoveries, having to single-handedly find examples and form solid bases and evidence for every point he had to make.
> 
> It's easy to look back on flaws, but would you have done any better from scratch?



The person who discovered penicillin is incredibly intelligent by your standards I assume? Even though it's pretty much moldy bread. 

Darwin made a lot of errors and had a lot of information left out, gaps that made everybody else turn a blind eye and ignore him over; he was alone yes which is why I said everybody at the time were bigger morons, but intellectually superior that does not make. It was merely an idea he himself didn't even fully believe in and couldn't convince anybody else when he tried. It's not like he was actually stupid, I was using the term moron loosely, as in he could have done better and introduced it better to everybody; there was quite the large gap in time before anybody else picked up his research with new information, that large gap could of been shorter.

Oh and people are still not convinced by his findings today (see most "usual" religious fanatics), but I don't blame him for their stupidity today.

I respect the man, I just think socially he was a moron.


----------



## Conker (Nov 8, 2009)

I believe strongly in evolution, but I picked the middle option because I cannot really fathom that life would spontaneously grow.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if science proves that wrong in the future.

So for now, I'll continue to support evolution, but I'll put a deity out in the beginning as a catalyst.


----------



## Smelge (Nov 8, 2009)

The Evolution Vs Creationism argument is interesting.

Evolution occurs. There is irrefutable evidence of it. Everything evolves, some faster than others. However, a lot of people prefer to believe what the bible says.

Now, I'm not saying there is or isn't a god. People need a god whether one exists or not. Your standard person is unable to take complete responsibility for their life, so things such as Gods will, acts of God or Luck come into play. People need these things so they don't get hit by the realisation that the world isn't out to get them or that whatever ills you do in life, it's all ok if you say sorry before you hit heaven.

Now, the bible has been added to over the years, many christians will admit it isn't 100% applicable to modern life. It is over 2000 years old now and the planet has changed. The basic tenets can still apply, but it shouldn't be rigidly stuck to. Interpretation is required.

When it was written, as far as people knew, the world had been created shortly before. They had no evidence to the contrary. Earth was created 6000 years ago? Sure, I have faith. Then suddenly, someone discovers dinosaurs. Well shit, guess the 6000 estimate was wrong. Based on current knowledge and evidence, the planet can now be dated back hundreds of millions of years. Was this scientists being dicks to the religious? No, it's an update of the original estimate.

Ok, lets look at religion itself. Some Christians can get their heads around Evolution and accept it. Then you get the Creationists and people who claim everything on Earth fits into it's ecological niche because it had an intelligent designer behind it, guiding it to where it needed to be. Then they'd shout "fuck you fags" at science and try to teach it in schools as fact.

Then you get the hardcore zealots. Science is evil. If you believe in evolution, you are a sinner AND GOING TO BURN IN HELL. You must worship the Lord, everything else is temptation to lead you astray from his teachings.

Think of it this way:

God exists, right. He creates an entire universe. Animals, humans are added. He goes to the trouble of working out the tiniest details of everything. the behaviour of molecules, sub-atomic matter, the orbits of planets, the patterns of neurons in your brain. Everything in the universe fits. If one part was slightly incorrect it would all fall apart. It's as close to perfect as you can get.

Now look at the human brain. We use 10% of it. But with that 10%, we are able to look at things such as DNA, we can understand our place in the universe, how everything works. We can look at nature and figure out how a certain plant has evolved to that state, how bats have managed to develop radar to see in the dark.

Now, if you blindly follow the bible, you'd never know these things. If you believe in a creator, a deity that made this happen, why would he give us the brains to comprehend this stuff, then insist we ignore it in favour of worshipping him.

I don't believe entirely in God. He could exist, he couldn't. There's no proof he does exist, yet no evidence He doesn't. But what I do believe, is that if there is or was a creator, he created us to see the universe he created. He gave us our brains and bodies. We can adapt to live practically anywhere, so ignoring what He created is more of a sin than looking at it.

Then again, if God does exist and does want everyone to just worship him, then He is obviously a complete dick.


*and breathe*


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 8, 2009)

I read the God Delusion, and I may read this one too, because I like his writing style, as well as what he has to say. 

I chose option one.


----------



## Dass (Nov 8, 2009)

Never believed in total creationism. Not one word of it. Until recently, however, I believed the second option.


----------



## Azure (Nov 8, 2009)

Voidrunners said:


> Now, I'm not saying there is or isn't a god. Cowards need a god whether one exists or not. Your standard coward is unable to take complete responsibility for their life, so things such as Gods will, acts of God or Luck come into play. Cowards need these things so they don't get hit by the realisation that the world isn't out to get them or that whatever ills you do in life, it's all ok if you say sorry before you hit heaven.


I fixed your post for you. Evolution is pretty cool.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 8, 2009)

there are multiple theories or evolution such as  "natural selection" and "catastrophic mutation"


----------



## Smelge (Nov 8, 2009)

I assume by "Catastrophic mutation", you mean most people from Texas and Alabama?


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 8, 2009)

Voidrunners said:


> I assume by "Catastrophic mutation", you mean most people from Texas and Alabama?


 ZING. 

basically the idea is that large events be it casued by ciate or natual disaster or disease forced evolution due to the fast depopulation of the weaker portions of the species.


----------



## Fay V (Nov 8, 2009)

severe changes do have a tendency to spur on growth. previously ignored traits are suddenly incredibly important. 

I believe in Evolution, I dont think there was a guiding hand at all. The closest is maybe something to give it a spark, or the extreeeeme luck of having all the right variables to start life. we are some very lucky critters.


----------



## Smelge (Nov 8, 2009)

Fay V said:


> I believe in Evolution, I dont think there was a guiding hand at all. The closest is maybe something to give it a spark, or the extreeeeme luck of having all the right variables to start life. we are some very lucky critters.



I disagree.

We had the perfect conditions for life to start millions of years ago. Since then the planets changed, but lets face it, there will be other planets out there where the same conditions occured. There is no way in hell there isn't life out there somewhere. However, it'll have evolved dependant on local conditions.

You could say organisms are specific to their environment. They've evolved to get by. Look at behavioural patterns of animals adapting to suit urban environments. Creatures can adapt and change, and if they can do it on this planet, why not elsewhere? Lets face it, the human evolution has so far come up with a species that may be pretty shit at everything to start with, but can create the tools to adapt and survive.

This is going to sound all fanboyish in a place like this, but give Earth a few more million years, and I wouldn't be surprised if we saw more species adapting to bipedal movement and using/making tools. The human template works, mostly, so we may see other species starting to head in that general direction too.

And again, if it can happen here, why not elsewhere in the universe? There's a stupidly large number of galaxies out there with billions of planets, so something is out there and I have turned this into a rant and have forgotten the point I was going for.

*Consumes Stephen Hawkings brains*


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Nov 8, 2009)

Evolution is proven scientifically. Existence of god is not.

I don't like Dawkins, though, since he's more of a celebrity than a scientists to me.

And I hate celebrities.



Voidrunners said:


> *Consumes Stephen Hawkings brains*



ZOMBIEEEEEE


----------



## Jelly (Nov 8, 2009)

Harebelle said:


> How was he a moron?



He wasn't.

oh uh
evolution is okay or whatever
paleo fields are brutal as all get out though :c


----------



## Smelge (Nov 8, 2009)

See, what if God did exist, right, and the ultimate answer to everything proved his existence, and thats how he designed it?

So for centuries, scientists slog away understanding everything about the universe and at the centre of all these puzzles and riddles is the proof of a creator?

All those religionfags that claim science is evil will be so pissed off.


----------



## Jelly (Nov 8, 2009)

"ultimate answer"


----------



## Smelge (Nov 8, 2009)

You know what I mean.

Like the universe was a murder victim, and Jessica Fletcher came along, pieced together the evidence then went "Well fuck me, the evidence points to a ruling deity. Shit me."


----------



## Azure (Nov 8, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNgNel9eDkk


----------



## CaptainCool (Nov 8, 2009)

if you dont believe in evolution these days you are either extremely ignorant or simply too stupid to grasp it and believe into religion, a way simpler theory of how everything happened.
those polls from america and turkey dont surprise me one bit by the way. as i said, ignorant people


----------



## Nargle (Nov 8, 2009)

Hasn't this thread been done a million times before? 

BTW, this thread needs more dogs. And not the kind that are being done in the ass.


----------



## Ishnuvalok (Nov 8, 2009)

Voidrunners said:


> Now look at the human brain. We use 10% of it.



That's actually a myth. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-we-really-use-only-10



Nargle said:


> Hasn't this thread been done a million times before?
> 
> BTW, this thread needs more dogs. And not the kind that are being done in the ass.



Dogs suck >:c

Snakes rule \o/


----------



## Tewin Follow (Nov 8, 2009)

Nargle said:


> BTW, this thread needs more dogs. And not the kind that are being done in the ass.





"Ah firmly ba-leeve that them liddle chiwah-wah dawgs were put on these earth as they be now."


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 8, 2009)

Crud I'm the only one who voted on that option.
And before I get flamed I didn't believe in evolution even back when I was an atheist, and still don't purely on scientific grounds.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Nov 8, 2009)

CannonFodder said:


> and still don't purely on scientific grounds.


I don't think we have the same definition of "scientific".


----------



## Kommodore (Nov 8, 2009)

Science is a lie, and Richard Dawkins is a pretentious asshat.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 8, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Science is a lie, and Richard Dawkins is a pretentious asshat.



Oh you!


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 8, 2009)

Harebelle said:


> I don't think we have the same definition of "scientific".


I don't talk about my religion when talking about science and that, so that everyone's reaction is "WTF but he's supposed to be a bible thumper".
I'm not only religious, but also science nerd AND democrat.
*Your head has exploded*
The reason why I don't believe in evolution is because what Darwin proposed wasn't actually what we call evolution.
And no I will not use the bible to back up my self, only science.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 8, 2009)

Wait, what? As it is defined now; evolution is a mixture of genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection. Natural selection, (taken from Dictionary.com):

"The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated."

?!


----------



## Tewin Follow (Nov 8, 2009)

CannonFodder said:


> I don't talk about my religion when talking about science and that, so that everyone's reaction is "WTF but he's supposed to be a bible thumper".
> I'm not only religious, but also science nerd AND democrat.
> *Your head has exploded*
> The reason why I don't believe in evolution is because what Darwin proposed wasn't actually what we call evolution but just survival of the fittest, it's just that since then everyone has added all this stuff to it.
> ...



*head remains intact*

Evolution applies to survival of the fittest, because the "fittest" creatures with the mutations that will stop them dying _survive_. The white bear on the ice caps survives because seals can't see it coming. The brown bears died.
Abiogenis is a different subject, evolution is how living things adapt to survive.

(Look at utahraptors, they're dinosaurs with feathers and similar body shape to birdies.)


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 8, 2009)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Wait, what? As it is defined now; evolution is a mixture of genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection. Natural selection, (taken from Dictionary.com):
> 
> "The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated."
> 
> ?!


CAPTAIN OBVIOUS TO THE RESCUE!


----------



## Tewin Follow (Nov 8, 2009)

CannonFodder said:


> CAPTAIN OBVIOUS TO THE RESCUE!



So you were trolling?

Well done, I believed you. Brilliant job and all that. :roll:


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 8, 2009)

Harebelle said:


> *head remains intact*
> 
> Evolution applies to survival of the fittest, because the "fittest" creatures with the mutations that will stop them dying _survive_. The white bear on the ice caps survives because seals can't see it coming. The brown bears died.
> Abiogenis is a different subject, evolution is how living things adapt to survive.
> ...


"Evolution apllies to survival of the fittest"
*cough* derivative *cough*
I know about the utahraptors, what science geek doesn't?


----------



## Jelly (Nov 8, 2009)

so
i guess were putting sexual selection into natural selection for the purpose of dis here thread?


----------



## Tewin Follow (Nov 8, 2009)

CannonFodder said:


> "Evolution apllies to survival of the fittest"
> *cough* derivative *cough*
> I know about the utahraptors, what science geek doesn't?



YOUR POSTS ENRAGE ME


----------



## Kommodore (Nov 8, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> so
> i guess were putting sexual selection into natural selection for the purpose of dis here thread?



I think we are putting everything that applies to speciation into one supercategory and using the terms interchangeably, because no one cares about the technical details on which word applies which process. 

I know I don't. :\


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 8, 2009)

Harebelle said:


> So you were trolling?
> 
> Well done, I believed you. Brilliant job and all that. :roll:


No dude I wasn't trolling, also I clicked on this thinking you were talking about the t.v. show, because the title is "Evolution: the greatest show on Earth"... Jeez I feel old.
You're allowed to have your own opinion and so am I, neither is this forum a form of entertainment to me.
I just find it upsetting that people that don't believe it can't come on a forum like this without people automatically thinking they don't believe in science and/or a republican and/or trolling and/or a bigot.
No matter what I do or say you are going to believe the exact same thing after you read this never questioning anything.
I don't believe in evolution for scientific reasons, you believe for scientific reasons get over it.
I'm the only person on the forums that DARED to say they believe otherwise.



P.S. If you had choose "Do you believe in evolution" as a title, you would have gotten alot more votes against evolution.


----------



## HoneyPup (Nov 8, 2009)

Personally, I really think, without a doubt, that life here on Earth has changed over time, and humans have certainly changed as well. 



Harebelle said:


> It's proven. People can't "believe" in evolution, they can accept it or choose to walk around with their fingers in their ears.
> I really don't think there would be as much fuss over it if it only applied to non-human organisms. Anyone can see that a dog is related to the wolf and that viruses evolve right before our eyes.
> 
> But as soon as you include humans in the matter... oy...



Oh yes. You are definitely right with that. I've heard people say that evolution is real except in the case of humans. Humans were made exactly as we are now. But its just fine if everything else evolved from something else, just not humans. :roll:
The word "believe" just means "accept as true", so really they can believe (or not believe) in it as much as anything else that is plainly obvious, like gravity.


----------



## PhantomLion (Nov 8, 2009)

...Doesn't matter, what matters is that we're here now....ugh.....wow, it boggles my mind why human beings are so fucking obsessed with the origin of our being, don't we have better shit to worry about? like the future..? OH NOOOO of course not,...that would make sense >>


----------



## Azure (Nov 8, 2009)

CannonFodder said:


> "Evolution apllies to survival of the fittest"
> *cough* derivative *cough*
> I know about the utahraptors, what science geek doesn't?


No. It doesn't.  Just because something is not the fittest does not mean it doesn't survive. Look at the planet now.  It is in our power to kill every species on the face of it, and yet, they thrive. How can you NOT believe evolution?  You're just being a semantic twat. There isn't any science that says evolution is not how things came to be as they are now.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 8, 2009)

PhantomLion said:


> ...Doesn't matter, what matters is that we're here now....ugh.....wow, it boggles my mind why human beings are so fucking obsessed with the origin of our being, don't we have better shit to worry about? like the future..? OH NOOOO of course not,...that would make sense >>


Threads over, go home people, PhantomLion won the internet.


----------



## ADF (Nov 8, 2009)

Until evidence is presented to suggest otherwise, there really is no reason not to "know" that evolution is true, there is just too much evidence.

Whenever someone takes issue with evolution; it is usually because it contradicts what their religion teaches. Science threatens something that brings them comfort so they attack it in order to maintain that blissful ignorance. That or they have such an ego they refuse to accept humans have origins that are not somehow special/superior to other species.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 8, 2009)

ADF said:


> Until evidence is presented to suggest otherwise, there really is no reason not to "know" that evolution is true, there is just too much evidence.


Supporting evolution, lots of evidence. And I mean a fucking lot.
Supporting that it's not true, none.


----------



## ADF (Nov 8, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Supporting evolution, lots of evidence. And I mean a fucking lot.
> Supporting that it's not true, none.



Exactly, there is no reason not to think it is true. The only people who think it is not have an agenda that requires evolution to be false, either religious or they take offence to humans not being "special".


----------



## Captain Spyro (Nov 8, 2009)

It's hard for me to really know what I believe anymore.

For most of my life, I was raised as a Baptist, strictly raised to what the Bible taught. I literally believed in what it said and what my pastors said.

Then I grew up and I questioned my beliefs, but never really brought it to anyone's attention. I still believed, but...had a hard time accepting it literally.

Then I went to college and late in my college career, I took a little class called "Science and Religion" where I was introduced to the book "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller. I guess you could say my world opened up.

For now, I'm of the second option. I honestly have no reason to believe that evolution doesn't exist, but I still believe in God.

Maybe it's because I still live my parents who firmly believe in the word? I dunno, but as I said...I still don't know what to fully believe in.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 8, 2009)

Captain Spyro said:


> It's hard for me to really know what I believe anymore.
> 
> For most of my life, I was raised as a Baptist, strictly raised to what the Bible taught. I literally believed in what it said and what my pastors said.
> 
> ...


Why didn't you talk to someone then, it's not like they're going to hit your head with a bible for asking questions.  Part of a pastors job is to answer questions people have.


Also Newfdraggie, there isn't as much as the media makes it out to be, people say that there is A missing link, hate to break it there isn't one missing link there's like 50.  We have a lot of missing sections in our fossil records.  Remember how everyone reacted when they found Lucy, yeah the media went "WE'VE FOUND THE MISSING LINK CASE CLOSED more info at 11:00"  and it came on at 11:23 so you'd watch the rest of it.  Yeah people are still looking to fill ALL the gaps in the fossil records.
inb4 "but the evidence, can't you see the correlation?"
rebbutal: Correlation does not mean causation, anybody that's been in statistics knows that.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Nov 8, 2009)

I don't mind reading some of Dawkin's stuff, but when he starts talking about stuff outside his field, I have to turn away. I also hate his fanboys, but that's irrelevant.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 9, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> I don't mind reading some of Dawkin's stuff, but when he starts talking about stuff outside his field, I have to turn away. I also hate his fanboys, but that's irrelevant.


I have read all his stuff.
Fanboys ruin everything.


----------



## Captain Spyro (Nov 9, 2009)

CannonFodder said:


> Why didn't you talk to someone then, it's not like they're going to hit your head with a bible for asking questions.  Part of a pastors job is to answer questions people have.



I was paranoid, and to a lesser extent, still am. However, anymore, I know better. More likely than not, I know what I preacher will usually say and technically, what they say is right.

Part of it is also that I'm too stubborn to ask.

However, I guess I just prefer to find out for myself. Not sure how else to put it. *Shrugs.*


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 9, 2009)

Captain Spyro said:


> I was paranoid, and to a lesser extent, still am. However, anymore, I know better. More likely than not, I know what I preacher will usually say and technically, what they say is right.
> 
> Part of it is also that I'm too stubborn to ask.
> 
> However, I guess I just prefer to find out for myself. Not sure how else to put it. *Shrugs.*


Everyone has paranoia, that's completely normal, so is being stubborn.
So is questioning God, nothing wrong about that either, so is questioning the bible.  If someone says they understand the bible completely it's BS.


----------



## Captain Spyro (Nov 9, 2009)

CannonFodder said:


> Everyone has paranoia, that's completely normal, so is being stubborn.
> So is questioning God, nothing wrong about that either, so is questioning the bible.  If someone says they understand the bible completely it's BS.



For truth, of course. It did take years before I finally realized it was okay to question.

But as I go, I usually find my answers. Just have to give it time.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 9, 2009)

Captain Spyro said:


> For truth, of course. It did take years before I finally realized it was okay to question.
> 
> But as I go, I usually find my answers. Just have to give it time.


Why spend years to find an answer, when it can be answered in 5 minutes?


----------



## Captain Spyro (Nov 9, 2009)

CannonFodder said:


> Why spend years to find an answer, when it can be answered in 5 minutes?



For some, it's just not that easy.

At least for me, it isn't. Even after discovering a revelation, it took to for it to either sink it or accept it.

Maybe I'm just over-complicating things for myself? Wouldn't be a first.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 9, 2009)

Captain Spyro said:


> For some, it's just not that easy.
> 
> At least for me, it isn't. Even after discovering a revelation, it took to for it to either sink it or accept it.
> 
> Maybe I'm just over-complicating things for myself? Wouldn't be a first.


No dude everyone goes through that, not just you.


----------



## Captain Spyro (Nov 9, 2009)

CannonFodder said:


> No dude everyone goes through that, not just you.



That I know, and as I said, it is what it is.


----------



## Kommodore (Nov 9, 2009)

CannonFodder said:


> Yeah people are still looking to fill ALL the gaps in the fossil records.
> inb4 "but the evidence, can't you see the correlation?"
> rebbutal: Correlation does not mean causation, anybody that's been in statistics knows that.



This statement would imply that direct fossil evidence of hominids is the only evidence for evolution, which quite obviously is not true.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 9, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> This statement would imply that direct fossil evidence of hominids is the only evidence for evolution, which quite obviously is not true.


No duh, yet again another Captain obvious!


----------



## Kommodore (Nov 9, 2009)

Then the rational behind why I posted that statement should be obvious as well.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 9, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Then the rational behind why I posted that statement should be obvious as well.


I never said I didn't understand it.
Just because someone doesn't believe something doesn't mean they don't understand it and just because someone understands something doesn't mean they believe it.





Also I'm out gotta go...
for now


----------



## Kommodore (Nov 9, 2009)

Now see, I don't think you understand it, or you would never have said it in the first place. "Missing links" has nothing to do with the validity of evolution in the grand scheme of things, hence there is no reason to bring it up at all. And yet you did. Curiouser and curiouser.


----------



## Telnac (Nov 9, 2009)

None of the three options describes my belief system, but I chose the 2nd because it was the closest.  The 2nd option was mostly an amalgam of Intelligent Design and Creative Evolution, and I believe in neither.  That said, Creative Evolution isn't far off from what I believe.  I just don't believe that God (or whatever actually created the Universe) has to have created it 13.7 billion years ago.  If the Creator is a being that exists outside of time and is omnipotent (or nearly so), then couldn't have He/She/It created the Universe 30 seconds ago, with the initial conditions being such that there is no way we can know how old the Universe really is?  

Sure, it appears to be 13.7 billion years old.  But it could be 10 billion years, just old enough for stars, galaxies and enough heavy elements to have formed to allow the Universe to support life?  Or 4.6 billion years ago, right when our Solar System formed?  Or right when you first started reading this post?

What I believe is called Apparent Age Creationism, and in truth it's no different from Creative Evolution from a practical standpoint, since the Universe would look & behave exactly the same no matter which model is true.  But AAC allows for some very interesting possibilities and allows you to ask some pretty interesting questions.  For example:

Planck Time is the smallest unit of time that can possibly be measured, according to quantum mechanics.  This seems to imply that time isn't a constant flow from past to present to future, but something that exists in discrete steps... like photos in a a movie reel.  How do we know, then that the Universe isn't in fact destroyed & re-created for every one of these "frames?"


----------



## themnax (Nov 9, 2009)

proving there doesn't have to have been a creator doesn't really say anything about big, friendly and invisible one way or the other.  it's that collective human ego that is just so mind bogglingly retarded.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 9, 2009)

If you have any respect for other forms of life, you won't vote lower than option 2.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 9, 2009)

Telnac said:


> None of the three options describes my belief system, but I chose the 2nd because it was the closest.  The 2nd option was mostly an amalgam of Intelligent Design and Creative Evolution, and I believe in neither.  That said, Creative Evolution isn't far off from what I believe.  I just don't believe that God (or whatever actually created the Universe) has to have created it 13.7 billion years ago.  If the Creator is a being that exists outside of time and is omnipotent (or nearly so), then couldn't have He/She/It created the Universe 30 seconds ago, with the initial conditions being such that there is no way we can know how old the Universe really is?
> 
> Sure, it appears to be 13.7 billion years old.  But it could be 10 billion years, just old enough for stars, galaxies and enough heavy elements to have formed to allow the Universe to support life?  Or 4.6 billion years ago, right when our Solar System formed?  Or right when you first started reading this post?
> 
> ...



So it's an unreasonable belief nobody follows that has no evidence supporting and can never have evidence supporting, ever. Cool.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 9, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Now see, I don't think you understand it, or you would never have said it in the first place. "Missing links" has nothing to do with the validity of evolution in the grand scheme of things, hence there is no reason to bring it up at all. And yet you did. Curiouser and curiouser.


Calm down, I brought it up because a lot of people that believe in evolution base it solely on the "Missing link".  I see this ALOT!


----------



## Kipple (Nov 9, 2009)

CannonFodder said:


> rebbutal: Correlation does not mean causation, anybody that's been in statistics knows



I hear people on the internet use this a lot; it's become so much of a cliche that I have to doubt whether you've taken statistics at all.

It is true, but causation requires correlation, and simply citing your epistemological fact doesn't really invalidate anything. Either you hold that there's an "acceptable" window of certainty and keep that in the back of your mind as you put together a theory, the SOP for any empirical science, or you have to put your hands on your hips and spit that phrase at every single piece of reasonable evidence that comes your way. The latter view is nonsensical, dishonest, and incredibly destructive. There's a point where healthy skepticism becomes contrarian and pedantic.

A proper rebuttal would be strong enough to tear down all of the evidence in favor, not dissect semantics. A single correlation could mean a lot of things but multiple correlations and hundreds of galleries of evidence gives us a solid theory.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Nov 9, 2009)

> there are multiple theories or evolution such as  "natural selection" and "catastrophic mutation"



Catastrophic mutations aren't a driving force of evolution. Things like that are mostly luck and operate for a short time only. After they are done then it's natural selection which moulds whatever was created.



> those polls from america and turkey dont surprise me one bit by the way. as i said, ignorant people



Those were just the worst performing countries, America because it's America and Turkey was the worst in Europe. Even in the top 5 Europeans there are unacceptable numbers of people who don't believe in evolution 7% (Iceland), 12% (France) and 13% (Denmark and Sweden and Britain). 



> so
> i guess were putting sexual selection into natural selection for the purpose of dis here thread?



Pretty much. It is a major force though.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 9, 2009)

Kipple said:


> I hear people on the internet use this a lot; it's become so much of a cliche that I have to doubt whether you've taken statistics at all.



I guess because people use that "i don't believe you" fragment a lot on the internet then yours is fabrication?


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 9, 2009)

Telnac said:


> Planck Time is the smallest unit of time that can possibly be measured, according to quantum mechanics.  This seems to imply that time isn't a constant flow from past to present to future, but something that exists in discrete steps... like photos in a a movie reel.  How do we know, then that the Universe isn't in fact destroyed & re-created for every one of these "frames?"



Because the entire Universe was in fact created last Tuesday (with fake memories for all of us) as the result of a sneeze from out of the nose of a being called The Great Green Arkleseizure. 

Beware of The Coming Of The Great White Handkerchief... 

(with apologies to Douglas Adams.)


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Nov 9, 2009)

Just as a note, because somehow I missed the missing links nonsense. There are no missing links! There's an entire chapter in Dawkins' book explaining both how many fossil intermediates we have and secondly how we don't need a single fossil to be sure of evolution. There is too much evidence from other sources.


----------



## Kipple (Nov 9, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I guess because people use that "i don't believe you" fragment a lot on the internet then yours is fabrication?



Clarification: I see so many people on the internet, who don't know what they're talking about, who don't seem to recognize where that fallacy applies, that some skepticism is just plain necessary when you're waist-deep in pedants and wiki-scientists.


----------



## Jelly (Nov 9, 2009)

There's no fucking missing link.


----------



## InunekoReborn (Nov 9, 2009)

I believe that creationism and evolution can be merged into both valuable theories to be coupled. Stooping down to just scientific studies only shows close-minding, since there's so much to expand on each subject and that we simply won't have the right tools at this time to explore deep space to know other biologies, geologies and such.


----------



## Jelly (Nov 9, 2009)

InunekoReborn said:


> I believe that creationism and evolution can be merged into both valuable theories to be coupled.



well since creationism isn't a theory


shut up


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 9, 2009)

InunekoReborn said:


> 1.I believe that creationism and evolution can be merged into both valuable theories to be coupled.
> 
> 2. Stooping down to just scientific studies only shows close-minding,
> 
> 3. since there's so much to expand on each subject and that we simply won't have the right tools at this time to explore deep space to know other biologies, geologies and such.



1. This...Is barely coherent, but only because of context clues. Theories, in the formal sense, require actual facts to be considered a theory. Otherwise, it's just a suggestion, or an idea, or something.

2. You don't stoop down to scientific studies, they are quite highly-regarded, and it certainly doesn't show close-mindedness 

3. Science either does have an explanation, or is working on it, be it discovering new things, or expanding on old ones. You don't need...whatever you're talking about.


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 9, 2009)

InunekoReborn said:


> I believe that creationism and evolution can be merged into both valuable theories to be coupled. Stooping down to just scientific studies only shows close-minding, since there's so much to expand on each subject and that we simply won't have the right tools at this time to explore deep space to know other biologies, geologies and such.



......
......
......

Bible: Faith

Evolution: Plausible theory

Faith + Plausible theory = -anal hemorraging-


----------



## Jelly (Nov 9, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/user/H2onE2#p/u/5/kA48iLANZC0

therrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre we goooo


----------



## ADF (Nov 9, 2009)

InunekoReborn said:


> I believe that creationism and evolution can be merged into both valuable theories to be coupled. Stooping down to just scientific studies only shows close-minding, since there's so much to expand on each subject and that we simply won't have the right tools at this time to explore deep space to know other biologies, geologies and such.



Basically the evidence behind evolution has reached a point were the religions cannot ignore it, so instead they attempt to sneak God into the theory rather than admit scripture is wrong.

The things theists do to maintain their comforting father figure in the sky :roll:


----------



## Jelly (Nov 9, 2009)

ADF said:


> Basically the evidence behind evolution has reached a point were the religions cannot ignore it, so instead they attempt to sneak God into the theory rather than admit scripture is wrong.
> 
> The things theists do to maintain their comforting father figure in the sky :roll:



My friend has the coveted first edition of Of Pandas and People where intelligent design and creationism are smashed together into one abomination word because someone did a shitty spellchecking job.


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 9, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> My friend has the coveted first edition of Of Pandas and People where intelligent design and creationism are smashed together into one abomination word because someone did a shitty spellchecking job.



So it is a book of "Fail"?


----------



## Jelly (Nov 9, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> So it is a book of "Fail"?



thanks grandpa 4chan






c:


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 9, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> thanks grandpa 4chan
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am a very wise elf. -sagenod-


----------



## InunekoReborn (Nov 9, 2009)

Wow, you guys don't need to shoot down arguments so aggressively to prove your points. People still have their right to be believing, while acknowledging scientific facts and such.

Religion points to why we are here[most of the time], science points to how we are here [most of the time]

I'm only vague as it is since it isn't my effort to be preaching/proving others wrong, thanks for proving mob mentality, now you make me look like a complete moron when I've graduated early at 15 for highschool 

Now my view on religion is that human formed religions are all cults, as big and ancient they can be. It doesn't mean that there couldn't be a possibility of a higher diety, who are you to be "finding it" or making it a being of your imagination. 

You've never seen "it" and wouldn't really be knowing if "it" was actually a being like bacteria and such or some big dude with long beard and hair.

I'm sorry if I've tickled fancys for not using the word theory in its proper word, English mates. May death be the judge of whatever awaits in the afterlife, not humans overthinking this shit too much.


----------



## Jelly (Nov 9, 2009)

durr


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 9, 2009)

InunekoReborn said:


> I'm only vague as it is since it isn't my effort to be preaching/proving others wrong, thanks for proving mob mentality, *now you make me look like a complete moron *when I've graduated early at 15 for highschool



FA says "You are welcome".


----------



## Jelly (Nov 9, 2009)

by the way
there's a religion thread up on the front page of off-topic i think
so feel free to leave your thoughts there


----------



## PhantomLion (Nov 9, 2009)

CannonFodder said:


> Threads over, go home people, PhantomLion won the internet.



You are now my new best friend, I must have this as a signature...


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 9, 2009)

PhantomLion said:


> You are now my new best friend, I must have this as a signature...



You win because you have a Pulp Fiction icon.
Awesome movie.


----------



## Jelly (Nov 9, 2009)

PhantomLion said:


> You are now my new best friend, I must have this as a signature...



:\


----------



## InunekoReborn (Nov 9, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> FA says "You are welcome".



You are not FA, stop warming your non-existant ego throne.


----------



## Jelly (Nov 9, 2009)

InunekoReborn said:


> You are not FA, stop warming your non-existant ego throne.



i dont know
zeke does pretty much say what everyone else has already said in a thread


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 9, 2009)

InunekoReborn said:


> You are not FA, stop warming your non-existant ego throne.



Why can't i stroke my ego like a horny teenager?


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 9, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> i dont know
> zeke does pretty much say what everyone else has already said in a thread



I am a ball of loveable faggotry. 

-sparkle-


----------



## Jelly (Nov 9, 2009)

uh
yuck


----------



## InunekoReborn (Nov 9, 2009)

Ever thought of thinking "outside the box"? Now, think outside the box away from the scientific studies that helped us comprehend this life. Space is motherfucking hueg, I haven't seen a single scientist travel far enough to tell me "Look, there's no God here." You can theorise all you want based on what we're surrounded by through this Solar System.

But nooo, its either THIS or THAT for you folks. Life's complicated, its not about to be summarized completely by a book or two. I endorse science for all it has done, but atheism just means you gave up and made a theory saying "it" doesn't exist.

I'll be agnostic and leave others telling others who's faith is real or not to others. Again, pardon my syntax, my English is a second language.


----------



## Jelly (Nov 9, 2009)

did anyone watch that fucking video i posted or what

:C



InunekoReborn said:


> Ever thought of thinking "outside the box"? Now, think outside the box away from the scientific studies that helped us comprehend this life. Space is motherfucking hueg, I haven't seen a single scientist travel far enough to tell me "Look, there's no God here." You can theorise all you want based on what we're surrounded by through this Solar System.
> 
> But nooo, its either THIS or THAT for you folks. Life's complicated, its not about to be summarized completely by a book or two. I endorse science for all it has done, but atheism just means you gave up and made a theory saying "it" doesn't exist.
> 
> I'll be agnostic and leave others telling others who's faith is real or not to others. Again, pardon my syntax, my English is a second language.



im christian-taoist-faggot-whatever
but theres also the fact that science shouldnt be guided by something that clearly is based around a bunch of goofs taking drugs and trying to get fat chix and old dudes to take their clothes off

i dont think scientific method and process can benefit from taking drugs, aside from offering perspective for new ideas - but that is the individual (which, like, whatever - just try being a human being with any kind of thought and there's your fucking guidance) not the process or the paradigm

so yeah
just chill out man
its alright


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 9, 2009)

InunekoReborn said:


> Ever thought of thinking "outside the box"? Now, think outside the box away from the scientific studies that helped us comprehend this life. Space is motherfucking hueg, I haven't seen a single scientist travel far enough to tell me "Look, there's no God here." You can theorise all you want based on what we're surrounded by through this Solar System.
> 
> But nooo, its either THIS or THAT for you folks. Life's complicated, its not about to be summarized completely by a book or two. I endorse science for all it has done, but atheism just means you gave up and made a theory saying "it" doesn't exist.
> 
> I'll be agnostic and leave others telling others who's faith is real or not to others. Again, pardon my syntax, my English is a second language.



I dunno, but I find it a problem when someone shovels in Faith based dogma in a Plausible theory to make themselves look more absolute.

About the box: When I was a kid and attended sunday school with my grandpa, I believed that dinosaurs were there when God created the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve. As i got older and had access to more reading materials, it did not seem plausible. On one side, you have a book written to teach man how to better their lives through religion and putting one's faith in their religion to achieve peace and prosperity (As well as some entertaining stories), and on the other you have research and experiments based on animals adapting over a period of time. That's bleach and amonia right there.


----------



## InunekoReborn (Nov 9, 2009)

The Bible's totally man-made, a creation of man to try and explain why we got here and such. With contradictions here and misinterpretations [like how we turn the other cheek] and how outdated the book really is, its easy now today to say "Yeah, this book is bullshit, God's bullshit."


----------



## ADF (Nov 9, 2009)

InunekoReborn said:


> *Ever thought of thinking "outside the box"? *Now, think outside the box away from the scientific studies that helped us comprehend this life. Space is motherfucking hueg, I haven't seen a single scientist travel far enough to tell me "Look, there's no God here." You can theorise all you want based on what we're surrounded by through this Solar System.
> 
> But nooo, its either THIS or THAT for you folks. Life's complicated, its not about to be summarized completely by a book or two. I endorse science for all it has done, but atheism just means you gave up and made a theory saying "it" doesn't exist.
> 
> I'll be agnostic and leave others telling others who's faith is real or not to others. Again, pardon my syntax, my English is a second language.



So you think people are in the wrong for not considering things there is absolutely no evidence for whatsoever? By that rational you can pull any claim out of your backside and people are automatically in the wrong for not at least considering it is a possibility.

Without any evidence why should anything be taken seriously? Just before you made the suggestion that creationism and evolution should merge, even though they are in complete contradiction and creation is fundamentally anti evolution. That's a pretty significant suggestion for something that has no evidence.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 9, 2009)

InunekoReborn said:


> The Bible's totally man-made, a creation of man to try and explain why we got here and such. With contradictions here and misinterpretations [like how we turn the other cheek] and how outdated the book really is, its easy now today to say "Yeah, this book is bullshit, God's bullshit."


Wholy shit he is just across the bloody river form me


----------



## Azure (Nov 9, 2009)

God is chillin at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe, that's why we haven't found him yet.  He's probably sippin a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster right now.


----------



## InunekoReborn (Nov 9, 2009)

ADF said:


> So you think people are in the wrong for not considering things there is absolutely no evidence for whatsoever? By that rational you can pull any claim out of your backside and people are automatically in the wrong for not at least considering it is a possibility.
> 
> Without any evidence why should anything be taken seriously? Just before you made the suggestion that creationism and evolution should merge, even though they are in complete contradiction and creation is fundamentally anti evolution. That's a pretty significant suggestion for something that has no evidence.



I've been trying to defend my "poorly worded" argument for 4 posts now, trying to clarify that I'm not supporting the church peeps to merge with top scientists. What the hell man... can't people be in the middle of thought these days, knowing that extremists should stop lashing at the other extremity for the most trivial arguments?

Gimme a break, please.


----------



## Jelly (Nov 9, 2009)

kh m ,


----------



## ADF (Nov 9, 2009)

InunekoReborn said:


> I've been trying to defend my "poorly worded" argument for 4 posts now, trying to clarify that I'm not supporting the church peeps to merge with top scientists. What the hell man... can't people be in the middle of thought these days, knowing that extremists should stop lashing at the other extremity for the most trivial arguments?
> 
> Gimme a break, please.



I'm sorry but there is no middle, there is what is scientifically true and then there is fantasy. We have nothing to gain from considering things there is absolutely no evidence for. It doesn't matter if we have not searched the entire universe and not found God, there is no reason for us to take something like God seriously 'until' given good reason to do so.

Science is about expanding the knowledge of humanity, how does considering the fantasies of theists further that goal? How does humanity benefit from taking a middle ground and considering the views of the other side?


----------



## InunekoReborn (Nov 9, 2009)

Well, that's just greedy; you expect God to be giving you a benefit so you can believe in it. You can still be agnostic and still be working in the scientific department of advanced research.

If fact absolutely has to be your living, then what you don't know as facts must be lies then. Right...?


----------



## Jelly (Nov 9, 2009)

InunekoReborn said:


> Well, that's just greedy; you expect God to be giving you a benefit so you can believe in it. You can still be agnostic and still be working in the scientific department of advanced research.
> 
> If fact absolutely has to be your living, then what you don't know as facts must be lies then. Right...?



No.


----------



## ADF (Nov 9, 2009)

InunekoReborn said:


> Well, that's just greedy; you expect God to be giving you a benefit so you can believe in it.


I don't understand what you are saying with this comment...



InunekoReborn said:


> You can still be agnostic and still be working in the scientific department of advanced research.


There are plenty of people of various faiths and lack of faiths that work in the scientific field, all that matters is they put aside their personal beliefs and abide by the scientific method.



InunekoReborn said:


> If fact absolutely has to be your living, then what you don't know as facts must be lies then. Right...?


Only an idiot would believe that, we are constantly discovering new things, there are always possibilities. However the possibility of discovering a new animal species or chemical compound are, needless to say, much more likely than discovering an all powerful super being.

This should be common sense, unless of course you are someone with an agenda trying to sneak their personal beliefs into science.


----------



## Kommodore (Nov 9, 2009)

You know, "science" is simply a systematic method of studying and testing the natural word. Nothing else. It operates on a system of logic that, while good enough to acceptably explain phenomena so we can control it to a degree, is by no means the "correct" system. It simply makes sense to our system of logic, but that really doesn't reflect how the universe actually works. 

To illustrate this point, consider the seeming "paradoxes" in quantum mechanics that are all the rage these days. How can an electron be two places at once and nowhere at all? This violates everything we know to be "true" about the universe and life. 

Things are either "A" or "not A" and we really can't wrap our heads around something being both "A" _and_ "not A" and accept it as truth. It is a byproduct of a logical and philosophical system that categorizes the universe as such. 

But it is not the only logical system in the world. There are cultures where the concept of something being both "A" and "not A" is not only allowed but is a certain truth. To these people, quantum mechanics has no paradoxes, no underlying "weirdness" that violates the way the world should work; it all makes perfect sense. 

When you understand that "science" is nothing more than a system of logic, it becomes easy to see how fundamental scientific truths are simply our perception of the way the world works as seen through our system of logic. I makes sense to us; and in fact anything that falls outside that system of logic seems strange and false. But that in and of itself is false. 

What I am getting at is that while "science" and the logic behind it does a good enough job of explaining how things in the universe work, there is no reason to assume that you can pull any fundamental truths out of it. In fact, if you _do not acknowledge_ the fact that what we understand to be truth may not actually be the truth you will never get any closer to "the truth", as it were. 

Science is not the end all be all and to fully understand the world you need to think about it in ways that science does not or cannot explain, understanding that it is limited by our own perceptions on what it can really accomplish. 

This is tangentially related to God in the sense that simply saying "there is no evidence for it" is only a good enough explanation to stop thinking about the possibility of His existence in our singular system of logic, which as I explained above does not necessarily explain the universe as it really is.


----------



## InunekoReborn (Nov 9, 2009)

THANK YOU VERY MUCH! This is what I meant...


----------



## 8-bit (Nov 9, 2009)

Fuck, Im not even sure what to say about this topic anymore. :/


----------



## ADF (Nov 9, 2009)

InunekoReborn said:


> THANK YOU VERY MUCH! This is what I meant...



No, this is not what you meant.

You will just side with anything that enables you to believe in a God; and look down on those who don't.


----------



## InunekoReborn (Nov 9, 2009)

Wow, you're dense. I'm sorry if I don't fill your word quota for explainations, but you didn't even know what I meant half the time. You cut my sentences and jab at their weaknesses without even seeing the point I was trying to prove.

I really don't want to clarify anything with you, its your game to poke fun at my poor syntax.

Edit: I read back what I wrote the first time, that didn't seem to make sense either, but the whole time I was trying to say what CommodoreKitty did so perfectly.


----------



## Kommodore (Nov 9, 2009)

That's a great idea actually; a word quota for explanations.

_*ponders_


----------



## ADF (Nov 9, 2009)

InunekoReborn said:


> Wow, you're dense. I'm sorry if I don't fill your word quota for explainations, but you didn't even know what I meant half the time. You cut my sentences and jab at their weaknesses without even seeing the point I was trying to prove.
> 
> I really don't want to clarify anything with you, its your game to poke fun at my poor syntax.



Your argument at this point is we should consider things that there is no evidence for, yes or no?


----------



## InunekoReborn (Nov 9, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> That's a great idea actually; a word quota for explanations.
> 
> _*ponders_



My reasoning was probably loose and wasn't getting the point across. When I read everything you wrote, I went "Now that's the good explaination."


----------



## Kommodore (Nov 9, 2009)

It wasn't so much of an explanation as it was a statement of what our system fails to accomplish. No, there is no reason to believe in something which has no evidence to support it under our system of logic. And naturally this makes a lot of sense. But if you do not understand that this is nothing more than _our perception _of the universe, no matter how much sense it makes to us, then you are doomed to look at the universe though a distorted glass. 

Understanding these limitations needn't _change_ our conclusions on what we think is right. After all, we would not think this way if it did not make the most sense to us! But to simply _dismiss_ subjects in its entirety because they do not fit out narrow view of how the universe should work is poor philosophy. Our system of logic, the very way we think and view the world, has changed dramatically over the centuries, and it will continue to change. It makes no sense to claim somehting as an unequivocal fact when the criteria on what you use to qualify a fact could very well change in a century. 

Again, I am simply saying that people should not be so quick to cite the lack of evidence for God as fundamental proof for His lack of existence. The key word here being "fundamental". You can say that it doesn't make any sense to think that, or it seems illogical, or there is no point on considering it is you can't prove it; but to paint it as a "truth," a fundamental fact of our universe, is wrong in and of itself, methinks.


----------



## InunekoReborn (Nov 9, 2009)

To sum it all up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkU4t2dUEwk

XD


----------



## ADF (Nov 9, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Snip


All rational like that does is empower anyone to claim anything to be true, regardless of how ridiculous and useless it is, a point InunekoReborn has probably missed when he decided to love your post.

People like InunekoReborn abuse it as a get out of argument free card to push their idea of a God onto others. But it could be just as easily used to argue leprechauns are having a race on unicorns somewhere in the universe right now, which of course detracts from its value in placing the idea of a God above criticism.

InunekoReborn sided with your post only because in his eyes it is a way of defending his position with no effort on his part.



CommodoreKitty said:


> Again, I am simply saying that people should not be so quick to cite the lack of evidence for God as fundamental proof for His lack of existence.



If you look back I was not making the argument that lack of evidence is evidence of none existence. I was questioning the value/point in taking the idea of a God seriously when there is no evidence of one. InunekoReborn was arguing that we should consider the possibility of a God, going as far as to say we need to think outside of our box, why? What have we to gain from considering things that there is absolutely no evidence for whatsoever? 

People can talk about possibilities all day, what is there to gain from considering the existence of such a being? Would it be any different from considering the existence of any other mythological being? At the end of the day it comes down to them wanting to believe but not having much faith, so they come up with rational that in their eyes enables them to believe. In this case the person is needlessly attracting attention to himself by criticising those who don't share his beliefs.


----------



## InunekoReborn (Nov 9, 2009)

Stop harrassing me please.


----------



## ADF (Nov 9, 2009)

InunekoReborn said:


> Stop harrassing me please.



I am not harassing you, if I were harassing you I would take this discussion outside of the thread and bombard you with private messages demanding to continue the debate. This is responding to posts you have made in this thread, which is entirely acceptable by any forums standards.

If you don't like that; then don't make posts that demand responses by being critical of those who don't share your beliefs, counter arguments are inevitable.

You can choose not to take part at any time.


----------



## InunekoReborn (Nov 9, 2009)

I've tried to explain to you before my statement but couldn't tell you the right words, so I used metaphors to explain how there's a possibility of something being in the unknown that our current scientific methods didn't spot as right. CommodoreKitty just happened to give what I was just thinking out in that post and I simply thanked him for that so I didn't have to strain through so much examples [I may not have a college degree in English, but I still understand the subject at hand]

My first post was vague and I'm sorry for this piece of crap you had to see and it really did bother you that much to bring it up to point now. See the 2nd button up there? Checked. Now what?

This debate won't be changing our lives anytime soon, and convincing such a strong opinionated person away from his belief is simply too much of a hassle. I'm only trying to defend my statement because I feel its attacking my integrity and I'm sensible as such.

Sorry again.


----------



## Telnac (Nov 10, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> So it's an unreasonable belief nobody follows that has no evidence supporting and can never have evidence supporting, ever. Cool.



Hey, at least I'm not going around claiming what I believe is a scientific theory.  I know the difference between science, philosophy and theology.  Sadly, a lot of people can't claim likewise.



Mayfurr said:


> Because the entire Universe was in fact created last Tuesday (with fake memories for all of us) as the result of a sneeze from out of the nose of a being called The Great Green Arkleseizure.
> 
> Beware of The Coming Of The Great White Handkerchief...
> 
> (with apologies to Douglas Adams.)


Well played.  I sincerely doubt you need to offer apologies to Douglas Adams; he'd likely give you a high-five if he could.

The way I see it, science is an amazing thing.  Modern science has existed for a very short time, and yet it's done a wondrous job at describing how the Universe works by examining empirical evidence and testing theories against new evidence to see how well they hold up.

But I don't believe everything can be tested empirically.  To quote Shakespeare: "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Ironically, I first came across the concept of Apparent Age Creationism in a physics class.  The professor was asked about creationism by a student when he mentioned the Big Bang.  The professor asked the student that, if he could assume the Universe was created intact as it is today, how he knows that the Universe isn't actually 30 seconds old, and that the student's memories are in fact just part of the Universe's initial state?  The professor said it in as tone that dismissed the entire notion of the Universe having been created, today or at any time in the past.  But I found the concept quite interesting and researched it more.

Now, AAC is what I honestly believe.  I don't know when the Universe was created, but I don't discount the possibility of it having been created at any time.  In fact, I've read several articles stating that the Universe's age at the start of the Solar System was near-perfect for creating Sun-like stars with Terrestrial planets in a stable cosmic environment capable of developing advanced life.  Given that the Earth is a single data point, it's a stretch to infer that Earth-life life is the norm for life anywhere else in the Universe.  But I did find the concept interesting nonetheless.


----------



## Kommodore (Nov 10, 2009)

ADF said:


> All rational like that does is empower anyone to claim anything to be true, regardless of how ridiculous and useless it is, a point InunekoReborn has probably missed when he decided to love your post.



If that is what you gleaned form my statement, it certainly was not what I had intended to get across. While it can "technically" be used to say anything can exist, that wasn't my point nor is it a big concern. What I was trying to get across is the importance of understanding just how relative what we know really is, and how our perceptions of the universe, no matter how accurate they may _seem_ can skew how it actually behaves. Again, it needn't _change_ our views or alter our perception of reality. Naturally all logic we currently employ tells us that if there is a simpler, more probable explanation for an event, that can be verified, then all faith should be put into that instead of something which may or may not exist and can't be experimentally verified in the first place. If this were not the case we would not consider it logical to think this way in the first place. 

But my issue has more to do with people blindly accepting what we perceive to be true now as fundamental truths, if you get what I am saying. There is a difference between saying "this _is_ true" and "this is true given what we know." This is not philosophical pedantry; it is extremely important that the limitations of what we know to be true are understood. Otherwise you get people who genuinely believe that the facts and assumptions on the way the universe works, even those based in "science," are infallible absolutes. And this is a bad thing. 

I am not saying that God exists (or denying it for that matter...) nor am I even suggesting you entertain the idea that He _could_ exist. What I am saying is that we all need to understand that what we know to be true could be (and in all probability is, if history is any guide) wrong, no matter how correct it may seem to be now. This may seem like a trite thing to harp on but I feel it is an important one.


----------



## Bobmuffins (Nov 10, 2009)

Middle option for me.

I look around, and I imagine it was impossible for it to have been created by random chance/natural selection/idunnolol.

And that's about as far as my religious beliefs go.


----------



## themnax (Nov 10, 2009)

on a scale of one to a billion, organized religeon is a two, benignly strange spirtuality is a three, science is a four, and everything else is aether incognita.  

i mean it's a *REALLY* big universe out there.
i believe the unseen is real too, i just seriously question what we think we know about it.  myself too.
i believe its real that we can feel something we know nothing about and that it loves us.
but i also believe science makes more sense then when belief contradicts it, even though both together, are like a grain of sand dropped down an infinite well.


----------



## ADF (Nov 10, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> But my issue has more to do with people blindly accepting what we perceive to be true now as fundamental truths, if you get what I am saying. There is a difference between saying "this _is_ true" and "this is true given what we know." This is not philosophical pedantry; it is extremely important that the limitations of what we know to be true are understood. Otherwise you get people who genuinely believe that the facts and assumptions on the way the universe works, even those based in "science," are infallible absolutes. And this is a bad thing.



I can see I was putting off an absolutist impression, this is true; end of story. Remember I did say to InunekoReborn that "we are constantly discovering new things", what's true today isn't necessarily what is true tomorrow. Science is a process of gradual improvement, it isn't perfect but today's world is a testament to its success. 

The reason I kept going on about evidence and such so much is because InunekoReborn insisted on believing in extraordinary things there was no evidence for, criticising those who wouldn't accept the possibility. People put far too much emphasis on the idea of a God, the same method they use to argue its existence can be quite easily used to argue the existence of anything else. I am attempting to show this to them, this path is not an easy rout to enable them to believe in a God without the consent they apparently require from others.

I say consent because apparently they need it, it's not just a matter of faith; but they need some rational in place to enable them to believe for whatever reason.



CommodoreKitty said:


> I am not saying that God exists (or denying it for that matter...) nor am I even suggesting you entertain the idea that He _could_ exist. What I am saying is that we all need to understand that what we know to be true could be (and in all probability is, if history is any guide) wrong, no matter how correct it may seem to be now. This may seem like a trite thing to harp on but I feel it is an important one.



I realize that, but recognise your comments were being abused as a method to "push" the idea of God onto others.

Also InunekoReborn, note I am only talking about you in a manner relevant to this discussion, this post isn't meant as a bash.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 10, 2009)

Being 6 pages in already, I'm not going to dig up old posts, objectionable as they may have been.



Bobmuffins said:


> Middle option for me.
> 
> I look around, and I imagine it was impossible for it to have been created by random chance/natural selection/idunnolol.



You must not be very imaginative.



Telnac said:


> Ironically, I first came across the concept of Apparent Age Creationism in a physics class.  The professor was asked about creationism by a student when he mentioned the Big Bang.  The professor asked the student that, if he could assume the Universe was created intact as it is today, how he knows that the Universe isn't actually 30 seconds old, and that the student's memories are in fact just part of the Universe's initial state?  The professor said it in as tone that dismissed the entire notion of the Universe having been created, today or at any time in the past.  But I found the concept quite interesting and researched it more.
> 
> Now, AAC is what I honestly believe.  I don't know when the Universe was created, but I don't discount the possibility of it having been created at any time.  In fact, I've read several articles stating that the Universe's age at the start of the Solar System was near-perfect for creating Sun-like stars with Terrestrial planets in a stable cosmic environment capable of developing advanced life.  Given that the Earth is a single data point, it's a stretch to infer that Earth-life life is the norm for life anywhere else in the Universe.  But I did find the concept interesting nonetheless.



Wouldn't creation of an intact universe complete with childhood memories, holes in your socks and an extensive fossil record imply an incredible act of deception on the part of the creator, particularly if said creator imposed extreme consequences for believing that the nature of the universe is what it appears to be?


----------



## Telnac (Nov 11, 2009)

Lobar said:


> Wouldn't creation of an intact universe complete with childhood memories, holes in your socks and an extensive fossil record imply an incredible act of deception on the part of the creator, particularly if said creator imposed extreme consequences for believing that the nature of the universe is what it appears to be?


Yes, the "God the deceiver" is the strongest argument against AAC, especially since it goes against the Christian teaching that God is the Truth.  

Descartes wrestled with this concept too.  He proposed that the only thing any intelligent being can know for certain is true is that their mind exists.  In essence, he created a 17th century thought experiment not unlike "The Matrix."  The world: everything we can see, hear, taste, touch and feel, can possibly be nothing more than an elaborate ruse.  If we can't trust any of our senses, then anything gleaned from them is also untrustworthy.  This leads him to the famous conclusion that there is only one thing that he can know is: "I think, therefore I am."

But that poses a problem for him: if he can only know that his mind exists, how then can he know that the rest of the Universe exists, and that it's not some elaborate trick?  He falls back on God's benevolence, and claims that God wouldn't create a Universe that exists just to fool us.

I actually disagree with him.  If a Creator exists who is powerful enough to create the entire Universe on a whim, it's same to assume that the Creator would reside in a realm that existed prior to the Universe's existence.  If time & space are two aspects of the same thing, then time (at least the way we can conceive it) would have been created at the same instant as the Universe.  But how can anything exist in a realm that exists before time itself?  By residing at least partially in a higher dimension.  Thus a Creator would exist outside of our time line.

To such a being, yesterday is the same as today is the same as tomorrow.  Every Planck second, the Creator may destroy the entire Universe and create it anew.  In such as scenario, our concept of past & future may simply be an illusion.  The past Universe is gone, and the future Universe hasn't been created yet.  That requires no deception on the part of the Creator.  It's just how the Universe works.

Likewise, assume that the Universe couldn't support life for the first billion years or so.  If a Creator created the Universe so that it appeared just old enough to allow for that first life form to appear, would that be deceiving?

With respect to the Christian concept of God in particular, I believe God created a Universe that is mostly self-consistent: subject to the Laws of Physics, but with the allowance that such laws can be bent or outright broken from time to time (miracles, supernatural experiences, et cetera.)  I don't believe that God sends anyone to Hell for ignorance.  If that were the case, nearly every single person who lived prior to Jesus' life would be condemned... no matter how much they sought out God or how pious they were.  If He did condemn the ignorant, the concept of "God the deceiver" would pale in comparison to a God who'd condemn anyone who died before AD 33!  The Bible says next to nothing on the subject, but it does say that God judges the heart, and that He judges fairly.

I also reject the Calvinistic version of a predestination w/o allowance for free will.  I believe God wants us to have the choice to believe in Him.  A Universe that only appears to be 10,000 years old would be just as powerful sign of His existence as would 400 foot tall flaming (despite existing in a vacuum) words sitting on the Moon.  AAC allows for the one thing that the other Young Earth models have a hard time accounting for: faith.


----------

