mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
teh_pwn said:
Well she's asleep so I'll ask her tomorrow, but yeah I expect those weak excuses. She'll tell me later and I'll report.
Kirk Cameron: "Evolution is unscientific", atheism impetus behind school shootings
- Thread starter Shig
- Start date
- Status
Well she's asleep so I'll ask her tomorrow, but yeah I expect those weak excuses. She'll tell me later and I'll report.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Hey Kurt Cameron: Stick to making dumbass tv shows and which your sisters show was better by the way lol yuour show sucks and your opinion is shit you dickhole.
Longfellow
Member
Technically slaves still exist today they're called "slaves of the state" i.e. prisoners. Then again it depends on the definition of "slave."
On to the evolution versus creationism or religion bashing thing I don't get whats wrong with people believing in theistic evolution.
Do atheists believe in moral absolutes? Or are morals socially created?
On to the evolution versus creationism or religion bashing thing I don't get whats wrong with people believing in theistic evolution.
Do atheists believe in moral absolutes? Or are morals socially created?
super funk
Member
Charles in charge,
or our days,
and our nights.
Charles in charge,
of our wrongs,
and our right.
I want Charles in charge of me,
O, I want Charles in charge of me!
This guy was on that show right.
or our days,
and our nights.
Charles in charge,
of our wrongs,
and our right.
I want Charles in charge of me,
O, I want Charles in charge of me!
This guy was on that show right.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Longfellow said:
What is a theistic evolution?
And now.....for the AMAZING and IRREFUTABLE proof that evolution does not happen : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
Lynnfire said:
WTF?
Seriously...
...WTF?!
PhoenixDark
Banned
Evolution in of itself would have us believe that there were millions (if not billions) of transitional forms, ancestors of the current organisms we see today. Where are they in the fossil record? A big deal is made whenever a possible fossil is found, but I ask...why aren't there millions out there?
Longfellow
Member
mckmas8808 said:
Evolution used by God. Or evolution started by God. True its used in philosophical discourse rather than evolutionary biology, or am I barred from exiting scientific vernacular?
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
PhoenixDark said:
Yeah, digging through any arbitrary sedimentary layers of earth millions of years old to find millions of prehistoric animals dying specific ecological deaths to sustain a fossilized record is just some walk in the park!!
Longfellow
Member
HomerSimpson-Man said:
How long ago did dinosaurs exist?
HomerSimpson-Man said:
Yep, fossilation is a very rare occurance - we are lucky to have the ones we do have.Having said that, the theory of evolution stands up on its own without it.
Didnt Noah have a few onbaord during the flood.. what, 6000 years ago?
Edit: WTF, Back to the future LOL.
Sure we can believe in moral absolutes, except everyone else has a different opinion on what they are
Morals change and evolve, you think todays Christians believe the same things the ones 500 years ago let alone 2000 did? The bible doesnt tell as a heck of alot on 'how' to live in todays world, thats why it was dumped in favour of the laws you see today.I did not bothered to read all replies but I have to say I'm amazed at how this controversy goes on and on in the US. Not really a problem in Europe and that is refreshing!
The real problem is that evolution is a theory, there is no way to prove it definitely ( hmmm let's put a bunch of rats with food in a cage during a few billions year and see what happens...). And while this theory may have and surely has flaws IT WORKS!!! Scientist can keep on with this.
It just like with astrology : During a long time the theory was that Earth was the center of the universe and that all other celestial objects were running around it. Even if it was a huge piece of bullpoop, astrologist were able to study and discover more properties of space object and came to realize that finally Earth was not the center in universe.
The same happenned with gravity and relativity theories, Gallileus came with a part of the solution wich was completed by Newton on top of wich Einstein added more precisions.
It's not because a theory has flaws or may have flaws that scientist must toss it...
PS : Just to inform some of you, GOD DOES NOT EXIST, I killed him and hid the corpse in my closet, sorry guys!!!!
The real problem is that evolution is a theory, there is no way to prove it definitely ( hmmm let's put a bunch of rats with food in a cage during a few billions year and see what happens...). And while this theory may have and surely has flaws IT WORKS!!! Scientist can keep on with this.
It just like with astrology : During a long time the theory was that Earth was the center of the universe and that all other celestial objects were running around it. Even if it was a huge piece of bullpoop, astrologist were able to study and discover more properties of space object and came to realize that finally Earth was not the center in universe.
The same happenned with gravity and relativity theories, Gallileus came with a part of the solution wich was completed by Newton on top of wich Einstein added more precisions.
It's not because a theory has flaws or may have flaws that scientist must toss it...
PS : Just to inform some of you, GOD DOES NOT EXIST, I killed him and hid the corpse in my closet, sorry guys!!!!
PhoenixDark said:
Dead organisms tend to decompose. Fossilization is actually an extremely rare process, possible only under certain conditions where microbes are precluded from consuming the specimen. Taphonomy is actually a very interesting science and there are plenty of articles on the internet about it if you care to Google them.
Finding fossils is even more difficult. Geologists have many of the world's surface features pretty well-mapped. So, if you were to look for the fossils of our recent ancestors, we'd know to avoid formations from the Cambrian, Devonian, Triassic, etc. However, paleontologists rarely just choose a formation and start digging. Generally, fossils actually have to surface through weathering before we'll find them.
With that said, we have found many fossils, and they do exhibit exactly the pattern we'd expect if Evolution were true. We've found perhaps a dozen or so species that are intermediary between humans and our common ancestor with chimps. Some of these species are represented by several specimens. We have found at least 14 Australopithecus afarensis specimens, for instance (one of which being Lucy).
If you go back further, the transition from reptile to mammal is extremely well-represented by the fossil record. The transition from fish to tetrapod is one of the weaker links, but even that is represented by a dozen or so Tetrapodomorph species, exhibiting various stages of not only limb development, but also the development of lungs, skull, and pectoral girdle.
And don't forget -- the most compelling evidence for Evolution comes not from fossils, but from DNA. As compelling as the fossil record seems, the DNA evidence is a real smoking gun. There's just no room for doubt anymore.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Longfellow said:
Well that's stupid. How can a person that calls him or herself a person of God say theistic evolution is true, but evolution in the way man sees it isn't?
It's like they agree with the scientist, but stop and only believe it up to a certain point. You can't say God started evolution, but GOD created woman from Adam's rib and Adam just came from no where.
And where did Adam come from anyway?
Longfellow
Member
*Sigh
Kind of reminds me of the Wired article where the writer (an agnostic) goes around talking to atheists and is ready to convert, but in the end decides to stay agnostic because of the arrogance he encounters in the atheists he meets.
I've read enough of GA to know that an actual intelligent conversation about religion does not happen here. Da well to the bar I go!
Kind of reminds me of the Wired article where the writer (an agnostic) goes around talking to atheists and is ready to convert, but in the end decides to stay agnostic because of the arrogance he encounters in the atheists he meets.
I've read enough of GA to know that an actual intelligent conversation about religion does not happen here. Da well to the bar I go!
Longfellow said:
This isn't a conversation about religion. Evolution and religion can coexist fine. This thread is about some nutbar saying that evolution is "unscientific" and that he can scientifically prove god exists. Where's the room for "intelligent conversation about religion" here? After seeing the banana video, I doubt there are any religious folks that would bet a buck twenty five on Kirko not embarrassing himself.
buckfutter
Member
That peanut butter one is absolutely hilarious. I could see the banana one reassuring a few unquestioning folks, but seriously, evolution isn't scientific because you never find ants in your peanut butter?
RevenantKioku
PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS oh god i am drowning in them
I've found ants in my peanut butter before. Wtf? Cabinets got raided by ants in my home in South Jersey years back. Little tiny ****ers too. And I never got that banana-ridge thing. My hand has seven ridges when I hold the tip of my thumb to the tip of my index finger.buckfutter said:
For ****s sake, if you're going to try to convince me of something, at least count right.
RevenantKioku
PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS oh god i am drowning in them
Evolution?White Man said:
Edit: I HAVE BEATEN YOU, MACHINE!
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
"Life from non-life (appart from Gods direct intervention) is a fairy tale!!!
But despite that obvious truth...."
oh man... the comedy is awesome....
Seriously - when i am king of the world, these idiots will be banned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cpNjyVvqK0&NR=1
OH MAN.... everything this woman says in the intro basically is everything that i'd level at these cockmasters.
But despite that obvious truth...."
oh man... the comedy is awesome....
Seriously - when i am king of the world, these idiots will be banned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cpNjyVvqK0&NR=1
OH MAN.... everything this woman says in the intro basically is everything that i'd level at these cockmasters.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
demon said:Excellent question.
NOT!
:lol that was a bit unexpected.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
sorry - watching this ... is making me ****ING FURIOUS.
"These are words from God not from me."
F*CK YOU! FEAR mongering bullshiters.
Going on and on about proof whilst saying "oh and here is the word of God"
Science = Not a fact because they can't recreate evolution in the lab.
Religion = Fact because i have this nice old book here.
"These are words from God not from me."
F*CK YOU! FEAR mongering bullshiters.
Going on and on about proof whilst saying "oh and here is the word of God"
Science = Not a fact because they can't recreate evolution in the lab.
Religion = Fact because i have this nice old book here.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Longfellow said:
*sigh*
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0932663.html
so basically humans have existed for about 6 to 8 million years. dinosaurs existed for about 165 million years ..
which do you think would have more fossils?
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-U2uI1f8mU
BWWAAAHAHAHA
worth if for the "Terrorist bombs don't make Rolex'es...."
BWWAAAHAHAHA
worth if for the "Terrorist bombs don't make Rolex'es...."
bgassassin
Member
teh_pwn said:
It's slave. I won't be shocked it some versions are done like that to "sugar coat" it. It is what it is.
Some of the excuses you listed annoy me when I hear some people (not you) say them.
1. The New Testament is really nothing more than a summary of the Tanakh, not a revision
2. It was from God given through the hands of Moses. This would lead me to a rant about some Christians, but I won't go there.
3. Slaves are slaves no matter whether they were paid or not.
Again, I know these didn't come from you. I just wanted to get that out there.
teh_pwn said:
Well the thing about Torah (and what some in Christianity tend to forget or ignore), is that it was designed to set aside the Hebrews as a holy people for God and to separate them from the actions of others in the world at that time. Let's look at the example you used. Based on this mitzvot, it is safe to assume that people from other nations at that time would have no problem beating their slaves to death or even murdering (which is different from killing) a slave for no reason. To prevent His people from doing so, this mitzvot was put in place to keep them (hopefully) from committing murder. You have to remember not to look at this as how we would today, but instead in the context of how things were at that time when slavery was the norm. God gave them a way in how to operate within that norm while still honoring Him.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
DCharlie said:
:lol what the hell does evolution have to do with the big bang theory??
buckfutter
Member
I think I'm going to blow a fuse if I watch any more of this stuff.
Batmonk said:
Arrgh...I wrote a long reply, but it somehow got lost in the sending.
Your idea of "mathematical probabilty so small" is based on your own scale of what you consider to be appropriate - but I'm reaonsably sure your scale is all out of whack when it comes to origins of life and the time it took. Let me explain.
Thin for a while, before life - a prebiotic soup of chemicals. In this soup, molecule "A" cna spontaneously convert to "B", or "C", or "D", and so on... a whole nubmer of different compounds. This is chemistry. It just makes sense, then, that this soup would be made up of an equilibrium of these chemicals. (we are disregarding the disappearance of "A" for now - you could argue all "A" gets used up, but since we are talking arbitrarily here, "B" could be the next "A").
Anyway, equilibrium of chemicals derived from "A". It wouldn't be hard to imagine that if such a molecule "R", was able to facilitate the conversion - control it if you will, so that it would promote the conversion of "A" to more "R". If this molecule were to exist, it would very quickly take over - it's exponential - when every thing else is turning from "A" at a 1:1 ratio, "R" would start off with 1 and work exponentially - soon, 2, 4, 8, 16,32, 64, 128, 256, 512, etc. "R" would be the dominant chemical in short term.
These things would take place on a micro or even nano second time scale. Like millions of times a second. This is the first indication of sheer scale.
Things would snowball, and "R" would dominate. See, a lot of people think these things happen linearly - but once an event occurs, it can work exponentially, vastly reducing the time scale things would normally occur.
Currently, this molecule is often beleived to be short RNA molcules - one of the first molceules with teh capabiltiy to 'replicate' itself.
Anyway, you might argue (and you have) that the event to start all this off is mathematically improbable. But what is your idea of mathematically improbable? One in a thousand? One in a million? One in BILLION? Thse are good odds.
Let's say one molecule turned into a billion different ones spontaneously, and the odds of having one being able to replicate is one in a billion. The scale of chemical reactions is fast, but let's give an arbitrarily slow conversion of 1 millisecond per generation of chemical. Now the earth is proposed to have been around for 4.6 billion years, with 'life' developing at 4 BYA. That's 600 million years for life to develop. But let's be even more conservative, and say that the first 99% of that time couldn't sustain life. We still have 6 million years to 'start life'.
At one in a billion chance every millisecond, that chance would occur once every 16.6 minutes. Over 6 million years, that one in a billion chance would occur 189 BILLION times. Even if your odds of impossibility are one in a trillion of ever having a molecule develop replicative ability, it would've happened 189 million times over a course of 6 million years.
This combined with the fact that things will snowball once it does occur, with selection being strong, I find it a mathematical improbability that it wouldn't occur. This is only regarding one chemical turning over - consider the abundance of those chemicals, and the number of different ones. Also, we have a kind of benefit of 'hindsight' - We're looking back and wondering how it all happened to get to where we are now, thinking it an imposibility, as if all the other possibilities were unviable. It's like having a billion sided dice, rolling 345975149, and then syaing wow, it was a one in a billion chance we'd get here.
Also considering that there are a lot more planets that this could happen on. Sure life would be different if it happened differently, but it would still be life, and maybe we'd just be wondering the same thing.
Anyway, it;s all arbitrary - you can't put a probability on life occuring (well you can, but you need the data from several other control enivronments, and billions of years of data at that) - but the point is, the scale is not what you think it is.
Summary: your scale of improbability is whacked. By the meer fact it has a probability, that makes it a possibility, and on the time scales we're talking about, a likely probability that replicative molcules would come about.
Evolution into complex beings? Another story. But given that adaptation ISN'T random - it's highly selective - I'd say it's also a good bet. Another different matter also, given how complex life can be - I find it hard to believe that anything could be intelligent enough to design it.
I guess there's also the argument of when is life life? Is a virus alive? It doesn't have all the bits required to replicate on its own, but will hijack you machinery to make its machinery to carry on. Some very simple, yet very effective viruses out there. As little as a handful of genes is all it takes.
fortified_concept
Banned
Every time some complete idiot misinterprets the word "theory" one of my brain cells suicides. How ****ing hard is it to know what "theory" means for god's sake? Haven't you been to high school?
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
Even funnier - is that the same series of Youtube creation vids has someone saying that Noah put all the dinosaurs on the ark too....
oh , and as Bill Hicks commented :
"isn't it curious how Creationists always look really unevolved...? 'I believe God created me in one day'.... yup, looks like he rushed it!"
Buggy Loop
Member
DCharlie said:
Holy shit, the amount of ignorance shown in that video is mind blowing, american creationists are giving me an headache -_-
Its downright creepy how much budget they're willing to put on a show just to get back believers with downright near propaganda tactics.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I think a lot of this comes from ignorance combined with the inability to comprehend a span of millions upon millions of years. Similar to how we can't understand the sheer size of the universe.
Nevermind that if evolution if more then likely fact, it puts most of the religions in the balance.
Nevermind that if evolution if more then likely fact, it puts most of the religions in the balance.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
quadriplegicjon said:
Dur.dur...dur...dur scientist can't recreate evolution and theories change, but the book of GOD never changed. So GOD is right.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
DCharlie said:
I think you are getting a kick out of these videos. :lol
And was it the lady that said dinosaurs road on the ship with Noah?
And just for the record I'm a big believer in Jesus Chirst, GOD, etc. But the level of stupid in those videos in creepy. And just gives me more reason to hate organized religion.
The notion that a cell could randomly form itself from chemicals and imbue itself with life (remember there are dead cells that structurally resemble living ones but which carry out none of the life processes) is unproven and unprovable. Don't tell me that some people assert this is fact as well.
Diffense said:
What do you mean "imbue itself with life"? There is no difference between the molecules and chemicals in organisms then in "non-living" matter, it's just arranged differently. Life itself is simply chemical processes.
And btw, this topic is on the subject of Evolution (which does not posit that "cells randomly form itself from chemicals") I'm not sure any scientific theory does, but the closest is Abiogenesis.
Drinky Crow
Banned
how can you folks so blindly believe in EVIL-ution! i mean, could the devil be more obvious -- look, look, he put EVIL right there in the name!
(yes, i had an aunt that told me that, once.)
(yes, i had an aunt that told me that, once.)
Drinky Crow
Banned
also, when the **** have "moral absolutes" ever existed outside of a specific culture? yes, yes, christians, i know the bible provides them and you're obligated to convert everybody to them yadda yadda oh my is that an inquisition, but the world at large has gone on just hunky-dory in the absence of these moral absolutes and has, in fact, changed for the better -- largely thanks to, dare i say it:
science
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Drinky Crow said:
I like this Drinky Cow.
happyfunball
Member
Diffense said:
"Life" is not some mystical status that inanimate objects obtain. Learn about cellular biology and then see if you can make this same argument.
- Status