191 replies to this topic

[Alextendo]

What did i just read?

1-''No evolution''? I would like to remind you that evolution is something that does not take few hour to happen. If you don't see evolution happening before your here, that is enough for you to yell FAKE?

2-Yes they are. Just like our ancerstor, the homo-sapien, every transition from animal species have fossil of them somewhere. Saying that they aren't is just something that you made up.

3-What the fuck? By reading your third point, i feel my IQ just drop by 2 (if not more). All i can said is that you've made some statement that doesn't proove anything, and then add a random ''evolution can't explain'' in attemp to make science look bad. Not only it's just non-sensical, but that doesn't even proove your position!

4-Then again, other attemp to make science look bad.

With all that combine, i was right all along, you don't know about evolution.

Then you end up with: ''I can't as you've denied my evidence with your claim about fear.''
What is your evidance anyway? You didn't give any evidance as far as i can tell.

''Instead I challenge you to find 100% that God is fake and thus Religion is fake.''

Why is up to the non-religious people to look around the world, to find every religion and find out wheter or not their religion is right or false? You religious folks are the one claiming that there is a god, it's up to you to proove that you're right, not us.

Attached Files

•  Evidence-for-evolution-bible-creationism-evidence-evolution1.jpg   147.68KB   6 downloads

[RedAuthar]

Excuse me?

By reading your third point, i feel my IQ just drop by 2 (if not more).

So I'm not allowed my own opinions that Believe it or not I did research?
And you take my justifications and claim they make you stupider?

You spent your whole argument attacking my opinions without providing any evidence or facts or your own, just claiming they are wrong. I know this is the debate thread, and I know this is a hot topic, potentially going to anger and/or offend people, but your actions are uncalled for.

Right out of the rules:

Any kind of racist, homophobic, or a outright attack on a person's beliefs is probably the quickest way to banville on here.

This is a warning. You don't have to agree with me. You don't have to even think my justifications are valid. But to attack my belief and my justifications for my belief in itself is against the rules. Please refrain from continuing, specifically in a topic where anything you say can easily offend someone, from using such language.

[Uncle Ben]

Red just shut this topic down, Its creating a huge division between all of us...

i just wanted to show something that happened between the never ending debate between Science and Religion. I never meant for the topic to get outta hand like that and i appologize...

[Alextendo]

It's okay Ben, i saw many religion debate and it's always end up like this (and i mean: ALWAYS).

[RedAuthar]

If you want me to close the topic I will but it's up to you as it is your topic.

[Uncle Ben]

If we can be civil (as we were before) about it keep it open. If something like this happens again go ahead, but i think we can be civil about it again

[furrykef]

There is little to no evidence evolution is happening now. I see adaptation yes, but no evolution. I see a lot of animals changing their behaviors but no new animals from those changes of behaviors.

Microevolution has been observed in fruit flies. We have seen one species diverge into two species before our very eyes (so to speak -- of course it's not like it happened in a day). Macroevolution is just thousands of years of microevolution.

There are not transitional forms between animals. For example: Whales supposedly evolved from a land species, yet we've never seen fossils supporting the between point. We have a land species and a water species. The steps in between are missing.

We don't need a fossil for that. Amphibians make a pretty good in-between point already. (EDIT: I misread. My next post addresses this matter.)

Rabbit eating their own poop: The Rabbit's digestive system is upside down. Explain in what situation evolution would cause that a Rabbit must eat it's food twice before being able to gain any nutrients from it.

Rabbits have evolved this system because their diet is high in cellulose. Cows chew their cud for the same reason. (If you think the rabbit's way of doing it is inferior to the cow's, that's probably because, as a human, you find the rabbit's method disgusting -- but the rabbit doesn't seem to mind it.) The species had a problem -- couldn't digest cellulose well -- and it found a solution. Evolution in action.

Religion states that Man was made superior then all other species thus rabbits would have an inferior system.

Animals are better than us at many things. Gorillas are stronger. Cheetahs are faster. Our sole advantage is our intellect.

Evolution can not explain that.

It looks to me that you merely assumed it can't. Not to mention your idea of "inferior" seems very human-centric.

The law of increasing entropy: Aka things change from the complex to the simple. Evolution apparently works backwards. Why? Science arguing with itself at it's best.

That law only applies to the universe as a whole. It does not apply to local phenomena such as a star system. The sun acts as a source of energy, which essentially allows order to spring from chaos. Most of the heat and light of the sun, however, goes off into space, lost forever; the sun creates much more entropy than it reduces. Eventually the sun will go out completely and the solar system will be completely lifeless -- maximum entropy. No contradiction here.

It's okay Ben, i saw many religion debate and it's always end up like this (and i mean: ALWAYS).

Well, to be honest, it wouldn't have if you hadn't stepped over the line. I had a scathing critique of religion near the end of the first page and somehow it didn't cheese anyone off (or if it did, they haven't said so). And the reason is because my response wasn't entirely tactless (though I think I did go a bit too far with my sheep comparison). In particular, I didn't make any personal attacks, and "I felt my IQ drop" is getting pretty darn close to personal.

Why didn't you address Red's points the way I did above? If there's a flaw in his argument, the best way to show him that is to make a sound counterargument.

If you want me to close the topic I will but it's up to you as it is your topic.

I don't like the idea of anybody "owning" a topic. If a thread is about a specific person or his/her work (like a "Here's my art" thread), that's one thing, but otherwise, I don't see why a thread's original poster should have any more power over it than anybody else.

[Alextendo]

furrykef

What? Don't blame me, that exemple didn't make sense from an actual logical perspective. I may didn't say it the best way, sure, but i guess you can't blame me for thinking that way.

Also, i read alot of religion debate and it's always end up like that: The non-religious make good point, the religious one make a counter-argument based from his personnal belief (an argument with no actual meaning beside ''religion is cool and science suck''). Then, failing to proove the existence of a God, the religious guy will insult the other with Hell threat. I've seen it before (very often).

[furrykef]

What? Don't blame me, that exemple didn't make sense from an actual logical perspective. I may didn't say it the best way, sure, but i guess you can't blame me for thinking that way.

Maybe, but it didn't add much to the discussion. Its only possible effect was to be inflammatory. Do you really think somebody is going to reassess an argument just because you called it dumb?

[An7imatt3r]

Oh my, so many fun things to write about here.

So I will weigh in as a child brought up catholic, having gone to school up until high school in a catholic environment.

For starters, that type of thing (dinosaur test) was never taught to me, and for that I am thankful. We were always taught history and science as it was understood then.

However, that's not what we are debating is it?

Religion vs Science, the epic battle that will never end.

Here is how I see it. Religion, whether it be Buddhism, Muslim, Hindu, or Catholicism all serve one critical function in life, and that is to comfort us with what we can't explain. Death is a big mystery, and so where the sun and stars hundreds of years ago. As we have evolved socially, so has our ability to understand our surroundings. This has, in short, removed religion as an explanation for a lot things we used to take for granted.

Faith, by itself is just a word. But to many, it is what defines religion because it takes courage to believe in something that can't be proven. Even more to continue to believe in what others question, and more again in the face of persecution. However, your can't have faith in gravity, it is a constant, but you can have faith that when you die you will go to some place better. We don't know what happens when we die, so many of choose to believe that leading our lives a certain way will help us get to this place when the inevitable finds us.

However, I think that it is silly for religion to claim something as its own, because to be arrogant enough to pretend one's own religion is better than all the others is a recipe for more than war. And wars there have been. Religion can easily account for more deaths than all that occurred in every major war the US has ever been involved in. The holy wars in Europe resulted in the sacking of Constantinople, a catholic city. Did I mention it was raised to the ground by catholic soldiers? How about the wars fought back and forth between the Catholics and Muslims throughout Europe for centuries. All in the name of God. Religion abounds in death, but that is the fault of man, not belief.

Religion, aside from being a coping mechanism that comforts us, is a tool used by those who know how to wield it to quell the masses. It is no secret that the Romans adopted the catholic religion to help keep civility and peace within their cities. Even re-wrote sections of the bible in order to create hierarchy that would reinforce a monarch like rule. We are told to believe without question or we are sinners and heathens. How is their a choice in that? To question the church, the holey father, or a king was to question god himself. Humans are just that, human. God is God, he does not speak through us, he merely exists to take us as we are, for better or worse.

Free will is something we are all born with it. It is important not to prematurely shackle ourselves to notions that limit our perception of the world. Religion has done many great things and many bad things. Religion defined my life for a long time, made me the good natured person I am today. I choose to believe that being a good person will pay dividends, not just when I die, but throughout my life. You don't have to believe in a god to share that idea, but you can all the same.

Religion, in my opinion should stick with what it has always been good at, and that is giving people a moral compass by which to live. Explaining things such as where dinosaurs came from is so outside of it's preview that it doesn't even make sense. This line of thinking stems from the hierarchical days, when control over ones subjects needed to be absolute. I live my life by the Catholic rule: do onto others as you would have them do to you. It saddens me to see people who share my religion break this rule, as it is defined as the golden rule, the one held most high. Parables such as the good samaritan tell us that regardless of whether someone shares our religion they are still judged justly for living a just life.

Science, has no place in telling people how to live their lives, but rather only serves to explain the tangible things around us. Comparing science and religion doesn't even seem fair because they exists in two separate facets of life. The spiritual and existential parts of our lives should be kept separate from our quests for knowledge. Like wise, science should strive not to question the safety net of billions of people. The afterlife is a scary place, and it is best navigated in good conscious.

[furrykef]

There are not transitional forms between animals. For example: Whales supposedly evolved from a land species, yet we've never seen fossils supporting the between point. We have a land species and a water species. The steps in between are missing.

We don't need a fossil for that. Amphibians make a pretty good in-between point already.

I see my habit of speed-reading has done me a disservice. For some reason I thought this was about how life moved from water to land, not the other way around.

You're talking about a specific case. First off, not every transitional species is going to leave fossils behind. Only a small number of animals leave fossils behind, and even if a creature has been fossilized, there's no guarantee that a human will stumble upon the fossil.

But in fact transitional fossils have been found and known about since the 1970s. They're called Pakicetids. (EDIT: Well, Pakicetids in particular were discovered in 1983, but I think other transitional fossils had been found earlier.)

[RedAuthar]

If you want me to close the topic I will but it's up to you as it is your topic.

I don't like the idea of anybody "owning" a topic. If a thread is about a specific person or his/her work (like a "Here's my art" thread), that's one thing, but otherwise, I don't see why a thread's original poster should have any more power over it than anybody else.

Meh. I'm just saying what Chief said to me. Since Ben made it, he has final say. *Throws Chief under the bus*

There are not transitional forms between animals. For example: Whales supposedly evolved from a land species, yet we've never seen fossils supporting the between point. We have a land species and a water species. The steps in between are missing.

We don't need a fossil for that. Amphibians make a pretty good in-between point already.

I see my habit of speed-reading has done me a disservice. For some reason I thought this was about how life moved from water to land, not the other way around.

You're talking about a specific case. First off, not every transitional species is going to leave fossils behind. Only a small number of animals leave fossils behind, and even if a creature has been fossilized, there's no guarantee that a human will stumble upon the fossil.

But in fact transitional fossils have been found and known about since the 1970s. They're called Pakicetids.

Really? That is interesting.

[furrykef]

The holy wars in Europe resulted in the sacking of Constantinople, a catholic city.

Actually, by that point it was an Eastern Orthodox city.

[An7imatt3r]

But in fact transitional fossils have been found and known about since the 1970s. They're called Pakicetids.

Nothomyrmecia macrops are kind of cool too. More because they remain untouched while their brethren have evolved. Not many animals exists side by side with their ancestors.

The holy wars in Europe resulted in the sacking of Constantinople, a catholic city.

Actually, by that point it was an Eastern Orthodox city.

Potato patado. That's what the city officially was, but the city still had large quantities of catholic inhabitants. I however, do not doubt that you are correct in this given the cities geographic location.

[Alextendo]

What? Don't blame me, that exemple didn't make sense from an actual logical perspective. I may didn't say it the best way, sure, but i guess you can't blame me for thinking that way.

Maybe, but it didn't add much to the discussion. Its only possible effect was to be inflammatory. Do you really think somebody is going to reassess an argument just because you called it dumb?

I didn't called him dumb, but more like his comment was rather dumb.

[Vlad Yvhv]

I'm currently waving my hand in front of my face. There are countless incredibly complex systems working in tandem with one another to make that happen. I'm not terribly inclined to believe that those systems just happened by accident over time.

Far, far more wondrous still is my ability to consciously perceive my hand, to reflect on it and its significance. Tied though it is to the matter sitting within my skull, my consciousness is so much more, something words have ever fallen short of truly describing. To say that who I am is only an illusion, that there is only what I am, nothing more than a pile of cells and some electrical impulses, is wholly and utterly contrary to what my entire life, my entire being, testifies. I'm all the evidence I need.

But suppose it's 2500 AD and somebody builds an android, just like a human. It has some kind of digital neural net that mimics a human's, but is nonetheless artificial. The android could wave its hand in front of its face, having exactly the same thoughts. It would perceive itself as a conscious being. And yet, its maker would know it is only a machine, because he built it, he knows all the parts that went into it, he knows how its program works, etc. The android's consciousness would not be evidence of God, because God had nothing to do with it; it's all man-made.

So, too, it is with us. We are organic machines. We may not have been deliberately designed in the same way a human designs an android, but our consciousness is no more meaningful.

God gave us the ability to create such a thing. Thus, God did have a hand in it.

[chief]

I'm going to but in again....

Now I'm going to state something here that...I'll be honest sounds and..In my opinion is a middle ground. Not that I'm really all that religious..I'm not. But yet think of it this way.. The religious ones and the not.

God created mankind in his image.. Who is to say we are that image? What if life in general is that image? We are created in that image, trees, rabbits, deer.. Life. What if Gods image was just that? Life. God created life on earth. But wished for it to evolve.. To split up, to think for itself. That alone explains evolution and the where it started.

Again, just tossing that thought out there to the non evolutionists.

As for you Alextendo... Don't make me fucking smack you. This topic was going alright (and yes I have witnessed many of these turn astray and turn into a "your stupid! Your post is stupid!" fight. But congrats! You are the first one to do that here! Big prize for you! Wahoooo!

I'm not religious either, and I think a lot of what comes out of it is crap. Or can be explained through science and so on. But I'm not a douche over saying peoples posts are stupid and make me loose intelligence.
And I'm not just saying this because he is my admin, I would say if if you called any members post or belief stupid.
So I'll say it again. Don't make me fucking smack you.

And again...Not religious. I think most of it is BS myself. But I'm not a twat about it.

[Alextendo]

As for you Alextendo... Don't make me fucking smack you.

How nice of you.....sa m'donne l'envie de mettre le feu partout avec une tel attitude insultante envers moi.

[furrykef]

Me gustan las galletas.

[RedAuthar]

Fire does solve a lot of problems.