Creationism vs Evolution live debate tonight

[Suspect]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/04/271383099/creationism-vs-evolution-the-debate-is-live-tonight?utm_content=socialflow&utm_campaign=nprfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook

should be entertaining tbh

[Blake]

post some transcript if you can, thx

[DMC]

This debate is bound to devolve quickly into a "you have to believe" claim and poof, God recedes to the next gap.

[I. Hustle]

This debate is bound to devolve quickly into a "you have to believe" claim and poof, God recedes to the next gap.

That works for both sides. This is going to be an idiot debate with no winner.

[baseline bum]

Being that this is in Kentucky they'll probably burn Nye at the stake after he wins.

[DMC]

That works for both sides. This is going to be an idiot debate with no winner.

No it doesn't, unless you don't understand evolution. Since there is ample evidence that evolution is occurring and has occurred, you don't need belief to accept it. You just need to be a rational mind, since "beyond a reasonable doubt" is how proof is offered. Creationism is unfalsifiable so there's no way to provide evidence for it. It relies on you taking a worldview that doesn't allow for natural selection and to do that you have to deny things you know to be true.

[I. Hustle]

No it doesn't, unless you don't understand evolution.

LOL ok

[Suspect]

No it doesn't, unless you don't understand evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjF0uf4H7w8

[DMC]

It's amusing to see people comment on the theory of evolution who don't really understand it because they accepted early on that it was another belief.

[DisAsTerBot]

^rofl. perfect video clip

[RD2191]

There is no evidence for evolution. Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar.

[RD2191]

:stirpot:

[RD2191]

Bill Nye? Is there a douchier atheist in existence?

[I. Hustle]

No it doesn't, unless you don't understand evolution. Since there is ample evidence that evolution is occurring and has occurred, you don't need belief to accept it. You just need to be a rational mind, since "beyond a reasonable doubt" is how proof is offered. Creationism is unfalsifiable so there's no way to provide evidence for it. It relies on you taking a worldview that doesn't allow for natural selection and to do that you have to deny things you know to be true.

Well here is where it gets tricky. I am not saying that evolution isn't possible I just disagree with how we are taught evolution. Just believe that this came from that even though there are no transitional fossils whatsoever and some of the fossils that we do have are only fragments and we imagine what the animal could have looked like.
You evolved from this but this part stayed the same and only a select group changed.

Besides, everyone knows we came from a chimp and a pig getting it on.

[I. Hustle]

It's amusing to see people comment on the theory of evolution who don't really understand it because they accepted early on that it was another belief.

How is it not?

[RD2191]

In before RandomGuy.

[Blake]

There is no evidence for evolution. Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar.

The chump Photoshop thread needs more lol emoticons! You're wasting time here!

[RD2191]

The chump Photoshop thread needs more lol emoticons! You're wasting time here!
:wakeup

[I. Hustle]

The chump Photoshop thread needs more lol emoticons! You're wasting time here!

http://blakesnow.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/10/url-2.gif

[jeebus]

sweet. a worldwide pissing contest. the amount of trolling by everyone tonight will reach amazing levels.

[Clipper Nation]

post some transcript if you can, thx

Creationist: (insert retarded Jeebotard bullshit here)

Evolutionist: I win.

/transcript

[jeebus]

Creationist: (insert retarded Jeebotard bullshit here)

Evolutionist: I win.

SpursTalk poster: lol faggots

/transcript

[baseline bum]

If people are going to debate evolution, why not also topics like:

1) Is the sky blue?
2) Is the Earth round?
3) Do things fall downward on Earth?
4) Do we orbit the Sun?
5) Do we need water to survive?
6) Did we go to the moon?

[Blake]

6) Did we go to the moon?

you asking for a mouse YouTube fest

[Chewbacca]

The chump Photoshop thread needs more lol emoticons!

:tu

[DMC]

Well here is where it gets tricky. I am not saying that evolution isn't possible I just disagree with how we are taught evolution. Just believe that this came from that even though there are no transitional fossils whatsoever and some of the fossils that we do have are only fragments and we imagine what the animal could have looked like.
You evolved from this but this part stayed the same and only a select group changed.

Besides, everyone knows we came from a chimp and a pig getting it on.

There are plenty transitional fossils, but you won't find one that's half bird and half fish, flying fish notwithstanding.

I didn't realize Lamar and Chloe spawned us all.

[DMC]

If people are going to debate evolution, why not also topics like:

1) Is the sky blue?
2) Is the Earth round?
3) Do things fall downward on Earth?
4) Do we orbit the Sun?
5) Do we need water to survive?
6) Did we go to the moon?

Is water real?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If people are going to debate evolution, why not also topics like:

1) Is the sky blue?
2) Is the Earth round?
3) Do things fall downward on Earth?
4) Do we orbit the Sun?
5) Do we need water to survive?
6) Did we go to the moon?

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

[Rogue]

I think creationism vs. evolution also represents the different attitudes towards black people, since them niggas are a clear evidence for "evolution". On the other hand, creationism arbitrarily denies the glaring fact that niggas also belong in the same family of humanity, along with whites, yellows and others.

[Suspect]

lol @ Jeebus

[Suspect]

debate is already hilarious

[Leetonidas]

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/q71/1794579_468446503277290_1719364988_n.jpg

[Leetonidas]

Bill Nye going HAM already

[Brazil]

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/q71/1794579_468446503277290_1719364988_n.jpg


:lmao

[Suspect]

Bill Nye going HAM already
lol was just about to post that. He kinda just went in on him.

[Brazil]

Why the alternative design church is not in dat debate ?

[Leetonidas]

lol was just about to post that. He kinda just went in on him.

Ken Ham is already shitting on himself :lol his answer to the first audience question is fucking retarded

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

No it doesn't, unless you don't understand evolution. Since there is ample evidence that evolution is occurring and has occurred

Such as? And tell me - how was the world created?

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

:lol bill nye tries to act all smart and attack creationalism

"Bill, how were the atoms created that caused the big bang"

bill: uh, well, uh, that's the mystery :lmao

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

:lmao going off-topic

"imagine if someone from your own state found out where matter came from"

[Leetonidas]

Such as? And tell me - how was the world created?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/photogalleries/100524-new-species-handfish-walk-science-pictures/

[Two10Whitey]

LMAO@Ham. "Well Bill.. There's a book that explains where matter comes from. And in the beginning of that book it says, God created the Earth. And that's the only thing that makes sense." :lmao

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/photogalleries/100524-new-species-handfish-walk-science-pictures/

Okay... and how were those "fish" created in the first place? The water it stays in? The oxygen necessary for an ocean/water/river to even be in existence?

[Leetonidas]

Go read up on it, I'm not here to debate with jeebotards tbh listen to Nye explain it.

And rofl at these questions being asked by the theists to Nye. All of their answers for the questions would be "GAWD DID IT" :lmao

[Leetonidas]

This is getting fucking ridiculous, I knew it would devolve into this faggot creationist just saying "well the bible says..." as every fucking answer or rebuttal

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

Go read up on it, I'm not here to debate with jeebotards tbh listen to Nye explain it.


I'm trying but he's saying "that's the mystery"

[thunderup]

Bunch of faggots arguing with each other that gets nobody anywhere.

[RD2191]

Bunch of faggots arguing with each other that gets nobody anywhere.

[Leetonidas]

I'm trying but he's saying "that's the mystery"

You can't claim victory because Bill Nye can't explain every thing in the entire universe. It's amazing how much science has explained and revealed to us but things that no human being can comprehend yet are attributed to god and swallowed hole. Now tell me where god came from or stfu. We still have 80% of the planet being magic and fairy tales, how the fuck do you expect human kind to answers every mystery in the universe when only .00001% of people are even trying to really figure it out?

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

You can't claim victory because Bill Nye can't explain every thing in the entire universe. It's amazing how much science has explained and revealed to us but things that no human being can comprehend yet are attributed to god and swallowed hole. Now tell me where god came from or stfu

All I'm saying is that the big bang theory is just as much as a theory as God... except it actually gives an explanation on how it occurred.

[thunderup]

You can't claim victory because Bill Nye can't explain every thing in the entire universe. It's amazing how much science has explained and revealed to us but things that no human being can comprehend yet are attributed to god and swallowed hole. Now tell me where god came from or stfu
Have you sought the scientific reason as to why you're such a faggot? Brain chemistry I bet.

[RD2191]

Have you sought the scientific reason as to why you're such a faggot? Brain chemistry I bet.
:lolthunderup going in raw

[Leetonidas]

All I'm saying is that the big bang theory is just as much as a theory as God... except it actually gives an explanation on how it occurred.

Nope. Scientific theory is not a guess, it is backed up by evidence and tests. Gravity is a theory too, you really gonna jump off a building and think you're gonna fly because it's only a "theory?" :lol go look up the cosmic microwave background and the viewing of light from billions of light years away, there's a lot more evidence of the big bang then for god, which is none

[RD2191]

Who here has observed evolution? tbh

[Leetonidas]

Going HAM on Ham :lol

[Leetonidas]

Who here has observed evolution? tbh

Who here has observed god? tbh

guess he don't exist :)

[RD2191]

Who here has observed god? tbh

guess he don't exist :)
okay then, point being both take faith to believe in

[Leetonidas]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

look i can post random links that people think somehow prove a point

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100428-noahs-ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/

http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/48321/garden-of-eden-found/

[RD2191]

See that sculpture, which seems more logical, that it created itself from a pile of rocks or that it was created by a sculptor?

[Two10Whitey]

See that sculpture, which seems more logical, that it created itself from a pile of rocks or that it was created by a sculptor?

Trolling :lol

[Suspect]

really hope bill brings up something about zeitgeist of egyptian times since Jesus was just brought up. Roast him bill plz :cry

[Leetonidas]

look i can post random links that people think somehow prove a point

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100428-noahs-ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/

http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/48321/garden-of-eden-found/


:lmao did you even read that Nat Geo link?

And lol at the weekly world news. I know you're trying to prove a point but c'mon bro at least find a legit news site

[Suspect]

See that sculpture, which seems more logical, that it created itself from a pile of rocks or that it was created by a sculptor?
actual funny post from a butthurt christian tbh

[Leetonidas]

tbh it'd be from a solid piece of whatever it's chiseled from not a pile of rocks :lol good trolling though

[pgardn]

:lol bill nye tries to act all smart and attack creationalism

"Bill, how were the atoms created that caused the big bang"

bill: uh, well, uh, that's the mystery :lmao

Atoms did not exist at that point.

And no scientist with an ounce of sense is going to explain conditions BEFORE the Big Bang. Because we don't know.And therein lies the crux of the matter. In science you are allowed to say we have no idea, or based on observable phenomena we think this is the way it works. Test, test again and look for more evidence. If we ever find hominid fossils the same age as dinosaur fossils science has some explaining to do. Ideas can be refuted based on good evidence reviewed thoroughly.

People like you just make shit up. So how did insects arise? were they created specially on their own? Poof and God made them? In science that explanation is called supernatural I give up, so I will make something up.

Damn, we should just give up trying to solve some of the mysteries of cancer, since you could come and perform a healing dance around the patients bed...

You don't understand what science can and cannot do. End of story. So because science cannot explain the grand variety of the living world for you, give us your theory please.

[RD2191]

Both Ham and Nye are idiots, tbh.

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

Atoms did not exist at that point.

And no scientist with an ounce of sense is going to explain conditions BEFORE the Big Bang. Because we don't know.And therein lies the crux of the matter. In science you are allowed to say we have no idea, or based on observable phenomena we think this is the way it works. Test, test again and look for more evidence. If we ever find hominid fossils the same age as dinosaur fossils science has some explaining to do. Ideas can be refuted based on good evidence reviewed thoroughly.

People like you just make shit up. So how did insects arise? were they created specially on their own? Poof and God made them? In science that explanation is called supernatural I give up, so I will make something up.

Damn, we should just give up trying to solve some of the mysteries of cancer, since you could come and perform a healing dance around the patients bed...

You don't understand what science can and cannot do. End of story. So because science cannot explain the grand variety of the living world for you, give us your theory please.

Your entire story above basically is stating nothing other than "it's okay for evolutionists to have no clue on how the world came about, but the idea of god is wrong"

and that "healing dance" claim pretty much summed up your entire argument - stupid and insultive

[pgardn]

Further, not knowing how the Big Bang came to occur has absolutely nothing to do with the evolution of living things. Because we can't explain what led to the Big Bang we throw out evolution?

Thats totally ignorant and lacks any kind of common sense.

[Leetonidas]

Tbh I don't really see the point of this debate, viewers supporting either side are not going to be swayed to the opposition

[pgardn]

Your entire story above basically is stating nothing other than "it's okay for evolutionists to have no clue on how the world came about, but the idea of god is wrong"

and that "healing dance" claim pretty much summed up your entire argument - stupid and insultive

Where did I state the idea of God is wrong smartass? Science can't deal with the supernatural, ie things that cannot be studied using science.

So now you tell me how you think we arrived at the great variety of life we see today since it's clearly not evolution?
What do you have that is better and more predictive?

Give be up the goods, the board awaits your insight.

[Clipper Nation]

:lmao Believing in a magical invisible sky man and his fairy tales that all contradict each other

[pgardn]

Tbh I don't really see the point of this debate, viewers supporting either side are not going to be swayed to the opposition

No but others looking in can see the difference between two very human endeavors used to explain the universe and the rules it might follow. Add philosophy and people can truly understand our struggle to understand

its all good for me. I would hope people can understand the difference between our methods.

[Suspect]

Ken said the bible has the origin of everything but whats the origin of the bible?

[AntiChrist]

The Riverside Church


January 19, 1936


My dear Dr. Einstein,


We have brought up the question: Do scientists pray? in our Sunday school class. It began by asking whether we could believe in both science and religion. We are writing to scientists and other important men, to try and have our own question answered.


We will feel greatly honored if you will answer our question: Do scientists pray, and what do they pray for?


We are in the sixth grade, Miss Ellis's class.


Respectfully yours,


Phyllis


----------------------


January 24, 1936


Dear Phyllis,


I will attempt to reply to your question as simply as I can. Here is my answer:


Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.


However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science.


But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.


With cordial greetings,


your A. Einstein

[baseline bum]

Nope. Scientific theory is not a guess, it is backed up by evidence and tests. Gravity is a theory too, you really gonna jump off a building and think you're gonna fly because it's only a "theory?" :lol go look up the cosmic microwave background and the viewing of light from billions of light years away, there's a lot more evidence of the big bang then for god, which is none

Cosmological redshift too son. RIP conservation of energy. :(

[pgardn]

The Riverside Church


January 19, 1936


My dear Dr. Einstein,


We have brought up the question: Do scientists pray? in our Sunday school class. It began by asking whether we could believe in both science and religion. We are writing to scientists and other important men, to try and have our own question answered.


We will feel greatly honored if you will answer our question: Do scientists pray, and what do they pray for?


We are in the sixth grade, Miss Ellis's class.


Respectfully yours,


Phyllis


----------------------


January 24, 1936


Dear Phyllis,


I will attempt to reply to your question as simply as I can. Here is my answer:


Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.


However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science.


But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.


With cordial greetings,


your A. Einstein

So continuing in this same vein Phyllis, I highly doubt evolution is goal directed, and that the penultimate outcome is man. But I certainly could be wrong.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Wow, N0 LyF3 ScRuB (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7114114#post7114114) is a fucking idiot. He's using the same old, tired, ignorant responses that theist apologists have been using for years. He first stupidly asks where the evidence for evolution is, as if he is incapable of using Google for five seconds. Then he completely changes the topic to abiogenesis and The Big Bang, as if those two are somehow synonymous with evolution. Then he uses the idiotic "The Big Bang is just a theory" excuse that many theists who have no understanding of what "scientific theory" actually means usually use.

And robdiaz is a moron. Nobody should take him seriously after his absolutely pathetic performance in previous evolution threads. This guy knows absolute shit about evolution, yet tries to talk shit about it. The worst part isn't him being an wilfully ignorant moron; it's his complete unwillingness to even try to defend his belief in an invisible sky daddeh. He'll throw around emoticon after emoticon when other people actually defend something he disagrees with, but when pressed to explain what he believes and why, he changes the topic.

[baseline bum]

Wow, is this debate really 2 hours, 45 minutes long like the video link from the npr page says? Bill should have had this shit won 5 minutes in.

[DMC]

Creationism, a euphemism for stupidity imo, is nothing but a gimmick to get people like Ham money from the woefully ignorant hordes.

[baseline bum]

CROFL this creationist nigga really just said you can't observe the past while showing a graphic of the Big Bang and the development to galaxies and shit? :rollin

What the fuck does he think you're doing when you look up at Orion in the night sky?

[SupremeGuy]

God, you're so stupid if you don't believe in evolution. Pun intended.

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

Anyone that disagrees with my opinion is an idiot :cry

[SupremeGuy]

Both hardline theists and atheists are assholes. Agnosticism is where it's at, tbh.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Both hardline theists and atheists are assholes. Agnosticism is where it's at, tbh.

Are you an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist?

[Leetonidas]

Both hardline theists and atheists are assholes. Agnosticism is where it's at, tbh.

non-committal I see :lol

[Blake]

See that sculpture, which seems more logical, that it created itself from a pile of rocks or that it was created by a sculptor?

So keeping with that logic, who created God?

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

So keeping with that logic, who created God?

Who created the world?

[SupremeGuy]

non-committal I see :lolI'm committed to wanting evidence before I make a decision. :toast

[Blake]

Who created the world?

We're assuming God did.

Don't be a pussy here. Answer my question.

[RD2191]

LOL Blake calling another man a pussy. How's your wife? tbh

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

We're assuming God did.

Don't be a pussy here. Answer my question.

No one created God. God doesn't have siblings, parents, etc. God is where it all begins.

[RD2191]

:lmaoWoo Bum-kon, its like clockwork, asshurt atheist.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Excellent, insightful rebuttal by robdiaz. I expect nothing less. The only thing missing is an emoticon.


I'm committed to wanting evidence before I make a decision. :toast

Are you an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist?

[Woo Bum-kon]

No one created God. God doesn't have siblings, parents, etc. God is where it all begins.

Why can't one just replace "God" with "the universe" in your explanation?

[pgardn]

Who created the world?

Who or... what do we think using observable phenomena?

Its up to you, to assign a who. A God or Gods...? What?


BTW

Your theory on how the diversity of life we see on this planet came to be? Since it's clearly not evolution for you.
The board continues to ponder your silence. Give it up. Please.

[Blake]

No one created God. God doesn't have siblings, parents, etc. God is where it all begins.

that contradicts the robdiaz logic of the sculpture

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

Who or... what do we think using observable phenomena?

Its up to you, to assign a who. A God or Gods...? What?


BTW

Your theory on how the diversity of life we see on this planet came to be? Since it's clearly not evolution for you.
The board continues to ponder your silence. Give it up. Please.

Ponder my silence? Bitch, I've been taking biology courses for 3 years now. I know all about evolution, it's theories, and also what the supposed theories are and actual facts are regarding animals and the point of where they began to exist - or at least what is known this far.

Just because I refuse to argue about pointless bullshit that's not gonna alter your opinion on a message board does not mean I am uneducated or am unknowledgable on the subject.

That's the problem with atheists. Just because we don't believe in what you do we are 'stupid', 'ignorant', etc.

[Two10Whitey]

It's annoying when religious folks expect a rational person to answer impossible questions. Science doesn't have a clear answer to how we got here but at least they're trying to find it. People of faith are fine with their immature storybook answers and are too lazy and brainwashed to do their own research. Sin 6 days a week and learn the "truth" on Sunday.

[Chinook]

The debate is stupid because no one ever asks the right question. Also because creationists tend to be stupid and think they have to defend religion for some reason, a evolutionists have to be disingenuous and concatenate evolution as a process and Evolution as an "atheist" theory.

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

Why can't one just replace "God" with "the universe" in your explanation?

Because that contradicts evolutions belief :lol

[AntiChrist]

Seems one side of this debate is far more childlike and insulting than the other.

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

It's annoying when religious folks expect a rational person to answer impossible answers. People of faith are fine with their immature storybook answers and are too lazy and brainwashed to do their own research.

And these two points validate my post above ^^

[RD2191]

It's annoying when religious folks expect a rational person to answer impossible questions. Science doesn't have a clear answer to how we got here but at least they're trying to find it. People of faith are fine with their immature storybook answers and are too lazy and brainwashed to do their own research. Sin 6 days a week and learn the "truth" on Sunday.
So in other words you don't know?

[Two10Whitey]

And these two points validate my post above ^^
Sorry, but believing in a higher power as described by the major religions is childish. The fairytale stories, lack of evidence, and the hypocrisy in religion is unbelievable.

[thunderup]

The debate is stupid because no one ever asks the right question. Also because creationists tend to be stupid and think they have to defend religion for some reason, a evolutionists have to be disingenuous and concatenate evolution as a process and Evolution as an "atheist" theory.
Yep. I love how both sides try the same bullshit arguments as if anything discussed will sway somebody's beliefs.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Because that contradicts evolutions belief :lol

I didn't ask you about evolution. This just shows how ignorant creationists are. I didn't ask you about evolution. I basically asked you why couldn't one say that the universe always existed, and your response had absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked you.

Let's try this again: Why can one not say that the universe always existed?

[Blake]

LOL Blake calling another man a pussy. How's your wife? tbh

Lol I'm not married, pussy.

do some of these posters pay you to fluff or are you doing it for free

[RD2191]

Lol I'm not married, pussy.

do some of these posters pay you to fluff or are you doing it for free
:lmaoDon't blame God that your wife is a whore, tbh.

[Two10Whitey]

So in other words you don't know?

Do you think I would be posting on a message board if I knew the truth?

[RD2191]

Do you think I would be posting on a message board if I knew the truth?
How the fuck should I know? And if you don't know why would you be looking for answers in the club forum?

[pgardn]

Ponder my silence? Bitch, I've been taking biology courses for 3 years now. I know all about evolution, it's theories, and also what the supposed theories are and actual facts are regarding animals and the point of where they began to exist - or at least what is known this far.

Just because I refuse to argue about pointless bullshit that's not gonna alter your opinion on a message board does not mean I am uneducated or am unknowledgable on the subject.

That's the problem with atheists. Just because we don't believe in what you do we are 'stupid', 'ignorant', etc.

So because you are an expert in Biology you see that evolution is a fallacy.

And you are telling me it's pointless bullshit to attempt to explain the diversity of life on this planet? How it came to be? This is POINTLESS and you are a Frkn biology major?

Please answer the question, evolution is out for you, so give us YOUR thoughts.

BTW. Evolution is actually a tough topic to grasp in all its richness thoroughly. So a mere 3 classes in biology... Does not surprise me at all you don't understand evolution. There are people who understand it fully and still have questions about rates of evolution and modes of speciation. It's a very rich topic that requires a lot of reading.

The mere fact that you appear not to understand the difference between Science and Religion says bundles...

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

I didn't ask you about evolution. This just shows how ignorant creationists are. I didn't ask you about evolution. I basically asked you why couldn't one say that the universe always existed, and your response had absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked you.

Let's try this again: Why can one not say that the universe always existed?

:lmao again with the "ignorant"

Any event has a cause. Every cause has an effect. So to say that the universe was "always there" does not really have any support. Whereas there are documentations, evidence of God all in the Bible (because I know you are trying to use that question as a ploy)

[RD2191]

Hey Leeto, serious question, whatever happened with that guy that was going to disprove the existence of Jesus? How did the seminar and shit go?

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

So because you are an expert in Biology you see that evolution is a fallacy.

And you are telling me it's pointless bullshit to attempt to explain the diversity of life on this planet? How it came to be? This is POINTLESS and you are a Frkn biology major?

Please answer the question, evolution is out for you, so give us YOUR thoughts.

BTW. Evolution is actually a tough topic to grasp in all its richness thoroughly. So a mere 3 classes in biology... Does not surprise me at all you don't understand evolution. There are people who understand it fully and still have questions about rates of evolution and modes of speciation. It's a very rich topic that requires a lot of reading.

The mere fact that you appear not to understand the difference between Science and Religion says bundles...

I am not a Biology major - I am a Biology minor. & I've taken way more than 3 Bio classes

What exactly do you want my thoughts on?

[Two10Whitey]

How the fuck should I know? And if you don't know why would you be looking for answers in the club forum?

Who said I was looking for answers here? I'm participating in a discussion about science and ancient fairy tales.

[DMC]

Hey Leeto, serious question, whatever happened with that guy that was going to disprove the existence of Jesus? How did the seminar and shit go?

The "historicity of", not the "existence of". Jesus, even if he was a true historical human being, is not in existence today. Close your mouth when you breathe.

[AntiChrist]

When you hear Craig Ventor talk, he uses the words "design" and "code" pretty frequently. If they ever get a DNA strand to randomly assemble itself, I'll change my mind.

[RD2191]

The "historicity of", not the "existence of". Jesus, even if he was a true historical human being, is not in existence today. Close your mouth when you breathe.
Sup Leeto?

[DMC]

You toads who mockingly scoff at evolution go out and disprove it and make yourselves independently wealthy and quite famous... or stay here and be just the opposite.

[Venti Quattro]

I'm usually not into the evolution vs creationism debate but I know both sides' arguments. However, I tend to side with evolution since creationists and religion scholars also admit that Genesis is just a whole allegory to tell how the world was created. Also, because I hate Bible thumpers.

[pgardn]

Yep. I love how both sides try the same bullshit arguments as if anything discussed will sway somebody's beliefs.

No but others looking in can see the difference between two very human endeavors used to explain the universe and the rules it might follow. Add philosophy and people can truly understand our struggle to understand


its all good for me. I would hope people can understand the difference between our very human methods.

[RD2191]

The "historicity of", not the "existence of". Jesus, even if he was a true historical human being, is not in existence today. Close your mouth when you breathe.
LOL FAIL

[Woo Bum-kon]

:lmao again with the "ignorant"

When someone continuously equates the Big Bang with evolution, they are ignorant.


Any event has a cause.

[citation needed]


So to say that the universe was "always there" does not really have any support.

Sure it has support. If one can say that God was always there, one can also say that the universe was always there. You are engaging in special pleading.


Whereas there are documentations, evidence of God all in the Bible (because I know you are trying to use that question as a ploy)

There are documentation and evidence of Spider-Man existing in the The Amazing Spider-Man. Since when do stories in and of themselves equate to evidence?

[RD2191]

DMC don't be mad at us because you're fat.

[Chinook]

Yep. I love how both sides try the same bullshit arguments as if anything discussed will sway somebody's beliefs.

Seriously, it's annoying to see nothing but the foolishness of atheists believing science is on their sides and the foolishness of creationists believing that finding (or pretending to find) one hole in evolution somehow validates their religious fantasy.

[pgardn]

I am not a Biology major - I am a Biology minor. & I've taken way more than 3 Bio classes

What exactly do you want my thoughts on?

I have now typed this question for the fourth time.

How did the diversity of life we see on Earth today come to be?

[AntiChrist]

Wrong debate, tbh.

[pgardn]

Seriously, it's annoying to see nothing but the foolishness of atheists believing science is on their sides and the foolishness of creationists believing that finding (or pretending to find) one hole in evolution somehow validates their religious fantasy.
What is the right question?

Just wondering?

[AntiChrist]

I'm usually not into the evolution vs creationism debate but I know both sides' arguments. However, I tend to side with evolution since creationists and religion scholars also admit that Genesis is just a whole allegory to tell how the world was created. Also, because I hate Bible thumpers.


I don't like either extreme.

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

When someone continuously equates the Big Bang with evolution, they are ignorant.



[citation needed]



Sure it has support. If one can say that God was always there, one can also say that the universe was always there. You are engaging in special pleading.



There are documentation and evidence of Spider-Man existing in the The Amazing Spider-Man. Since when do stories in and of themselves equate to evidence?

1) Evolutionists typically support the Big Bang, which is why I grouped it
2) Do you disagree with my assessment? I'm guessing so considering you asked for a citation. I suppose that supports why you support the Big Bang.. nothing cause nothing to make nothing explode into something, etc, etc...
3) No, there is no support. At least there are documentation of a higher power existing.
4) There's a difference. Spiderman is science fiction, AKA, labeled not real. Nice try.. try using a better example next time.

[DMC]

^ Pretty sure you don't have the education to be able to rationally discuss either evolution or the "Big Bang".

[RD2191]

^ Pretty sure you don't have the education to be able to rationally discuss either evolution or the "Big Bang".
And you do? LOL, just because you have some sort of degree makes you an expert on the subject? Have you ever observed evolution in the lab or anywhere for that matter?

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

^ Pretty sure you don't have the education to be able to rationally discuss either evolution or the "Big Bang".

Haha... I bet I know a hell of a lot more than you. Try me.

You are doing nothing but proving my point. Don't agree with an atheist = you're dumb, unqualified or uneducated

[Chinook]

What is the right question?

Just wondering?

I guess, "Was the universe designed, or is it just accidental?" is a decent way to phrase the question. Theism vs atheism is a matter of purpose, not method; a question of why, not how. Even if that seems counter-intuitive.

[baseline bum]

Let's try this again: Why can one not say that the universe always existed?

Because the cosmic microwave background and the cosmological redshift indicate a finite age tbh.

[Woo Bum-kon]

1) Evolutionists typically support the Big Bang, which is why I grouped it

They also support the theory of gravity as well. Why don't you group every common belief most of them share, while you're at it?

You were asked a question about the origin of the universe, and your response had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the question you were asked.


2) Do you disagree with my assessment? I'm guessing so considering you asked for a citation. I suppose that supports why you support the Big Bang.. nothing cause nothing to make nothing explode into something, etc, etc...

First you use special pleading. Then you use non-sequiturs. Now you are using strawmen. Nobody claimed that "nothing exploded into something." You are attacking a position nobody in this thread made.


3) No, there is no support. At least there are documentation of a higher power existing.

There's a story created by simpletons born thousands of years ago that contradicts itself constantly. Why should anybody believe what is written in the Bible when it completely contradicts what is possible?


4) There's a difference. Spiderman is science fiction, AKA, labeled not real. Nice try.. try using a better example next time.

Oh, I'm sorry--I didn't see the significance of Spider-Man's more fantastical elements on how believable he is.

So, to get this straight: a guy who was bitten by a radioactive spider and then gained super powers is not possible, but a man who can walk on water, raise the dead, heal people by merely touching them, multiply food magically, and come back from being dead for three days, is perfectly believable?

What is the difference? That one story is hundreds of years older than the other one? That billions believe one story to be actually true? What exactly makes the second person more believable than the first?

[pgardn]

I guess, "Was the universe designed, or is it just accidental?" is a decent way to phrase the question. Theism vs atheism is a matter of purpose, not method; a question of why, not how. Even if that seems counter-intuitive.

Ok.

Thats a tough question.

There are clearly some rules that govern the way the universe behaves that are known to us and are predictive. I really don't know if that means accidental or designed.

[Chinook]

Ok.

Thats a tough question.

There are clearly some rules that govern the way the universe behaves that are known to us and are predictive. I really don't know if that means accidental or designed.

Exactly. That's why the debate is stupid. It's between people who believe that a book someone wrote thousands of years ago trumps centuries of empirical investigation and people who think that finding out how something works somehow proves it wasn't made.

[pgardn]

Haha... I bet I know a hell of a lot more than you. Try me.

You are doing nothing but proving my point. Don't agree with an atheist = you're dumb, unqualified or uneducated

How is it that RNA can self replicate given precursor RNA strands and that some RNA precursor sequences replicate more efficiently and become the most abundant sequences yet this does not occur with DNA?

[Rogue]

^ Pretty sure you don't have the education to be able to rationally discuss either evolution or the "Big Bang".
he does have the education to discuss feline topics though.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Exactly. That's why the debate is stupid. It's between people who believe that a book someone wrote thousands of years ago trumps centuries of empirical investigation and people who think that finding out how something works somehow proves it wasn't made.

It proves that one has no reason to come to the conclusion that said thing was made.

A lot of strawmen in this thread.

[Jacob1983]

Why is it the theory of evolution? If it is fact, it shouldn't be a theory.

[pgardn]

Exactly. That's why the debate is stupid. It's between people who believe that a book someone wrote thousands of years ago trumps centuries of empirical investigation and people who think that finding out how something works somehow proves it wasn't made.

I thought the debate concerned the competing ideas explaining the diversity of life on this planet.

Specially created. Or a wonderfully rich and complex mechanism we call evolution.

I thought it spiraled into much larger questions after the above.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Why is it the theory of evolution? If it is fact, it shouldn't be a theory.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Point five, Jacob.

[pgardn]

Why is it the theory of evolution? If it is fact, it shouldn't be a theory.

The theory part comes in the mechanism by which evolution occurs, not if evolution did and does occur.

[TE]

This is easily a 30+ page thread

[Chinook]

It proves that one has no reason to come to the conclusion that said thing was made.

A lot of strawmen in this thread.

First off, it sort of does, but it doesn't make sense to try to explain it to staunch people on either side.

Secondly, who cares? It really doesn't affect anything if you believe in god or not. It doesn't prevent intellectual pursuit.

[Woo Bum-kon]

First off, it sort of does, but it doesn't make sense to try to explain it to staunch people on either side.

Secondly, who cares? It really doesn't affect anything if you believe in god or not. It doesn't prevent intellectual pursuit.

Yeah, because every religious person believes in a vacuum, so their religious beliefs have absolutely no effect whatsoever on how they view the world, and, as a result, treat other people. Yep, they either believe or don't believe. There would be absolutely no difference in one how one behaves based on their beliefs.

[apalisoc_9]

Fossils/bones aren't evidence of human evolution. When are people going to understand this? The only way science can scientifically prove that human evolution happened from one species to another is by DNA evidence something that we all know is impossible to get.

In other words, Evolution is not the same as Gravity..Creationism can't be scientifically proven, sure that's true..But so is human evolution.

[Chinook]

I thought the debate concerned the competing ideas explaining the diversity of life on this planet.

Specially created. Or a wonderfully rich and complex mechanism we call evolution.

I thought it spiraled into much larger questions after the above.

Nah. Creationism by itself isn't bound to argue against evolution. It's too easy to prove speciation for that to be the case. The debate is netween the origins of life the big-E Evolution vs creationism. That's where evolutionist tend to be disingenuous. Litte-e evolution is as rock-solid as gravity. Big-E Evolution is much less solid. It's definitely still the theory we should go with, but it's not strong enough to believe something better can't come along.

[pgardn]

First off, it sort of does, but it doesn't make sense to try to explain it to staunch people on either side.

Secondly, who cares? It really doesn't affect anything if you believe in god or not. It doesn't prevent intellectual pursuit.

Uh oh....

Lets make a quick list of posters that think/know you are in deep bovine residue.
Or not.

[Chinook]

Yeah, because every religious person believes in a vacuum, so their religious beliefs have absolutely no effect whatsoever on how they view the world, and, as a result, treat other people. Yep, they either believe or don't believe. There would be absolutely no difference in one how one behaves based on their beliefs.
Religion is stupid. I'm pretty sure I have said so a few times already. It's epistemologically irresponsible to take a religious text as hard evidence. That's not the same as believing the universe was set into motion by something more than nothing.

[Jacob1983]

If evolution is 100 percent fact, it shouldn't be a theory. I don't think humans came from old school monkeys but I think birds came from dinosaurs. Shit changes but I just don't think humans came from monkeys. Just not buyin it pal.

[pgardn]

Nah. Creationism by itself isn't bound to argue against evolution. It's too easy to prove speciation for that to be the case. The debate is netween the origins of life the big-E Evolution vs creationism. That's where evolutionist tend to be disingenuous. Litte-e evolution is as rock-solid as gravity. Big-E Evolution is much less solid. It's definitely still the theory we should go with, but it's not strong enough to believe something better can't come along.

We have some good ideas on how life might have began. But no one has started from scratch in any experiment I know of.
Sure something better can come along, but if it's poof we have life, it's not science.

I really did not think the above was the initial debate.

[Woo Bum-kon]

If evolution is 100 percent fact, it shouldn't be a theory. I don't think humans came from old school monkeys but I think birds came from dinosaurs. Shit changes but I just don't think humans came from monkeys. Just not buyin it pal.

I have to admire how Christfags just power through the rational explanations to their dumb questions. You were given the explanation, yet you completely ignored it, just like robdiaz would do.

[pgardn]

If evolution is 100 percent fact, it shouldn't be a theory. I don't think humans came from old school monkeys but I think birds came from dinosaurs. Shit changes but I just don't think humans came from monkeys. Just not buyin it pal.

So we were specially created? But organisms that basically work just like we do biochemically did not. Which means every other living thing. And we don't think humans came from monkeys. Where did you learn such misconceptions?

[Chinook]

We have some good ideas on how life might have began. But no one has started from scratch in any experiment I know of.
Sure something better can come along, but if it's poof we have life, it's not science.

I really did not think the above was the initial debate.

It's not in theory. But it's what the debate is functionally.

[RD2191]

:lmaowe came from a fish that magically sprang some sort of walking fins over millions of years and then turned into a rat that evolved into a monkey. makes perfect sense tbh

[pgardn]

I have now typed this question for the fourth time.

How did the diversity of life we see on Earth today come to be?

Waiting NOLy ...

No lie... The irony.

[RD2191]

and lol @ your childish "christfag" insults

[Chinook]

:lmaowe came from a fish that magically sprang some sort of walking fins over millions of years and then turned into a rat that evolved into a monkey. makes perfect sense tbh

This is funny, because it actually makes a ton of sense.

[Jacob1983]

It is my opinion. Take it or leave ass fucks.

[pgardn]

:lmaowe came from a fish that magically sprang some sort of walking fins over millions of years and then turned into a rat that evolved into a monkey. makes perfect sense tbh

Jesus...

Someone got into PeeWee's playhouse and was tickled by the lobotomy toy.

[Two10Whitey]

and lol @ your childish "christfag" insults
You have to be trolling. You type "faggot" so many times I'm surprised our fingers still function. I still haven't seen you spit a valid argument.

[RD2191]

You have to be trolling. You type "faggot" so many times I'm surprised our fingers still function. I still haven't seen you spit a valid argument.
lol faggot

[RD2191]

This is funny, because it actually makes a ton of sense.
Bullshit and you know it.

[Chinook]

Bullshit and you know it.

Lol, no it's not. Its actually really easy to support this by looking at bones.

[pgardn]

It is my opinion. Take it or leave ass fucks.

Clint Eastwood gives us two options boys.

Seriously, I thought it was your shoe's opinion, but it's really yours. Sorry man.

[apalisoc_9]

Lol, no it's not. Its actually really easy to support this by looking at bones.

No just no.

[RD2191]

Lol, no it's not. Its actually really easy to support this by looking at bones.
Fossils?

[pgardn]

Lol, no it's not. Its actually really easy to support this by looking at bones.

He jumped a bit from the fish to a rat.

[Chinook]

No just no.

I imagine you've never done so yourself, then? It's not even that advanced of stuff. You just and to look at two skeletons and match them up. A coelacanth's skeleton is pretty similar to ours.

[elege]

The problem with debates about creationism is that if you are on the science side, you have to debate at least two types of creationism.

The first type of creationism is one that states that if something exists than something/someone must have created it. This is an extremely reasonable conclusion that people who believe in science have a hard time admitting, but that is mostly because of the second type of creationism that always seems to find its way into this first type. An admission of this first type of creationism unfairly admits defeat to the second kind of creationism.

This second type of creationism is the one that states the world is only thousands of years old. While we have scientific evidence that this is not the case, it simply cannot be proven. Creationists, who argue this point, use that lack of proof as proof for their own argument.

This leads to the question “What is proof?” We can never actually prove anything. As someone who believes in the power of science, this is a difficult but true thing to say. The scientific method leads us to conclusions that we can reasonably assume. For example, eating healthy foods leads to a healthy body and a longer life is a conclusion that many scientist can only reasonably assume. We see how the human body’s cells react when proper nutrition is applied to these cells, but how do we actually know that it is the nutrition that causes this? We only assume this. There are at least some examples where we see people who eat poorly and live long lives. While it would be better to err on the side of healthy eating, these anomalies show that nutrition is a dynamic phenomenon that scientists are continuing to try to understand. That is the complexity of science. This complexity, however, is sometimes perceived as ambiguity.

This ambiguity, unfortunately, does not do well in arguments, especially against a creationist, who supposedly knows the truth.

[Chinook]

Fossils?

Nope. Extant species are good enough support to understand why the theory makes sense. Fossils help add support to why you should believe it.

[Chinook]

He jumped a bit from the fish to a rat.

Obviously going through all the stages would take a few billion years... Ain't nobody got time for that!

[Two10Whitey]

Science vs religion is becoming played out tbh. I'm sure most Christians aren't even familiar with the deities that predate Christ. Modern Christians need to explain their messed up history before debating science.

[apalisoc_9]

As I've posted before in this thread, fossils aren't sufficient to prove human evolution. A theory can only be a scientific theory with proper evidence, Bones and Fossils are not..For example, there are bones and fossils aged million years ago that were of both current existing animals and extinct animals..To consider Evolution a scientific theory is to consider Guess a theory..

In recent years, Dinosaurs are starting to get re-studies because apparently scientist then came up with the wrong biological structure for certain specific species..Heck, I don't even think they're certain in accurate measure how a Trynasourars looked...

Human Evolution is imagination.

[apalisoc_9]

I imagine you've never done so yourself, then? It's not even that advanced of stuff. You just and to look at two skeletons and match them up. A coelacanth's skeleton is pretty similar to ours.

Humans have a lot in common with other animals with their bones today..1000 years from now, should people consider us evolving from them?

[Rogue]

humans didn't evolve from monkeys imho, but humans and monkeys evolved from the same species of primates. In which sense, monkeys are like our siblings rather than parents or forebears

[Chinook]

As I've posted before in this thread, fossils aren't sufficient to prove human evolution. A theory can only be a scientific theory with proper evidence, Bones and Fossils are not..For example, there are bones and fossils aged million years ago that were of both current existing animals and extinct animals..To consider Evolution a scientific theory is to consider Guess a theory..

In recent years, Dinosaurs are starting to get re-studies because apparently scientist then came up with the wrong biological structure for certain specific species..Heck, I don't even think they're certain in accurate measure how a Trynasourars looked...

Human Evolution is imagination.

I wasn't talking about proof; I was talking about why it makes sense. That's a much lower burden. Tons of false theories make sense.

[Chinook]

Humans have a lot in common with other animals with their bones today..1000 years from now, should people consider us evolving from them?

What? A coelacanth is still alive, and we still consider it the sibling to our ancestor.

[Chinook]

humans didn't evolve from monkeys imho, but humans and monkeys evolved from the same species of primates. In which sense, monkeys are like our siblings rather than parents or forebears

Yes. Every living thing on Earth has been evolving for the exact same amount of time.

[apalisoc_9]

I wasn't talking about proof; I was talking about why it makes sense. That's a much lower burden. Tons of false theories make sense.

How is not having proof, makes sense?

You can match a thousand similar looking animals and you would still know they're biologically different...

Did Bears evolve from Pandas?

No.

So unless otherwise, Science can come up with a much more convincing Proof...Human Evolution should never be equated to Gravity or any other Scientific theories.

It's absolutely delusional to equate that two.

[Chinook]

How is not having proof, makes sense?

You can match a thousand similar looking animals and you would still know they're biologically different...

Did Bears evolve from Pandas?

No.

So unless otherwise, Science can come up with a much more convincing Proof...Human Evolution should never be equated to Gravity or any other Scientific theories.

It's absolutely delusional to equate that two.

Human evolution isn't the same as gravity. General evolution however is. Anyways, you're looking at it the wrong way, and definitely demonstrating that you don't understand the argument evolutionists make. Humans share an ancestor with great apes. They didn't evolve from them. Evolution is a series of binary splits.

Anyway, human bones look more like chimp bones than they do baboon bones. More like baboon bones than they do lemur bones. Lemur to rats, to reptiles, and so forth. It's not even looks like in the sense you think of it. We pretty much have the same bones that a coelacanth does. But how those bones are shaped and function changes ina very well-ordered gradient as you move from them to us.

[Rogue]

I believe that human scientists will finally find some clues or proofs of evolution by the means of genetics. It's like, a crime suspect may keep lying to and shitting with the investigators, until the DNA test results come out.

[Chinook]

I believe that human scientists will finally find some clues or proofs of evolution by the means of genetics. It's like, a crime suspect may keep lying to and shitting with the investigators, until the DNA test results come out.

That's already happened. Cladistics is already been rewritten and reinforced by DNA evidence.

[apalisoc_9]

Human evolution isn't the same as gravity. General evolution however is. Anyways, you're looking at it the wrong way, and definitely demonstrating that you don't understand the argument evolutionists make. Humans share an ancestor with great apes. They didn't evolve from them. Evolution is a series of binary splits.

Anyway, human bones look more like chimp bones than they do baboon bones. More like baboon bones than they do lemur bones. Lemur to rats, to reptiles, and so forth. It's not even looks like in the sense you think of it. We pretty much have the same bones that a coelacanth does. But how those bones are shaped and function changes ina very well-ordered gradient as you move from them to us.

Yeah sorry, my post wasn't directed to you in general..It was directed to other posters in this thread.

I don't believe we're arguing about a similar matter. Although you seem to be confident enough with Fossils, functions etc to convince you that human evolution ever happened..

Genetic study is an absolutely necessity with human evolution...None of these great scientist can come up with DNA evidence..

[apalisoc_9]

That's already happened. Cladistics is already been rewritten and reinforced by DNA evidence.

Scientist are aboustely delusional.

Caldistics being a study of Characteristics can not be sufficient..There is abosutely no way to connect to DNA's without having the DNA of the so called "Ancestor".

A scientist can and will make the mistake of considering red pandas as Racoon ancestors if red pandas ever lived a billion years ago..

Not enough Chinook.

[Rogue]

Yeah sorry, my post wasn't directed to you in general..It was directed to other posters in this thread.

I don't believe we're arguing about a similar matter. Although you seem to be confident enough with Fossils, functions etc to convince you that human evolution ever happened..

Genetic study is an absolutely necessity with human evolution...None of these great scientist can come up with DNA evidence..
they don't come up with any evidence imho, all they need to do is discover the evidence that is always existing but hasn't been decoded yet

[Leetonidas]

The problem with debates about creationism is that if you are on the science side, you have to debate at least two types of creationism.

The first type of creationism is one that states that if something exists than something/someone must have created it. This is an extremely reasonable conclusion that people who believe in science have a hard time admitting, but that is mostly because of the second type of creationism that always seems to find its way into this first type. An admission of this first type of creationism unfairly admits defeat to the second kind of creationism.

This second type of creationism is the one that states the world is only thousands of years old. While we have scientific evidence that this is not the case, it simply cannot be proven. Creationists, who argue this point, use that lack of proof as proof for their own argument.

This leads to the question “What is proof?” We can never actually prove anything. As someone who believes in the power of science, this is a difficult but true thing to say. The scientific method leads us to conclusions that we can reasonably assume. For example, eating healthy foods leads to a healthy body and a longer life is a conclusion that many scientist can only reasonably assume. We see how the human body’s cells react when proper nutrition is applied to these cells, but how do we actually know that it is the nutrition that causes this? We only assume this. There are at least some examples where we see people who eat poorly and live long lives. While it would be better to err on the side of healthy eating, these anomalies show that nutrition is a dynamic phenomenon that scientists are continuing to try to understand. That is the complexity of science. This complexity, however, is sometimes perceived as ambiguity.

This ambiguity, unfortunately, does not do well in arguments, especially against a creationist, who supposedly knows the truth.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/impressed.gif

[Chinook]

Scientist are aboustely delusional.

Caldistics being a study of Characteristics can not be sufficient..There is abosutely no way to connect to DNA's without having the DNA of the so called "Ancestor".

A scientist can and will make the mistake of considering red pandas as Racoon ancestors if red pandas ever lived a billion years ago..

Not enough Chinook.

Cladiastics used to be based on phyiscal characteristics, but now genetic characteristics. And it's actually pretty easy to tell the age of a gene reliably by looking at its radiation.

Anyway, you continue to misunderstand how evolution is supported. And until you actually take a comparative anatomy class, you'll continue to not understand. Things aren't considered ancestors simply because their older. It's because of how similarities and differences are. Even if people get it wrong at times, the method s still strong. Even if a time-warped raccoon fossil were discovered and labeled a red panda ancestor, that wouldn't prevent the fact that the red panda ancestor likely looked like both a racoon and red panda.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Scientist are aboustely delusional.

Caldistics being a study of Characteristics can not be sufficient..There is abosutely no way to connect to DNA's without having the DNA of the so called "Ancestor".

A scientist can and will make the mistake of considering red pandas as Racoon ancestors if red pandas ever lived a billion years ago..

Not enough Chinook.

Lol the incredulity by blanket dismissal. When you don't want to believe it then you just say 'no way.' Do you happen to even be a geneticist to make a claim as to what is possible and what is not?

[Chinook]

The problem with debates about creationism is that if you are on the science side, you have to debate at least two types of creationism.

The first type of creationism is one that states that if something exists than something/someone must have created it. This is an extremely reasonable conclusion that people who believe in science have a hard time admitting, but that is mostly because of the second type of creationism that always seems to find its way into this first type. An admission of this first type of creationism unfairly admits defeat to the second kind of creationism.

This second type of creationism is the one that states the world is only thousands of years old. While we have scientific evidence that this is not the case, it simply cannot be proven. Creationists, who argue this point, use that lack of proof as proof for their own argument.

This leads to the question “What is proof?” We can never actually prove anything. As someone who believes in the power of science, this is a difficult but true thing to say. The scientific method leads us to conclusions that we can reasonably assume. For example, eating healthy foods leads to a healthy body and a longer life is a conclusion that many scientist can only reasonably assume. We see how the human body’s cells react when proper nutrition is applied to these cells, but how do we actually know that it is the nutrition that causes this? We only assume this. There are at least some examples where we see people who eat poorly and live long lives. While it would be better to err on the side of healthy eating, these anomalies show that nutrition is a dynamic phenomenon that scientists are continuing to try to understand. That is the complexity of science. This complexity, however, is sometimes perceived as ambiguity.

This ambiguity, unfortunately, does not do well in arguments, especially against a creationist, who supposedly knows the truth.

Pretty much. Great way of summing up why neither side seems to get the other. They each keep slipping to the conservative aspect (your first definition of creationism and the general concept of evolution) and taking the very reasonable base those aspects give as support for the more-radical aspects.

[Jacob1983]

Why do people care about this shit? I mean this is like people bitching about abortion or gay marriage. Just agree to disagree and move on. Does anyone really know how old the Earth is? Can you definitively say what happens when you die and whether or not you go anywhere when you die? And what about alien life? Maybe some questions are just meant to stay questions.

[Leetonidas]

That just sounds lazy

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah sorry, my post wasn't directed to you in general..It was directed to other posters in this thread.

I don't believe we're arguing about a similar matter. Although you seem to be confident enough with Fossils, functions etc to convince you that human evolution ever happened..

Genetic study is an absolutely necessity with human evolution...None of these great scientist can come up with DNA evidence..Pardon DNA for decaying over millions of years.

[ChumpDumper]

Why do people care about this shit?Why are you posting incessantly about it?

[Jacob1983]

To annoy you, dumper. To annoy you.

[Chinook]

Why do people care about this shit? I mean this is like people bitching about abortion or gay marriage. Just agree to disagree and move on. Does anyone really know how old the Earth is? Can you definitively say what happens when you die and whether or not you go anywhere when you die? And what about alien life? Maybe some questions are just meant to stay questions.

I agree metaphysically. But practically there needs to be some limits to "agree to disagree". It's fine to believe what you want believe on god and heaven, but you can't let people have their own science. Little-e evolution actually does have a large bearing on many social, medical and agricultural issues. It's not harmless for people to dismiss teaching it to kids in school.

[elege]

Why do people care about this shit? I mean this is like people bitching about abortion or gay marriage. Just agree to disagree and move on. Does anyone really know how old the Earth is? Can you definitively say what happens when you die and whether or not you go anywhere when you die? And what about alien life? Maybe some questions are just meant to stay questions.

People care because it affects public policy. Just look at this trailer for this documentary.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoeMm0Tm95M

[Jacob1983]

Well, I was brainwashed with Christianity as a child but as I've gotten older, I've been highly opened to possibilities. I think the Earth is probably really old. I can't say for sure how old but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a billion years old. I also can see how birds are descendants of dinosaurs. I don't think humans came from monkeys mainly because humans have abstract thought and pure dominance over all creatures on Earth. Some people can laugh at me or whatever but that's how I see it. I think alien life is highly possible too. There is no way that humans built the pyramids in Egypt by themselves.

[ChumpDumper]

To annoy you, dumper. To annoy you.It's actually entertaining watching you contradict yourself like most creationists.

[Chinook]

People care because it affects public policy. Just look at this trailer for this documentary.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoeMm0Tm95M

You just said what I was trying to say, but smarter. Props.

[Jacob1983]

I don't consider myself a definitive creationist but you are allowed to think that if you choose to do so, dumper. I will continue to annoy you too.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't consider myself a definitive creationist but you are allowed to think that if you choose to do so, dumper. I will continue to annoy you too.Keep entertaining me by contradicting yourself like you are right now.

[ChumpDumper]

45qf6XRfVeg

Hm. Maybe she should have led with the cancer story.

[Jacob1983]

Whatever you say, dumper. Whatever you say.

[Rogue]

I think the government's recent acknowledgement of the existence of "area 51" already gave enough evidence to turn the possibility of alien life into certainty, imho.

[DMC]

And you do? LOL, just because you have some sort of degree makes you an expert on the subject? Have you ever observed evolution in the lab or anywhere for that matter?

Yes and yes

[DMC]

Why do people care about this shit? I mean this is like people bitching about abortion or gay marriage. Just agree to disagree and move on. Does anyone really know how old the Earth is? Can you definitively say what happens when you die and whether or not you go anywhere when you die? And what about alien life? Maybe some questions are just meant to stay questions.

^Liberal Arts degree at work

[DMC]

Ponder my silence? Bitch, I've been taking biology courses for 3 years now. I know all about evolution, it's theories, and also what the supposed theories are and actual facts are regarding animals and the point of where they began to exist - or at least what is known this far.

Just because I refuse to argue about pointless bullshit that's not gonna alter your opinion on a message board does not mean I am uneducated or am unknowledgable on the subject.

That's the problem with atheists. Just because we don't believe in what you do we are 'stupid', 'ignorant', etc.

3rd year biology student differentiating "theories" and "facts" per the usual.

[Woo Bum-kon]

He's been taking biology courses for three years. He knows all there is to know about The Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection, except for the fact that it is not also called The Big Bang Theory. He seems to think these theories are the same thing for reasons unknown to me.

[I. Hustle]

So did someone win? Are the Christians all Evolutionists now? Or did the other side win and new churches are popping up everywhere?

WHAT?! Nobody won??!! Everything is EXACTLY the same??!!

[leemajors]

45qf6XRfVeg

Hm. Maybe she should have led with the cancer story.

so did he create English :lmao

[Blake]

So did someone win? Are the Christians all Evolutionists now? Or did the other side win and new churches are popping up everywhere?

WHAT?! Nobody won??!! Everything is EXACTLY the same??!!

Yeah, it's a shame this is even up for a debate.

I'm betting other countries are laughing at us

[mouse]

This would have been a good time to introduce Alternative Design.
People need to know it's not just always Pepsi or Coke, you can have a Sprite.
I need to make sure I attended the next debate.

[Rogue]

Ponder my silence? Bitch, I've been taking biology courses for 3 years now. I know all about evolution, it's theories, and also what the supposed theories are and actual facts are regarding animals and the point of where they began to exist - or at least what is known this far.

Just because I refuse to argue about pointless bullshit that's not gonna alter your opinion on a message board does not mean I am uneducated or am unknowledgable on the subject.

That's the problem with atheists. Just because we don't believe in what you do we are 'stupid', 'ignorant', etc.
though your only interest is in feline science...

[Leetonidas]

Feline biology courses :lol

[I. Hustle]

Yeah, it's a shame this is even up for a debate.

I'm betting other countries are laughing at us

Like which ones? The communist countries or the Muslim dominated ones?

[pgardn]

Scientist are aboustely delusional.

Caldistics being a study of Characteristics can not be sufficient..There is abosutely no way to connect to DNA's without having the DNA of the so called "Ancestor".

A scientist can and will make the mistake of considering red pandas as Racoon ancestors if red pandas ever lived a billion years ago..

Not enough Chinook.

We will always make mistakes and redo relationships. The horseshoe crab is another example we made a mistake on.

You do not understand science. It changes models as new evidence arises. We attempt to get things right so as to be predictive. We will never fully understand everything.

So give us your theory of how the great diversity of life we see today on the earth arose? If scientists are delusional, and you have the keys give it up and answer the question. Then after you deposit your new theory be prepared to take a thorough beat down. Or be prepared to get published. You could become famous.

Go.

[pgardn]

Yes. Every living thing on Earth has been evolving for the exact same amount of time.

But not at the same rates as generation times differ between species. And changes in DNA that are enough to lead to speciation is another topic along this line.

This is another reason to like this stuff. It's fascinating.

[Blake]

64 minutes. Nye says “traditional fish sex” and grabs everyone’s attention. Traditional fish sex is different from the sex that fish have with themselves, he is explaining (and not yet explaining why this is relevant to his point). Nye is now asking: “Why does anybody have sex?” Why don’t humans just make like a rosebush and produce a flower? Or divide like bacteria? How sexy. Nye calls that question a real “chinstroker.” The twitterverse is already talking about “fishionary” position. But never fear! Evolution has the answer: species that reproduce sexually have fewer parasites. How about that for motivation to get it on.

http://swampland.time.com/2014/02/05/bill-nye-ken-ham-debate/

Lmao fishionary

[pgardn]

Cladiastics used to be based on phyiscal characteristics, but now genetic characteristics. And it's actually pretty easy to tell the age of a gene reliably by looking at its radiation.

Anyway, you continue to misunderstand how evolution is supported. And until you actually take a comparative anatomy class, you'll continue to not understand. Things aren't considered ancestors simply because their older. It's because of how similarities and differences are. Even if people get it wrong at times, the method s still strong. Even if a time-warped raccoon fossil were discovered and labeled a red panda ancestor, that wouldn't prevent the fact that the red panda ancestor likely looked like both a racoon and red panda.

Comparative anatomy is just one of many lines of evidence. You find it very powerful as do I. The neat thing is that so many different fields from physiology, to how species arise, only make sense in the light of evolution. People studying biological phenomena which had nothing to do with evolution bumbled upon it. This is what has made evolution and the mechanisms that drive it so powerful. Not just comparative anatomy or DNA.

People who really like this stuff need to read Stephen Jay Goulds series of essays in Natural History. The Pandas Thumb, Hens Teeth and Horses Toes, there are a number of other compilations of these essays. One will also find he was wrong with a number of his projections, which again is beautiful and shows how science continually allows for corrections.

[pgardn]

Like which ones? The communist countries or the Muslim dominated ones?

Mostly Western Europe. The Economists just had an article trying to explain why Americans hold on to creationism so furiously in a January issue. It's a British magazine.

[Blake]

Like which ones? The communist countries or the Muslim dominated ones?

" Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe resolution 1580On October 4, 2007, the*Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted its resolution 1580 titled*The dangers of creationism in education. The resolution observed that "the war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements", and urged member states "to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion".[17]"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/council_of_europe_approves_resolution_against_crea tionism/

[I. Hustle]

Mostly Western Europe. The Economists just had an article trying to explain why Americans hold on to creationism so furiously in a January issue. It's a British magazine.

LOL

The Brits don't agree with how America does things? That's intersting. That changes everything.

[apalisoc_9]

Cladiastics used to be based on phyiscal characteristics, but now genetic characteristics. And it's actually pretty easy to tell the age of a gene reliably by looking at its radiation.

Anyway, you continue to misunderstand how evolution is supported. And until you actually take a comparative anatomy class, you'll continue to not understand. Things aren't considered ancestors simply because their older. It's because of how similarities and differences are. Even if people get it wrong at times, the method s still strong. Even if a time-warped raccoon fossil were discovered and labeled a red panda ancestor, that wouldn't prevent the fact that the red panda ancestor likely looked like both a racoon and red panda.

So you admit, Human Evolution itself is not an absolute.

And it will never be as DNA's decay and that's the only way Human evolution can be accurarlty 100% verified.

[pgardn]

LOL

The Brits don't agree with how America does things? That's intersting. That changes everything.

They don't disagree with anything. They were trying to explain how such a scientifically advanced country has such a large % of people who do not believe in what is deemed such a very basic scientific tenet by the rest of the scientific world. Obviously the entirety of our country is not composed of people that don't have a clue how science works.

Most of the current major insights into the tougher evolutionary questions, such as rates of evolution, come from the US.

It's like the unequal distribution of scientific wealth in this country. Why are some so lacking, starving?

[I. Hustle]

" Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe resolution 1580On October 4, 2007, the*Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted its resolution 1580 titled*The dangers of creationism in education. The resolution observed that "the war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements", and urged member states "to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion".[17]"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/council_of_europe_approves_resolution_against_crea tionism/

You want to know the funny thing about this? I have no problem with that. I wouldn't want my kid taught beliefs based on any certain religion. I would prefer that if I did teach them about religion that it was done on my end or through a private school that I chose based on belief in the same doctrine. I am not against taking religious beliefs out of school. In fact, I don't remember ever coming across that at all while I was in school aside from the pledge. If anything I would just do like you are doing and put my kids in a Christian school if I wanted that. I just think that it's impossible to teach evolution as well since it has so many flaws, is constantly changing and is predicated on a belief system as well. Of course not a religious belief so don't go there. We can cal it a belief of "theories".

My argument is that debates like this one that took place don't really offer anything. Nothing is changed because of it. It's just a bunch of idiots that don't, and will not, agree with each other trying to show how much they know.

[pgardn]

So you admit, Human Evolution itself is not an absolute.

And it will never be as DNA's decay and that's the only way Human evolution can be accurarlty 100% verified.

What in science is 100% verified?

[apalisoc_9]

What in science is 100% verified?

There's a few things in Astro sciences that is 100% verified..You can figure it out.

[I. Hustle]

What in science is 100% verified?

SMH

[pgardn]

I just think that it's impossible to teach evolution as well since it has so many flaws, is constantly changing and is predicated on a belief system as well.


What in science is not predicated on a belief system? Are you familiar with logic?

What in science is NOT allowed to change?

From your concerns NO science should be taught.

[Brazil]

This would have been a good time to introduce Alternative Design.
People need to know it's not just always Pepsi or Coke, you can have a Sprite.
I need to make sure I attended the next debate.

still waiting for your explanation btw

[pgardn]

There's a few things in Astro sciences that is 100% verified..You can figure it out.

No this is not true.

Is it possible that dye dropped into water could all come back together at the very top of the container, just like the dye entered the water? Yes.

Is it probable, no.

You tell me anything 100% verified?

[pgardn]

SMH

SMH at you SYH.

[Chinook]

So you admit, Human Evolution itself is not an absolute.

And it will never be as DNA's decay and that's the only way Human evolution can be accurarlty 100% verified.

Of course it's not 100-percent guaranteed to be accurate. I said that last night. It's far and away the best we have, but something better and completely different could come along.

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

He's been taking biology courses for three years. He knows all there is to know about The Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection, except for the fact that it is not also called The Big Bang Theory. He seems to think these theories are the same thing for reasons unknown to me.

As usual, evolution believer twists words because he cannot answer simple presented arguments. Just the usual "lol mythical creature" or "Bible = Comic book". You're a joke.

[I. Hustle]

SMH at you SYH.

Well then SMD @ u SYH @ my SMH

[I. Hustle]

Of course it's not 100-percent guaranteed to be accurate. I said that last night. It's far and away the best we have, but something better and completely different could come along.

LOL

[pgardn]

This whole debate again reinforces the very obvious conclusion that people truly don't know how science works.


They have been taught science is some monolithic force determined to destroy their beliefs.

Believe anything you want. Just don't force your misconceptions of science in a science classroom with my kids in them. Like scientific creationism, the oxymoron deluxe. Wondering when math will be attacked...

[pgardn]

Well then SMD @ u SYH @ my SMH

I just think that it's impossible to teach evolution as well since it has so many flaws, is constantly changing and is predicated on a belief system as well.




What in science is not predicated on a belief system? Are you familiar with logic?


What in science is NOT allowed to change?


From your concerns NO science should be taught.

Read the above again.^

[I. Hustle]

I just think that it's impossible to teach evolution as well since it has so many flaws, is constantly changing and is predicated on a belief system as well.




What in science is not predicated on a belief system? Are you familiar with logic?


What in science is NOT allowed to change?


From your concerns NO science should be taught.

Read the above again.^

LOL

Maybe you don't understand Science as well as you think you do. There are tons of things that can be explained scientifically and are fact. They are not all theories. There are things we know as concrete and things that are full of holes.

[rascal]

Wow, N0 LyF3 ScRuB (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7114114#post7114114) is a fucking idiot. He's using the same old, tired, ignorant responses that theist apologists have been using for years. He first stupidly asks where the evidence for evolution is, as if he is incapable of using Google for five seconds. Then he completely changes the topic to abiogenesis and The Big Bang, as if those two are somehow synonymous with evolution. Then he uses the idiotic "The Big Bang is just a theory" excuse that many theists who have no understanding of what "scientific theory" actually means usually use.

And robdiaz is a moron. Nobody should take him seriously after his absolutely pathetic performance in previous evolution threads. This guy knows absolute shit about evolution, yet tries to talk shit about it. The worst part isn't him being an wilfully ignorant moron; it's his complete unwillingness to even try to defend his belief in an invisible sky daddeh. He'll throw around emoticon after emoticon when other people actually defend something he disagrees with, but when pressed to explain what he believes and why, he changes the topic.

Here we go like usual with the atheists calling others morons.

I wouldn't trust an atheist with anything. They don't believe they have to answer to any wrong they do so watch out, an atheist will stab you in the back first chance he gets if he believes he can get away with it. The happiest people I have seen are those devoted to a belief in God and family following the principles layed out in the Bible.

[rascal]

How is not having proof, makes sense?

You can match a thousand similar looking animals and you would still know they're biologically different...

Did Bears evolve from Pandas?

No.

So unless otherwise, Science can come up with a much more convincing Proof...Human Evolution should never be equated to Gravity or any other Scientific theories.

It's absolutely delusional to equate that two.
I would say gravity is a fact. It is a known proven force that exists.

[Leetonidas]

Here we go like usual with the atheists calling others morons.

I wouldn't trust an atheist with anything. They don't believe they have to answer to any wrong they do so watch out, an atheist will stab you in the back first chance he gets if he believes he can get away with it. The happiest people I have seen are those devoted to a belief in God and family following the principles layed out in the Bible.

And this is exactly why zealous bible thumpers are fucking hypocritical pieces of shit

[Leetonidas]

Which is funny considering you deluded fucks have an excuse to do bad :lol

" :cry it's okay to be sinful because man is imperfect and jesus died for us so we just have to repent and it's okay :cry "

Sounds like an excuse to be a dumbass to me

[baseline bum]

I would say gravity is a fact. It is a known proven force that exists.

The theory of gravity is way way way more controversial than the theory of evolution. Einstein's theory of gravity is incompatible with quantum physics. No one has ever found the hypothesized graviton, the force carrying particle thought to exist for gravity (the corresponding particles for e&m forces, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force have all been found). The only thing that ties is together is string theory, which is little more than speculation that makes the math turn out nice right now. And then there is the finding that gravity is likely repulsive at very long distances where the inverse square magnitude becomes tiny (e.g., dark energy or the cosmological constant). Gravity is one of the biggest question marks in science, and has been ever since Newton published the first decent theory of it (Newton and other physicists weren't at all comfortable with the action at a distance pull Newton hypothesized). Gravity can even be considered a fictitious force, like centrifugal force that makes it seem like you're pulled to the other side when making a sharp turn in your car.

[Leetonidas]

The theory of gravity is way way way more controversial than the theory of evolution. Einstein's theory of gravity is incompatible with quantum physics. No one has ever found the hypothesized graviton, the force carrying particle thought to exist for gravity. The only thing that ties is together is string theory, which is little more than speculation that makes the math turn out nice right now. And then there is the finding that gravity is likely repulsive at very long distances where the inverse square magnitude becomes tiny (e.g., dark energy or the cosmological constant). Gravity is one of the biggest question marks in science, and has been ever since Newton published the first decent theory of it (Newton and other physicists weren't at all comfortable with the action at a distance pull it exerted).

He probably thinks gravity means what goes up must come down :lol