Look guys, it's simple. Micro evolution is a definate fact. MACRO evolution however is a ridiculous theory. Yes, using the science and discoveries that have been made thusfar do make it "somewhat" believable (yes I said - believable, because you have to believe/have faith, that it's true). But here's some easy questions for you since you're so much into this religion.... Explain to me how wings came to be. Seriously. Gradual changes in DNA through many years of development could perhaps create mutations that resemble wings. These mutations when they begin can't possibly be advantageous to the current species, and they'd be eaten up, which stops that evolution line dead in it's tracks. But let's say they ALL got super lucky and were able to survive long enough to gradually develop into something more resembling a wing. This process would take a LONG freaking time. And since they must've survived (because obviously they eventually developed into creatures with wings that can fly -- birds), then where are the remnants of these creatures? The same can be asked of pretty much any appendage on any creature. Because according to the "theory" of macro-evolution, it all began as a single-cell organism, and over a very long period of time, mutations took place.
Now, in closing, I have a request. Stop with the attacking of people who do not believe in evolution. We're not all attacking you. We don't call you stupid or uninformed, so don't do it to us. Just because we CHOOSE to believe a certain way doesn't mean we're completely ignorant to the other. Alot of us have been on your side in the past, but eventually simply changed our minds. Those mind changing stories are something you should perhaps pay attention to.
To grow wings... My guess is a little specie of lizard where living in a place with huge wind. There was plenty of food to eat but the wind always blew the poor lizard to his death away from the food. After an extensive period of time, the lizard that had those deformity on his arms somewhat balanced him in the air so after another extensive period of time his children all had that deformity but a new lizard had an even bigger diformity and so on and so on...
Look guys, it's simple. Micro evolution is a definate fact. MACRO evolution however is a ridiculous theory. Yes, using the science and discoveries that have been made thusfar do make it "somewhat" believable (yes I said - believable, because you have to believe/have faith, that it's true). But here's some easy questions for you since you're so much into this religion.... Explain to me how wings came to be. Seriously. Gradual changes in DNA through many years of development could perhaps create mutations that resemble wings. These mutations when they begin can't possibly be advantageous to the current species, and they'd be eaten up, which stops that evolution line dead in it's tracks. But let's say they ALL got super lucky and were able to survive long enough to gradually develop into something more resembling a wing. This process would take a LONG freaking time. And since they must've survived (because obviously they eventually developed into creatures with wings that can fly -- birds), then where are the remnants of these creatures? The same can be asked of pretty much any appendage on any creature. Because according to the "theory" of macro-evolution, it all began as a single-cell organism, and over a very long period of time, mutations took place.
Now, in closing, I have a request. Stop with the attacking of people who do not believe in evolution. We're not all attacking you. We don't call you stupid or uninformed, so don't do it to us. Just because we CHOOSE to believe a certain way doesn't mean we're completely ignorant to the other. Alot of us have been on your side in the past, but eventually simply changed our minds. Those mind changing stories are something you should perhaps pay attention to.
The division between micro and macro evolution is mostly an artificial construct created by creationists. Macro evolution has a lot of evidence behind it and it is not at all disputed by pretty much the entire scientific community. I wish I could get into it more, but it'd only take a single google search or visit to the university library to do some research on the facts you're arguing. I know I have.
You see, I really don't mean to offend. And I didn't mean to attack anyone. That said, when someone says 'choosing not to believe in evolution is my opinion, respect it' is much like saying 'it is my opinion that gravity is a lie' or 'the sun revolves around the earth - it's my opinion!'. While I really and honestly do respect your opinion, so far in a discussion I've never seen a single creationist make a valid point criticism on the fact of evolution. I've always been able to refute everything, even with my comperatively basic knowledge. Nevermind what a doctor in evolutionary biology could do.
That said, when you're not hurting anyone with that opinion (and face it, by far most creationists never do. Some of the nicest people are know are creationists - hell, my girlfriend and her family is!), I feel that everybody should respect it.
Then please, with your all encompassing knowledge, please bless all of us "stupid" people with your explanation. Answer my question, don't just tell me I'm stupid. Answer the freaking question.
You are not stupid. You just feel strongly about your opinion without necessarily knowing everything (or having some things misrepresented to you). You are merely human.
What would be super cool though is if you could acknowledge that your disbelief in evolution is not a scientific one, and that your arguments are merely exercises in self-assurace.
Edit: Because if you actually wanted to know the truth, you would be out learning instead of posting poorly-formed arguments here.
Look guys, it's simple. Micro evolution is a definate fact. MACRO evolution however is a ridiculous theory. Yes, using the science and discoveries that have been made thusfar do make it "somewhat" believable (yes I said - believable, because you have to believe/have faith, that it's true). But here's some easy questions for you since you're so much into this religion.... Explain to me how wings came to be. Seriously. Gradual changes in DNA through many years of development could perhaps create mutations that resemble wings. These mutations when they begin can't possibly be advantageous to the current species, and they'd be eaten up, which stops that evolution line dead in it's tracks. But let's say they ALL got super lucky and were able to survive long enough to gradually develop into something more resembling a wing. This process would take a LONG freaking time. And since they must've survived (because obviously they eventually developed into creatures with wings that can fly -- birds), then where are the remnants of these creatures? The same can be asked of pretty much any appendage on any creature. Because according to the "theory" of macro-evolution, it all began as a single-cell organism, and over a very long period of time, mutations took place.
Now, in closing, I have a request. Stop with the attacking of people who do not believe in evolution. We're not all attacking you. We don't call you stupid or uninformed, so don't do it to us. Just because we CHOOSE to believe a certain way doesn't mean we're completely ignorant to the other. Alot of us have been on your side in the past, but eventually simply changed our minds. Those mind changing stories are something you should perhaps pay attention to.
Fins.
They evolved in the sea, even a small fin is an advantage. Then the creature goes amphibian. A mutation gives larger fins that allow some individuals to flap them to move a few inches. Then one can flap more inches. In a milion years they can flap for few meters. You see the picture, if you want to.
Remnants.. I don't know about that.. but even if you saw them, you'd say that God put them there, so that wouldn't convince you.
What is ridiculous is believing in a God that allows innocent children and adults to suffer and die and lets the muderer/responsable live in peace. A God full of hate, that could be a possibility, even a God with a wicked and cruel sense of humor, but not a God full of love, no way.
More extra replies: I'd like to point out that the different potential explanations for the evolution of wings are probably all right. Wings are an analogous structure (in fact, they're the example in the wikipedia article there) in that they evolved separately amongst various different species (likely in different ways) but server similar functions.
"1. Wings evolved from arms used to capture small prey. (This seems rational, so we can ask whether the ancestral forms were actually doing this.)
2. Wings evolved because bipedal animals were leaping into the air; large wings assisted leaping. (This is possible; any amount of wing could assist leaping. Remember that we first need phylogenetic evidence for a bipedal running or leaping origin.)
3. Wings were used as sexual display structures; bigger wings were preferred by potential mates. (This is a non-falsifiable evolutionary hypothesis — we cannot test it.)
4. Wings evolved from gliding ancestors who began to flap their gliding structures in order to produce thrust. (This is reasonable and possible, but only with phylogenetic evidence for an arboreal gliding origin.)"
1. "seems rational"? Sounds like he's saying it's a "good guess"?
2. Completely understandable. However, where are the fossiles/remains that connect creatures from 1 and 2?
3. He says "non-falsifiable" then says "we cannot test it"?! WTF? Uhh, if you cannot test it, since it is a GUESS, then what gives him the right to say it's "non-falsifiable"? Since it is a GUESS, then he has no clue if it's true or false. This is a perfect example of how evolutionists insist what they believe to be the absolute unfallable truth, but have no REAL backing.
4. Of course, this makes sense. But we have to get through parts 1-3 before getting to 4. From 4 to now is MICRO evolution.
Originally posted by Vhayne Now, in closing, I have a request. Stop with the attacking of people who do not believe in evolution. We're not all attacking you. We don't call you stupid or uninformed, so don't do it to us. Just because we CHOOSE to believe a certain way doesn't mean we're completely ignorant to the other.
I may not agree with Creationism but this I do agree with. Let people believe in whatever they want to believe. If you think they are wrong... so what, it effects you in no way. I may be an Evolutionist but I also feel that if someone wants to believe in Creationism... Hey, whatever gets you through the day. The only time I ever argue with Creationists is when they try to throw it in my face otherwise I leave them alone. Hey, if that is what you personally need to believe more power to you.
Ok, I read the link about "how wings evolved". "1. Wings evolved from arms used to capture small prey. (This seems rational, so we can ask whether the ancestral forms were actually doing this.)
2. Wings evolved because bipedal animals were leaping into the air; large wings assisted leaping. (This is possible; any amount of wing could assist leaping. Remember that we first need phylogenetic evidence for a bipedal running or leaping origin.) 3. Wings were used as sexual display structures; bigger wings were preferred by potential mates. (This is a non-falsifiable evolutionary hypothesis — we cannot test it.) 4. Wings evolved from gliding ancestors who began to flap their gliding structures in order to produce thrust. (This is reasonable and possible, but only with phylogenetic evidence for an arboreal gliding origin.)"
1. "seems rational"? Sounds like he's saying it's a "good guess"? 2. Completely understandable. However, where are the fossiles/remains that connect creatures from 1 and 2? 3. He says "non-falsifiable" then says "we cannot test it"?! WTF? Uhh, if you cannot test it, since it is a GUESS, then what gives him the right to say it's "non-falsifiable"? Since it is a GUESS, then he has no clue if it's true or false. This is a perfect example of how evolutionists insist what they believe to be the absolute unfallable truth, but have no REAL backing. 4. Of course, this makes sense. But we have to get through parts 1-3 before getting to 4. From 4 to now is MICRO evolution.
Surprise: 'macro-evolution' is the direct result of 'micro-evolution' over a long period of time. You cannot have one without the other. The processes are one and the same.
Also, something that is 'non-falsifiable' is something that cannot be disproven. Edit: Something that is falsifiable has some quality about it that could be hypothetically observed that would prove it to be false. That is him doing what scientists do, being truthful. Wikipedia link on falsifiability. He is admitting a weakness in his analysis in that there's no way to disprove it. That's why he discards that hypothesis when he moves on to the testing phase. In short, since you seem to have failed to comprehend the article, he is proposing hypotheses to test using the scientific method there, he's not even to the proof part yet. Since #3 is not falsifiable, he discards it. Looking up stuff is cool. So right about now you should be feeling really foolish for criticizing him based on your misunderstanding of the phrases used, and then making a generalization.
You clearly don't even have a clue how the scientific process works, much less the ability to comprehend a scientific article.
Ok, I read the link about "how wings evolved". "1. Wings evolved from arms used to capture small prey. (This seems rational, so we can ask whether the ancestral forms were actually doing this.)
2. Wings evolved because bipedal animals were leaping into the air; large wings assisted leaping. (This is possible; any amount of wing could assist leaping. Remember that we first need phylogenetic evidence for a bipedal running or leaping origin.) 3. Wings were used as sexual display structures; bigger wings were preferred by potential mates. (This is a non-falsifiable evolutionary hypothesis — we cannot test it.) 4. Wings evolved from gliding ancestors who began to flap their gliding structures in order to produce thrust. (This is reasonable and possible, but only with phylogenetic evidence for an arboreal gliding origin.)"
1. "seems rational"? Sounds like he's saying it's a "good guess"? 2. Completely understandable. However, where are the fossiles/remains that connect creatures from 1 and 2? 3. He says "non-falsifiable" then says "we cannot test it"?! WTF? Uhh, if you cannot test it, since it is a GUESS, then what gives him the right to say it's "non-falsifiable"? Since it is a GUESS, then he has no clue if it's true or false. This is a perfect example of how evolutionists insist what they believe to be the absolute unfallable truth, but have no REAL backing. 4. Of course, this makes sense. But we have to get through parts 1-3 before getting to 4. From 4 to now is MICRO evolution.
You read the first page. That was outlining the procedure akin to your high school labs (you know, list procedure, experiment, conclusion).
And the point on #3 was that you can make that claim, but you can't falsify it because you cannot test it. In other words, it is an idea that you can conclude (it's a hypothesis) from evolutionary theory, but since we can't actually observe the species in its natural habitat (i.e. learn its behaviors, mating behaviors, etc) we cannot test it; in other words since it cannot be shown to be false, but has a basis in solid theory we can use it as a hypothesis. And you can tell if you read the other pages, it is not used to describe the evolution of wings.
And I want to drive that home again. IT WAS NOT A GUESS. It is based off SCIENTIFIC THEORY. THAT IS NOT A GUESS. It takes what we know and extrapolates on it, with the basis of what we know.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
Ok, I read the link about "how wings evolved". "1. Wings evolved from arms used to capture small prey. (This seems rational, so we can ask whether the ancestral forms were actually doing this.)
2. Wings evolved because bipedal animals were leaping into the air; large wings assisted leaping. (This is possible; any amount of wing could assist leaping. Remember that we first need phylogenetic evidence for a bipedal running or leaping origin.) 3. Wings were used as sexual display structures; bigger wings were preferred by potential mates. (This is a non-falsifiable evolutionary hypothesis — we cannot test it.) 4. Wings evolved from gliding ancestors who began to flap their gliding structures in order to produce thrust. (This is reasonable and possible, but only with phylogenetic evidence for an arboreal gliding origin.)"
1. "seems rational"? Sounds like he's saying it's a "good guess"? 2. Completely understandable. However, where are the fossiles/remains that connect creatures from 1 and 2? 3. He says "non-falsifiable" then says "we cannot test it"?! WTF? Uhh, if you cannot test it, since it is a GUESS, then what gives him the right to say it's "non-falsifiable"? Since it is a GUESS, then he has no clue if it's true or false. This is a perfect example of how evolutionists insist what they believe to be the absolute unfallable truth, but have no REAL backing. 4. Of course, this makes sense. But we have to get through parts 1-3 before getting to 4. From 4 to now is MICRO evolution.
Surprise: 'macro-evolution' is the direct result of 'micro-evolution' over a long period of time. You cannot have one without the other. The processes are one and the same.
Also, something that is 'non-falsifiable' is something that cannot be disproven. Edit: Something that is falsifiable has some quality about it that could be hypothetically observed that would prove it to be false. That is him doing what scientists do, being truthful. Wikipedia link on falsifiability. He is admitting a weakness in his analysis in that there's no way to disprove it. That's why he discards that hypothesis when he moves on to the testing phase. In short, since you seem to have failed to comprehend the article, he is proposing hypotheses to test using the scientific method there, he's not even to the proof part yet. Since #3 is not falsifiable, he discards it. Looking up stuff is cool. So right about now you should be feeling really foolish for criticizing him based on your misunderstanding of the phrases used, and then making a generalization.
You clearly don't even have a clue how the scientific process works, much less the ability to comprehend a scientific article.
You're not fooling anybody.
So what you're saying is because something cannot be "disproven" then you suppose everyone in the world should believe in UFO's, aliens, ghosts, loch ness monster, etc.? And they are ignorant for not believing in them, because they are "non-falsifiable"?
And since it cannot truely be absolutely proven, you will "believe" in it because some guy makes it SOUND believable? That's called faith. Believing in something that cannot be proven. Yes it all sounds great in theory. But I think my theory also sounds great. They are both bound by faith regardless.
Oh, and btw, I watched that youtube video that you guys were laughing about of Kent Hovind (#3 I think). Something to say about Hovind. He's a really corny guy. His humor is really weak, and he's a serious bible-thumper. That being said, alot of the information he provides (alot being through scientific process) is interesting. Interesting enough to me to question that of evolution. Once you question, you throw in a dash of doubt. Some of his stuff is crap, an exaggeration. Alot of it is not. Some is to entertain (he's an evangelist --eventhough I hate evangelism-- and alot of his audience is kids. Yeah yeah, he's in jail. So what. Does that make him stupid, or a bad person? No. He screwed the hell up, bigtime. He went up against the man and lost. I still respect him. If you thought you could get by with what he did, you'd do it too. So don't even start with the prison thing lol.
Now, in closing, I have a request. Stop with the attacking of people who do not believe in evolution. We're not all attacking you. We don't call you stupid or uninformed, so don't do it to us. Just because we CHOOSE to believe a certain way doesn't mean we're completely ignorant to the other. Alot of us have been on your side in the past, but eventually simply changed our minds. Those mind changing stories are something you should perhaps pay attention to.
If the idea was valid, and not in stark contrast to observed scientific theory and evidence, or fact in general you may have a point. However you are choosing to ignore the reality in front of you. In other words, ideas that assert themselves, but are patently false should be criticized and dissected ruthlessly. And when they've been shown to be nothing more then nonsense and people still hold onto ideas it does mean they are willingly ignorant, i.e. stupid. What is even worse though, is when people still hold onto the idea and still assert it by any means necessary, it is an affront to the scientific process, the advancement of our understanding and knowledge of the Universe and it is thus valid to attack them for it.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
Well I'm outnumbered here by far -- apparently not alot of christians are gamers, and I'm tired of wasting my time arguing with you guys. I'm stuck in my beliefs, and I don't ever intend to change them. I honestly don't care how to believe, but I worry about your later generations. Living lives without anything but the current set of government and state laws as the only means of limitation. Seriously, if you really want everyone to believe there is no God, higher power, etc. What do you think the world is really going to be like in 30-50 years if you succeed?
While you probably won't go around killing people (because your'e limited by laws), where will the morals be? You know, the kind that constitues love and care of a child, being faithful to your wife, not stealing just because you can get away with it, etc.
If you say you'd still love, be faithful, and not do something "wrong" eventhough you could get away with it, then what exactly would stop you? Where do you think those feelings come from? Were they "evolved" into us? Or is there something deeper?
Take your "scientific analyses" and study what you think a world would truely be like if nobody believed in God, and only lived by the laws of the land.
"...if consequences dictate our course of action and it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught...then I should just play God and shoot you myself...." -- Tool
While you probably won't go around killing people (because your'e limited by laws), where will the morals be? You know, the kind that constitues love and care of a child, being faithful to your wife, not stealing just because you can get away with it, etc.
Read "On The Basis of Morality" by Arthur Schopenhauer.
Try "On the Genealogy of Moraltiy" by Nietzsche too.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
Seriously, if you really want everyone to believe there is no God, higher power, etc.
THE FACEPALM REQUIRED FOR THIS POST IS FAR BEYOND ANYTHING A HUMAN IS CAPABLE OF
You keep doing it. You keep proving to us that you have abso-fucking-lutely no clue on what the theory of evolution is about. Are you doing this on purpose? It's just amazing how you can be so clueless.
The theory of evolution doesn't say shit about the existence of a god, nor the origin of life(because I know you're probably thinking that too.). The only thing it does is explain how life developed.
Well I'm outnumbered here by far -- apparently not alot of christians are gamers, and I'm tired of wasting my time arguing with you guys. I'm stuck in my beliefs, and I don't ever intend to change them. I honestly don't care how to believe, but I worry about your later generations. Living lives without anything but the current set of government and state laws as the only means of limitation. Seriously, if you really want everyone to believe there is no God, higher power, etc. What do you think the world is really going to be like in 30-50 years if you succeed? While you probably won't go around killing people (because your'e limited by laws), where will the morals be? You know, the kind that constitues love and care of a child, being faithful to your wife, not stealing just because you can get away with it, etc. If you say you'd still love, be faithful, and not do something "wrong" eventhough you could get away with it, then what exactly would stop you? Where do you think those feelings come from? Were they "evolved" into us? Or is there something deeper? Take your "scientific analyses" and study what you think a world would truely be like if nobody believed in God, and only lived by the laws of the land. "...if consequences dictate our course of action and it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught...then I should just play God and shoot you myself...." -- Tool
Anyway, I'm out.
Hmm....
No, but seriously. God has nothing to do with this.
Well I'm outnumbered here by far -- apparently not alot of christians are gamers (Or, maybe there's some Christians who are smart enough to actually NOT ignore the massive amounts of proof of evolution), and I'm tired of wasting my time arguing with you guys. (Especially when you lost every step of the way) I'm stuck in my beliefs, and I don't ever intend to change them. (Yay! Closed-mindedness is always fun) I honestly don't care how to believe, but I worry about your later generations. Living lives without anything but the current set of government and state laws as the only means of limitation. (Umm... Evolution =! Government) Seriously, if you really want everyone to believe there is no God, higher power, etc. What do you think the world is really going to be like in 30-50 years if you succeed? While you probably won't go around killing people (because your'e limited by laws), where will the morals be? You know, the kind that constitues love and care of a child, being faithful to your wife, not stealing just because you can get away with it, etc. (Evolution =! Morality... you are seriously going Off-Topic with this post) If you say you'd still love, be faithful, and not do something "wrong" eventhough you could get away with it, then what exactly would stop you? Where do you think those feelings come from? Were they "evolved" into us? Or is there something deeper? (Again... more off-topic BS) Take your "scientific analyses" and study what you think a world would truely be like if nobody believed in God, and only lived by the laws of the land. (Evolution =! Disbelief in God... only the hardcore f*cknuts (aka Creationists) believe that) "...if consequences dictate our course of action and it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught...then I should just play God and shoot you myself...." -- Tool
Ok, I read the link about "how wings evolved". "1. Wings evolved from arms used to capture small prey. (This seems rational, so we can ask whether the ancestral forms were actually doing this.)
2. Wings evolved because bipedal animals were leaping into the air; large wings assisted leaping. (This is possible; any amount of wing could assist leaping. Remember that we first need phylogenetic evidence for a bipedal running or leaping origin.) 3. Wings were used as sexual display structures; bigger wings were preferred by potential mates. (This is a non-falsifiable evolutionary hypothesis — we cannot test it.) 4. Wings evolved from gliding ancestors who began to flap their gliding structures in order to produce thrust. (This is reasonable and possible, but only with phylogenetic evidence for an arboreal gliding origin.)"
1. "seems rational"? Sounds like he's saying it's a "good guess"? 2. Completely understandable. However, where are the fossiles/remains that connect creatures from 1 and 2? 3. He says "non-falsifiable" then says "we cannot test it"?! WTF? Uhh, if you cannot test it, since it is a GUESS, then what gives him the right to say it's "non-falsifiable"? Since it is a GUESS, then he has no clue if it's true or false. This is a perfect example of how evolutionists insist what they believe to be the absolute unfallable truth, but have no REAL backing. 4. Of course, this makes sense. But we have to get through parts 1-3 before getting to 4. From 4 to now is MICRO evolution.
Surprise: 'macro-evolution' is the direct result of 'micro-evolution' over a long period of time. You cannot have one without the other. The processes are one and the same.
Also, something that is 'non-falsifiable' is something that cannot be disproven. Edit: Something that is falsifiable has some quality about it that could be hypothetically observed that would prove it to be false. That is him doing what scientists do, being truthful. Wikipedia link on falsifiability. He is admitting a weakness in his analysis in that there's no way to disprove it. That's why he discards that hypothesis when he moves on to the testing phase. In short, since you seem to have failed to comprehend the article, he is proposing hypotheses to test using the scientific method there, he's not even to the proof part yet. Since #3 is not falsifiable, he discards it. Looking up stuff is cool. So right about now you should be feeling really foolish for criticizing him based on your misunderstanding of the phrases used, and then making a generalization.
You clearly don't even have a clue how the scientific process works, much less the ability to comprehend a scientific article.
You're not fooling anybody.
So what you're saying is because something cannot be "disproven" then you suppose everyone in the world should believe in UFO's, aliens, ghosts, loch ness monster, etc.? And they are ignorant for not believing in them, because they are "non-falsifiable"?
And since it cannot truely be absolutely proven, you will "believe" in it because some guy makes it SOUND believable? That's called faith. Believing in something that cannot be proven. Yes it all sounds great in theory. But I think my theory also sounds great. They are both bound by faith regardless.
Oh, and btw, I watched that youtube video that you guys were laughing about of Kent Hovind (#3 I think). Something to say about Hovind. He's a really corny guy. His humor is really weak, and he's a serious bible-thumper. That being said, alot of the information he provides (alot being through scientific process) is interesting. Interesting enough to me to question that of evolution. Once you question, you throw in a dash of doubt. Some of his stuff is crap, an exaggeration. Alot of it is not. Some is to entertain (he's an evangelist --eventhough I hate evangelism-- and alot of his audience is kids. Yeah yeah, he's in jail. So what. Does that make him stupid, or a bad person? No. He screwed the hell up, bigtime. He went up against the man and lost. I still respect him. If you thought you could get by with what he did, you'd do it too. So don't even start with the prison thing lol.
Wow, no. I'm glad you're done posting, because you're commenting on the scientific process without having a goddamn clue about how it works. I even linked you an article on falsifiability and you still spout stupidity. Edit: Let me explain it one more time for the particularly thick people in here.
Falsifiability is an important quality in scientific theories. Falsifiability means that something has a quality about it that could be observed to show that that hypothesis or theory is incorrect. If something is non-falsifiable it means that it's impossible to determine that that is incorrect. In science, if something is non-falsifiable, it is not a scientific theory. He listed four hypotheses for the evolution of wings and detailed each. He discarded the third one because it was non-falsifiable. How you managed to interpret a list as a goddamn series of steps is beyond me. You clearly didn't put any effort into understanding what you were reading.
Just wallow in your willful ignorance and go away.
Double edit: I don't need imaginary deities to guide my sense of morality. I have something called personal fibre that allows me to make decisions for myself based on logic, reason, and compassion.
You seem to think that religion has a claim on morality. You could not be farther from the truth.
Evolution cannot happen because I do not have a tail , a tail is not useless, it is more useful than the pinky toe Not really as we would ahve no use for one.. A dogs tail is useless but they still have one Yep dogs tails are useless unless they want to run or communicate .
Evolution for humans is not possible. I really love your scientology reasoning here.
Despite the quality of the posts in here this one is still my favourate for the way it shows the simplicity of some peoples ideas.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
Look guys, it's simple. Micro evolution is a definate fact. MACRO evolution however is a ridiculous theory. Yes, using the science and discoveries that have been made thusfar do make it "somewhat" believable (yes I said - believable, because you have to believe/have faith, that it's true). But here's some easy questions for you since you're so much into this religion.... Explain to me how wings came to be. Seriously. Gradual changes in DNA through many years of development could perhaps create mutations that resemble wings. These mutations when they begin can't possibly be advantageous to the current species, and they'd be eaten up, which stops that evolution line dead in it's tracks. But let's say they ALL got super lucky and were able to survive long enough to gradually develop into something more resembling a wing. This process would take a LONG freaking time. And since they must've survived (because obviously they eventually developed into creatures with wings that can fly -- birds), then where are the remnants of these creatures? The same can be asked of pretty much any appendage on any creature. Because according to the "theory" of macro-evolution, it all began as a single-cell organism, and over a very long period of time, mutations took place.
Now, in closing, I have a request. Stop with the attacking of people who do not believe in evolution. We're not all attacking you. We don't call you stupid or uninformed, so don't do it to us. Just because we CHOOSE to believe a certain way doesn't mean we're completely ignorant to the other. Alot of us have been on your side in the past, but eventually simply changed our minds. Those mind changing stories are something you should perhaps pay attention to.
Fins.
They evolved in the sea, even a small fin is an advantage. Then the creature goes amphibian. A mutation gives larger fins that allow some individuals to flap them to move a few inches. Then one can flap more inches. In a milion years they can flap for few meters. You see the picture, if you want to.
Remnants.. I don't know about that.. but even if you saw them, you'd say that God put them there, so that wouldn't convince you.
What is ridiculous is believing in a God that allows innocent children and adults to suffer and die and lets the muderer/responsable live in peace. A God full of hate, that could be a possibility, even a God with a wicked and cruel sense of humor, but not a God full of love, no way.
How about a God that loves freedom more than he loves good or evil? or a God that loves and stands by the laws of His creation that he mostly stays out of the picture, except in certain instances that would only be important to someone who knew all the possible long term ramifications of every action?
just a few ideas on that notion that make sense to me.
A God micromanaged his universe would be like having a fish tank and constantly dipping your hand in and touching the fish.
Personally I feel that a God that did what you seem to want him to do would be a terrible tyrannical God and life would suck and we would have nothing to achieve.
Suffering? Be His hands. Act in His image. If YOU feel God should do something about it, that is the Spirit in you telling you it is YOUR job to do something about it. get to it. Tikkun Olam -- fix the broken world.
Oh and back to the OP's purpose in the thread. Cool video.
I believe in evolutionary theory. I came to Christ by following the evidence until I could not deny Him. Similarly I came to believe in evolution by following the evidence until I believed. Same reason I believe in liberty. In each, I followed the chain, used the besta arguments I could find against myself all the way, and continue to do so.
I see people who believe in the Bible but not evolution are making a crucial mistake about Genesis. They are acting as if genesis were meant to explain HOW God created the world, but that's just wrong.
No, Genesis is God's way of teling us THAT he made the world. The rest is obviously up to us to study and learn from His creation so we can come to a better understanding of that creation, and thus, a better understanding of Him.
Oh and back to the OP's purpose in the thread. Cool video. I believe in evolutionary theory. I came to Christ by following the evidence until I could not deny Him. Similarly I came to believe in evolution by following the evidence until I believed. Same reason I believe in liberty. In each, I followed the chain, used the besta arguments I could find against myself all the way, and continue to do so. I see people who believe in the Bible but not evolution are making a crucial mistake about Genesis. They are acting as if genesis were meant to explain HOW God created the world, but that's just wrong. No, Genesis is God's way of teling us THAT he made the world. The rest is obviously up to us to study and learn from His creation so we can come to a better understanding of that creation, and thus, a better understanding of Him.
I question this, Fisher. But before I make a full response to it, I'd like to know where you are coming from. Do you believe that God created simple life in the sea which evolved into the life we know today. Or did He create land animals which did the same. Or did He actually create primates which eventually evolved into mankind? Where did God start, I guess is my question? It's getting late, so I don't know if I'll be able to respond to it tonight, but if not, I should tomorrow.
Oh and back to the OP's purpose in the thread. Cool video. I believe in evolutionary theory. I came to Christ by following the evidence until I could not deny Him. Similarly I came to believe in evolution by following the evidence until I believed. Same reason I believe in liberty. In each, I followed the chain, used the besta arguments I could find against myself all the way, and continue to do so. I see people who believe in the Bible but not evolution are making a crucial mistake about Genesis. They are acting as if genesis were meant to explain HOW God created the world, but that's just wrong. No, Genesis is God's way of teling us THAT he made the world. The rest is obviously up to us to study and learn from His creation so we can come to a better understanding of that creation, and thus, a better understanding of Him.
I question this, Fisher. But before I make a full response to it, I'd like to know where you are coming from. Do you believe that God created simple life in the sea which evolved into the life we know today. Or did He create land animals which did the same. Or did He actually create primates which eventually evolved into mankind? Where did God start, I guess is my question? It's getting late, so I don't know if I'll be able to respond to it tonight, but if not, I should tomorrow.
God is an infinite being who is immanent in His creation, meaning he is BOTH other (outside of space-time) yet always fully emmersed in the creation as well. He is in every molecule, as has been since things developed from the singularity (Him or say His mouth into the Universe through which he breathed -- there I am using my own Biblical style to explain THAT He did it, but not the HOW), then the Big Bang, all the way to you and I having our chat here
He breathed life into the universe. You know that Holy Spirit, or Ruah Hakodesh in Hebrew, means BREATH of God. Just as Chi means the air, or well, the Force in Star Wars. That was what guided development.
HOW dod God do this? I do not know. I plan to chat with Him about it in due time. What I DO know is Genesis is NOT His attempt at an explanation or HOW in any way shape or form. It is a declaration not an explanation.
He gave us minds. He gave us the Holy Spirit. He gave us hands. He presented us with great mystery, and challenges us with it. he says we need to treasure knowledge and wisdom, that we are to use our reason. THAT is how He expects us to learn about and understand His creation.
I'm tired as well, probably gonna go lay down, read a bit until Morpheus takes over.
Explain to me how wings came to be. Seriously. Gradual changes in DNA through many years of development could perhaps create mutations that resemble wings. These mutations when they begin can't possibly be advantageous to the current species, and they'd be eaten up, which stops that evolution line dead in it's tracks. But let's say they ALL got super lucky and were able to survive long enough to gradually develop into something more resembling a wing. This process would take a LONG freaking time. And since they must've survived (because obviously they eventually developed into creatures with wings that can fly -- birds), then where are the remnants of these creatures? The same can be asked of pretty much any appendage on any creature. Because according to the "theory" of macro-evolution, it all began as a single-cell organism, and over a very long period of time, mutations took place.
I respect the skepticism Vhayne. But please consider what you're doing here in this line of logic. Even if a mutation is not useful, as long as it didn't get in the way it could persist and develop further. There is no reason to presume the creature would die just because it was mutated in a way that was not immediately beneficial. And yes, it would seem to take a long time. Maybe that's whats been going on for the last 5 billion years?
I myself wonder if there might not be something in addition to evolution that established humans. But for the life of me I just don't understand why Christian people often oppose evolution as if it somehow would discredit God. If you were God, wouldn't you create a system of genetic evolution? What could be more elegant and brilliant?
Ok, I read the link about "how wings evolved". "1. Wings evolved from arms used to capture small prey. (This seems rational, so we can ask whether the ancestral forms were actually doing this.)
2. Wings evolved because bipedal animals were leaping into the air; large wings assisted leaping. (This is possible; any amount of wing could assist leaping. Remember that we first need phylogenetic evidence for a bipedal running or leaping origin.) 3. Wings were used as sexual display structures; bigger wings were preferred by potential mates. (This is a non-falsifiable evolutionary hypothesis — we cannot test it.) 4. Wings evolved from gliding ancestors who began to flap their gliding structures in order to produce thrust. (This is reasonable and possible, but only with phylogenetic evidence for an arboreal gliding origin.)"
1. "seems rational"? Sounds like he's saying it's a "good guess"? 2. Completely understandable. However, where are the fossiles/remains that connect creatures from 1 and 2? 3. He says "non-falsifiable" then says "we cannot test it"?! WTF? Uhh, if you cannot test it, since it is a GUESS, then what gives him the right to say it's "non-falsifiable"? Since it is a GUESS, then he has no clue if it's true or false. This is a perfect example of how evolutionists insist what they believe to be the absolute unfallable truth, but have no REAL backing. 4. Of course, this makes sense. But we have to get through parts 1-3 before getting to 4. From 4 to now is MICRO evolution.
Surprise: 'macro-evolution' is the direct result of 'micro-evolution' over a long period of time. You cannot have one without the other. The processes are one and the same.
Also, something that is 'non-falsifiable' is something that cannot be disproven. Edit: Something that is falsifiable has some quality about it that could be hypothetically observed that would prove it to be false. That is him doing what scientists do, being truthful. Wikipedia link on falsifiability. He is admitting a weakness in his analysis in that there's no way to disprove it. That's why he discards that hypothesis when he moves on to the testing phase. In short, since you seem to have failed to comprehend the article, he is proposing hypotheses to test using the scientific method there, he's not even to the proof part yet. Since #3 is not falsifiable, he discards it. Looking up stuff is cool. So right about now you should be feeling really foolish for criticizing him based on your misunderstanding of the phrases used, and then making a generalization.
You clearly don't even have a clue how the scientific process works, much less the ability to comprehend a scientific article.
You're not fooling anybody.
You sure are =D. I do have a request from you since your the grand master of evolution. Can you show me proof of evolution in motion? I am going to use the world view of some atheists.."I want physical evidence." If you can show me evolution in motion I will consider your belief.
Comments
To grow wings... My guess is a little specie of lizard where living in a place with huge wind. There was plenty of food to eat but the wind always blew the poor lizard to his death away from the food. After an extensive period of time, the lizard that had those deformity on his arms somewhat balanced him in the air so after another extensive period of time his children all had that deformity but a new lizard had an even bigger diformity and so on and so on...
The division between micro and macro evolution is mostly an artificial construct created by creationists. Macro evolution has a lot of evidence behind it and it is not at all disputed by pretty much the entire scientific community. I wish I could get into it more, but it'd only take a single google search or visit to the university library to do some research on the facts you're arguing. I know I have.
You see, I really don't mean to offend. And I didn't mean to attack anyone. That said, when someone says 'choosing not to believe in evolution is my opinion, respect it' is much like saying 'it is my opinion that gravity is a lie' or 'the sun revolves around the earth - it's my opinion!'. While I really and honestly do respect your opinion, so far in a discussion I've never seen a single creationist make a valid point criticism on the fact of evolution. I've always been able to refute everything, even with my comperatively basic knowledge. Nevermind what a doctor in evolutionary biology could do.
That said, when you're not hurting anyone with that opinion (and face it, by far most creationists never do. Some of the nicest people are know are creationists - hell, my girlfriend and her family is!), I feel that everybody should respect it.
You are not stupid. You just feel strongly about your opinion without necessarily knowing everything (or having some things misrepresented to you). You are merely human.
What would be super cool though is if you could acknowledge that your disbelief in evolution is not a scientific one, and that your arguments are merely exercises in self-assurace.
Edit: Because if you actually wanted to know the truth, you would be out learning instead of posting poorly-formed arguments here.
-
Fins.
They evolved in the sea, even a small fin is an advantage. Then the creature goes amphibian. A mutation gives larger fins that allow some individuals to flap them to move a few inches. Then one can flap more inches. In a milion years they can flap for few meters. You see the picture, if you want to.
Remnants.. I don't know about that.. but even if you saw them, you'd say that God put them there, so that wouldn't convince you.
What is ridiculous is believing in a God that allows innocent children and adults to suffer and die and lets the muderer/responsable live in peace. A God full of hate, that could be a possibility, even a God with a wicked and cruel sense of humor, but not a God full of love, no way.
More extra replies: I'd like to point out that the different potential explanations for the evolution of wings are probably all right. Wings are an analogous structure (in fact, they're the example in the wikipedia article there) in that they evolved separately amongst various different species (likely in different ways) but server similar functions.
Edit: Typos
-
Ok, I read the link about "how wings evolved".
"1. Wings evolved from arms used to capture small prey. (This seems rational, so we can ask whether the ancestral forms were actually doing this.)
2. Wings evolved because bipedal animals were leaping into the air; large wings assisted leaping. (This is possible; any amount of wing could assist leaping. Remember that we first need phylogenetic evidence for a bipedal running or leaping origin.)
3. Wings were used as sexual display structures; bigger wings were preferred by potential mates. (This is a non-falsifiable evolutionary hypothesis — we cannot test it.)
4. Wings evolved from gliding ancestors who began to flap their gliding structures in order to produce thrust. (This is reasonable and possible, but only with phylogenetic evidence for an arboreal gliding origin.)"
1. "seems rational"? Sounds like he's saying it's a "good guess"?
2. Completely understandable. However, where are the fossiles/remains that connect creatures from 1 and 2?
3. He says "non-falsifiable" then says "we cannot test it"?! WTF? Uhh, if you cannot test it, since it is a GUESS, then what gives him the right to say it's "non-falsifiable"? Since it is a GUESS, then he has no clue if it's true or false. This is a perfect example of how evolutionists insist what they believe to be the absolute unfallable truth, but have no REAL backing.
4. Of course, this makes sense. But we have to get through parts 1-3 before getting to 4. From 4 to now is MICRO evolution.
I may not agree with Creationism but this I do agree with. Let people believe in whatever they want to believe. If you think they are wrong... so what, it effects you in no way. I may be an Evolutionist but I also feel that if someone wants to believe in Creationism... Hey, whatever gets you through the day. The only time I ever argue with Creationists is when they try to throw it in my face otherwise I leave them alone. Hey, if that is what you personally need to believe more power to you.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
Surprise: 'macro-evolution' is the direct result of 'micro-evolution' over a long period of time. You cannot have one without the other. The processes are one and the same.
Also, something that is 'non-falsifiable' is something that cannot be disproven. Edit: Something that is falsifiable has some quality about it that could be hypothetically observed that would prove it to be false. That is him doing what scientists do, being truthful. Wikipedia link on falsifiability. He is admitting a weakness in his analysis in that there's no way to disprove it. That's why he discards that hypothesis when he moves on to the testing phase. In short, since you seem to have failed to comprehend the article, he is proposing hypotheses to test using the scientific method there, he's not even to the proof part yet. Since #3 is not falsifiable, he discards it. Looking up stuff is cool. So right about now you should be feeling really foolish for criticizing him based on your misunderstanding of the phrases used, and then making a generalization.
You clearly don't even have a clue how the scientific process works, much less the ability to comprehend a scientific article.
You're not fooling anybody.
-
You read the first page. That was outlining the procedure akin to your high school labs (you know, list procedure, experiment, conclusion).
And the point on #3 was that you can make that claim, but you can't falsify it because you cannot test it. In other words, it is an idea that you can conclude (it's a hypothesis) from evolutionary theory, but since we can't actually observe the species in its natural habitat (i.e. learn its behaviors, mating behaviors, etc) we cannot test it; in other words since it cannot be shown to be false, but has a basis in solid theory we can use it as a hypothesis. And you can tell if you read the other pages, it is not used to describe the evolution of wings.
And I want to drive that home again. IT WAS NOT A GUESS. It is based off SCIENTIFIC THEORY. THAT IS NOT A GUESS. It takes what we know and extrapolates on it, with the basis of what we know.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
Surprise: 'macro-evolution' is the direct result of 'micro-evolution' over a long period of time. You cannot have one without the other. The processes are one and the same.
Also, something that is 'non-falsifiable' is something that cannot be disproven. Edit: Something that is falsifiable has some quality about it that could be hypothetically observed that would prove it to be false. That is him doing what scientists do, being truthful. Wikipedia link on falsifiability. He is admitting a weakness in his analysis in that there's no way to disprove it. That's why he discards that hypothesis when he moves on to the testing phase. In short, since you seem to have failed to comprehend the article, he is proposing hypotheses to test using the scientific method there, he's not even to the proof part yet. Since #3 is not falsifiable, he discards it. Looking up stuff is cool. So right about now you should be feeling really foolish for criticizing him based on your misunderstanding of the phrases used, and then making a generalization.
You clearly don't even have a clue how the scientific process works, much less the ability to comprehend a scientific article.
You're not fooling anybody.
So what you're saying is because something cannot be "disproven" then you suppose everyone in the world should believe in UFO's, aliens, ghosts, loch ness monster, etc.? And they are ignorant for not believing in them, because they are "non-falsifiable"?
And since it cannot truely be absolutely proven, you will "believe" in it because some guy makes it SOUND believable? That's called faith. Believing in something that cannot be proven. Yes it all sounds great in theory. But I think my theory also sounds great. They are both bound by faith regardless.
Oh, and btw, I watched that youtube video that you guys were laughing about of Kent Hovind (#3 I think). Something to say about Hovind. He's a really corny guy. His humor is really weak, and he's a serious bible-thumper. That being said, alot of the information he provides (alot being through scientific process) is interesting. Interesting enough to me to question that of evolution. Once you question, you throw in a dash of doubt. Some of his stuff is crap, an exaggeration. Alot of it is not. Some is to entertain (he's an evangelist --eventhough I hate evangelism-- and alot of his audience is kids. Yeah yeah, he's in jail. So what. Does that make him stupid, or a bad person? No. He screwed the hell up, bigtime. He went up against the man and lost. I still respect him. If you thought you could get by with what he did, you'd do it too. So don't even start with the prison thing lol.
If the idea was valid, and not in stark contrast to observed scientific theory and evidence, or fact in general you may have a point. However you are choosing to ignore the reality in front of you. In other words, ideas that assert themselves, but are patently false should be criticized and dissected ruthlessly. And when they've been shown to be nothing more then nonsense and people still hold onto ideas it does mean they are willingly ignorant, i.e. stupid. What is even worse though, is when people still hold onto the idea and still assert it by any means necessary, it is an affront to the scientific process, the advancement of our understanding and knowledge of the Universe and it is thus valid to attack them for it.
Oh, and you should watch more of videos about Kent Hovind, he shows how even a high schooler can disprove his "scientific" ideas in a matter of minutes.
Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw80oduQckM&feature=PlayList&p=AC3481305829426D&index=11
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvprBLhJx_o&feature=PlayList&p=AC3481305829426D&index=4
That is a great video for showing just how much Kent Hovind knows. Anyone who takes him seriously is an idiot, I'm sorry.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
Well I'm outnumbered here by far -- apparently not alot of christians are gamers, and I'm tired of wasting my time arguing with you guys. I'm stuck in my beliefs, and I don't ever intend to change them. I honestly don't care how to believe, but I worry about your later generations. Living lives without anything but the current set of government and state laws as the only means of limitation. Seriously, if you really want everyone to believe there is no God, higher power, etc. What do you think the world is really going to be like in 30-50 years if you succeed?
While you probably won't go around killing people (because your'e limited by laws), where will the morals be? You know, the kind that constitues love and care of a child, being faithful to your wife, not stealing just because you can get away with it, etc.
If you say you'd still love, be faithful, and not do something "wrong" eventhough you could get away with it, then what exactly would stop you? Where do you think those feelings come from? Were they "evolved" into us? Or is there something deeper?
Take your "scientific analyses" and study what you think a world would truely be like if nobody believed in God, and only lived by the laws of the land.
"...if consequences dictate our course of action and it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught...then I should just play God and shoot you myself...." -- Tool
Anyway, I'm out.
Read "On The Basis of Morality" by Arthur Schopenhauer.
Try "On the Genealogy of Moraltiy" by Nietzsche too.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
THE FACEPALM REQUIRED FOR THIS POST IS FAR BEYOND ANYTHING A HUMAN IS CAPABLE OF
You keep doing it. You keep proving to us that you have abso-fucking-lutely no clue on what the theory of evolution is about. Are you doing this on purpose? It's just amazing how you can be so clueless.
The theory of evolution doesn't say shit about the existence of a god, nor the origin of life(because I know you're probably thinking that too.). The only thing it does is explain how life developed.
HURR DURR
Hmm....
No, but seriously. God has nothing to do with this.
Surprise: 'macro-evolution' is the direct result of 'micro-evolution' over a long period of time. You cannot have one without the other. The processes are one and the same.
Also, something that is 'non-falsifiable' is something that cannot be disproven. Edit: Something that is falsifiable has some quality about it that could be hypothetically observed that would prove it to be false. That is him doing what scientists do, being truthful. Wikipedia link on falsifiability. He is admitting a weakness in his analysis in that there's no way to disprove it. That's why he discards that hypothesis when he moves on to the testing phase. In short, since you seem to have failed to comprehend the article, he is proposing hypotheses to test using the scientific method there, he's not even to the proof part yet. Since #3 is not falsifiable, he discards it. Looking up stuff is cool. So right about now you should be feeling really foolish for criticizing him based on your misunderstanding of the phrases used, and then making a generalization.
You clearly don't even have a clue how the scientific process works, much less the ability to comprehend a scientific article.
You're not fooling anybody.
So what you're saying is because something cannot be "disproven" then you suppose everyone in the world should believe in UFO's, aliens, ghosts, loch ness monster, etc.? And they are ignorant for not believing in them, because they are "non-falsifiable"?
And since it cannot truely be absolutely proven, you will "believe" in it because some guy makes it SOUND believable? That's called faith. Believing in something that cannot be proven. Yes it all sounds great in theory. But I think my theory also sounds great. They are both bound by faith regardless.
Oh, and btw, I watched that youtube video that you guys were laughing about of Kent Hovind (#3 I think). Something to say about Hovind. He's a really corny guy. His humor is really weak, and he's a serious bible-thumper. That being said, alot of the information he provides (alot being through scientific process) is interesting. Interesting enough to me to question that of evolution. Once you question, you throw in a dash of doubt. Some of his stuff is crap, an exaggeration. Alot of it is not. Some is to entertain (he's an evangelist --eventhough I hate evangelism-- and alot of his audience is kids. Yeah yeah, he's in jail. So what. Does that make him stupid, or a bad person? No. He screwed the hell up, bigtime. He went up against the man and lost. I still respect him. If you thought you could get by with what he did, you'd do it too. So don't even start with the prison thing lol.
Wow, no. I'm glad you're done posting, because you're commenting on the scientific process without having a goddamn clue about how it works. I even linked you an article on falsifiability and you still spout stupidity. Edit: Let me explain it one more time for the particularly thick people in here.
Falsifiability is an important quality in scientific theories. Falsifiability means that something has a quality about it that could be observed to show that that hypothesis or theory is incorrect. If something is non-falsifiable it means that it's impossible to determine that that is incorrect. In science, if something is non-falsifiable, it is not a scientific theory. He listed four hypotheses for the evolution of wings and detailed each. He discarded the third one because it was non-falsifiable. How you managed to interpret a list as a goddamn series of steps is beyond me. You clearly didn't put any effort into understanding what you were reading.
Just wallow in your willful ignorance and go away.
Double edit: I don't need imaginary deities to guide my sense of morality. I have something called personal fibre that allows me to make decisions for myself based on logic, reason, and compassion.
You seem to think that religion has a claim on morality. You could not be farther from the truth.
-
Despite the quality of the posts in here this one is still my favourate for the way it shows the simplicity of some peoples ideas.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
Thankyou for this.
The Official God FAQ
Fins.
They evolved in the sea, even a small fin is an advantage. Then the creature goes amphibian. A mutation gives larger fins that allow some individuals to flap them to move a few inches. Then one can flap more inches. In a milion years they can flap for few meters. You see the picture, if you want to.
Remnants.. I don't know about that.. but even if you saw them, you'd say that God put them there, so that wouldn't convince you.
What is ridiculous is believing in a God that allows innocent children and adults to suffer and die and lets the muderer/responsable live in peace. A God full of hate, that could be a possibility, even a God with a wicked and cruel sense of humor, but not a God full of love, no way.
How about a God that loves freedom more than he loves good or evil? or a God that loves and stands by the laws of His creation that he mostly stays out of the picture, except in certain instances that would only be important to someone who knew all the possible long term ramifications of every action?
just a few ideas on that notion that make sense to me.
A God micromanaged his universe would be like having a fish tank and constantly dipping your hand in and touching the fish.
Personally I feel that a God that did what you seem to want him to do would be a terrible tyrannical God and life would suck and we would have nothing to achieve.
Suffering? Be His hands. Act in His image. If YOU feel God should do something about it, that is the Spirit in you telling you it is YOUR job to do something about it. get to it. Tikkun Olam -- fix the broken world.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Oh and back to the OP's purpose in the thread. Cool video.
I believe in evolutionary theory. I came to Christ by following the evidence until I could not deny Him. Similarly I came to believe in evolution by following the evidence until I believed. Same reason I believe in liberty. In each, I followed the chain, used the besta arguments I could find against myself all the way, and continue to do so.
I see people who believe in the Bible but not evolution are making a crucial mistake about Genesis. They are acting as if genesis were meant to explain HOW God created the world, but that's just wrong.
No, Genesis is God's way of teling us THAT he made the world. The rest is obviously up to us to study and learn from His creation so we can come to a better understanding of that creation, and thus, a better understanding of Him.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I question this, Fisher. But before I make a full response to it, I'd like to know where you are coming from. Do you believe that God created simple life in the sea which evolved into the life we know today. Or did He create land animals which did the same. Or did He actually create primates which eventually evolved into mankind? Where did God start, I guess is my question? It's getting late, so I don't know if I'll be able to respond to it tonight, but if not, I should tomorrow.
I question this, Fisher. But before I make a full response to it, I'd like to know where you are coming from. Do you believe that God created simple life in the sea which evolved into the life we know today. Or did He create land animals which did the same. Or did He actually create primates which eventually evolved into mankind? Where did God start, I guess is my question? It's getting late, so I don't know if I'll be able to respond to it tonight, but if not, I should tomorrow.
God is an infinite being who is immanent in His creation, meaning he is BOTH other (outside of space-time) yet always fully emmersed in the creation as well. He is in every molecule, as has been since things developed from the singularity (Him or say His mouth into the Universe through which he breathed -- there I am using my own Biblical style to explain THAT He did it, but not the HOW), then the Big Bang, all the way to you and I having our chat here
He breathed life into the universe. You know that Holy Spirit, or Ruah Hakodesh in Hebrew, means BREATH of God. Just as Chi means the air, or well, the Force in Star Wars. That was what guided development.
HOW dod God do this? I do not know. I plan to chat with Him about it in due time. What I DO know is Genesis is NOT His attempt at an explanation or HOW in any way shape or form. It is a declaration not an explanation.
He gave us minds. He gave us the Holy Spirit. He gave us hands. He presented us with great mystery, and challenges us with it. he says we need to treasure knowledge and wisdom, that we are to use our reason. THAT is how He expects us to learn about and understand His creation.
I'm tired as well, probably gonna go lay down, read a bit until Morpheus takes over.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I respect the skepticism Vhayne. But please consider what you're doing here in this line of logic. Even if a mutation is not useful, as long as it didn't get in the way it could persist and develop further. There is no reason to presume the creature would die just because it was mutated in a way that was not immediately beneficial. And yes, it would seem to take a long time. Maybe that's whats been going on for the last 5 billion years?
I myself wonder if there might not be something in addition to evolution that established humans. But for the life of me I just don't understand why Christian people often oppose evolution as if it somehow would discredit God. If you were God, wouldn't you create a system of genetic evolution? What could be more elegant and brilliant?
Surprise: 'macro-evolution' is the direct result of 'micro-evolution' over a long period of time. You cannot have one without the other. The processes are one and the same.
Also, something that is 'non-falsifiable' is something that cannot be disproven. Edit: Something that is falsifiable has some quality about it that could be hypothetically observed that would prove it to be false. That is him doing what scientists do, being truthful. Wikipedia link on falsifiability. He is admitting a weakness in his analysis in that there's no way to disprove it. That's why he discards that hypothesis when he moves on to the testing phase. In short, since you seem to have failed to comprehend the article, he is proposing hypotheses to test using the scientific method there, he's not even to the proof part yet. Since #3 is not falsifiable, he discards it. Looking up stuff is cool. So right about now you should be feeling really foolish for criticizing him based on your misunderstanding of the phrases used, and then making a generalization.
You clearly don't even have a clue how the scientific process works, much less the ability to comprehend a scientific article.
You're not fooling anybody.
You sure are =D. I do have a request from you since your the grand master of evolution. Can you show me proof of evolution in motion? I am going to use the world view of some atheists.."I want physical evidence." If you can show me evolution in motion I will consider your belief.