Does believing in Evolution say a lot about you

[ForEverAfter]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

 

[methamaniac]

Lol, a creationist has to deal witb Ken Ham like and evo has to deal with Dawkins

He's to pushy
At least Dr Hovind is funny

 

[ForEverAfter]

Your stubborn inability to engage with logic is eerily reminiscent of Ken Ham.

(If I didn't know any better...)

 

[methamaniac]

Your stubborn inability to engage with logic is eerily reminiscent of Ken Ham.

(If I didn't know any better...)

And you sir remind me of Dawkins trying to describe
well------about everything
painful to listen to no matter what side fence you on

 

[ForEverAfter]

a creationist has to deal witb Ken Ham like and evo has to deal with Dawkins

Stop saying you represent creationists. You represent young earth creationists. I am a creationist, yet I don't have to deal "witb" Ken Ham according to you. You do have to deal "witb" him. He is your mirror image and your cult ambassador.

Dawkins may be an unfortunate public figure associated with evolution, but there's no similarity between him and I. (If there is, please enlighten me.) Evolution is science. YEC is non-science. If you have an ALTERNATE THEORY, please let us know... and, how about you try to back up your alternate - rather than failing (horribly) to debunk evolution.

In the context of suggesting that the world is round instead of flat, this is your argument (with better spelling/grammar):

You: Hey guys, the world isn't flat!

The rest of the world: Oh, what shape is it?

You: Um, I don't know. It just isn't, uh, flat... and stuff...

...

Even if you are correct, in other words, you can't even construct a sensible counter argument.

...

Do you belong to a religion? If so, which one?

If not, was your upbringing religious?

 

[methamaniac]

Similarity---painful to ears/eyes to hear / read

Dude I just meant he gives people who believe in a creator a bad name.
I have never said a word on how old the dam Earth was
I do however believe in flood. You ought to too cause Jesus sure did!!
Run it by Pope and see if ok for you to believe without being burnt at stake
Or have some balls and find scripture yourself
you can even use google

Nite Nite

Ps im sure you erase ur post like you did other
Strange

 

[ForEverAfter]

Similarity---painful to ears/eyes to hear / read

Well, that's as vague as to be expected. (So, there are no objective similarities?)

I do however believe in flood. You ought to too cause Jesus sure did!!
Run it by Pope and see if ok for you to believe without being burnt at stake
Or have some balls and find scripture yourself

I'm familiar with the scriptures, thank you. I don't identify as Christian/Catholic. As I said earlier, Jesus wasn't a real person. And, I never said I didn't believe in a historic flood, either. (Neither did anybody else on this entire thread.) You appear to be arguing with your own assumptions.

I have never said a word on how old the dam Earth was

If you don't belong to the YEC, then you have no excuse.

 

[ForEverAfter]

You keep pushing the flood thing...

What does a historic flood have in common with whether or not evolution exists, anyway?

(Notice how I made a duplicate post, rather than editing. How strange.)

he gives people who believe in a creator a bad name

Look in the mirror.

 

[RichardMooner]

Similarity---painful to ears/eyes to hear / read


Run it by Pope and see if ok for you to believe without being burnt at stake

I just did; he said i wouldn't. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ks-theory-of-evolution-says-god-is-no-wizard/

 

[rickolasnice]

I notice your still going on about there not being any transitional fossils.. I've presented transitional fossils to you over and over and over again and you haven't even acknowledged it, much less tried to refute it or deny it.

Do you understand the likelihood of an animal being fossilised? Do you understand the likelihood that we will find that fossil? The very vast majority of animals that have ever lived died and left no remains for us to find..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

There's a list of transitional fossils..

Here's a pretty picture of the evolution of a horse, transitional stages included..

Here's a couple pretty pictures for elephants

And if you would like to read and ignore some information about the evolution of man..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Homo

Whales

boy we really disagree on eye

I think it would be the poorest example for evolution cause it does have so many complicated parts
You have to ask yourself how did evolution produce such a bad design then?
Nature makes most ou t of resources right

I can't tell if you're implying the human eye it too complex with too many working parts to have evolved?

How the eye evolved (It's short and easy to understand)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jEhzAn1hDc

or

http://www.wimp.com/eyeevolution/

Or that it's a bad design and evolution is supposed to be the best possible answer?

If the latter, you are still misunderstanding how evolution works. It doesn't think to itself what is the best possible solution to my problem? It's just a random mutation, for example, of a photosensitive cell.. if that mutation helps the creature survive, then it is more likely to reproduce, passing on that mutation.. generations later and a whole bunch of photosensitive cells have been the outcome of random mutations that give each one a better chance of survival, etc etc.. there may be a better way to arrange those cells but that didn't happen, what did happen helped it to survive, either way.

There may be "better" ways it could have gone but it didn't, or at least hasn't yet.

Or literally.. evolution would have resulted in an impossible design, less complex but equally good?

For that, sorry.. but only an omnipotent being could pull that off.. which it obviously hasn't done.

It's hard to understand how the human eye evolved, one tiny step at a time, first you need to comprehend just how long 100, 1000, 10000, 100000, 1000000, 10000000 etc years are..

http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/putting-time-in-perspective.html

 

[ForEverAfter]

[Tangent][/Tangent]

In terms of cybernetics, the "best design" for a robot would be one that could improve upon itself. The same goes for Artificial Intelligence. Mankind is limited, cognitively, in terms of brain size/structure. So, we attempt to create machines that can function beyond our limitations. Super computers capable of highly complex, split-second, calculations. We can't infinitely increase the size of a brain, but we can - theoretically - infinitely increase the size of a processor. Once/If we manage to create a machine that is capable of reprogramming and rebuilding itself, we will have - essentially - created "evolution".

Therefore: creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
(Procreation and evolution aren't mutually exclusive, either.)

The nature of evolution does not disallow for "intelligent design", unless you're wearing blinders.

Everything within, and beyond, the universe is ouroboros.

[/Tangent][Tangent]

 

[rickolasnice]

Edit - Made new thread.

 

[harmacologist]

That I am not a moron.

 

[rickolasnice]

The "simulation"/"programming"/"computer" analogy is being taken too literally, there. I'm not talking about a simulation. I'm talking about the universe, and beyond, giving birth to itself... It seems strange, don't you think, that the Big Bang occurred from nothingness and evolution is getting to a point where highly evolved creatures are dabbling in the creation of evolutionary processes?

I know..

No, i don't.. I think it's inevitable.. but isn't that what the paper is getting at? A universe in which it creates others by simulating itself?

(Ouroboros.)

Also - given the vastness of the known universe - why does it have to be humans, or direct descendants of humans (posthumans)? Nobody can say with any certainty that it's "extremely unlikely" a highly evolved posthuman/alien race would intentionally create the universe.

It doesn't.. you're basing a lot of assumptions on a very small abstract.

Again, a bit too literal.

I wasn't expanding on your idea directly.. calm down.. it was a tangent off a tangent.

What if the universe is it's own "programmer"? The idea of a creator, separate from the universe (and beyond) only raises more questions. Where did the creator come from?

I said I didn't believe it.. that it was a fun thought.

But judging from your previous posts I'm pretty sure you do believe in a creator..

I apologise for using the term "highly likely".. is that's what upset you?

I started a new thread with my post.. as to not derail this one Fancy moving your post over there and deleting it from here? I'll do the same.

 

[methamaniac]

Talking about a creator is relevant to thread.
You have two choices ,
nothing created everything
something created everything in universe.
Either way something outside the universe exist.
Folks creation happened one way or other
Evolution attempts to explain how nothing is plausible
unless you choose to take the default we're not even here. IF so proceed in fantasy.

Be back in a bit
edit

 

[ForEverAfter]

Evolution attempts to explain how "nothing" is plausible, does it? What about evolutionary creationism / theistic evolution, then? I suspect that this is why you've been so stubbornly rejecting evolution: because you think it disproves God. It doesn't.

something outside the universe exist

Replace the "universe" with "everything" (definition of universe: all existing matter and space) and your argument falls apart on your own terms. That's why I said "the universe and beyond", to be clear that I was referring to "everything".

There cannot be something outside everything.

That doesn't make sense.

You say there's 2 choices:

1. Nothing created everything.
2. Something created everything.

(Why do I have to struggle to read every single one of your posts? Can't you take a bit of extra time to check your spelling/grammar/coherency, as a basic courtesy?)

What I'm saying is, regarding option 2: the "something" must be part of "everything". No?

 

[methamaniac]

First I edited post
I can not see but three lines on my phone
to edit until I post, and auto correct has a mind of its own
so chill out on being Grammar Nazi

Your assuming everything consist of what we see in closed system of universe

 

[Dystopia35]

The ideas that one entity swooped down and waved a magic wand and created everything is ridiculous. I know that that us not the basis for all form of creationism but still. The simple fact that there are so many forms of creationism is also troubling. I mean damn you Christians can't even come to the conclusion or same ideas of denouncing evolution. Half you people don't even want to believe that dinosaurs existed. I firmly believe that religion equals to having a mental illness.

 

[rickolasnice]

I see you've ignored my previous post with the pretty pictures of transitional species and the explanation of the evolution of the eye.

Really can't tell if you're incredibly stupid or troll. I suspect a lot of the former with a bit of the latter.

I notice your still going on about there not being any transitional fossils.. I've presented transitional fossils to you over and over and over again and you haven't even acknowledged it, much less tried to refute it or deny it.

Do you understand the likelihood of an animal being fossilised? Do you understand the likelihood that we will find that fossil? The very vast majority of animals that have ever lived died and left no remains for us to find..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

There's a list of transitional fossils..

Here's a pretty picture of the evolution of a horse, transitional stages included..

Here's a couple pretty pictures for elephants

And if you would like to read and ignore some information about the evolution of man..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Homo

Whales

boy we really disagree on eye

I think it would be the poorest example for evolution cause it does have so many complicated parts
You have to ask yourself how did evolution produce such a bad design then?
Nature makes most ou t of resources right

I can't tell if you're implying the human eye it too complex with too many working parts to have evolved?

How the eye evolved (It's short and easy to understand)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jEhzAn1hDc

or

http://www.wimp.com/eyeevolution/

Or that it's a bad design and evolution is supposed to be the best possible answer?

If the latter, you are still misunderstanding how evolution works. It doesn't think to itself what is the best possible solution to my problem? It's just a random mutation, for example, of a photosensitive cell.. if that mutation helps the creature survive, then it is more likely to reproduce, passing on that mutation.. generations later and a whole bunch of photosensitive cells have been the outcome of random mutations that give each one a better chance of survival, etc etc.. there may be a better way to arrange those cells but that didn't happen, what did happen helped it to survive, either way.

There may be "better" ways it could have gone but it didn't, or at least hasn't yet.

Or literally.. evolution would have resulted in an impossible design, less complex but equally good?

For that, sorry.. but only an omnipotent being could pull that off.. which it obviously hasn't done.

It's hard to understand how the human eye evolved, one tiny step at a time, first you need to comprehend just how long 100, 1000, 10000, 100000, 1000000, 10000000 etc years are..

http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/putting-time-in-perspective.html

 

[rickolasnice]

I firmly believe that religion equals to having a mental illness.

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/PDF/Elizab...otion. A risk factor for mental illness.x.pdf