GH15 Question.

[nukkaready]

were did you learn this GARBAGE ahhaah.

god could purposely serperate himself(which is the only possible way for true existence) and use evolution to allow creation to unfold. Also god could be everything and all there is, including evolution. you have a narrow view of GOD, read spinoza,aquinas,cs lewis etc... get different perspectives. I agree god of the bible does not exist, if he does he is a absent father, but evolution does not rule out god, that follows the logic that any natural process rules out god. He is either everything or nothing imo. He doesnt get to pick and choose what events to participate in. So if evolution is incorrect, then god allows stars to form through fusion, but creates life here and there? there has to be a more logical framework.

Mankind is a product of evolution... God is a product of mankind's thought process. Your answer comes as no surprise...

[Necrosis]

Mankind is a product of evolution... God is a product of mankind's thought process. Your answer comes as no surprise...

explain how sentience came from non-sentience.

there are two options

inorganic matter is sentient

or

sentience can come from non-sentience

those that argue for a god would never argue against evolution, it is just ignorant for the most part.

[Lynch21]

your an idiot, if this is a FACT lol it would mean we are all still evolving,,where are the half human half monkey,,people ,,oh shit forgot who i was talking to then yes your facts are sound , and u are what we have evolved from

You mean "You're."

[gatrainer]

Nothing has ever penetrated Evolution.  Not one thing.

if we evolved from apes then why are there still apes?

[MCWAY]

Faith is the belief in the abscence of evidence.  IS that really a good way to approach things?

Since when has faith been belief in the absence of evidence? That's nothing more than a tired (and woefully incorrect) line used by certain non-Christians.

Changed all the time? Natural selection has remained constant since Darwin first published 'Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection' in the late 1800's. Don't bash it because you don't understand it.

Natural selection has been around LOOOOOOOOOOOONG before anyone even heard of Charles Darwin. But, natural selection does NOT deem a supernatual creator as non-existent.

You're a a fucking moron. We are learning and discovering more and more everyday. These things are being tried, tested and are benefiting our race. Moving us forward everyday, that's science for you.

Look at what you just said, before you go calling people names. We are "discovering more and more everyday". Last time I checked, to discover something means to reveal things that were....ALREADY THERE, namely substances, natural laws, and principles. Those who believe in a Creator hold that the Creator put such things into place. You can't discover something that isn't already in existence.

You automatically think just because are things in the universe physicists cannot yet explain, it by default makes your bullshit creationist garbage true. Atleast science can be tried and test, while religion can't. Religion rests on pure belief and should not even be discussed or compared to science.

It appears that you automatically think that just because man has finally uncovered something, that (by default) proves  "Goo to you by way of the zoo" (aka evolution) to be the method by which life came to be on this planet.

This has nothing to do with "science vs. religion", another ridiculous and tired canned phrase, from certain non-believers. Christians have not witnessed a planet, complete with all living things, created in six days. On the same note, evolutionists have not seen a pile of goo, which (thanks to accident after accident and random occurence after random occurence), somehow, someway (with no guidance, whatsoever) became this critter, that critter, another critter, and eventually man.

At best, people can look at things like fossils and such and extrapolate backwards. But, even that has its pitfalls.

[gtbro1]

if we evolved from apes then why are there still apes?

Better yet...why are there no half man half apes walking around? How /why did evolution stop?

[MCWAY]

Better yet...why are there no half man half apes walking around? How /why did evolution stop?

Forget the apes. Try the coelacanth fish, or "Zeke" for short. When fossils of this fish were found, evolutionists said that this fish was extinct and was an ancestor of man, possessing all manner of characteristics which allowed it to "evolve" and eventually walk.

Well, it turned out that "Zeke" still existed in certain parts of the world. At first, the buzz was that a "living fossil" was found. But, as the phrase goes, "Houston!! We have a problem!", that being that the fish were, well, FISH, with almost none of the characteristics attributed to it. Further study showed that the 20th-century versions of "Zeke" were virtually identical to their alleged mutli-hundred-thousand-year-old ancestors.

Needless to say, the search went on for another fish, who supposedly is our great-great-great................."uncle"

[RadOncDoc]

jesus your an idiot...

is this what people in america think, i admit macro evolution is the hardest to swallow but correlation in gene sequences indicate it to be so, read the langauge of god by crick.

it is a fact.

Wow, I'm glad that it is so easy for you. Since you're obviously an intellectual giant who can easily prove the veracity of evolution, please do us all a favor and kindly provide a list of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that we can all read that will once and for all end this debate. (Surely someone who is as certain of evolution as yourself has read more than one book). If that is too difficult, at least explain to me how "correlation in gene sequences" proves macroevolution. Be sure to include in your answer how similarity in gene sequences among species invalidates the idea of special creation. That is, explain why similarities in the genome between species could not simply be explained by a creator working from a common blueprint. If you don't mind, I'm hoping you can also refresh my memory about the countless number of natural speciation events that have been documented. (Undoubtedly, someone who is so sure of evolution could recount these immediately without having to search the internet or look in books).

[Camel Jockey]

Better yet...why are there no half man half apes walking around? How /why did evolution stop?

Oh brother...

Don't understand natural selection.. do you?   Evolution occurs over hundreds of generations through selection.. Just look at how we've been able to create so many different breeds of dogs over a few thousand years, and that's called artificial selection. This very process happens in nature and is due to chance, natural conditions, dominance, and can lead to new species, or no change at all.

Fucking morons. Evolution is fact, so don't question because you obviously don't understand it. When something is beyond your comprehension, then please do us all a favor and shut the fuck up. The evidence is there, to the point where it can be proven and has been.

[RadOncDoc]

Oh brother...

Don't understand natural selection.. do you?   Evolution occurs over hundreds of generations through selection.. Just look at how we've been able to create so many different breeds of dogs over a few thousand years, and that's called artificial selection. This very process happens in nature and is due to chance, natural conditions, dominance, and can lead to new species, or no change at all.

Fucking morons. Evolution is fact, so don't question because you obviously don't understand it. When something is beyond your comprehension, then please do us all a favor and shut the fuck up. The evidence is there, to the point where it can be proven and has been.

Hahahahahaha. You are so ignorant it's laughable. Are you telling me that the best example of "evolution" you have is artificial selection in dogs??? Here was your stage to prove that we're all "fucking morons" and all you can do is bring up artificial selection? LOL. So because we can artificially manipulate mating habits in dogs to create--yeah, you guessed it--dogs with different combinations of preexisting alleles, this proves that man evolved from nothing?

[MCWAY]

Oh brother...

Don't understand natural selection.. do you?   Evolution occurs over hundreds of generations through selection.. Just look at how we've been able to create so many different breeds of dogs over a few thousand years, and that's called artificial selection. This very process happens in nature and is due to chance, natural conditions, dominance, and can lead to new species, or no change at all.

But, at the end of the day (so to speak). They're still....DOGS, not cats, birds, or fish. There's a certain book that mentions something about creatures reproducing after their own kinds. But, for the life of me, the name escapes me.

Fucking morons. Evolution is fact, so don't question because you obviously don't understand it. When something is beyond your comprehension, then please do us all a favor and shut the fuck up. The evidence is there, to the point where it can be proven and has been.

Dogs producing......DOGS!!!!! OOOOOH!!!!! What a wonderful example of "Goo to you, by way of the zoo" evolution.

Next thing you know, birds with small beaks will produe birds with big beaks.....WAIT A MINUTE!!! They're still birds. Never mind!!!

[Camel Jockey]

Next thing you know, birds with small beaks will produe birds with big beaks.....WAIT A MINUTE!!! They're still birds. Never mind!!!

We haven't been around long enough and nor have we had the technology to document massive changes, such as moneys to apes.. That's several million years right there. But from what we do know, we can see that things evolved from natural selection.

So because we can artificially manipulate mating habits in dogs to create--yeah, you guessed it--dogs with different combinations of preexisting alleles, this proves that man evolved from nothing?

Apes.

[MCWAY]

We haven't been around long enough and nor have we had the technology to document massive changes, such as moneys to apes.. That's several million years right there. But from what we do know, we can see that things evolved from natural selection.
 

So, from dogs producing dogs, you jumped to 5-billion-year-old "goo" turning into critter x, changing into critter y, etc., etc., to man. That's, to say the least, a stretch.

Millions of years from monkeys to apes, says who? Could not monkeys and apes existed simultaneously?

[RadOncDoc]

We haven't been around long enough and nor have we had the technology to document massive changes, such as moneys to apes.. That's several million years right there. But from what we do know, we can see that things evolved from natural selection.

Apes.

Damn, I wish I could get my money to evolve into an ape. I could probably get more from selling the ape.

I'm not sure why I'm even arguing with you because it's very obvious you know little about science, let alone evolution. Why can't you get it through your head that nobody disagrees with the concept of natural selection? Natural selection is very much fact. Natural selection drives microevolution--another concept nobody here should have a problem with. There is, however, a big difference between microevolution (essentially change within a species) and macroevolution (people tend to equate this with "speciation"-one species becomes a new species), and the presence of microevolution in no way whatsoever proves that macroevolution occurred. The best evidence for macroevolution is probably the remarkable similarity in genomes between species. However, this in no way disproves special creation because one could just as easily say that a creator simply worked from a common blueprint in creating the universe, and that he made small changes to this blueprint to create a variety of different species.

[MCWAY]

Damn, I wish I could get my money to evolve into an ape. I could probably get more from selling the ape.

I'm not sure why I'm even arguing with you because it's very obvious you know little about science, let alone evolution. Why can't you get it through your head that nobody disagrees with the concept of natural selection? Natural selection is very much fact. Natural selection drives microevolution--another concept nobody here should have a problem with. There is, however, a big difference between microevolution (essentially change within a species) and macroevolution (people tend to equate this with "speciation"-one species becomes a new species), and the presence of microevolution in no way whatsoever proves that macroevolution occurred.

I believe that's called the old "bait and switch".

The best evidence for macroevolution is probably the remarkable similarity in genomes between species. However, this in no way disproves special creation because one could just as easily say that a creator simply worked from a common blueprint in creating the universe, and that he made small changes to this blueprint to create a variety of different species.

More specifically, the creatures we see now had ancestors, who had various characteristics and reproduced after their own kind. Environmental changes results in scenarios where certain characteristics were favored over others.

[Cee21Jay]

Wow, I'm glad that it is so easy for you. Since you're obviously an intellectual giant who can easily prove the veracity of evolution, please do us all a favor and kindly provide a list of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that we can all read that will once and for all end this debate. (Surely someone who is as certain of evolution as yourself has read more than one book). If that is too difficult, at least explain to me how "correlation in gene sequences" proves macroevolution. Be sure to include in your answer how similarity in gene sequences among species invalidates the idea of special creation. That is, explain why similarities in the genome between species could not simply be explained by a creator working from a common blueprint. If you don't mind, I'm hoping you can also refresh my memory about the countless number of natural speciation events that have been documented. (Undoubtedly, someone who is so sure of evolution could recount these immediately without having to search the internet or look in books).

WOW.   I take my hat off.  I would not know how to handle myself in a face to face situation if somebody came at me like that!! Good series of posts.

[RadOncDoc]

I believe that's called the old "bait and switch".

Exactly. If you ever take an evolution course in college, you see the same shit. >90% of the course focuses on microevolution. Then maybe the last week of the course you gloss over macroevolution. You learn all about these detailed genetic concepts/principles (hardy-weinberg, bottlenecking, genetic drift, etc.), but none of this is necessarily relevant to macroevolution. What I got from college evolution classes was this: (1)microevolution is true (duh), (2)the genomes of species are remarkably similar--ergo, macroevolution must be true as well. That's bullshit. Now, maybe there is more to it than that (and I'm sure there is), but I think this highlights the fact that the vast majority of us (even those with a background in science) are in no position to even begin to comment on this matter let alone call others "fucking morons" for not adhering to a specific point of view. I'll be the first to admit that I have no opinion on the issue. I just can't stand it when people act as if it's so obvious.

[Camel Jockey]

Damn, I wish I could get my money to evolve into an ape. I could probably get more from selling the ape.

I'm not sure why I'm even arguing with you because it's very obvious you know little about science, let alone evolution. Why can't you get it through your head that nobody disagrees with the concept of natural selection? Natural selection is very much fact. Natural selection drives microevolution--another concept nobody here should have a problem with. There is, however, a big difference between microevolution (essentially change within a species) and macroevolution (people tend to equate this with "speciation"-one species becomes a new species), and the presence of microevolution in no way whatsoever proves that macroevolution occurred. The best evidence for macroevolution is probably the remarkable similarity in genomes between species. However, this in no way disproves special creation because one could just as easily say that a creator simply worked from a common blueprint in creating the universe, and that he made small changes to this blueprint to create a variety of different species.

They've had to revise their beliefs.. I guess deists would use that kind of arguement.

Of course I can't disprove it(creation). But it's highly unlikely, as it's supported by little to no evidence.

And I was originally arguing against pople like the Coach. Coach claims evolution and even natural selection is false and the bible is absolute truth.

[RadOncDoc]

And I was originally arguing against pople like the Coach. Coach claims evolution and even natural selection is false and the bible is absolute truth.

If he claims that natural selection is false, then he is ignorant. But don't for a moment think that all special creationists feel this way.

[Camel Jockey]

Natural selection drives microevolution--another concept nobody here should have a problem with. There is, however, a big difference between microevolution (essentially change within a species) and macroevolution (people tend to equate this with "speciation"-one species becomes a new species), and the presence of microevolution in no way whatsoever proves that macroevolution occurred. The best evidence for macroevolution is probably the remarkable similarity in genomes between species.

Well, I guess you could say that I'm taking a leap of faith.

I am no expert in biology by ANY MEANS. But I think I am qualified to argue against people like the Coach.. The guy posts nonsense from christian websites and claims there's no truth to evolution.

If he claims that natural selection is false, then he is ignorant. But don't for a moment think that all special creationists feel this way.

 Of course not. But there are hardcore religious fundamentalists out there that use absolute belief in religion to shape politics and how other people lead their lives. I am not expert on stemcell research or abortion, but is Bush when he's using his religious views to pass laws against them? Abortion already effects millions of women, while stemcells just might benefit a lot of people in the near future. This is what I'm arguing against.. Sheer ignorance.

[RadOncDoc]

They've had to revise their beliefs.. I guess deists would use that kind of arguement.

I don't think genetic similarities help or hurt special creationists. I don't think they have had to change their beliefs. Special creation really makes no predictions about the similarity or dissimilarity among species. In contrast, evolution would have predicted that this type of genetic similarity would exist. And lucky for them, it does. This doesn't mean that macroevolution is true, however. It just means that it is not invalidated as an explanation for the origin of humans. As it stand now, genetic similarity does not allow us to distinguish between creationism or evolution.

[RadOncDoc]

Well, I guess you could say that I'm taking a leap of faith.

I am no expert in biology by ANY MEANS. But I think I am qualified to argue against people like the Coach.. The guy posts nonsense from christian websites and claims there's no truth to evolution.


 Of course not. But there are hardcore religious fundamentalists out there that use absolute belief in religion to shape politics and how other people lead their lives. I am not expert on stemcell research or abortion, but is Bush when he's using his religious views to pass laws against them? Abortion already effects millions of women, while stemcells just might benefit a lot of people in the near future. This is what I'm arguing against.. Sheer ignorance.

I agree with you in many ways. I get just as pissed at these fundamentalists. You just need to be careful about the way you handle the situation. You never know when someone can call you out. This is a very complex topic that few people can really comment on.

[Camel Jockey]

Vince Basile invented spamming!

[MindSpin]

Faith is the belief in the abscence of evidence.  IS that really a good way to approach things?

I'm on your side on this one, but to answer your question...yes.  I don't always require evidence to believe something.  Calculated risks, plausability, etc. are enough...

[G o a t b o y]

America is clearly affected by religions who lobby long and hard for whatever they require from the various governments.

You have hit on the major problem with religions from my perspective.  I don't give a flying fuck what religious people belive, but I care a great deal when they try to impose the demands of those beliefs on others using the coercive force of law.