interesting evolution discussion

^ That's a very uneducated view of Christianity.

My dad has a PHD in the Old Testament, has been teaching college for about 12 years, and made certain I knew about as much about the Bible as he did (when I lived at home). The changes that happen in plants and animals is impossible for a creationist to deny, simply based on this simple fact: If God only created 2 humans, how do we have black people, hispanics, and white people? A black person born in Antartica will be a black person till they die, however many generations later, they will be extremely pale. Biological change does NOT negate the possibility of creation; and if anything the complexities could be evidence of a greater genius.

I'm not arguing the truth or lack of truth of Christianity (that's a much more complex & separate issue), but rather pointing to the fact that evidence supporting biological change in creatures doesn't automatically imply Christianity is false (just in the same way the world not being flat didn't kill Christianity). Christians have merely made the mistake of shunning anything related to evolution, as they have made similar mistakes with shunning TV, dancing (Even though many figures in the bible danced), playing cards, and all sorts of scientific issues.

EDIT: The key flaw in your argument is "if evolution is true, then there couldn't have possibly been an act of special creation" which is also the key flaw in the Christian argument.
 
phantomdesign said:
^ That's a very uneducated view of Christianity.

My dad has a PHD in the Old Testament, has been teaching college for about 12 years, and made certain I knew about as much about the Bible as he did (when I lived at home). The changes that happen in plants and animals is impossible for a creationist to deny, simply based on this simple fact: If God only created 2 humans, how do we have black people, hispanics, and white people? A black person born in Antartica will be a black person till they die, however many generations later, they will be extremely pale. Biological change does NOT negate the possibility of creation; and if anything the complexities could be evidence of a greater genius.

I'm not arguing the truth or lack of truth of Christianity (that's a much more complex & separate issue), but rather pointing to the fact that evidence supporting biological change in creatures doesn't automatically imply Christianity is false (just in the same way the world not being flat didn't kill Christianity). Christians have merely made the mistake of shunning anything related to evolution, as they have made similar mistakes with shunning TV, dancing (Even though many figures in the bible danced), playing cards, and all sorts of scientific issues.
Click to expand...

But it certainly makes creation unnecessary. And it definetly does disprove the specific creation story. Besides, the fossil record and living homologies are proof that animals did not appear at the same time, and did not originate from the same place in their current forms.

How are "complexities" evidence of "greater genius" when evolution is proven to be an algorithmic process which occurs with or without god? How is a haphazard arrangement of parts, used for the time being and with no foresight, any evidence of "genius"? Evolution is the use of what works, and the modification of what used to work. It's filled with errors. It's filled with extinctions, failures, inefficiencies. Tell me, what sort of all-powerful designer would fail 99 percent of the time?

What I'm saying is, the entire Genesis chapter is a load of garbage. Almost none of what it says is true. If Genesis is garbage, it lends credence to the idea that the rest of the Bible is garbage as well. This is exactly why evolution has been shunned by religious groups. Its similar to the Copernican idea of a sun-centric universe, which ran completely against what is said (or implied) in Genesis. The problem with Genesis and the old testament in general is that it tries to explain natural phenomena and world history, yet much of what it states as fact is simply false.

This makes any conclusions based on the supposed factual accuracy of the document dubious.Without the truthfulness of the creation myth or the myths of Noah and Abraham, the whole of Judaism falls apart. Without original sin, and without the line of David or the historical accuracy of any of the early Bible charachters, the prophecy of Jesus' coming falls apart. Without the prophecy, the message of Jesus is meaningless. Without the message of Jesus having meaning, the point of Christianity is nullified. Without a point, the church falls apart. Or else becomes unitarian.
 
MaSter0fDarKneZz said:
so i have discussed this thoroughly in other threads and its quite an intereseting subject. point is, do u think evolution exists?

i dont think evolution is real. people are made of cells and tissue and stuff like that. so if evolution was real, we would have same cells and genetic stuff as animals for example, because we supposedly developed ourselves from animals. i think we just slowly formed from little bits, slowly building to full human form. maybe we were just a small cell in an ocean first?

but religion isnt' welcome in this thread so please dont start talkign about it here becaus this is an operational thread about evoluton! to all who believe god invented humans, i say only this: why did other animals exist first? why did god make trees and plants first, then fish, then dinosaurs, monkeys and last humans? why didn't god just skip those and invent humans first?

edit: i edited
Click to expand...

Your an idiot.

Please refrain from ever discussing science again until you have gotten a grasp of even the basics.

I'll highlight one of the more facepalming lines which made your ignorance glaringly obvious.

i dont think evolution is real. people are made of cells and tissue and stuff like that. so if evolution was real, we would have same cells and genetic stuff as animals for example
Click to expand...

I dunno whether your just young and yet to learn these things or your an adult that somehow managed to come out of education so thoroughly untouched by its generally informative effects, regardless, I hope you learn a bit more about biological and evolutionary science before you approach this subject again.


Thank you for your time.


-Nuri



Sorry, but evolution and religon tie together, both are the opposite of the other,
Click to expand...

Wrong.

One is scientific theory, rationally considered to be the most plausible explanation for observed phenomenon in the diversity and ever changing nature of life, the other is a fairy tale that people get emotionally invested in and use to attack anything and everything they are scared of or don't understand, which tends to be almost everything aside from their chosen variant on the Jesus Christ myth, and excluding every other fairy tale based fan club, even ones with Christ.

and you can't have a thread about evolution without religion, and vice versa.
Click to expand...

Correct.

Mainly because religious fundamentalists are quite happy to spit on science while using tools created from scientific understanding. In this case computers and the internet.
 
I don't find this discussion very interesting at all.
I find it appalling.
And boring.
Can't we just talk about how much fun it is to yell at n00bs in cod4?
 
Acepilotf14 said:
I don't find this discussion very interesting at all.
I find it appalling.
And boring.
Can't we just talk about how much fun it is to yell at n00bs in cod4?
Click to expand...

It is true. I do so very much enjoy yelling at you in cod4.
 
SHUT UP BITCHEZ< UR MOM IS WERS TEN ME!!111onetwotwelve!@
 
Moar liek Newbie First Class! ooooooooooo0ooo0o0o0o snap!
 
/cry/
now i gonig to go get /b/, my persnal armey to go kil u, wuts yer nubmer?
 
Krynn72 said:
But it does. It negated the Christian theory of creation. As you pointed out right here:
Click to expand...

What I pointed out merely shows that creatures change, which is something Christians should recognize, HOWEVER it doesn't disprove creation.

theotherguy said:
But it certainly makes creation unnecessary. And it definetly does disprove the specific creation story. Besides, the fossil record and living homologies are proof that animals did not appear at the same time, and did not originate from the same place in their current forms.

How are "complexities" evidence of "greater genius" when evolution is proven to be an algorithmic process which occurs with or without god? How is a haphazard arrangement of parts, used for the time being and with no foresight, any evidence of "genius"? Evolution is the use of what works, and the modification of what used to work. It's filled with errors. It's filled with extinctions, failures, inefficiencies. Tell me, what sort of all-powerful designer would fail 99 percent of the time?

What I'm saying is, the entire Genesis chapter is a load of garbage. Almost none of what it says is true. If Genesis is garbage, it lends credence to the idea that the rest of the Bible is garbage as well. This is exactly why evolution has been shunned by religious groups. Its similar to the Copernican idea of a sun-centric universe, which ran completely against what is said (or implied) in Genesis. The problem with Genesis and the old testament in general is that it tries to explain natural phenomena and world history, yet much of what it states as fact is simply false.

This makes any conclusions based on the supposed factual accuracy of the document dubious.Without the truthfulness of the creation myth or the myths of Noah and Abraham, the whole of Judaism falls apart. Without original sin, and without the line of David or the historical accuracy of any of the early Bible charachters, the prophecy of Jesus' coming falls apart. Without the prophecy, the message of Jesus is meaningless. Without the message of Jesus having meaning, the point of Christianity is nullified. Without a point, the church falls apart. Or else becomes unitarian.
Click to expand...
The biological change in creatures is certainly a piece of the puzzle towards showing creation is not necessary. Where you, and 99% of Christians go wrong is that the Bible's creation story says NOTHING which contradicts the possibilities that creatures can change/adapt/evolve.

As far as the "genius" part, that was referring to the concept that Christians could use evolution as supporting evidence of a "greater being of infinite intelligence and capacity" HOWEVER it's certainly a long shot from proving a God exists.

The last paragraph requires absolute truth of your previous paragraphs & a few other presumptions. Again, I'm not arguing the truth of Christianity, however I'm simply pointing out that the existence of evolving creatures doesn't automatically negate creation, or Christianity. It's as irrelevant (or relevant) of an argument as god "separating the light and the dark" versus "God created the earth's light and day cycles by sending the earth orbiting around the sun and spinning it on it's polar axis."

The problem with EVER disproving "God" exists, is that he's an all powerful being, meaning he can do whatever the F*** he wants. The fact that (presuming existence) this all-powerful being likes to remain hidden, also makes proving his existence impossible.
 
phantomdesign said:
What I pointed out merely shows that creatures change, which is something Christians should recognize, HOWEVER it doesn't disprove creation.
Click to expand...

Change isnt the same thing as evolution. Change is just a part of the theory evolution. Evolution doesnt just say that "things change over time" it says that humans and all life in existence came to be by changing from simple organisms. Evolution isnt just "people's bodys change and adapt to the environment." Evolution is "People started off as single cell organisms that evolved into today's homosapiens". If they were to accept evolution, they would have to accept the idea that we began as those simplest of organisms, and that is what would negate their theory of creation.
 
Absinthe said:
Well, I personally was assembled in my parents' basement.
Click to expand...

I was assembled in my parent's bedroom, out of two pieces :p

But I don't know what kind of thing your parents are into ;)
 
nurizeko said:
Correct.

Mainly because religious fundamentalists are quite happy to spit on science while using tools created from scientific understanding. In this case computers and the internet.
Click to expand...

Or on this board, the opposite occurs.
 
Eejit said:
Or on this board, the opposite occurs.
Click to expand...

What, so non-religious fundamenalists are happy to spit on religion while using tools created by religion like the computer and the internet?

Right.
 
phantomdesign said:
What I pointed out merely shows that creatures change, which is something Christians should recognize, HOWEVER it doesn't disprove creation.


The biological change in creatures is certainly a piece of the puzzle towards showing creation is not necessary. Where you, and 99% of Christians go wrong is that the Bible's creation story says NOTHING which contradicts the possibilities that creatures can change/adapt/evolve.

As far as the "genius" part, that was referring to the concept that Christians could use evolution as supporting evidence of a "greater being of infinite intelligence and capacity" HOWEVER it's certainly a long shot from proving a God exists.

The last paragraph requires absolute truth of your previous paragraphs & a few other presumptions. Again, I'm not arguing the truth of Christianity, however I'm simply pointing out that the existence of evolving creatures doesn't automatically negate creation, or Christianity. It's as irrelevant (or relevant) of an argument as god "separating the light and the dark" versus "God created the earth's light and day cycles by sending the earth orbiting around the sun and spinning it on it's polar axis."

The problem with EVER disproving "God" exists, is that he's an all powerful being, meaning he can do whatever the F*** he wants. The fact that (presuming existence) this all-powerful being likes to remain hidden, also makes proving his existence impossible.
Click to expand...

seriously it's not that hard to grasp.

inorganic minerals->organic molecules->single cell organisms->multicellular organisms->simple plankton=>plants/animals->people

there is no adam and eve here...puf...no Abrahamic religions

stop fooling yourself already.
 
True and because of the country I live in if I heavily criticize a religion I run the risk of being prosecuted for committing a "hate crime". :/
 
Why is this thread still alive? And why, when I'm dying, will it be still alive? And why, when I'm dead, will it be still alive?
 
Atomic_Piggy said:
Not nessacirily, evolution and Buddhism for example fit togethor fine. And most religious people in general believe in evolution, with the exception of the select few who ignore all evidence.
Click to expand...
Buddhism hardly qualifies as a religon, does it? It's more of a belief system.
 
Cliff notes me. In 5 pages have we figured out if OP is a troll or just a dumb****ingretard?
 
The Monkey said:
Buddhism hardly qualifies as a religon, does it? It's more of a belief system.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's a belief system, but the vast majority of the world seems to be totally fine if you scrawl "Buddhist" in the religion box.

Mind you, my country was also fine with "Jedi", so yeah.
 
phantomdesign said:
The problem with EVER disproving "God" exists, is that he's an all powerful being, meaning he can do whatever the F*** he wants. The fact that (presuming existence) this all-powerful being likes to remain hidden, also makes proving his existence impossible.
Click to expand...

Yep, basic burden of proof. You also can't disprove the existence of the invisible pink unicorn living inside your nose or the existence of the invisible teapot orbiting Mars, or the grim reaper, the flying spaghetti monster, or Thor, or Loke, or Vishnu, or Allah.

Proving God's existence would be easy. All you'd need is a statistical correlation between Christian prayers and miraculous occurances, or a giant cross-shaped inscription on the moon, or a reproducable miracle man, or even God himself coming down and saying "Hey you guys, I was up here the whole time!" After all, if something "exists", then its bound to leave evidence. If something's "all powerful", it has to be getting its power from some where. If something can alter the universe and its laws at will, the universe would be a noticeably different place.
 
I've got two important things to say:


1)
I think that evolution is just a result of natural selection.

Let me make an example. If being tall is more useful than being short, than tall people will be a better mate and the people have offspring that are taller. This will continue until the right height is accomplished.

The same goes for all traits; not too tall, not too fat, not too weak, not too dumb, not too ugly, etc.

Picture this scenario:

if someone is born with a genetic defect - a mutation - with eyes on the side of their head, it will be too ugly (too far from the norm) to be a good mate, but now imagine having eyes on the sides of their head gave that person incredible sight, and that person was some kind of hero, and became famous. It could be possible that this person could find someone to reproduce with, and with a large amount of children carrying this gene it could catch on, if the offspring live successful lives as well.


It's all about the value of a mutation that causes evolution. It could be strength, beauty, functionality, or intelligence, but over time natural selection gradually causes evolution.


Obviously it's not proven fact but that's what I think, until I hear something more believable.

Note:
I should have given better examples because picturing those eyes on the side of the head are freaking me out.



2)
I've seen on National Geographic Channel that they can create life from water and electricity in a test tube - the two things that Earth had plenty of when life on Earth Started.


Earth apparently rained for a very very long time and had violent electrical storms and also had the sun, and thus simple life began on earth.
 
Really? Wiki said they were considering repealing them... guess somebody needs to update that.
 
It seemed to be implied since you were apparently defending said obnoxiousness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
3K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
3K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Community Interviews: Final Exchange development team
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
B
Half Life 3 (FM)
Replies
11
Views
3K
D.r Gordon Freeman
D.r Gordon Freeman
B
Community Interviews: Tony Newton, co-creator of Redemption
Replies
0
Views
6K
Barnz
B
Back
Top