I don't believe in God, or evolution. Anonymous 03/26/15 (Thu) 22:55:41 93d116 No. 5567 [View All]
The title is self-explanatory.
51 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Anonymous 03/28/15 (Sat) 01:21:30 93d116 No. 5735
>>5729 >It's not. You are doing the word play. If life on earth was created, it was created. If it evolved, it evolved. Those are my terms for the context of this discussion.
I have no explanation, so I do not know what you are talking about. My only position is that I do not believe in the current evolutionary theory.
Anonymous 03/28/15 (Sat) 01:23:33 93d116 No. 5736
>>5732 Time will tell, but I will suspend my judgment until I have all the facts, which may never happen. That is one of the differences between me and the majority of humanity, atheist and religious person alike.
Anonymous 03/28/15 (Sat) 01:44:30 b25378 No. 5738
>>5736 Whoa, you're a real human bean. You're so much better than everyone else.
Anonymous 03/28/15 (Sat) 01:45:12 93d116 No. 5739
Anonymous 03/28/15 (Sat) 01:45:29 2d59fe No. 5741
>>5727 >They did so because they used science, whereas our ancestors did not. Science is accurate and does not get rewritten because it was right the first time. You clearly have no idea how science works, don't you. Is physics science? Because from Newton to Einstein to Hawking and so on, physics has undergone a shit ton of changes.
You're embarrassing yourself, boy.
Anonymous 03/28/15 (Sat) 01:48:41 93d116 No. 5743
>>5741 >Because from Newton to Einstein to Hawking and so on, physics has undergone a shit ton of changes. The specific ideas that were developed using the scientific method have
not changed, only those that were purely conjecture have.
The scientific method employs experimentation to rule things out and establish connections. When done right, it is never wrong.
Anonymous 03/28/15 (Sat) 02:06:37 2507bb No. 5748
There are three possibilities:
Anonymous 03/28/15 (Sat) 02:09:46 2507bb No. 5750
>>5748 And no gods, no aliens just evolution, too of course which seems to be the most reasonable one.
Anonymous 03/28/15 (Sat) 02:10:36 93d116 No. 5751
>>5748 There are at least two more possibilities:
- Complex biological systems were created by intelligent beings who themselves evolved elsewhere via principles we do not or cannot understand.
- Complex biological systems came about by yet some other manner we do not or cannot understand.
Anonymous 03/28/15 (Sat) 02:25:25 b25378 No. 5753
>>5748 You missed the correct one. Evolution.
Anonymous 03/28/15 (Sat) 19:00:50 2d59fe No. 5773
>>5743 Except those ideas have changed. One such change is that people realized they have limits. Newton's laws of motion are insufficient to explain every phenomenon in the universe, for example.
You might be interested in reading Michio Kaku's Parallel Worlds. It gives a rundown on lot of changes that went on in physics that eventually led up to the idea that there's multiple universes.
True, and it has ruled out every explanation for the complexity of life BUT evolution. That has remained even after 10 years of tests and scrutiny.
Not necessarily so. One can easily be wrong even if they think they've done it right.
But let's use this for a moment. DNA sequencing has shown beyond a doubt that humans share DNA with animals. We share the most with chimpanzees and slightly less the farther away from the family of great apes we go.
This is consistent with predictions made by evolutionary biologists prior to this data. It was the kind of thing that was postulated by even Darwin and Huxley.
What confirmed Einstein's theory of relativity wasn't Einstein's work himself but more so experiments done by people after he proposed it.
Why is it that relativity is something you have no issue with evolution is when both things have been confirmed by tests after their initial proposal?
Anonymous 03/28/15 (Sat) 20:43:44 e2c1fa No. 5774
SPACE BEARS
Anonymous 03/28/15 (Sat) 22:34:32 94061a No. 5776
File: 1427582072762.png (40.43 KB, 626x414, 313:207, Capture d'écran de 2015-03….png )
>>5567 evolution isn't a scientific theory (i.e. explanation supported by evidence) about how life came to exist, but about how ALL the life on Earth we see today emerged emerged from a single unicellular life form.
Evolution is a scientific fact, just like electricity and oxygen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent Scientific hypotheses (i.e. logically sound models for explanations that still haven't been verified) on how life came into existence are based on abiogenesis (the idea that life was born from non-living chemistry); and while nobody has the evidence to show that one of those hypotheses correctly describes how life appeared on Earth there's strong indication that life could actually be created like that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis >>5609 >You don't have to believe in evolution you DO have to believe in evolution, because it is properly justified.
Belief doesn't imply lack of evidence. When belief is justified it is called knowledge, otherwise it is called faith or superstition.
Anonymous 03/28/15 (Sat) 23:51:32 93d116 No. 5782
>>5773 >Except those ideas have changed. One such change is that people realized they have limits. Newton's laws of motion are insufficient to explain every phenomenon in the universe, for example. But it is sufficient to explain things that science has proven that it has a correlation to. It is not surprising at all that it does not explain everything in the universe.
But it has ruled out the only widely accepted theory as to what the mechanism driving evolution is, namely mutations. No experiment dealing with mutations has demonstrated anything other than the fact that they cannot created new and functional DNA. This means that the single most important element of evolutionary theory is now a hole in said theory.
Just as smartphones share circuitry designs with computers,
because they were designed by the same designers .
But it is not significant because apes would obviously share alot of our DNA due to their anatomical similarity, and said similarity is not exclusively indicative of evolution, as I have previously explained. Even from a creationist perspective, it is not disconcerting in the least that their are animals who are similar to humans both genetically and anatomically.
Evolution has not by any stretch of the imagination been confirmed by tests.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 00:00:01 1f0b33 No. 5785
>>5580 >I would believe the theory of evolution if it could be proven that there was a naturally occurring process that created new and functional genetic information. Fucking stupid, contrived creationist argument. The information of genetics is nucleotide sequences. Mutations insert, remove, and replace nucleotides in these sequences.
You should be embarrassed.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 00:08:07 93d116 No. 5789
>>5776 >evolution isn't a scientific theory (i.e. explanation supported by evidence) about how life came to exist, but about how ALL the life on Earth we see today emerged emerged from a single unicellular life form. >Evolution is a scientific fact, just like electricity and oxygen: This is dogmatic, rhetorical browbeating. Evolution has not been scientifically verified in the manner that electricity or oxygen have, and you know that.
All of the alleged evidence for evolution is really only evidence that:
1. Living organisms possess the potential for genetic diversity.
2. Living organisms frequently have similarities.
3. Living organisms have genetic defects and ambiguous features.
4. Living organisms likely originated in a single location on the planet.
That's it. None of these facts in any way prove that all life descended from a common ancestor, that DNA can form without intelligent guidance, nor any other dogmatic assumption made by modern evolutionists. Furthermore, they could just as easily be used as evidence for intelligent design as they could for evolution. If a single being or organization created life, said life may very well be adaptable, consistent in design features, imperfect, and implemented in a single location.
The reason people believe that these things prove true the theory of evolution is because of the pressure modern society places on people to profess belief in evolution, and the persuasiveness of high-profile evolutionists. Evolution is a religious teaching.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 00:15:37 1f0b33 No. 5790
>>5789 It is a fact that evolution is occurring and the theory of evolution by natural selection is an explanation of how it occurred. Just like we know that gravity is a fact and we have a theory of gravitation to explain how it happens.
There is a lot more evidence for evolution than your intuition and biased conjecture.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 00:17:52 93d116 No. 5792
>>5785 Mutations insert, remove, and replace nucleotides
randomly . Scientific experimentation has proven that this phenomenon can accomplish nothing but the destruction of highly complex DNA.
You essentially believe that a tornado in a junkyard can create an automobile, and you think
I should be embarrassed?
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 00:23:32 1f0b33 No. 5794
>>5792 >Mutations insert, remove, and replace nucleotides randomly But natural selection is not random, and that is the driving force of evolution.
I do not believe that, you do not understand evolution correctly.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 00:26:15 93d116 No. 5795
>>5794 >But natural selection is not random, and that is the driving force of evolution. Natural selection merely preserves existing DNA, and thus cannot possibly be the "driving force" of evolution. Evolution would require a process that creates completely new DNA, and no such thing has been observed in nature.
Yes you do. You believe that a random, unguided process can create complex systems.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 00:31:22 1f0b33 No. 5796
>>5795 How much scientific material about evolution have you actually read?
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 00:33:40 93d116 No. 5797
>>5796 There isn't much "scientific" material on evolution, but there sure is a lot of conjecture, extrapolation, and philosophy.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 00:44:03 93d116 No. 5801
>>5798 I prefer sticking exclusively to relevant rebuttals in discussions like these. You should try it. People will respect you more.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 00:50:19 1f0b33 No. 5802
>>5801 It is relevant because you're blatantly ignorant about evolution. Either that or you're a troll.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 00:51:18 93d116 No. 5803
>>5802 >It is relevant because you're blatantly ignorant about evolution. Either that or you're a troll. I believe I've aptly demonstrated otherwise.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 00:53:14 1f0b33 No. 5804
>>5803 Otherwise to being an idiot or being a troll?
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 00:55:17 93d116 No. 5805
>>5804 I'm not going to respond to you anymore until you actually have something to say.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 00:58:26 1f0b33 No. 5806
>>5805 If you really care so much about evolution not being true, you should read material supporting evolution. Not because it will prove you wrong, but because you do not demonstrate correct knowledge about what science says.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 00:59:28 1f0b33 No. 5807
>>5806 Well, it will prove you wrong in my opinion, but that's not the point of you reading it, is what I meant.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 01:07:07 b25378 No. 5808
>>5796 Probably only the Bible.
>>5797 You clearly know nothing about evolution. And yet, you posit it as untrue.
>>5801 I respect him, because he actually called you out on your bullshit. Just because you think you're right, doesn't mean that you're right.
>>5802 It has to be both.
>>5803 No, you've aptly demonstrated that you're an idiot.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 01:32:48 93d116 No. 5809
>>5808 Yes, and also the works of people such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, and other cult leaders that 99.9% of evolutionists derive their opinions from.
I have rebutted every single point raised against me in this discussion. Even if my conclusions are incorrect, this at least demonstrated that I understand what we are talking about.
No, he never made any rebuttals.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 02:12:52 b25378 No. 5812
>>5809 >cult leaders I have never met someone who worships these people.
You really are stupid. You're not an atheist.
No you haven't.
You have demonstrated quite the opposite.
See pic.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 02:20:58 93d116 No. 5813
>>5812 >I have never met someone who worships these people. Cult leaders are followed, not worshiped.
I do not believe in any deities. What is the word for that?
I certainly have not been reciting recipes for casserole. This thread is very long now. That is because people have been raising arguments, and I have been addressing them with rebuttals. Pretty simple.
I believe you are just saying that because you do not agree with my conclusions.
Merely stating that your opponent is, wrong, knows nothing, is stupid, etc. is not a rebuttal. These sorts of statements are not relevant in any debate.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 02:25:23 b25378 No. 5814
>>5813 >Cult leaders are followed, not worshiped. That makes even less sense.
You say that, and you might very well be an atheist, but it's very strange to state that you don't believe in a god on an atheism board.
It's like stating that you believe in a god on a christian board.
Yes, but you claimed that you rebutted a specific claim which you did not.
No, I'm saying it because your conclusions are incorrect.
They are in fact. You really need to learn some formal logic.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 02:27:45 93d116 No. 5815
>>5814 >They are in fact. You really need to learn some formal logic. This proves you are a troll. You should have strung me along some more. You lack patience.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 02:29:38 b25378 No. 5817
>>5815 >Merely stating that your opponent is, wrong, knows nothing, is stupid, etc. is not a rebuttal. These sorts of statements are not relevant in any debate. I'm pretty sure stating that someone is a troll falls in that category. You really wouldn't have fallen into that one if you were clever.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 02:33:04 93d116 No. 5819
>>5817 >I'm pretty sure stating that someone is a troll falls in that category. You really wouldn't have fallen into that one if you were clever. I like you.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 02:36:24 b25378 No. 5820
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 02:39:23 93d116 No. 5821
>>5820 I like everyone. I even respect people who disagree with me and believe in things that I don't, and do not view them as being less intelligent than me for doing so.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 02:45:00 b25378 No. 5823
>>5821 That's good, and I agree. But I don't see how this matters, because nobody has disagreed with me, you might be confusing me with someone else.
If someone thinks that 8^2 is 25 you wouldn't view them as less intelligent for not knowing that it's actually 64? That makes you kinda stupid.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 02:57:21 93d116 No. 5824
>>5823 >If someone thinks that 8^2 is 25 you wouldn't view them as less intelligent for not knowing that it's actually 64? That makes you kinda stupid. It would seem, but I have been wrong about things that seemed obvious and undeniable to me too many times to fall victim to this kind of thinking ever again. It's been a hard lesson to learn. A few years ago, I would have sacrificed my life to Jehovah. Today, I would die to oppose him if he turned out to be real.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 03:11:19 93d116 No. 5826
>>5825 Had fun. Goodnight.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 03:25:53 4bc1b1 No. 5828
Enough of this bullshit. Evolution is true by basic observation and tautology. Forget all the scientific data that backs it up.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 04:56:05 411079 No. 5837
>>5828 Yeah, pretty much this.
Anonymous 03/29/15 (Sun) 04:58:58 b25378 No. 5838
>>5828 >Evolution is true by basic observation and tautology. Forget all the scientific data that backs it up. That is scientific data.
Anonymous 04/03/15 (Fri) 18:14:44 33e797 No. 6073
>>5828 let alone pigmentation.
using artificial selection we have created fucking dogs out of wolves and dog breeds that are highly incompatible with each other and near reaching the point of speciation (albeit with many genetic deficiencies because of the low diversity at which we make it occur).
I bet we would intuitively think that 2 of the most contrasting dog breeds are separate species if seen in the wild, and wouldn't we know that these are human invention