I don't believe in God, or evolution. Anonymous 03/26/15 (Thu) 22:55:41 93d116 No. 5567 [Last 50 Posts]
The title is self-explanatory.
Anonymous 03/26/15 (Thu) 23:59:22 2507bb No. 5569
Why do you think that you have anything interesting to say? What makes you think that people are interested in your opinions?
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 00:01:04 c9b740 No. 5570
no thx
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 00:02:18 4bc1b1 No. 5571
1. Why not just go along with the most well-supported explanation (unless and until a better one is found)?
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 00:25:28 b25378 No. 5575
Wow, you're fucking retarded, and not for not believing in evolution. I can see why people don't, but it's still stupid.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 01:14:42 2d59fe No. 5577
Did you do any actual research into this matter or are you just trying to sound edgy and contrarian?
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 01:22:52 93d116 No. 5579
>>5569 This is a board where people share their opinions, that's why.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 01:25:45 93d116 No. 5580
>>5571 1. That's how religions come about. It's not healthy thinking.
2. 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. To date, there is no evidence that any such thing exists. There are also no transitional fossils at all whatsoever.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 01:27:07 93d116 No. 5581
>>5575 My lack of belief in evolution is the only thing I stated about myself, besides being an atheist, so I am not sure what exactly you are calling me retarded for.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 01:36:21 93d116 No. 5585
>>5577 I'm beginning to think that accusing other people of being "edgy" is the only thing people on this board know how to do.
Yes, I have researched evolution sufficiently, in my opinion. I have studied numerous books and articles by respected scientists in the field, namely everything that was written with the express purpose of convincing a lay person that the theory is true, yet I remain unconvinced. I do not believe that complex biological systems came about without intelligent guidance on this planet.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 01:53:18 93d116 No. 5589
>>5588 Not trollin' at all. I have presented my beliefs accurately.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 02:15:04 c9b740 No. 5591
>>5585 all talk, and you didn't even say why you don't believe in evolution, actually fuck it you don't need to believe, it's there in your face, but keep saying that you "researched"
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 02:18:15 93d116 No. 5592
>>5591 I did:
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 02:32:28 9edce8 No. 5595
>>5577 >edgy You say this like it's a bad thing.
>>5592 > 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. To date, there is no evidence that any such thing exists. Kek
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutagenesis#Mechanisms
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 02:40:14 93d116 No. 5596
>>5595 >Kek >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutagenesis#Mechanisms There is no evidence that this can create new genes.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 02:52:07 a26f42 No. 5598
>>5567 Evolution is not important because it explains life. But understanding selection can be useful.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 03:06:11 9edce8 No. 5601
>>5596 Think it through, small DNA changes here, small changes there eventually after generations of munitions new genes.
The limits of mutations resulting in functional organisms isn't about size of change but rather functionality, you can have a small change that can only be labelled as a different allele that are fatal and huge changes that are functional.
In lab you can get species to undergo mutagenesis to the point of having new functional genes just by putting them in a different environment over many generations. Now different environments exist in nature and species do end up in different environments so I'll let you connect the dots.
http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10379
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 03:08:00 411079 No. 5602
>>5580 How is it at all like Religion? There's evidence for evolution across several fields of scientific study, and the theory changes and evolves over time.
Enroll in college > take a basic biology course.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 03:14:32 93d116 No. 5605
>>5601 >Think it through, small DNA changes here, small changes there eventually after generations of munitions new genes. There is no process that does this. Mutations certainly occur, but they
always result in a handicapped specimen. There is the singular example of sickle-cell anemia affording resistance to malaria, but that is not
creating anything new, it is like being immune to athlete's foot by being born with no feet.
And I've read about the experiment you posted. They accomplished what they did by
removing DNA. External conditions do not influence an organisms DNA, they can only preserve the "fittest" specimens, meaning that said specimen must already have the genes needed to survive.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 03:21:06 b25378 No. 5609
>>5581 You don't have to believe in evolution. It's as real as gravity, in fact evolution has more evidence than gravity, but that's not why I called you retarded. You tell us to ask you anything like you're interesting.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 03:22:43 93d116 No. 5611
>>5602 >How is it at all like Religion? There's evidence for evolution across several fields of scientific study, and the theory changes and evolves over time. Just like there was evidence of the earth being flat? Or of alchemical principles being valid? I am not fooled. I will not believe something just because everybody else does. The theory evolves because it keeps getting debunked by scientific discoveries. Virtually nothing that Darwin believed about evolution is considered factual today because his notions were all proven false.
The theory continues to be popular because people use it as a crutch to justify their escape from religion. I need no such crutch. Every advanced civilization clinged to ridiculous ideas of one kind or another because of peer pressure and groupthink. It does not puzzle me that perfectly sane, intelligent people today believe that organisms vastly more complex than super computers arose without intelligent guidance. It's just history repeating itself. Evolution is the new religion.
I did. There are a lot of compelling theories out there, but no proof. I want proof. I will not settle for anything less.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 03:23:03 93d116 No. 5612
>>5609 I am interesting. Very few people have the beliefs that I do.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 03:32:44 9edce8 No. 5617
>>5605 If you're not going to at least try to understand what's posted why bother?
It's called evolution.
Nope, just most of the time. There are mutations that also do nothing.
http://www.uvm.edu/~cgep/Education/Mutations.html But go ahead and try to prove all mutations are deleterious except for one. Just top debunk that:
http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/accumulating-glitches/how_tibetans_ancestors_adapted_to Also humans aren't the only species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosslinking_of_DNA
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 03:38:34 93d116 No. 5619
>>5617 >It's called evolution. Circular reasoning. Evolution is the process, and the process is evolution? There is no process, only theories as to what it
may be, all of which are without so much as a single verifiable occurrence.
I actually knew that, but it doesn't help your case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosslinking_of_DNA I meant environmental conditions.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 03:50:15 b25378 No. 5624
>>5612 Being an idiot isn't interesting.
>>5611 >Just like there was evidence of the earth being flat? Or of alchemical principles being valid? And we have evidence that they're not. We have no evidence that evolution isn't.
Everyone believes it because it's true, not because other people believe it. You sound like a hipster.
I have never heard someone become an atheist because of evolution. Even religious people believe evolution.
Evolution is not one of these things.
You sound religious.
You must not have paid much attention.
Wow, you really are stupid.
>>5619 That's not circular reasoning. That's
p = q
thus
q = p
It actually does. Just because you can't understand it, doesn't mean it's true.
How exactly do you believe that complex life emerged?
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 03:58:18 93d116 No. 5627
>>5624 >We have no evidence that evolution isn't. - No process
- No fossils
- No documented occurrences
- Irreducible complexity
To name just a few.
That's what they always say.
Plenty of people cite their belief in evolution as driving them away from the religion they were raised with. I hear it all the time. And religious people form the brunt of non-evolutionists worldwide.
Or is it?
So do you.
Ok then, show me the proof.
p = q
thus
q = p
Textbook circular reasoning. She's famous because she is on TV, and she is on TV because she is famous.
Explain how it helps your case.
As I stated at the outset, I have no opinion.
I'll read your response tomorrow, gotta go to bed.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 05:02:09 b25378 No. 5635
>>5627 >- No process - No fossils
- No documented occurrences
- Irreducible complexity
To name just a few.
You are retarded.
It doesn't make them wrong just because they always say it.
Yes, they cite it as a reason, but it's not the primary reason. Like I said, people don't become atheists because they realize that the process of living organisms mutating and thus adapting to their environment to survive caused them to not believe in god.
Can you give me a situation in which it is? Because in the past, people believed things that they thought were true, now most sane people believe in things they have proof of being true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection This explains it succinctly.
Textbook formal syllogistic logic. Statuefag, is that you?
Ahahahaha!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection I do not believe that complex biological systems came about without intelligent guidance on this planet.
Topkek.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 08:58:40 74eb60 No. 5639
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 10:45:56 93d116 No. 5643
>>5635 >Yes, they cite it as a reason, but it's not the primary reason. Like I said, people don't become atheists because they realize that the process of living organisms mutating and thus adapting to their environment to survive caused them to not believe in god. People become atheists because they hate religion and evolution gives them an excuse to do so. They then go on to tell others that learning about evolution drove them away from the Christian/Jewish/Muslim church. I meet one of these specimens nearly every day.
People believe what is popular. Most people who believe in evolution today know nearly nothing about it, and commonly believe in theories that have been debunked, such as acquired characteristics being inheritable. They are much like the legions of Christians who know nothing about the Bible, and believe in things the Bible does not teach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection Natural selection preserves existing DNA. It cannot create new DNA and thus cannot explain evolution. Give me the proof, not just theories.
It was circular reasoning. You are mistaken. A is true because of B, And B is true because of A. That is circular reasoning.
And I do not believe that that intelligent guidance could be described as a "god" in any way. More like aliens maybe. Perhaps the aliens came to be via some process resembling evolution, but it did not happen here on earth. The appearance of life on earth is far too quick, neat, and intricate, and there are no fossils implying gradual change. Life here was clearly manufactured.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 12:28:31 b25378 No. 5645
>>5643 >People become atheists because they hate religion and evolution gives them an excuse to do so. You are not an atheist. You are a theist pretending to be an atheist.
No you don't. Those specimens of atheists that you actually think you're meeting, are actually more accurately defined as 'sane people.'
Some people do, the majority of people who do, are religious. But the merit of an idea doesn't lie with how many people subscribe to it. That would be a fallacy to claim that it does.
This is an outright lie.
You're either trolling or mentally ill. I want to say you're trolling, but I actually get the feeling you believe in this shit.
Naturally, Christians are more prone to this type of thinking since their entire belief lies on something that cannot be proven.
That's true.
What is a mutation. It doesn't need new DNA. Our traits are formed by the DNA that we have, where do you get this idea that new DNA is a necessity?
>Theory Kek.
He wasn't stating that A was true 'because' of B, he was stating that A is B.
He also posted a source explaining 'why' A was B. you just said it wasn't 'real' proof. What do you consider real proof?
And I do not believe that that intelligent guidance could be described as a "god" in any way.
Okay, that's stupid, but fair.
Huehuehue.
Aliens are more likely to exist than a god, but to claim they created intelligent life on Earth not evolution, but some unexplained way that has no proof, is religious. If you aren't a theist, you're lying.
So some entity/entities, that have no proof of existing insofar, came to be through some process that was evolution, but not evolution, to create humans for some theorized or even unexplained reason through a process that was certainly not evolution.
Ron L. Hubbard?
There actually are, if you want a beginner's guide, try vestigal structures.
And he goes on to make a claim that has no evidence.
Yeah, you're not a troll.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 13:38:02 411079 No. 5653
>>5611 You misunderstand scientific thinking if you just think people believe in Evolution because it's the majority opinion, or people think it's cool.
No. Changes in the theory occur with new information, but that doesn't debunk the entire theory. Changing and updating theories and ideas is how science works.
He laid the groundwork for the theory, and showed that there is significant change among species overtime. Again, just because he didn't the understanding we have now, doesn't mean he was "wrong on virtually every point" of evolution.
If by crutch, you mean they actually acknowledge the evidence behind it.
http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evidence/evidence_intro.html Takes like ten seconds to google.
But really, I personally became an atheist because I realized that there was no reason to believe a 2000 year old book. The fact that it also contradicted the best laid explanation for the origin of species was a really small compared to everything else.
Great, and somehow you are as ignorant as the guy in the picture.
>>5624 Pretty much this.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 14:18:41 a7ec0b No. 5656
>>5580 >just go along with the most well-supported explanation >That's how religions come about >religions >well-supported >- No fossils >- No documented occurrences Literally all of those exist and have been documented. I'm not sure how you could possibly not be aware of this. Let me give you an example of observable evolution
>using a vaccine against bacteria >it's effective >one of the bacteria randomly mutates to be immune >the other bacteria die while the immune one reproduces, passing on its immunity to its offspring >soon the only bacteria left are immune to the vaccine >bacteria has evolved to become immune This has been observed hundreds of time.
What do you think is an example of irreducible complexity? What you think is irreducible probably isn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-Eb7k87gO0 >>5611 >Virtually nothing that Darwin believed about evolution is considered factual today because his notions were all proven false. No, the basic principles defined by Darwin were accurate and are still accepted by the scientific community. Some of what he thought was wrong or incomplete but the same can be said of Newton's understanding of physics.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 15:02:52 b25378 No. 5659
>>5656 >No, the basic principles defined by Darwin were accurate and are still accepted by the scientific community. Some of what he thought was wrong or incomplete but the same can be said of Newton's understanding of physics. And the same could be said about Freud's conception of psychotherapy, but it still worked even if most of his principles were wrong, the ones that mattered must be right, because he helped his patients.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 16:46:22 169de6 No. 5666
The Saint Augustine argument Christians use goes like this:
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 19:05:22 2d59fe No. 5694
>People become atheists because they hate religion and evolution gives them an excuse to do so.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 22:55:57 93d116 No. 5712
>>5645 >You are not an atheist. You are a theist pretending to be an atheist. I am an atheist. I was raised a Christian and religious thinking may still pervade my mind in some ways.
My point exactly.
It has been my experience. The majority of evolutionists I have met are not aware of the current ideas about evolution held by researchers, and believe in notions that have been debunked, such as acquired characteristics being inheritable. Most people just do not have the time or motivation to research theses things, and I don't blame them.
What do you mean? What did I say that made you think that?
I'd have to agree.
In order for an organism to possess a new characteristic, it must have the required DNA. In order for that DNA to exist, it obviously must have somehow come into existence. There is no known way for
new and functional DNA to come into existence without intelligent guidance. Mutations can only produce
harmful or useless DNA, and therefore cannot be the mechanism driving evolution.
But A is not B. Evolution means change over time, or specifically in this instance, the change from one organism into the billions now existing over time. The actual phenomenon that allows this to happen has yet to be discovered or explained, though some say it is mutations. "Evolution" is not synonymous with "mutations", nor any other proposed or mechanism; A is not B. B is thought to cause A, but the two are not the same thing.
That is why I consider it merely a theory, in my mind the most logical one that I am aware of. It may be false.
The existence of vestigal structures in no way explains how DNA comes to be, and if anything implies a
degrading of genes, not an improvement. Furthermore, they may not be useless at all. Biologists once believed that a significant portion of most organism's DNA was "junk". They now stand corrected.
Yeah, you're not a troll.
The principle evidence is that biological organism are highly complex systems, and scientific inquiry has consistently demonstrated that intelligence is required to produce complex systems.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 23:15:34 93d116 No. 5713
>>5653 >You misunderstand scientific thinking if you just think people believe in Evolution because it's the majority opinion, or people think it's cool. No, I am correctly understanding the
un scientific thinking employed by the majority of the human population. The masses of people who believe in the theory today would have likely believed the prevailing theory of the day regardless of what time period or culture they were raised in. I can't tell you how many times I have met evolutionists who still believe that acquired characteristics are inheritable, an idea that was debunked nearly a century ago.
Science arrives at accurate conclusions and then builds upon them. Textbooks on physics your great-grandfather studied in college are just as accurate today as they were then, we just know even more now. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, keeps getting completely scrapped and rewritten every 20 years. Virtually nothing that Charles Darwin believed about it is considered factual today. This is because it is not derived from the scientific method at all, but from the opinions and inferences of whichever researchers are the most respected and well-funded at a given time and place. Nearly everything ever written on the subject is merely conjecture based on fantasy, and then dogmatized by consensus. It is alchemy all over again.
He
theorized that there was such change, but it has yet to be demonstrated even now over a century later. What change we have directly observed in species invariably utilizes DNA that
already existed , as is the case with his finches, as well as dogs and other domestic animals.
I mean that they don't wan't to appear uneducated or unintelligent by denying what seems to them and their peers as the only convincing explanation for the origin of man. Evolution gives them an alternative, a way out. They do not have the courage to simply suspend their judgment until proven answers can be had, though I do not blame them. I too would like to know the answers to such questions in my lifetime, but it may not happen.
I'll address this in a separate post in a minute.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 23:34:09 f347b2 No. 5715
>>5712 >I am an atheist >>5585 >I do not believe that complex biological systems came about without intelligent guidance on this planet. Well then what the fuck?
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 23:36:07 93d116 No. 5716
>>5653 >Takes like ten seconds to google. 1. Ancient origins. The article does not state how it was proven that these ancient creatures were ancestors of modern species, likely because it has not been proven. The similarities can likely often be attributed to genetic variety, just like breeds of dogs and horses today.
2. Fossil layers. There are several problems with this. One is that the dates attributed to geological layers are the result of circular reasoning. A given layer is thought ti be a million years old because it contains fossils of creatures that lived a million years ago, and they are known to be a million years old because they were found in geologic layers that are a million years old. There is also the inaccuracy of radioactive dating methods. Evolutionists only agree with the results of radioactive dating methods when they agree with their theories. When they don;t they say the sample has been "contaminated". Lastly, geologic columns clearly represent geologic shifting, which has radically changed the earth for millions of years. Fossils found in different layers are of creatures that were in different
places , not necessarily time periods.
3. Similarities between organisms. This is an old argument. Similarity does not prove evolutionary descent any more than it proves a common designer. The Colt M1911 has several similarities to the Browning Hi-Power, and that is because they were designed by the same person. The same reasoning may be applied to living organisms.
4. Similar embryos. This is basically the same argument as the one above, and is just an interpretation, not proof. If living organisms were designed, there is any number of reasons why that designer may have deliberately utilized a common template embryo. It's circumstantial evidence.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 23:38:29 93d116 No. 5717
>>5715 I do not believe in "gods". That makes me an atheist.
Anonymous 03/27/15 (Fri) 23:56:55 2507bb No. 5718
>>5717 So, if it isn't gods but aliens or other intelligence life forms that intelligently designed humans, how are the aliens supposed to come about if now from a process that involved evolution? Don't these forms have to be more complex than their product?
Humans would still be a product of evolution by extension. Just like genetically modified plants and bread cattle still are the product of evolution by extension.
You are claiming that complex biological systems came about with intelligent guidance on this planet. How does this intelligent guidance look like according to you? But doesn't this require the 'makers' to be more complex than the product? Who made the makers? How does this work, if you claim to refuse to use a god(like creature) as a copt-out like theists? Arguments based on infinite regress aren't really convincing, OP.
Anonymous 03/28/15 (Sat) 00:00:49 93d116 No. 5719
>>5656 >This has been observed hundreds of time. No bacteria has been shown to "randomly mutate" a resistance to antibiotics. The resistance is already there, and the antibiotics wipe out the organisms that don't have it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-Eb7k87gO0 The title of the video alone displays the typical dogmatic, arrogant, disrespectful attitude that many atheists have. I find that people like that are intellectually dishonest and too prideful to actually learn anything. I can be like that myself sometimes.
I have heard Dawkin's "ramp of improvement" argument before. I believe his "ramp" itself is irreducibly complex. All functions of the eye work due to what is occurring on a microscopic level in nerves and tissue, and they must work flawlessly or they will not function and thus will not be preserved. To illustrate, a camera can work without a flasher, but the flasher would be an improvement. However, the flasher itself would not work unless the circuitry inside is consistently doing precisely the right thing at the right time, and the same is true for all other components of the camera.
Furthermore, in order for a trait to be preserved, all other members of the species must die, or the trait will be gradually cease to exist. This would have to happen every time a new trait comes to be. There is no evidence of this massive punctuated deathtoll in the fossil record, nor any reason why such a thing would occur.
Like what? Acquired characteristics being inheritable? Different human races having different ape ancestors? Knowledge gained via the scientific method is virtually never scrapped and rewritten, yet such is the norm in evolutionary study.
Anonymous 03/28/15 (Sat) 00:04:06 93d116 No. 5720
>>5666 If all things have an origin, that means that those origins must also have origins ad infinitum, meaning that existence itself must
not have an origin.
Anonymous 03/28/15 (Sat) 00:18:25 2507bb No. 5722
>>5719 >The resistance is already there Can you elaborate on that? How did the resistance come about then? The intelligent designer already assigned it to this life form before? What do you mean?
>Knowledge gained via the scientific method is virtually never scrapped and rewritten This sentence doesn't make sense because scrapping and rewriting previous knowlege is an integral part of the scientific method and happens all the time. Einsteinian Physics, heliocentrism, these things changed our whole understanding of the world.
Anonymous 03/28/15 (Sat) 00:28:33 93d116 No. 5723
>>5694 I agree, but evolutionary theory relies more on conjecture and groupthink than the scientific method.
You are gravely mistaken. The United States has the highest percentage of creationists in the developed world, but that percentage is only 40%, meaning that evolutionists are the
majority even in this ass-backwards country. And it matters because the opinion of the general population was specifically what I was talking about. I obviously realize that their opinion does not dictate truth, as
I hold a minority opinion .
I used to be a Jehovah's Witness, going door to door having religious discussions with strangers. I found that
the majority of evolutionists I talked to believed in "Lamarckian" evolution, and would say things like "well, it makes sense that living in a cold environment would make a critter's fur coat thicker." I'm not making this up. I also live in one of the most non-religious states in the country, but I won't get more specific than that.
There is no evidence that mutations can affect DNA in such a way so as to create completely new expressed traits. This would have to have happened trillions of times in order to account for the species known to have existed throughout history. At best, mutations can be beneficial when they remove non-vital structures prone developing more serious issues, such as sickle-cell anemia affording resistance to malaria.
To illustrate, imagine you are in a hot car in a desert, sweating to death. If a passing truck kicked up a rock and broke a window, you would have a nice cool breeze. This would be like a
beneficial mutation, which is rare enough. However, chucking rocks will never, ever, create a fully functional air conditioning system in that car where there wasn't one previously. That would be a
creative mutation, something that has never been observed, and is patently absurd in my opinion.
It does because the evidence points to intelligent design being the source of life here on earth. Whatever convoluted mind-fuck of a backstory the aliens may have is another matter. Perhaps on their planet, there are fossils showing gradual change and a natural phenomenon that generates new DNA. Or, maybe the origin of life is just something we cannot comprehend, just as a calculator cannot comprehend orange. Who knows.
It's quick and neat because there are no transitional fossils. Also consider that modern humans seem to have come into existence a mere 50,000 years ago at most. Before that, there were only primates that had no tools, dwellings, art, or anything we do. What happened? Same goes for every other species. They just suddenly appear on the fossil record.
Anonymous 03/28/15 (Sat) 00:40:07 4bc1b1 No. 5725
>>5713 >The masses of people who believe in the theory today would have likely believed the prevailing theory of the day regardless of what time period or culture they were raised in. This is the fallacy fallacy, which states that just because someone has reached a conclusion through fallacious thinking does not make the conclusion false. The argumentum ad populum fallacy states that just because most people believe something doesn't mean it's true. You are arguing because some people believe in evolution for this reason that evolution is untrue.
Anonymous 03/28/15 (Sat) 00:39:47 93d116 No. 5726
>>5718 >So, if it isn't gods but aliens or other intelligence life forms that intelligently designed humans, how are the aliens supposed to come about if now from a process that involved evolution? They may have come about via something like evolution. My stance is that
we did not.
That's just word play. If we were created by aliens, then we did not evolve in the sense that evolutionists believe.
I do not claim to have the answers to those questions, and I have no opinion on them. The truth may be something very literally unimaginable.
Anonymous 03/28/15 (Sat) 00:45:03 93d116 No. 5727
>>5722 >Can you elaborate on that? How did the resistance come about then? How should I know?
Once something has been established as fact using the scientific method, it will not be debunked unless a serious error was made during experimentation, something that is usually pretty rare.
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.
Anonymous 03/28/15 (Sat) 00:55:36 2507bb No. 5729
>>5726 >That's just word play. It's not. You are doing the word play. Your intelligent life forms would be part of nature just like humans are part of nature, otherwise they would be gods.
There is no difference between humans selecting certain strains of crops and an ant state that selects certain types of fungi. Both still is natural selection and part of an evolutionary process. If you accept that your hypothetical aliens are a product of evolution then you have to accept that humans are, too. The underlying process still is an evolutionary.
Your explanation has to be better than the current one of evolutioary biology in order for others to be accepted and replaced but is is not. It is unhelpful and baseless. Evolutionary biology permanently transformed our understanding from genetics, medicin to even computer algorithms. Just like modern physics enabled us to fly to the moon.
Anonymous 03/28/15 (Sat) 01:16:08 2507bb No. 5732
Btw. Epigenetics may revive Lamarck.
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