backtop


Print 333 comment(s) - last by Asetha.. on Sep 12 at 3:02 PM


  (Source: South Park Studios)
Richard Leakey says its time to stop wasting time debating something most scientists agree upon

Richard Leakey, son of Louis Leakey and Mary Leakey, is perhaps the best-known name in paleoanthropology today.  The much-respected researcher has spent much of his life digging up fossilized primate remains in Africa, slowly piecing together mankind's evolutionary tree.

The painstaking process has not been without its flaws.  There are still many gaps in the understanding of how mankind descended from tree-dwelling critters to become an upright hunter, master of his domain.  But according to Richard Leakey, the debate about whether this process actually occurred, versus an alternative theological alternative is almost over.

I. Top Paleoanthropologist -- Evolution Critics Will Soon be Convinced

At an institute in Manhattan he spoke to reporters at a charity dinner that raised $2M USD for National Geographic conservation efforts.  He claimed that within 15 to 30 years the evidence proving evolution would be so overwhelming that "even the skeptics can accept it."

He adds, "If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it's solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges."

Turkana Boy
Professor Richard Leakey says that fossil evidence like the "Turkana Boy" will eventually convince evolution's skeptics. [Image Source: Flickr/Leonardo Bonanni]

Creation stories are as old as mankind itself.  The ancient Incan civilization believed the deity Viracoccha created mankind by breathing life into stones, after first botching the job and creating a pack of unruly giants.  Despite its long history, Mr. Leakey calls the notion of teaching Islamic, Christian, Judaic, or any other form of creationism in schools deadly anti-scientific rhetoric.  

He comments, "If we're spreading out across the world from centers like Europe and America that evolution is nonsense and science is nonsense, how do you combat new pathogens, how do you combat new strains of disease that are evolving in the environment?"

He says faith alone has no explanation for the wealth of scientific evidence, commenting, "If you don't like the word evolution, I don't care what you call it, but life has changed. You can lay out all the fossils that have been collected and establish lineages that even a fool could work up. So the question is why, how does this happen? It's not covered by Genesis. There's no explanation for this change going back 500 million years in any book I've read from the lips of any God."

But does his criticism mean that he hates religion?  He insists that quite to the contrary he views religion in general as a beneficial force, commenting, "If you tell me, well, people really need a faith ... I understand that.  I see no reason why you shouldn't go through your life thinking if you're a good citizen, you'll get a better future in the afterlife ...."

Turkana Boy
Prof. Leakey discovered the "Turkana Boy" a remarkably preserved Homo erectus specimen depicted here in an artist's sculpture. [Image Source: Museon (Netherlands)]

National Geographic will be airing a public television documentary on the Turkana boy, the most complete early human (species Homo erectus) skeleton ever found.  Professor Leakey's team unearthed the 1.5 million year old skeleton in 1984.  The lanky ancestor had short arms and long legs.

II. Professor Leakey Turns His Talents to Fighting Poaching

While he still remains a staunch critic of creationism and proponent of evolutionary theory, Professor Leakey's work and passion has turned from paleoanthropology to conservationism.  In the 1980s he took charge of the Kenya Wildlife Service and led a strong campaign against poachers, culminated by his seizure of 12 tons of ivory in 1989.  In a demonstration of how pathetic it was to kill majestic rhinos and elephants for their tusks he burned the seized stockpile, in a highly effective publicity stunt.

A 1993 plan crash left him a double-amputee.  Pro-poaching political enemies were suspected to be involved.  But Professor Leakey remained undeterred staying active on artificial limbs.  But despite his tireless work, he remains less than optimistic about the future of Earth's ecosystem, commenting, "We may be on the cusp of some very real disasters that have nothing to do with whether the elephant survives, or a cheetah survives, but if we survive."

Richard Leakey
Prof. Leakey, seen here in 1989 lost his legs in a plane crash, suspected to be caused by poacher sabotage. [Image Source: Tom Stoddart Archive/Hulton Archive/Getty Images]

Professor Leakey is often assisted in his conservationist fundraisers by Paul Simon the musician, a close friend of his.  An iconic half of the song-writting duo Simon and Garfunkel, the music legend played at the charity event and also contributed music for the upcoming PBS special on "Turkana Boy".

Professor Leakey currently spends most of his time at the new Turkana Basin Institute in Kenya.  He also is a professor at Stony Brook University on Long Island.

Source: RD Magazine



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

It will never happen
By retrospooty on 5/31/2012 3:15:55 PM , Rating: 5
The fact is evolution happened. There are thousands of data points that prove it happened and that life evolved here on Earth. Anyone that doesn't believe the thousands of points of evidence on evolution wont believe one additional point. Its denial and/or ignorance and you cant cure either of those things with facts or evidence.




RE: It will never happen
By spread on 5/31/2012 3:10:54 PM , Rating: 5
But, but what about that book written thousands of years ago by some nomadic desert hippies which was translated (very poorly) several times over? Surely that invalidates hundreds of years of work and research by thousands of the best and brightest minds that human civilization has had to offer.


RE: It will never happen
By retrospooty on 5/31/2012 3:38:16 PM , Rating: 5
LOL. Anyone that can read the old testament and consider the vain, petty, ego driven, childish entity they describe as god as real deserves what they get. The god they describe in the old testament acts more like Pirks than he does a divine being.


RE: It will never happen
By Quadrillity on 5/31/12, Rating: -1
RE: It will never happen
By Menoetios on 5/31/2012 6:55:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Any and all evidence that I have ever seen for evolution is for macro-evolution.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution


RE: It will never happen
By Quadrillity on 5/31/12, Rating: -1
RE: It will never happen
By SPOOFE on 6/1/2012 4:01:03 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
did you seriously just direct me to a Wikipedia article?

What, were you expecting the Bible? That unerring source of data that tells us Pi equals exactly 3?


RE: It will never happen
By Quadrillity on 6/1/2012 5:00:31 PM , Rating: 2
Nice try, but the bible does teach that Pi is 3.14...

http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/pi.htm


RE: It will never happen
By SPOOFE on 6/1/2012 5:34:03 PM , Rating: 4
Incorrect. A hand's breadth is a few inches. A cubit is 18 to 22 inches (according to your own link!). The difference - compared to 10 cubits in diameter, or 30 in circumference - does NOT make up that extra .14...

Unless you're claiming the Bible says man had giant hands 3000 years ago.

OR, a less idiotic explanation: The Bible is full of symbolism and is not to be taken literally. Christ used symbolism all the time, and Christ is God, so why can't God and his book use symbolism?


RE: It will never happen
By Quadrillity on 6/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: It will never happen
By dark matter on 6/6/2012 8:43:53 PM , Rating: 1
Before the Bible was written, did Zeus exist as well.


RE: It will never happen
By FarRed on 6/7/2012 3:15:33 PM , Rating: 2
I've worked in a measurement standards laboratory for 20 years. Regardless of what you think of the Bible, stating that the circumference of a circle is 3 times the diameter is technically correct. Saying something is 3.0 is indicating you have measured it to a greater accuracy than simply saying 3. Stating "3" allows for up to <0.5 variance. The Bible is correct. It wasn't attempting to indicate the value of Pi, simply that the structure was supposed to round round rather than oval.


RE: It will never happen
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/2/2012 1:18:09 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I saw that the article mentions mutations and natural selection. Did you know that mutations are harmful, and never ADD anything to the DNA structure?
IGNORANT AND WRONG.

Why must you persist in this kind of foolishness.

Bacteria have been DIRECTLY observed mutating in isolated environments to develop the ability to digest new sugars -- bacterial microevolution.

Read:
http://www.dailytech.com/Evolution+in+Escherichia+...
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full?maxto...
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_...

What part of being able to expand into new environments and survive food shortages is "harmful" and "losing", Mr. Expert? Pray, do tell.

For someone who seems remarkably poorly read on current peer-reviewed research studies, you sure offer a lot of outlandish opinions and claimed expertise.

If you think you know more than people who spend their lives studying genetics and microbiology, please go out and publish some pure reviewed studies and show how smart you really are.


RE: It will never happen
By Quadrillity on 6/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: It will never happen
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/3/2012 10:55:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
prove that the bacteria can one day change into another kind of animal if you add millions of years.
Not exactly, again, showing your ignorance. Seriously, GIVE UP. You keep looking like a FOOL.


RE: It will never happen
By dark matter on 6/6/2012 8:45:53 PM , Rating: 1
I love it when religious people talk about "proving" something.


RE: It will never happen
By plastichairball on 6/7/2012 3:17:58 AM , Rating: 2
Do you postulate that those who have faith can never prove anything? Well, anything that their faith is based on?


RE: It will never happen
By SlyNine on 6/21/2012 2:35:11 AM , Rating: 2
You'd have to be more specific. I will say you cannot PROVE there is a god, only deny evidence of the contrary.

Regardless of what you or I believe, which is rather meaningless. The truth is still the truth. I'd just rather find concrete evidence for spending my life believing in something. Rather then wasting my life believing in something I was simply tought to believe in, or because its more popular or helps me sleep at night.

But instead you guys seem to want to attack all the empirical evidence and every little whole in it you can think of.

If I were to make a blue print a working TV, Someone could poke holes in its design all day and say it wont work, but at the end of the day the TV would still work.


RE: It will never happen
By drycrust3 on 6/4/12, Rating: 0
RE: It will never happen
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/5/2012 9:55:44 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
No, you would expect the writer to record the sudden appearance of life on a planet that was devoid of life.
Which is RIDICULOUS, if there was NO LIFE on the planet who was the writer? Is this writer not considered life?

Stop with the silly shit....seriously.


RE: It will never happen
By FarRed on 6/7/2012 5:24:44 PM , Rating: 2
"If you think you know more than people who spend their lives studying genetics and microbiology, please go out and publish some pure reviewed studies and show how smart you really are." Galileo did. All the experts in academia told him he was wrong. Remember it was the universities, not the Catholic church, that first condemned him.


RE: It will never happen
By Dukeajuke on 6/4/2012 9:28:52 AM , Rating: 3
Look. You openly admit that your biblical "theories" of how the universe and life on this planet started ultimately require you to ignore the evidence that points otherwise and rely ultimately on "faith". If you are willing to believe something on faith alone, then you are then willing to believe anything. If at birth you happened to be born into a family and a society that taught you the Earth was created by a cosmic purple pig from the 5th dimension, and showed you an elaborate book or text explaining how this is so, then that is what you would believe today. If you really believe in a god and want to know more about it, you would be better served to go at it with an open mind and study the only thing your creator left behind - which is the universe and everything in it. The only reliable way to do that is the scientific method.


RE: It will never happen
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/31/2012 7:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but there is also a wealth of evidence that can validate a literal 6 day creation.
LOL! Like?


RE: It will never happen
By Quadrillity on 5/31/12, Rating: -1
RE: It will never happen
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/31/2012 10:44:53 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'd say the evidence that it's a giant spillway from a massive flood holds a lot more potential than a river carving a canyon.
I would say, what evidence? Do you even really know what "evidence" means? I mean, seriously? You are really stretching here. And you must not know much about water running over rocks and what it does to transform said rocks. It's called erosion . Look it up.

quote:
The sad part is, there are many people to are totally blind to the fact that the vast majority of evidence for BOTH sides has a lot of build in assumptions
I don't see much evidence on your side proving your claims. Sorry.


RE: It will never happen
By Quadrillity on 5/31/12, Rating: -1
RE: It will never happen
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/1/2012 8:36:19 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
There is plenty of evidence that shows the grand canyon was created in a matter of days; probably a month at most.
WHAT EVIDENCE? You keep claiming things, and don't produce this so called evidence, yet you bash others for it as well. Sounds hypocritical to me. I'll give you a clue below as to how it was formed.

quote:
How was it formed? The truth is that no one knows for sure though there are some pretty good guesses. The chances are that a number of processes combined to create the views that you see in todays Grand Canyon. The most powerful force to have an impact on the Grand Canyon is erosion, primarily by water (and ice) and second by wind. Other forces that contributed to the Canyon's formation are the course of the Colorado River itself, vulcanism, continental drift and slight variations in the earths orbit which in turn causes variations in seasons and climate.
Erosion, the MOST plausible reason.

quote:
You can reproduce the same exact result in your own back yard.
Yes, with WATER and EROSION...

quote:
The Grand Canyon is 277 miles (446 km) long, up to 18 miles (29 km) wide and attains a depth of over a mile (6,000 feet / 1,800 metres)[2] Nearly two billion years of the Earth's geological history have been exposed as the Colorado River and its tributaries cut their channels through layer after layer of rock while the Colorado Plateau was uplifted.[3] While the specific geologic processes and timing that formed the Grand Canyon are the subject of debate by geologists,[4] recent evidence suggests the Colorado River established its course through the canyon at least 17 million years ago.[5][6] Since that time, the Colorado River continued to erode and form the canyon to its present-day configuration.[


Are you really going to keep replying here and make yourself look more and more stupid with each post? I am going to call you the Tony Swash of the Evolution debate. You are acting just like him right now.


RE: It will never happen
By Quadrillity on 6/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: It will never happen
By retrospooty on 6/1/2012 1:35:37 PM , Rating: 4
"So the Grand Canyon was carved by that river for millions of years? Why doesn't ever river do this?"

Seriously, stop. You are just showing your complete and total ignorance. Now its geology that you dont get.

We know how the GC formed, it WAS erosion from runoff from the ice ages for fart sakes. Just stop.

I really hate to keep insulting your intelligence but you keep posting back with more false logic and false talking points the Christin science rags give it. Its not valid, none of it. LOL. Its just pathetic at this point.

We DID evolve, we DO have evidence DNA PROVES it, as does the VAST fossil record, as does our own skin and bacteria and cats and dogs show how evolution works. ACK! Not only are you totally ingnorant, but insistant about it.


RE: It will never happen
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/1/2012 1:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
You resort to an article about "Noah's Flood" for your proof, and from a religious site none the less? It's just gets worse each post you make. Seriously. Stop.


RE: It will never happen
By SPOOFE on 6/1/2012 4:03:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why doesn't ever river do this?

Because rivers change course. That's why there are dry stream beds.


RE: It will never happen
By spread on 6/1/2012 11:54:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So the Grand Canyon was carved by that river for millions of years? Why doesn't ever river do this?


I don't know, why don't you tell me? Let's see that evidence you speak of liar. Let's see it. Why do you lie for God? Do you believe God is fair and just? What do you think you will receive for your lies?

quote:
This has nothing to do with Apple fanboyism. Why do people keep resorting to ad hominems instead of sticking to the topics?


Because you lie and do not answer questions. If you expect people to answer you, then you should answer in return, but you don't. You claim to know something and then lie about it.

You're garbage. That's not an attack, that is what I see. Your actions are intolerable and there is a reason that an entire book was written to warn against people like yourself. Pretenders.

Leviticus 19:11, "Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another."


RE: It will never happen
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/2/2012 10:51:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So the Grand Canyon was carved by that river for millions of years?
DUH...


RE: It will never happen
By dark matter on 6/6/2012 8:47:13 PM , Rating: 1
I can make the grand canyon in my own back yard!

Sure I can.


RE: It will never happen
By Paj on 6/1/2012 11:52:01 AM , Rating: 4
I accept that it is entirely possible that the universe was created by some being, God, deity, spaghetti monster, you name it.

However, your claim that there is mounds of evidence for a young Earth is dwarfed by the evidence against it. The flood myth.... well, there's a reason they call it that.

There is no way the atmosphere could support the volume of water required to flood the entire Earth in the given amount of time. The air pressure means the tiny animal with lungs would have died.

How was Noah able to keep tropical fish? Did he have heated aquaria?
What about the arctic fish... how did he keep the water cold enough? Did he invent refrigeration?

Which human was selected to harbour all the virii and bacteria that currently affect humans today? How did this poor soul avoid dying?

What about all the microorganisms that can only survive in animal hosts?

How did all the millions of known species board the ark? The friction generated by their boarding would have burnt any wooden ship many times over.

I could go on, but I think my point is made.


RE: It will never happen
By Quadrillity on 6/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: It will never happen
By SPOOFE on 6/1/2012 4:38:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you would also be aware of the canopy theory

Anti-gravity water! Clearly God is limited and can't figure out how to teach us lessons without violating his own physical laws.

quote:
You can change most salt water fish to fresh water in a matter of days

So Noah hopped on a plane and flew to Hawaii to get his tropical fish and then flew back and acclimated the fish to fresh water. So how'd Noah get the plane?

quote:
You assume that there was an "arctic" region before the flood.

Whether or not it was "Arctic" is immaterial; the fact remains that it was "very far away from where Noah was" and thus he couldn't possibly have acquired animals from that region.

quote:
Wait, what? You evolutionists say that virus/bacteria can evolve, so what's the problem?

So the proof against evolution happening is... evolution happening! Sometimes I wish I lived in your world, until I realize that your world is just a few glue sniffs away.

quote:
Noah brought two of every "kind".

Even those that were thousands of miles away and thus impossible for him to acquire within the allotted time period. Then there's the fact that in order for them to fit would leave a few cubic centimeters of volume for each animal and its food for the duration of the ark ride.

Do you believe that God violates his own laws? Do you think God is really that stupid that he can't act within his own chosen constraints? You think very little of the Almighty.


RE: It will never happen
By Quadrillity on 6/1/2012 5:03:21 PM , Rating: 1
You whole argument is against faith; which has already been admitting into the equation. Not EVERY single thing in this universe can be explained by science. You are a fool if you think so.


RE: It will never happen
By SPOOFE on 6/1/2012 5:36:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You whole argument is against faith

Completely untrue. My argument is against faith replacing knowledge.

quote:
Not EVERY single thing in this universe can be explained by science.

But things that can be, should be. Things that can't: Faith.

YOU are trying to replace knowledge with faith.


RE: It will never happen
By Asetha on 6/3/2012 4:10:40 AM , Rating: 2
Disagree with things that can't be proven by science require faith.

Mathematics cannot be proven by science. You can't see numbers. You can't weigh them, they have no mass, are incapable of observation or measurement of any physical kind, yet clearly they exist.

Agreed, things that can be explained by science should be. Yet it would be extremely limiting if the only source of knowledge was derived from material investigation.


RE: It will never happen
By DarkUltra on 6/4/2012 3:56:51 PM , Rating: 2
- Agreed, things that can be explained by science should be. Yet it would be extremely limiting if the only source of knowledge was derived from material investigation.

If it is not in a material form, we can't observe it. We need to observe stuff to prove, or disprove our hypothesis. We have, however, hypothesized about an incredible amount of things, and subsequently confirmed and produced a huge amount of theories. Religion and praying and faith have not, and never will. In science, you observe, in religion you try to keep the simple dogmas alive.

To simplify with definitions like "material" and "immaterial" we are already on the slippery slope to unscientific darkness.


RE: It will never happen
By Asetha on 9/12/2012 3:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If it is not in a material form, we can't observe it.


We can investigate logic without observing it. You can prove and disprove things without physical observation all the time with logic. Thus my position remains sound - by denying all non-physical areas of knowledge, we are limiting ourselves.

I'm not sure what post you were responding to, but you didn't address anything I wrote, other than your misunderstanding of material and immaterial knowledge. Sorry if the terms confused you.


RE: It will never happen
By retrospooty on 6/1/2012 5:19:02 PM , Rating: 3
"Even those that were thousands of miles away and thus impossible for him to acquire within the allotted time period"

LOL... Ya, a better explanation couldnt possibly be that the primitive men that wrote the book didn't have the slightest clue how many animals really existed all over the world and how it would be logistically impossible to put 2 of each on a boat, even if the boat were the size of 10 titanics. The argument is that they were babies? ROFL. I agree though, when that book was written, it would have made sense.

Lets not also think about the fact that if 2 of each species were there, then they would have all died out from inbreeding within a generation or 2. Yes, it must be magic.


RE: It will never happen
By Quadrillity on 6/1/2012 7:11:24 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, you have zero proof that ancient men were stupid; it just goes along with your theory that "everything is getting better".

quote:
Lets not also think about the fact that if 2 of each species were there, then they would have all died out from inbreeding within a generation or 2. Yes, it must be magic.

Ever consider that the genetic lines were pure at the time? No? Thought not...


RE: It will never happen
By retrospooty on 6/1/2012 9:02:58 PM , Rating: 2
"Yeah, you have zero proof that ancient men were stupid"

Actually, I know they were not stupid. If you weren't stupid you might get what I was saying. They had every bit the intelligence of modern man, but they lacked the information we have today. What I meant up there was that based on the limited info they had at the time when the ark story was made up, they put 2 of every creature on the ark because based on the limited info they had it sounded right.

Wait. You sucked me in again. What am I doing debating anything with someone naive and ill-witted enought to actually believe in the ark and the 6000 year old human race stories. You truly are a complete ignoramus in every sense. I really hope you don't actually think those things and that you are just trolling trying to get a rise out of people, because if you really think that its sad. Pathetic and sad. I think Spoofe mentioned somewhere here today that you arent reading the same textbooks that the rest of the world is. Did you go to private christian school where facts arent a requirement?


RE: It will never happen
By Quadrillity on 6/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: It will never happen
By goatfajitas on 6/1/2012 11:10:00 PM , Rating: 3
Oh ick... i just threw up a little bit when I read that. You are icky in a Jimmy Swaggart/ Oral Roberts kind of way. I am going to go take a shower now.


RE: It will never happen
By retrospooty on 6/2/2012 1:20:12 PM , Rating: 3
ah, evangelical Christians... The Neanderthal of the modern era. So glad to see you know the mind of god and dont see what a vain concepts that alone is. You invalidate all other religions and the entire world of science and logic becasue you are right no matter what and no facts can ever change that. LOL.

Ignorance must be bliss.


RE: It will never happen
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/2/2012 1:04:00 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Ever consider that the genetic lines were pure at the time? No? Thought not...
Wow, I've been reading this chuckling a bit, but this is just astounding.

Please, please, take a genetics class... or at least a biochem. class at a decent university. Then you might be able to form a more persuasive argument and stop embarrassing yourself.

What in the world is "genetic purity"??

Genes can not be "pure" or "inpure" -- they're genes. Some are "bad" genes in the sense that they form abnormal proteins or predispose one to cancer or other maladies via epigenetic or transcriptory issues.

The dangers of inbreeding are in no way remedied by your imaginary concept of "genetic purity".

As I doubt you will educate yourself, I will try to provide one simple example for your benefit:

The immune system is based on a series of transcribed factors (including the antigen system). Siblings will be slightly genetically different due to meiosis, but their immune systems will be closely tied as many will share one or two sets of common chromosomes, differing only slightly due to transformational events such as homologous recombination....

Anyhow, long story short, the siblings will produce a limited set of antigens, as will their children. So when a specific disease comes along which they're vulnerable to, the whole population will be wiped out.

I don't think you understand the dangers of in-breeding -- it's not that the lack of diversity kills the organisms directly -- this is only SOMETIMES the case, if the individuals carry certain genetic diseases. More often, though it's that the lack of diversity does not allow a subset of the population to survive stressful events like pathogens, predators, etc.

But seriously, back to my point.... please, please take those college courses before your consider giving any more "facts" like that one.


RE: It will never happen
By retrospooty on 6/2/2012 8:07:28 AM , Rating: 2
"Wow, I've been reading this chuckling a bit, but this is just astounding. "

LOL... I dunno, I am more blown away by a person in 2012 still believing in the ark story and that Earth was created 6000 years ago. I imagine it could be easy to completely misunderstand genetics especially being taught the "non-facts" that this guy must have been taught... But to think the ark and 6000 year old creation has any truth astounds me.


RE: It will never happen
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/2/2012 10:41:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
you would also be aware of the canopy theory, and the "fountains of the deep"


quote:
The Water Vapor Canopy Theory Why the Bible (And Science) Says It is False by Rich Deem Introduction Vapor canopy? Where did all that water come from to produce a global flood? According to many young earth creationists, there was once a thick vapor canopy that surrounded the earth. Is this idea supported by the Bible? Rich Deem One of the most common theories among young earth creationists is that the original earth possessed a water canopy consisting of vapor (most common interpretation) or ice that surrounded the earth above the troposphere and potentially up through the stratosphere. The canopy is used to explain the long lifespans of pre-flood humanity, along with the source of all the water required to explain a global flood. This paper will examine what the Bible says about the possible existence of such a canopy, along with some simple scientific rebuttals to the theory.


quote:
Air can hold, at most, 55 grams of water vapor per cubic meter. In contrast, liquid water is at a density of 1,000,000 grams per cubic meter. The ratio of the two numbers is 1:18,000. Therefore, a flood of 1 mile thickness (which would cover only 1/5 of Mount Everest), would require 18,000 miles of canopy. Besides the problem of gravity (which would bring the whole thing down), such a thick layer of water vapor would completely block any light from the Sun from reaching the earth. Even a canopy of the equivalent of only 40 feet of liquid water would double the earth's atmospheric pressure, which would kill many animals, including humans. This pressure would also increase the temperature on the earth to a scorching 220°F. Most animals and plants do not survive long at this temperature. Another problem is getting the water out of the atmosphere and onto the ground without cooking everything on the earth. Each gram of water vapor that condenses to a liquid releases 539 calories of heat. For a vapor canopy to produce a global water layer of only 40 feet deep, 6.22 x 1021 grams of water would release 3.35 x 1024 calories, raising the temperature of the earth to 810°F. Such a scenario would definitely kill all life on earth, but would produce a tremendous air conditioning problem for Noah. And a 40 feet deep flood would certainly not be global.


quote:
Conclusion Top of page Neither the Bible nor science support the idea that a water canopy ever existed above the earth. The Bible teaches that the "expanse" of Genesis 1:6-8 cannot be a canopy, since it encompasses both the atmosphere and interstellar space. The Bible also indicates that the "floodgates of heaven" are nothing more than a reference to clouds and rain (as found in passages after the Genesis flood). Scientifically, any kind of water canopy produces so much heat that it would cook everything on the planet.
More of your ridiclous notions. Just stop, seriously. You are looking more and more like a complete nut job each post.


RE: It will never happen
By Quadrillity on 6/3/2012 1:47:56 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Even a canopy of the equivalent of only 40 feet of liquid water would double the earth's atmospheric pressure, which would kill many animals


LOL, it would create a giant hyperbaric chamber. This would not kill off anything. Plus, the whole logic of this writing suggests that the conditions of today where the same at the time of the flood; they were not. Plus, no-one claims to know specifics about the thickness or composition; some believe it may have been a thin layer of ice. Just enough to block our the harmful cosmic radiation.

quote:
The canopy is used to explain the long lifespans of pre-flood humanity, along with the source of all the water required to explain a global flood.


WRONG WRONG WRONG! See, the people refuting the ideas don't even know the real proposed theories. MOST of the water came from the fountains of the deep; NOT the canopy. We can still observe these fountains leaking today.

It's very funny how they can disprove a theory in which they make up their own scenarios. This is utterly ridiculous.


RE: It will never happen
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/3/2012 10:52:20 AM , Rating: 2
It's funny how you discredit people who research this for a living. You are just now being a troll. You are utterly ridiculous.


RE: It will never happen
By Paj on 6/6/2012 8:24:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Plus, the whole logic of this writing suggests that the conditions of today where the same at the time of the flood; they were not.


Which conditions are they? Scientific laws governing temperature and pressure?
If this were true, and they have changed over time as you say, surely there would be a record somewhere?

Surely, if this were true, scientific measurements made as little as 50 years ago would be noticeably different to their current values. Accordingly, the principles governed by these measurements would also change.

Wait, this must be your explanation for climate change!


RE: It will never happen
By FrankBlank on 6/6/2012 9:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
The guy is just a christian troll, evolved when the hot fires of the old internet flamer wars encountered the demonic soul of Jerry Falwell.

Besides, we are all just tubules flicked from the munificent noodles of the FSM while he was doing his I Am the Elder God-Send Me Four Virgins dance.

I trust I've resolved the issue.


RE: It will never happen
By Skywalker123 on 6/2/2012 8:29:37 PM , Rating: 2
Noah was 15ft tall? LOl, good one.


RE: It will never happen
By HOOfan 1 on 6/2/2012 12:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
The scablands in Washington are the spillway for a giant flood...Grand Canyon is not. Scientists who have actually dedicated their life to studying these phenomenon have determined that.


RE: It will never happen
By 3minence on 5/31/2012 7:20:06 PM , Rating: 5
We used to attribute everything to the Gods (or God). Weather, volcanoes, drought, most everything. Over time we've found these events have other, more earthly causes. How many virgins have been thrown to their deaths because of plate tectonics? (It makes you cry when you really think about it.) So you can claim God created man and the universe, but excuse me if I don't believe you. Explanations involving God have a really bad track record when it comes to these sorts of questions.


RE: It will never happen
By kyp275 on 5/31/2012 10:01:12 PM , Rating: 1
I absolutely refuse the consider that God created the universe simply due to the fact that people like you exists, a blunder that simply wouldn't be possible if everything was created by omnipotent and omniscient being.

Unless of course he did it to troll the rest of us!


RE: It will never happen
By Quadrillity on 5/31/2012 10:23:09 PM , Rating: 2
Oh look, it's another one that would rather make ad hominem attacks than make credible arguments. Bravo.


RE: It will never happen
By kyp275 on 5/31/2012 11:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
the window of making credible arguments with you has gone and went tbh ;)

not that you were ever really interested in them anyway IMO.


RE: It will never happen
By Quadrillity on 6/1/2012 12:05:56 AM , Rating: 2
Did you offer any reffutations to my posts about DNA, fossils, the geologic column, evidence hoax's, or radiometric dating? Nope, you didn't. And since you didn't it sure does make you look awful foolish to chastise me doesn't it? You fit right in line with 99% of the other people on this forum who vehemently defend the theory.


RE: It will never happen
By kyp275 on 6/1/2012 3:44:25 AM , Rating: 3
why would I waste the time and effort to pull up all the stuff to debunk your already-debunked-by-other-people talking points, so you can just ignore them and continue on with your creationist bs talking points?

Like you said earlier, there's zero chance anyone is going to change their mind on this - there's nothing you can say that'd make me think you're not crazy, and there's nothing I can say that would change your view either, so why bother?


RE: It will never happen
By Quadrillity on 6/1/2012 1:39:30 PM , Rating: 2
In order words: No, you are not going to participate in the debate. Do you not understand that closing off a debate is completely unscientific? Your theory is more sacred to you than you choose to realize.


RE: It will never happen
By SPOOFE on 6/1/2012 4:41:16 PM , Rating: 2
We've witnessed people try to participate in a debate with you, and further witnessed you act like a dishonest, hypocritical, two-faced, internally inconsistent pain in the ass. Why would anyone take you seriously?

Really, just kill yourself. That's the best possible thing you can do for humanity, and for your loved ones. If you cared about your family and friends, you would kill yourself.


RE: It will never happen
By Quadrillity on 6/1/2012 5:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
More ad hominems. Great. You are such a nice person :)


RE: It will never happen
By SPOOFE on 6/1/2012 5:38:53 PM , Rating: 3
An "ad hominem" is an insult instead of a salient response, not an insult AND a salient response!

But feel free to throw more terms you don't understand at me. I'll clear up your confusion, at least as far as the "leading a horse to water" stage. After that is up to you. :D


RE: It will never happen
By Quadrillity on 6/1/2012 7:14:08 PM , Rating: 2
So telling someone to kill themselves is not an insult, but a sane response? LoL, you are beyond ridiculous.

Oh yes, I need to come to the great, wise, and omnipotent SPOOFE for all of life's answers. All before him bow down and marvel in his infinite wisdom! /sarcasm

You think you are the God of your own universe... so pathetic.


RE: It will never happen
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/1/2012 8:25:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
LoL, you are beyond ridiculous.
Kettle...Pot....


RE: It will never happen
By retrospooty on 6/1/2012 5:30:08 PM , Rating: 1
"We've witnessed people try to participate in a debate with you, and further witnessed you act like a dishonest, hypocritical, two-faced, internally inconsistent pain in the ass. Why would anyone take you seriously?"

Exactly... The brainwashing is strong with this one.


RE: It will never happen
By retrospooty on 5/31/2012 10:15:30 PM , Rating: 1
" but there is also a wealth of evidence that can validate a literal 6 day creation."

LOL.... ROFLMAO!!! I missed this post earlier. That is hilarious. Now I know for sure I am dealing with a mental midget. I dont even know what to say to that. Most christian science doof's wouldnt even admit to that embarrassing belief, but hey, its the internet so no-one knows you anyhow right.

But no, I dont hate you Christians... Hell, my name is actually Chris. I was born into it and raised with it. The difference being I grew up and got an education and realized that that book was written by uneducated men that were simply trying to make sense of the world around them and control their fellow men. It's got a lot of wisdom as far as how to live, but the historic parts are just primitive man's inability to explain the (at the time) unexplainable.

"And herein lies the root of your cause: you absolutely refuse to consider that God created the universe"

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. I do believe in god. It would be the same god that you worship as well. The beginning the creator whatever... It's just not the small minded petty vendictive ego driven god described in the western religions Bible/Tora/Koran. I do believe there is an intelligence to the universe that runs it all.... It is whatever created the laws of science and physics and evolution that allowed it all to happen. It is vein to think that you know what god or understand him based on that rediculous book. It is as petty and small as the jr high school mentality of the god in the old testament. ANd if you actually think that some devine entity snapped us all into existence 6000 years ago, I feel sorry for you, for you are truly a dullard.


RE: It will never happen
By Quadrillity on 5/31/2012 10:27:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
ANd if you actually think that some devine entity snapped us all into existence 6000 years ago, I feel sorry for you, for you are truly a dullard.


So, you believe in a God that can create the laws of the universe, but he's not powerful enough to create us? Wow.

You know what, this conversation actually is over. You have long since turned this from a discussion about science, DNA, fossils, etc into a diatribe that outlines how retarded you think I am.

I can't wait for you to meet God one day so you can tell him who he is and what he is capable of. That will go over really well lol.


RE: It will never happen
By retrospooty on 5/31/2012 11:26:48 PM , Rating: 1
"So, you believe in a God that can create the laws of the universe, but he's not powerful enough to create us? Wow."

Hold the door... So you actually do believe he created us 6000 years ago as told in the bible? For a time I thought you were just joking or baiting me. I really hope you were.

"You know what, this conversation actually is over. You have long since turned this from a discussion about science, DNA, fossils, etc into a diatribe that outlines how retarded you think I am."

Pretty much yes. You have dismissed all evidence and now that is all that's left. If I were wiser I would have just passed, but to be honest it really pisses me off that my fellow man can be this stupid. I honestly believe that until we can move past the silly notions of the past religions created by primitive uneducated man, that we can never move on to something better.

Way to hold down the grading curve pokey.

This is done though. You just sadden me and make me feel less hope for the future of man.


RE: It will never happen
By Quadrillity on 6/1/2012 12:15:28 AM , Rating: 2
This is probably about the 15th time in on this page that you has called me a retard without actually discussing the merits of the topic. You are an idiot. Refute the points I made earlier, or bow out. simple.


RE: It will never happen
By SlyNine on 6/1/2012 7:50:32 AM , Rating: 3
When you make points worth refuting, maybe someone will chime in. Its like you don't even care to research anything. You use your ignorance as a debating point instead of using solid premises.

You need to take a logic 101 class, and be alittle critical of yourself.


RE: It will never happen
By retrospooty on 6/1/2012 8:35:35 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Thanks.

I actually did, but he has dismissed all DNA as fallible, Fossil's as fake, and fro some reason doesnt even want to accept that we see evolution happening today in our own skin color and in antibiotic resistant bacteria. Then he goes on about how I wont discuss the points LOL. Oy, the god squad.


RE: It will never happen
By Quadrillity on 6/1/2012 2:03:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I actually did, but he has dismissed all DNA as fallible

I tried to start a discussion that outlined specific things about DNA, but you refused to even acknowledge it.

quote:
Fossil's as fake

Quote me where I said fossils are fake. Please; I'll be waiting.

quote:
we see evolution happening today in our own skin color and in antibiotic resistant bacteria.

We scientifically observe micro-changes and speciation. That is absolutely 100% scientific and perfectly reasonable.

What we have never observed, tested, and verified is one species turning into another. Only by millions of years and making wild assumptions from bones can we conclude that.

You want to bash me about the topics, but you are too afraid to actually discuss them.


RE: It will never happen
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/1/2012 2:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most (if not all) of the "transitional" fossils have either been totally faked
Really? You now want to try to say you didn't say these things?


RE: It will never happen
By retrospooty on 6/1/2012 3:51:04 PM , Rating: 1
LOL. Classic.

But to correct you Cheese, this guy isnt the Tony Swash if Evolution, he's the Pirks for sure =)


RE: It will never happen
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/1/2012 4:44:16 PM , Rating: 1
Ok, I'll give ya that. Pirks it is :)


RE: It will never happen
By Quadrillity on 6/1/2012 1:44:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When you make points worth refuting

So they are only worth refuting if they only disagree with "how" evolution happens? So basically you are saying that science proves something, then shuts the door on any scrutiny? Brilliant.


RE: It will never happen
By SPOOFE on 6/1/2012 5:42:23 PM , Rating: 1
So basically you are saying you like to rape little boys? That it doesn't matter what you ACTUALLY write, because what you REALLY mean is to confess that you molest children?

Be careful being too flexible with language, because it's a double-edged sword... you child molester.


RE: It will never happen
By Quadrillity on 6/1/2012 7:15:34 PM , Rating: 2
you are totally insane aren't you?


RE: It will never happen
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/2/2012 10:57:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
you are totally insane aren't you?
This coming from you....LOL...ROFL...


RE: It will never happen
By SlyNine on 6/21/2012 2:26:44 AM , Rating: 2
All your points rely heavy on circler logic. Which just goes round and round and round, its not worth refuting. Build your points up from something empirical, and than talk to us.


RE: It will never happen
By plastichairball on 6/1/2012 9:53:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I honestly believe that until we can move past the silly notions of the past religions created by primitive uneducated man, that we can never move on to something better.


Could you please elaborate on why putting aside religious beliefs will help lead humanity to the next Golden Age?


RE: It will never happen
By DarkUltra on 6/4/2012 4:27:35 PM , Rating: 2
[i]Could you please elaborate on why putting aside religious beliefs will help lead humanity to the next Golden Age?[/i]

Lets see... Human rights, no dogmas, gays rights, no discriminating women, no child molesting and marriage. Not to mention all the good things science have brought us. Would you wanto live in Iran with their priest at the top, or a more secular country in northern europe?

There is nothing good in religion you can't find elsewhere. They try their best to keep the keys to heaven to themselves.


RE: It will never happen
By plastichairball on 6/6/2012 3:35:54 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm, now I have to say I find that all very hard to believe. I want to ask, have you truly thought that through?

quote:
Human rights

Is it fair to say there have been absolutely NO advances in human rights historically or today because of faith?

quote:
gays rights

Is it completely correct to say that those who oppose and oppress gay individuals are exclusively those who hold religious beliefs? Is it correct to say that NO secular person or group has ever done this?

quote:
no child molesting

Honestly? Do you think that if religion were banished from the planet child molesting would come to an end?

quote:
There is nothing good in religion you can't find elsewhere

One could indeed argue that there is a flaw in that concept. For example, religious beliefs bring structured moral codes that science cannot claim to have any hand in. The laws of the UK are largely based upon the Christian Old Testament. If we removed religions, just for arguments sake, I would say that there would be nothing authoritative that could tell me I shouldn't just kill you and take your stuff. After all, it's survival of the fittest, we are just highly evolved animals and it's the best way for me to assert my dominance. Why should I care for my fellow man? They are all just competition for mates and resources. I struggle to see how science could impose a structured morality system that would compel people to follow it.

quote:
They try their best to keep the keys to heaven to themselves.

Finally, how does this fit in with the notion of evangelism?


RE: It will never happen
By dark matter on 6/6/12, Rating: 0
RE: It will never happen
By drycrust3 on 6/2/2012 6:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The fact is evolution happened.

No, the fact is you choose to believe evolution is a fact, it isn't, it is a theory and will remain as one for a very good reason: Darwin was wrong!
There is, obviously, no doubt that there is life on this planet, but that doesn't mean life arose as a result of evolution.
We all know how easy it is for a "system" to fail. The BP oil spill is just one example: people rushed some work, they didn't do the job properly, ... and the system failed. There are plenty of other examples, e.g. Space Shuttles burning up on re-entry, financial traders not following the rules and creating the conditions for complete failure of the current financial system, etc.
The same is the natural path for evolution: If genes have a choice they will choose the easiest path to do something or they will not follow the normally expected "design" rules, the result will end up as a system failure: i.e. death.
In addition, if the theory of evolution was more or less right, then you would expect to see examples of it occurring all the time, but we don't, and we would expect to have historical records of animals evolving, and again we don't.
When I was at school the theory of Evolution was a large part of our syllabus, and we were shown an "Evolutionary tree", which showed the "branch" and the time it was thought to have occurred. This "tree" looked like ... a tree. The vertical axis was time, the branches were the different species.
Now, with decades more work, we would expect this "tree" to not only be more detailed, but to still look more or less like a tree, but we don't. We find, instead, that it is looking less and less like a tree and more or less like a fork, with all life appearing about the same time. Often the newer "Evolutionary trees" have the time scales removed. Why? Because they don't want everyone to know that "Evolution" didn't happen over a long period of time, "it" happened more or less "at the same time". Notice the "at the same time" bit? Isn't this more consistent with the ideas presented in the Bible than with Darwin's ideas? Of course it is!
If a theory is more or less right, then one would expect new facts to be more or less consistent with that theory, but this isn't the case with the theory of Evolution; and we would expect to make predictions with the theory that turn out to be right, but again this doesn't happen with the theory of Evolution. For example, we would have expected Darwin to have predicted DNA, but he didn't.
A casual reading of the Bible, on the other hand, shows that DNA and genetics could easily have been predicted, e.g. "plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds" (Genesis 1:12, NIV translation). After reading this, it seems to me that you could actually make a large table, like the Periodic Table of Elements, but much larger, that shows you every type of plant and animal (living, extinct, and undiscovered).
The largest body of water "on" earth is actually inside the earth. I read that it may be as much as 30 times all the water in the oceans. Again, when we read the Bible it is possible to interpret the meaning of the text to show this (and, yes, this is within the "creation" sequence, I didn't just pick some verse out of Isaiah or Paul's letters) "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament" (Genesis 1:7, KJV). (Actually, now that I think about it, this seems to suggest that the water inside the earth is actually divided into "regions" and isn't spread evenly throughout the entire core).
We all accept that when Steven Jobs launched the iPhone he didn't mention every tiny aspect of the design and engineering thought that went into the phone, he just said "Today we are introducing three new revolutionary products ... The second is a revolutionary mobile phone ... this is one device". Steven Jobs didn't detail the hundreds of thousands of hours of research and design effort that went into the iPhone in the few minutes he was on stage, he gave some history about Apple's innovative past, then he just gave enough information so that everyone knew what Apple had done. Isn't God also entitled to do just give a brief summary of the work done?
Oh, and look, I've made two predictions that as far as I know no one else has considered, and I did it from the Bible.


RE: It will never happen
By FrankBlank on 6/6/2012 9:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
"all life appearing about the same time."

When?

"In addition, if the theory of evolution was more or less right, then you would expect to see examples of it occurring all the time, but we don't, and we would expect to have historical records of animals evolving, and again we don't."

Zounds! dude, they've even shown it on TV! A group of individuals here, another group there. Different environments. And lo, in a short period of time, differences appeareth in the individuals here and in the individuals there.

You are one of the few folks who needs to watch more TV. But not the 700 club.


I love when "scientists" claim debate is over
By Denigrate on 5/31/2012 3:24:19 PM , Rating: 3
While evolution is a well fleshed out theory, it is just that, a theory. To claim that debate is over, is akin to saying that the world is flat, and rests on the back of an enormous turtle.

Personally, I figure that evolution is the best theory, but to say it's the only theory that could be correct is just bad science.




RE: I love when "scientists" claim debate is over
By 3minence on 5/31/2012 3:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
Then lets say its the only theory that fits the majority of evidence. Plus, the majority of alternative theories are based on religion, not science.

A law is just a theory that passes the test of time. Personally I think its stood long enough and we can call it a law, but I accept not everyone else may feel that way.


By JasonMick (blog) on 5/31/2012 3:59:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then lets say its the only theory that fits the majority of evidence. Plus, the majority of alternative theories are based on religion, not science.
Exactly. There's people that argue that Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong or the theory of gravity as it's currently taught has flaws. They're in the minority, but there's always criticisms of any theory, as no theory is completely proven beyond doubt -- if it was, it would be consider a law.

Debating theory of relativity:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0223/Why-Ein...
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

Debating theory of gravity:
http://www.science20.com/news_releases/dark_energy...


By 3minence on 5/31/2012 5:51:16 PM , Rating: 2
Um, I agree with what your saying but must add that Relativity does have flaws, we've found cases where it does not accurately fit observed facts (it also doesn't address "weak" forces). However, it is good enough for what we do now and as we learn more we will refine it. Eventually we'll have a "Grand Unified Theory" which will describe both "strong" and "weak" interactions, but for now we have to work with two separate theories.

This does not make Relativity "wrong", it makes it a "work in progress". Its an evolving theory I guess is the best way to describe it (pun intended). Despite its few flaws it is considered (rightfully so) a law (not all laws are perfect? Say it isn't so!).

It is like evolution in that way. We have huge holes in our knowledge of how species evolved, but we know the basics of how evolution occurred. Many details are still to be worked out, but the basic theory (law) is sound.


RE: I love when "scientists" claim debate is over
By ppardee on 5/31/2012 8:10:47 PM , Rating: 3
I know some quantum physicists that would say that relativity is wrong... just saying...


By JasonMick (blog) on 5/31/2012 8:53:03 PM , Rating: 2
Err... that was my POINT.

Science is always open to legitimate debate, but only debate that you can prove with facts, not blind faith.


By MozeeToby on 6/1/2012 11:18:42 AM , Rating: 2
I normally wouldn't comment on this after there's 170 comments already posted but you're one of the editors here and you should know this information going forward. So I post with the small hope that you'll look back at your comments and see this reply.

A scientific theory does not become a scientific law if it is 'proven beyond all doubt'. Theory and law are two different things. Take for example, universal gravitation vs general relativity. General relativity makes more accurate predictions than the law of universal gravitation does, yet relativity is a theory and universal gravitation is a law.

Why? Because universal gravitation is a mathematical formula derived from observational evidence that says nothing about the cause of the phenomenon. General relativity is a huge body of work that includes formula, models, principles, and predictions. It doesn't even matter that the law is 'wrong' as long as it is correct within a certain scope.

There is no way there will ever be a law of evolution regardless of how much data is gathered because it goes farther than a law of evolution would go, it posits mechanisms (natural selection, genetic change, gene transfer, etc, etc, etc) for the described phenomenon. You might be able to slim it down to make some laws if you really want to, but no one does because it says less than the theory does.

You could make up a law of gradual adaptation for instance. "Organisms in a static environment will, over the course of many generations, tend toward forms better suited to that environment". But no one does because it detracts, not adds, to the discussion.


By Gurthang on 5/31/2012 4:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
Evolutionary theory will never be a "scientific law" it is not the knid of theory that can become a scientific law. Though that does not mean as we further our understanding of evolutionary mechinisms both biological and artificial that we can't derive laws that govern evolution and thus create a detailed framework that can describe macro and micro evolution with precision. (Laws typicaly apply only within a specific domain and are often described in the language of math.)


RE: I love when "scientists" claim debate is over
By Granseth on 5/31/2012 4:08:56 PM , Rating: 2
There is plenty of evidence that proves evolution, it's not just a theory.

Look for worm-researches at Chernobyl for example. They have seen how a being with a quick life-cycle has evolved to fit the new environment. So even though we might not have all the pieces in the human evolution we have enough proof about how nature evolves.

The idea that god created us about 6000 years ago is just an idea, not a scientific theory. There is nothing that points in the direction that an omnipotent god created everything, so we might as well come up with the idea that we created god 6000 years ago, and it is a being only able to exist because of our belief.


By Cheesew1z69 on 5/31/2012 4:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
And not only that, evolution is still going on...


RE: I love when "scientists" claim debate is over
By NobleKain on 5/31/2012 4:57:27 PM , Rating: 4
You are correct.

The problem with all of your statements is that most major Religions don't dispute the evolutionary process... which as you say there is ample evidence for.

However, Intelligent Design has nothing to do with the evolutionary process... but rather with the creation of the universe... something that the "Evolution Religion" (i.e. evolution as a universe creation mechanism) has very little evidence for.

Leakey deems fit to stake claims that Intelligent Design is close to misproven... but IMO, it's a far jump to claim that the existence of a natural process precludes Intelligent Design as a source for the universe.


By Cheesew1z69 on 5/31/2012 9:18:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The problem with all of your statements is that most major Religions don't dispute the evolutionary process..
Really? They don't?


By NobleKain on 6/1/2012 6:11:22 PM , Rating: 3
Right. Really. They Don't.

Again, we're talking about the PROCESS of evolution... that of something changing/evolving over time. There's plenty of real life current day, happening-right-now examples of this.

It may make the non-religious feel better to try to pin religion as ignoring science, thus being able to completely discard any arguments without thought. However, the REALITY is that Religion and Science, (even Religion and Evolution) are not mutually exclusive.

But the biggest problem is that anti-religious believers in Evolution ignore a very important fact: the "evolution" movement is very multi-faceted. There's the science of the evolutionary process (which there's evidence for), and then there's the science of evolution as basis for the creation of the universe. Unfortunately, "Evolution" as a term gets thrown about in both meanings, but they are very different things.

Furthermore, simply proving the evolutionary process, does not prove (or disprove) evolutionary creation. Incidentally, most major religions seek to explain "the meaning of life" (i.e. where we came from and what our purpose is) - more specifically: CREATION.

That's where most Religions and Evolution butt heads, and that's the argument. The evolutionary process doesn't preclude intelligent design, but most believers in "Evolution" want to pretend that it does. Hence the issues with this article.

However, even ignoring "Evolutionary Creation", that doesn't mean that many religions also don't take issue with many of the findings of the evolutionary process. However, neither does having issues with some of the findings mean that they take issue with the evolutionary process as a whole

I believe the evolutionary process, but I don't give credence to us evolving from monkeys, and monkeys from possums or fish or whatever the chain is. Many many species have similarities, but that doesn't mean they evolved from each other.


By testerguy on 6/1/2012 11:51:22 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
And not only that, evolution is still going on...


An interesting point is that while evolution will always continue, in all species around the world, it is not always the 'desirable' qualities which evolve. It is a common misconception amongst the population that we as a people are evolving into a more intelligent being. Look at the fundamental principles of evolution, you'll see it's all about how effective we are at reproducing. We evolved intelligence, to a point, because it enabled us to reproduce more successfully. Right now, being intelligent doesn't mean you get more kids. In fact, it's the slappers and the male whores who end up with all the unwanted kids and large families (on average, of course). To the universe, they are 'better' at reproducing than those of us with our 2.1 children and stable family. Perhaps we will face future tests of survival which will 'filter' the population again and continue evolution of intelligence, but right now we're going backwards if anything. Our improving healthcare system keeping people alive who wouldn't otherwise be is also contributing to this.


By Cheesew1z69 on 6/1/2012 1:11:36 PM , Rating: 2
I seriously hope you don't have children, have mercy on their souls if you do.


By testerguy on 6/2/2012 3:38:20 AM , Rating: 2
What kind of nonsense reply is that?

Quiet time, Dailytech Monkey.


By Cheesew1z69 on 6/2/2012 11:07:08 AM , Rating: 2
What kind of question is that? You seriously can't comprehend it? It means, being the complete ignorant douche bag that you are, I feel bad for your kids if you have them. Not really hard to understand, but again, this is you we are talking about here.

Dailytech Monkey, let's see, Pirks uses that quite frequently, so either your Pirks, which makes me feel even more sorry for your kids, or you can't think for yourself, which is a given anyway, and come up with something original to try to berate people.

You are still a loser either way. Troll on, Troll on.....


By Cheesew1z69 on 6/2/2012 11:08:22 AM , Rating: 2
What kind of reply*


RE: I love when "scientists" claim debate is over
By Adam M on 5/31/2012 6:25:26 PM , Rating: 2
We could find living evidence in the form of a "missing link" creature, some hominid with living cells to test DNA to showing paternal markers found in us and there would be people that still wouldn't believe. When you have people that not only pose the "Peanut Butter argument" but also believe it there isn't any form of logic, evidence or proof that can dissuade their religion addled minds.


By Quadrillity on 6/1/2012 1:48:16 PM , Rating: 2
We could find living evidence in the form of a "missing link" creature.

I highlighted the critical word for you.


I want off this planet
By Dingmatt on 6/1/2012 8:42:36 AM , Rating: 2
I can't believe that so many people still can't accept evolution.

These are the same types of people who held on to the belief that the world was flat even once it was circumnavigate, their really is no help for them.

Don't worry you uneducated masses, one day future generations will look back on you and laugh their heads off at your backwards stubbornness.




RE: I want off this planet
By retrospooty on 6/1/2012 9:09:11 AM , Rating: 2
"I can't believe that so many people still can't accept evolution. These are the same types of people who held on to the belief that the world was flat even once it was circumnavigate, their really is no help for them."

Yup... I posted here yesterday that the debate being over will never happen, at least not in our lifetimes. Not with so many people in utter denial about our origins.

It makes no sense to me, but many people still think that we were zapped into existence 6-7k years ago. WTF?


RE: I want off this planet
By plastichairball on 6/1/2012 9:09:55 AM , Rating: 2
What of the folk that accept evolution, see the logic in it and accept the proof of it, and still live their life according to religious beliefs?


RE: I want off this planet
By retrospooty on 6/1/2012 10:44:24 AM , Rating: 2
I cant argue with that. There can be a valid debate on whether or not god exists, and whether or not god created the universe and the Earth and the laws of science that allowed evolution to occur. You could even debate that some god personally started evolution with us in mind as the end result. There is no proof to either side... But you cannot aregue with evidence. To argue that the volumes of evidence in fossils are all fake, DNA is incorrect, geolocical is incorrect , and even current examples in humans and bacteria is incorrect is just... Incorrect.


By plastichairball on 6/1/2012 10:42:06 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed.


RE: I want off this planet
By Dingmatt on 6/1/2012 11:51:32 AM , Rating: 2
+1

Exactly on the money


RE: I want off this planet
By Quadrillity on 6/1/2012 1:55:48 PM , Rating: 2
If God creates through evolution, then he is wasteful and cruel. It's not the God of the Christian Bible, and not one worth worshiping. To say that death brought humans in the world is a direct heresy. You are free to believe that if you want to, but I'm not about to rationalize my faith with strawman theory.

quote:
To argue that the volumes of evidence in fossils are all fake, DNA is incorrect, geolocical is incorrect , and even current examples in humans and bacteria is incorrect is just... Incorrect.

That is a beautiful straw-man you have erected there! I haven't seen anywhere on this forum that these claims were made. Perhaps if you would argue based on what people are actually saying, we might get somewhere.

Fossils are all fake? lol, give me a break. There are trillions and trillions of fossils all over the globe; best explained by rapid burial of a world wide flood.

And please tell me, what "examples" do you have with bacteria and humans?


RE: I want off this planet
By retrospooty on 6/1/2012 2:46:03 PM , Rating: 2
"If God creates through evolution, then he is wasteful and cruel. It's not the God of the Christian Bible,"

You got it right on this one ;)

But seriously. I'm done with this ride and you trolling me as if you werent the one making those claims.

I really don't wits you any ill will. I wish you enlightenment. Have a good weekend.


RE: I want off this planet
By SPOOFE on 6/1/2012 5:45:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If God creates through evolution, then he is wasteful and cruel.

Or he stays within the constraints of his chosen physical laws.

quote:
It's not the God of the Christian Bible, and not one worth worshiping.

Telling Abraham to kill his son isn't cruel? Slaughtering Job's entire family and taking everything he has just to win a bet with the devil isn't cruel? I don't think you're very familiar with the Bible.


RE: I want off this planet
By Quadrillity on 6/1/2012 7:21:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or he stays within the constraints of his chosen physical laws.

Wow, that is a very weak God.

quote:
Telling Abraham to kill his son isn't cruel?

Not if God was essentially removing him from earth to take place with him in heaven in perfection.

Same thing applies to Job and his family. God called them all to a better place. Next out of context quote please...


RE: I want off this planet
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/2/2012 11:13:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow, that is a very weak God.
Kind of like your arguments....weak.


RE: I want off this planet
By Skywalker123 on 6/2/2012 9:43:22 PM , Rating: 2
"Not if God was essentially removing him from earth to take place with him in heaven in perfection."

"Same thing applies to Job and his family. God called them all to a better place. Next out of context quote please..."

Didn't the Manson family do the same thing for Sharon Tate and many others? Why did we punish them?


RE: I want off this planet
By plastichairball on 6/6/2012 3:58:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If God creates through evolution, then he is wasteful and cruel. It's not the God of the Christian Bible, and not one worth worshiping.


I would have to say that you are incorrect. Let us look at Isaiah 55:12 -
"You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands."
Now, we know not to take this literally. Why? Because we understand that some parts of the Bible are metaphor, poetry and illustration. It is not all literal. Don't get me wrong, it is God's spoken word, it is accurate and complete, and it how He speaks to us even today. But it doesn't mean that it is all literal. Genesis tells us predominantly that God was the author of creation. I honestly don't think it diminishes His power or sovereignty to say that He created through the process of evolution. The evidence that it occurred is indeed there to be seen. I feel, if anything, that God's process of guiding us through thousands of years of development is glorious! It boggles the mind to see the extent to which He is involved in His creation, the depths of His plan and the extent of His design.


RE: I want off this planet
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/8/2012 11:29:41 PM , Rating: 2
Millions.....not thousands...


doesn't work that way
By senbassador on 5/31/2012 6:02:52 PM , Rating: 4
"He claimed that within 15 to 30 years the evidence proving evolution would be so overwhelming that "even the skeptics can accept it.""

Except that it just doesn't work that way. The average person (regardless what side they're on) doesn't have the time and know-how to comprehend the evidence. All the evidence in the world isn't going to make a dent beyond a certain point. We already have plenty of evidence in support of evolution and I don't think more will help in tipping the scale.

Realistically, what will happen is that less and less people will bother to go to church and believe in the Bible (or whatever is it that preachers preach about) over time on their own, and will accept evolution as fact. People will stop believing in creationism, but it won't be because of the evidence.




RE: doesn't work that way
By Quadrillity on 5/31/2012 6:38:23 PM , Rating: 1
Do you atheists just copy and paste the same stuff over and over? I have heard this diatribe thousands of times, and it never fails to come up in a discussion. Yes yes we get it. Us poor, dumb, common folk are just to retarded to understand complex issues; therefor we are going to become a dying breed.

The fact of the matter is that a literal 6 day creation makes can make sense if you aren't predispositioned to think that the earth is billions of years old.

(by the way, I like what you did with the word "creation" by adding an -ism to the end of it. Does that make it sound less credible if you spell it that way?)

By the way, what does evoultionism offer the world that creation cannot? Do scientists somehow has a massive advantage in research if they think the earth was formed out of nothing rather than God?


RE: doesn't work that way
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/31/2012 7:22:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The fact of the matter is that a literal 6 day creation makes can make sense if you aren't predispositioned to think that the earth is billions of years old .
Except....it is...


RE: doesn't work that way
By Quadrillity on 5/31/2012 7:39:22 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, that was an elaborate rebuttal.


RE: doesn't work that way
By Cheesew1z69 on 5/31/2012 7:53:25 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry that you can't handle the truth. That's your problem. Not mine.


RE: doesn't work that way
By Lugaidster on 5/31/2012 8:26:52 PM , Rating: 2
We have a framework composed of many fields coming together to predict the current state of the planet if it was billions of years old. To prove that it isn't billions of years old requires us to dismiss all of these fields. Your argument does nothing of the sort.

Let's make an analogy. If math didn't dictate that 1+1=2, many wild things could happen and be explained, alas, 1+1=2 so why should we entertain the idea that it could be 3? Nothing could be closer to a fact (yes, it's not a fact, as you can't actually go back in time to see if it's true) than the age of the planet.

The scientific discussion about the planet's age is centered on precision, not accuracy. If you have something scientific to disprove the age of the planet, then we have a discussion worth a lengthy refutal. Otherwise, you're just being stubborn.


RE: doesn't work that way
By Quadrillity on 6/1/2012 12:21:58 AM , Rating: 1
I have seen the "math" correlation used several times. That's fine and good until you figure out that math works only on proofs. The VAST majority for evolution has several systemic flaws, some being: 1) you must already believe that the earth is billions of years old and 2) you must rely on evidence that cannot be observed. Just look at the geologic column in the textbooks. Does that exist in the real world. No. Also, just for fun: How do you date the fossils and rocks? Do the index fossils date the layers, or do the layers date the fossils? Or does radiometric dating provide the proof?


RE: doesn't work that way
By sgtwiltan on 6/3/2012 9:22:42 PM , Rating: 2
So I want to go back to the Noah ship and 2 of everything. Does that include hermaphroditic animals, and asexually reproductive animals as well?
Just wondering.
Also didn't the first mating between Adam and Eve negate your theory of genetic purity?
Please rectify my lack of knowledge Oh knowledgeable one.


RE: doesn't work that way
By senbassador on 5/31/2012 8:39:24 PM , Rating: 2
1) Well, for starters I NEVER actually claimed to be an atheist in the first place (and actually I am not one, not that there is anything wrong with atheistism). You probably shouldn't throw around assumptions like that.

2) "Yes yes we get it. Us poor, dumb, common folk are just to retarded to understand complex issues; therefor we are going to become a dying breed." - Well, again, I NEVER claimed that creationists were dumb (your words, not mine). They are wrong on this issue however. In fact, it takes quite a bit of intelligence to take on the wrong side of an issue, and then being able to defend endlessly and stubbornly. Pirks / Tony Swash comes to mind (whom I figure are quite intelligent).

3) "Do scientists somehow has a massive advantage in research if they think the earth was formed out of nothing rather than God?" - Well, for starters, not all scientists do believe that the Earth came from nothing (although what exactly is "nothingness"), and that there is no God. "Scientists" aren't a giant monolithic group of people. But their consensus is that the Earth is close to 6 billion years, with or without existence of God.

The debate here isn't the existence of God, the debate is how old the Earth is. Two separate issues. Why don't you try sticking to the issue, and avoid the flaming and playing victim.


RE: doesn't work that way
By Boze on 5/31/2012 9:45:53 PM , Rating: 3
Please.

It isn't that your dumb or poor, its that you don't want to be alienated from your tribe.

Being atheist, especially in the United States, which is almost oxymoronic considering we're supposed to have freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion, immediately attaches a stigma to you. I look like a normal average person. I usually wear khakis, brogues, a vest, a long-sleeve button-up shirt, and a tie. I've been denied jobs, unofficially, of course, based on the fact that I am not only an atheist, I am a vocal atheist. I'm a member of a local support group for atheists who have "come out" to their families and friends, and I actively volunteer for community service, mainly because atheists are fighting a sort-of civil rights battle of their own, and we need to be putting the best foot forward every chance we're given.

How do I know that I've been turned down for jobs solely based on my atheism? I have actually been told by employees at the local businesses at which I was to be hired that, "the boss doesn't want to alienate any customers by having an atheist on staff". Twice now this has happened to me.

That's what people are actually afraid of. Its not the laughable idea of eternal damnation from a petty, jealous, homicidal maniac of a god. Its alienation, plain and simple. I count myself fortunate that my parents instilled in me a fierce individualist streak. I don't need anyone's validation. But I know a lot of others that do. And that's what keeps them showing up at church every Sunday. So they can see each other and hang out after the sermon with each other at a large cookout in the summer (especially prevalent here at the smaller churches in Mississippi). Religion fills a community void, because we no longer live in tiny villages with everyone right next to each other.

That's the reality. When I get my "religious" friends alone and ask them one on one, about 1 in 4 admit that its all bullshit, or that it all falls apart when you look at it. They maintain their "faith" because it adds structure to their lives. Period. I don't think I'd be too far off the mark in saying that the other 2 in 4 would admit it if there were no consequences, and the last 1 in 4 either believe it blindly because they were brought up hearing it nonstop everyday for the whole lives, or because the reality is too depressing for them to face - that you will die and your consciousness will be obliterated, that bad things happen sometimes for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

Evolution offers truth through facts, and if humanity is ever going to realize its full potential, it has to embrace the bad along with the good - that we started eating meat a couple million years ago, that all that extra energy through food allowed more energy to be used for thinking, and that as we thought more, we evolved more. Creation theories offer flights of fancy that don't stand up to any test.

There are two significant pieces of evidence that anyone with two years of college biology should be able to look at and easily realize that evolution is how it all happened: the Urey-Miller experiment, and the Murchinson meteorite. Look 'em up on Wikipedia, the write-ups there are pretty good. Given that early Earth was bombed to hell and back with meteorites, and given the implications of the Murchison meteorite, its actually more probable that we're all aliens who've been on Planet Earth for 3+ billion years.

But I understand why you religious people don't wanna believe that. You want to believe that you're special... not that you're just another thing that the Universe randomly spawned over billions and billions of years. Until humans can accept that, we'll keep having these asinine debates.


RE: doesn't work that way
By retrospooty on 5/31/2012 10:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
"Until humans can accept that, we'll keep having these asinine debates."

Yup... It really amazes me the minds that can ignore the mountains of evidence that evolution happened, yet somehow believe in the Bible. You being an athiest, I dont know how much you have read of the old testament, if you havent you really should for a good laugh. The god described there is absolutely amazing. He really act like a spoiled vendictive brat of a child. He is supposed to be some all powerful all knowing being that loves us all and he acts like a complete petty asshat. This is somehow believable and evolution is not with all of its evidence? Amazing.


RE: doesn't work that way
By Quadrillity on 5/31/2012 11:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It isn't that your dumb or poor, its that you don't want to be alienated from your tribe.

Excuse me sir, but I don't believe for the glory of other people; I operate the way I do for the glory of God.

quote:
I look like a normal average person. I usually wear khakis, brogues, a vest, a long-sleeve button-up shirt, and a tie... I've been denied jobs.

Oh please, don't start with the whole victim routine. I'm glad that you are helping out in the community, but do you honestly think that you or any other human being is "good"? I want to check the definition, because we are all liars, cheaters, adulterers, etc. I think the real issue is that you and others like you absolutely hate the idea that human beings aren't the supreme rules of the universe, thus we have to answer for our misgivings.

quote:
That's what people are actually afraid of. Its not the laughable idea of eternal damnation from a petty, jealous, homicidal maniac of a god.

You are such a kind, loving person but yet here you are. Mocking and scoffing. Do you always tell others what they believe?

quote:
I don't need anyone's validation. But I know a lot of others that do. And that's what keeps them showing up at church every Sunday.


So, your friends drop their faith on a whim means that all religious people do the same thing? No truly good Christian will come up to you and bash you upside the head with their beliefs; yet they will "witness" to you. Evidently you choose to not believe it, so be it. That's your choice.

quote:
I don't think I'd be too far off the mark in saying that the other 2 in 4 would admit it if there were no consequences, and the last 1 in 4 either believe it blindly because they were brought up hearing it nonstop everyday for the whole lives, or because the reality is too depressing for them to face


I love it when atheists claim to know the innermost deep thoughts of ALL humankind. Yeah, you're probably right, all 7.5 billion people on the planet believe what they do for nothing short of self pity and fear. Only someone as arrogant as you could come up with such an asinine statement.

quote:
that you will die and your consciousness will be obliterated, that bad things happen sometimes for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

Oh, so you have died once and come back to life? You know what happens after death? Please elaborate on this, we will all be very glad to settle the ultimate answer of life once and for all! Oh, and everything happens for a reason. Perhaps we don't understand, but God has a plan for everyone; including you.

quote:
Evolution offers truth through facts, and if humanity is ever going to realize its full potential, it has to embrace the bad along with the good

Evolution offers a worldview. There, fixed that for you.

quote:
that we started eating meat a couple million years ago, that all that extra energy through food allowed more energy to be used for thinking, and that as we thought more, we evolved more.

LOL, and where is the evidence for this?! Surely you aren't just saying things without concrete, testable, observable, and reproducible evidence?

quote:
Creation theories offer flights of fancy that don't stand up to any test.

To what tests, yours? Or how about mainstream science. We have already proven that mainstream science can be totally wrong. I think it doesn't stand up mainly because people like yourself want to only talk about the idea that the theory has already been proven instead of talk about the devil in the details.

quote:
There are two significant pieces of evidence that anyone with two years of college biology should be able to look at and easily realize that evolution is how it all happened: the Urey-Miller experiment

R O F L, no you did not just use the Urey-Miller example! LOL! Ok... for starters, you know that experiment was a total failure for proving the hypothesis right? They never even came close to creating life in the lab. The did, however, create a bunch of left handed amino acids that were good for nothing. Also, do you realize that they had to remove oxygen from the globes in order to get these left handed acid chains? Oh and to top it all off, the tar in which these chemical were made were extremely toxic to life. To use this as proof is beyond laughable. The experiment was actually more harmful to the theory than helpful. It was an utter failure.

quote:
Murchison meteorite, its actually more probable that we're all aliens who've been on Planet Earth for 3+ billion years.

My God, you actually did go there... so (ancient aliens aside), how was the meteorite dated? Radiometric methods? Everything I have seen about this meteorite is purely speculative and offers ZERO tangible science behind it. It passed through a "primordial clouds during in the infant solar system" LOL. Give me break. You want to me believe that is science? No, not even close. It's speculative fairy tale. And don't even get me started on offering Wikipedia as a source for such a debated topic. You should know that is ridiculous.

It's not that people don't want to believe that we randomly spawned from nothing; it's that it's so unbelievably impossible that believing on the contrary would make you a fool. Also, it doesn't help that there is zero real and tangible science that proves any of this.

But you are free to believe what you want, and I am free to believe as well. Just don't continue to call your speculations science, and mine dogma. We all have faith in some way or another, you just refuse to confess where your faith resides. Mine faith is in God.

Let me ask you this before I go. What if you are wrong about God? What I am am wrong about God? Who stands to lose the most?

*queue the response telling me that I am retarded and don't understand science,etc*


RE: doesn't work that way
By spread on 6/1/2012 11:42:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I operate the way I do for the glory of God.


That doesn't mean anything. That sounds like bullcrap. You ever read a page of marketing reports with business lingo? It's exactly like that. Bullcrap.

quote:
I think the real issue is that you and others like you absolutely hate the idea that human beings aren't the supreme rules of the universe, thus we have to answer for our misgivings.


You speak for you, not for him. Shut it hypocrite. When you do as you say and say as you do, then you can preach till your are hoarse. Until then, shut it. You have no credibility. You do not speak for him, you do not speak for me, and you do not speak for God. God does not need garbage like you to speak for him. Shut it.

quote:
Perhaps we don't understand, but God has a plan for everyone; including you.


And he told you himself? Why don't you shut your mouth, you sinner piece of garbage. God can speak for himself in any way he chooses and when he chooses and to whom he chooses. He is God.

quote:
Oh and to top it all off, the tar in which these chemical were made were extremely toxic to life. To use this as proof is beyond laughable. The experiment was actually more harmful to the theory than helpful. It was an utter failure.


So was the first lightbulb and the next few hundred after that but eventually Edison made a working lightbulb and because of that, we now have crazy technology and lights like never before in human civilization. Why? Because people took a risk and failed. Many failed and learned and improved.

If the world was made of people like you, nothing would exist. You are garbage. You're not a creator, you're not an inventor, you're not a discoverer, you don't seek truth, you seek to squash and destroy and pretend to speak for others. Shut it.

quote:
What if you are wrong about God? What I am am wrong about God? Who stands to lose the most?


You. Since you can turn the gifts that a loving God has blessed us with into weapons. You lie, squash and cheat for "his glory". You do evil in his name. You piece of garbage.

He doesn't believe, he is alone. His actions can be excused. Yours cannot. You know better YET CHOOSE to do wrong.


Evolution debate will really end when...
By carniver on 5/31/2012 5:14:42 PM , Rating: 3
Humans can be turned into immortals. Whether it's a magic pill that stops aging, or a surgical procedure that transforms a living into a cyborg.

Because that's superior to religions promising an afterlife, and it's a result that we can actually see right here, right now! Until then evolutionists are no better than creationists, they're all talk.




RE: Evolution debate will really end when...
By Tikiman on 6/1/2012 5:00:08 AM , Rating: 2
First of all I'd like to say thank-you Quadrillity, it’s clear that you have read a considerable amount about the subject and that you are actually engaging in the argument which is a change from most creationists . I’ll try and address as many of your points as I can and I’ll do it without criticising you personally.

Before I address each individual point I would like to point out that theirs a fundamental difference between the way you’re looking at the evidence and the way by and large scientists do. You clearly have faith in a higher force and I have no problem with that. But it does bias your thinking as your looking at the evidence in order to justify your already decided view.

Scientists as a general rule keep a more open mind, historically most scientists were theists and so I am sure if there had have been direct evidence of god they would have jumped on it. But there isn’t which is why most modern scientists do not believe in a personal god not because science has historically had anything against religion.

quote:
Text
“I think what you will never understand is that God has already let humankind know about his rules; and some people are just going to flat out disobey and deny him. He's not going to change his will to suit yours, and one day you will find that out. I can't prove it now of course, but get back to me when we are both dead and gone from this earth.”

My answer to this would be ‘which time’ there are thousands of times in history that people claim to have been spoken or otherwise communicated with a deity and many of the things they have been told have been contradictory. Why are the teachings of Mohammed or Hindu teachings not relevant as they make the same claims about being inspired by god/s as the Jewish/Christian bible. And talking about Judiasm and Christianity what about when their religious laws differ surely the same god couldn’t have wanted people to obey different laws.

quote:
Text

“If you find bones in the ground, you can conclude that something once lived. Arrange them however you like, but that doesn't prove anything in terms of who gave birth to what. Most (if not all) of the "transitional" fossils have either been totally faked (Java, piltdown, etc) or either greatly exaggerated by creating "renders" with full body hair, walking upright, etc. All of which is totally impossible to observe, test, and reproduce. There are MAJOR faults with saying that fossilized bones in the ground provide proof for evolution. If you would like to, I will discuss this further. (one example: It wasn't too long ago that scientists uncovered dinosaur bones that were still porous. Even some that still had SOFT FLESH attached. Care to explain how such things last for millions of years?)”

Except bones in the ground is all you would expect to find if evolution were true. And there are large number of fossils of pre-homo sapien human fossils and only a few have been proved to be fake. And if we didn’t evolve from other apes isn’t it a strange coincidence that of all the creatures on earth we are most closely related to them genetically? And who says some flesh couldn’t survive millions of years sure its incredibly unlikely but impossible? Can you prove that?

quote:
Text
“Moreover, DNA is no more proof for evolution than it is for a common designer. Anytime mutations occur, NOTHING is gained. In fact, it's quite opposite. Information is always LOST as a result of a mutation. But somehow that creates new things if you add millions/billions of years?”

How in an insertional mutation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertional_mutagenes... is information lost. Sure in most cases the insertional DNA will be useless but give it enough chances and there will definitely be some new genes etc created that could be advantageous to the organism.

quote:
Text
“Are you really going to pick the carbon dating card? If you would like, I will take the time to break down the SERIOUS flaws and circular reasoning that plagues any type of radiometric dating (and the geologic column). Just for starters, the largest assumption is that the level of radioactive isotopes in the atmosphere has always been a constant. Did you learn about that little tidbit in school, or was that skipped? I have remained in school for more than two decades, and I can tell you first hand that evidence against the theory or flaws are never mentioned in the classrooms and textbooks. Hell, even the Ernst Haeckel hoax is still published as factual evidence! In 2012 edition textbooks! There are hundreds, if not thousands of examples of outdated information and outright lies that are being pushed as evidences by the way.”

Simply not true levels of Carbon 14 are not assumed to be constant by anyone. They are a result of the amount of cosmic rays absorbed by the atmosphere which is largely dictated by the magnetosphere. Read more here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating) . I am sure some text books don’t mention this to keep it simple but some bright spark has already considered this and it is used in all modern carbon dating.

quote:
Text
“Because it was previously an animal that was declared dead by mainstream science. It was completely unchanged for millions of years? Does that NOT directly contradict the theory?”

Evolution has no law saying that species have to change, if a species is well adapted to its environment and continues to be despite changes in its environment over millions of years it will not surprisingly exist for millions of years.

quote:
Text
“That's a pretty good example of micro-evolution. Now show me how that will one day produce a cat (over millions of years I guess?).”

I can’t directly show you obviously as I don’t have millions of years (that said there might be computers capable of simulating some of the process within our lifetimes). But it’s quite easy to imagine that the small changes of micro-evolution would build into large changes given enough time.

quote:
Text
“Oh cool. So I guess you asked the first few where they were from? LOL, how could anyone possibly claim to know such things. That is based on wild speculation alone; as it is not based in the realm of tangible science.”

Okay so how do you explain the thousands of pre homo sapien skeletons and close ape-human genetic relationships as well as early tools and artwork which suggest we came from Africa?

Finally now I have rebutted the majority of your points can you please explain the evidence that god spoke to a few people (but not all the people that claim they were spoken to) and why he made it look exactly like you would expect it to look if god had not created the world/universe at all.


RE: Evolution debate will really end when...
By Quadrillity on 6/1/2012 3:46:35 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for participating in the discussion; I really appreciate the civility.

quote:
...But it does bias your thinking as your looking at the evidence in order to justify your already decided view.

With all due respect, you couldn't possibly know that about me. If you knew me personally, you would understand that I am a man of my convictions, but I don't just blindly believe things. I always have a large amount of specific reasons for believing what I do. I am not more biased than a scientist that studies the field(s) with a preconceived notion that the earth is 4.6 billion years old. (by the way, the "decided" age of the earth and universe has changed many many times throughout history.)

quote:
Why are the teachings of Mohammed or Hindu teachings not relevant as they make the same claims about being inspired by god/s as the Jewish/Christian bible.

Because I believe that there are fundamental flaws with their belief system. I could go into details, but this is a terrible setting for that, and it will quickly go off topic.

quote:
Except bones in the ground is all you would expect to find if evolution were true.

Au contraire, a massive flood would actually best explain preservation in this manner. There are many very good readings about flood theories and the good science behind it. I can direct you to it if you would like. A few things to question: There are millions of fossilized clams in the closed position all over the world. Some of them are at the top of mountain ranges. How did they get there, and why are they in the closed position? When clams die, they open. A flood that quickly buries them is a great explanation. There is a lot of detail on this subject if you want more.

Sometimes the largest problem that I have with on a forum like this is to try to get everyone on the same page about evidence. Evidence is always subjective. Two people can look at the same thing and come to two completely different conclusions. Those two opinion will never change the truth, and at least one of them has to be wrong (or both). Not all good science backs evolution, and not ALL scientists are evolutionists. The majority opinion does not always make the right conclusions; just keep that in mind.

quote:
And if we didn’t evolve from other apes isn’t it a strange coincidence that of all the creatures on earth we are most closely related to them genetically?

The gap continues to grown between similarities; the last figure I saw was <93% alike. As I said earlier, DNA is extremely complex, and we have not even come close to scratching the surface of our studies. In fact, I saw in a 2012 edition biology textbook that they are still teaching the "junk DNA theory". If anything, common DNA proves a common designer. If we are so close to apes, then why can't we reproduce with them? The horse and ass are very close in DNA, and they can reproduce but the offspring is sterile (the vast majority of the time). DNA is not a black and white formula; it's extremely complicated.

quote:
And who says some flesh couldn’t survive millions of years sure its incredibly unlikely but impossible? Can you prove that?

Because that is ludicrous. Massive natural formations have been observed to be completely obliterated by one single event like a plate shift or a volcano; to say that a single piece of flesh or tissue could be naturally preserved (or synthetically for that matter) over millions of years would directly contradict the laws of thermodynamics. Of course I can't prove that, but then again who can observe historical fact of millions of years? We can "speculate", but that's about it. The scientific method cannot be applied to things outside of observable and recorded history.

quote:
insertional mutation: ... but give it enough chances and there will definitely be some new genes

DNA in unbelievably complex. It has been proven that even as small as six errors can be fatal to a living being. The only thing we have ever seen as a result of replication error is disease.

quote:
They are a result of the amount of cosmic rays absorbed by the atmosphere which is largely dictated by the magnetosphere.

The automatic and built in assumption is that the magnetosphere has been a constant as well. This has not been proven to be the case, as we have verified that the earths magnetic field keeps getting weaker and weaker. The opposition to this is that we have reversals every so often, but this is totally unproven in my opinion.

Here is a great write up about radiometric dating: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#

quote:
But it’s quite easy to imagine that the small changes of micro-evolution would build into large changes given enough time.

It's fine to imagine, but what we are asking for here is real, tangible science. That is where the theory of evolution systemically fails the scrutiny of true physical science. to accept the theory as proven on the whole, you would have amass a lot of built in assumptions and faith.

quote:
Okay so how do you explain the thousands of pre homo sapien skeletons and close ape-human genetic relationships as well as early tools and artwork which suggest we came from Africa?

The first assumption made is that those collections of bones belong to the human category. What's to say they were just different species of ape that were wiped out by a flood? Simplistic tools only account for nomads. If the world was destroyed, you would have to start from scratch again right? There is plenty of proof that ancient man was NOT stupid and primitive. Also, for cave paintings, have you ever wondered why they painted the dinosaurs with fine details like flesh structure, feathers, etc? I believe they actually saw them alive. Again, plenty of evidence to support this; like dino and human footprints found together in the same rock strata.

quote:
can you please explain the evidence that god spoke to a few people

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot answer for God's will. I don't know if you are sincere in asking this, but some things require faith to believe. Some are metaphysical sure, but that's the whole point. Having faith does not mean you just blindly believe; but it's something that you come to a conclusion of trust. So far, God has been correct in every part of my life, so I trust his word.

quote:
why he made it look exactly like you would expect it to look if god had not created the world/universe at all.

I'm not sure what you are asking here, can you rephrase please? If I am anywhere close to understanding what you are asking, the Garden of Eden conditions are what God's actually created, and this world as it is today is the result of his judgement of sin. The garden was a VERY different place. Take a look the canopy theory if you have never looked at it before; very interesting stuff.

I offer my sincere thanks for discussing this topic. I will give you the last words, as this can get very long and drawn out (and an internet forum is a horrible place to convey such deep meaning and reason). Thanks again :)


By Cheesew1z69 on 6/1/2012 5:17:13 PM , Rating: 2
You keep going on about a " massive flood", well, while you keep going on, I will listen to the people who actually STUDY this stuff for a living. Not so great as you would like to claim. Amazing the stuff that is out there.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/09...

I am sure you will find someway to refute this as usual.


RE: Evolution debate will really end when...
By Human Ape on 6/1/2012 11:34:10 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry mister but your comments make no sense. It's like reading gibberish. Try again.

By the way Mr. Uneducated God-Soaked Science Denier, biologists are called "biologists", not "evolutionists".

Can you say "biologist"?

darwinkilledgod dot blogspot dot com


By spread on 6/1/2012 11:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can you say "biologist"?


He can't stop lying and cheating, so no. No he can't.


You're all wrong
By soconne on 5/31/2012 11:42:33 PM , Rating: 2
The human race was created by the Anunnaki who came from the planet Nibiru, which has an orbit of 3600 years. Initially the first race of humans were made for slave labor because the Anunnaki worker class grew tired of mining gold themselves. You see their planet's atmosphere was once lined with particles of gold, but After thousand of years they depleted it, this requiring them to come to Earth. But I digress. So the Anunnaki worker class decided they would genetically enhance a primitive ape like species living on Earth at the time into something more intelligent to be used for slave labor. That initial attempt failed, so they tried again. The second attempt produced a male named Adamo. Realizing that this new form had lost the genes for asexual reproduction, the Anunnaki created a second version they named Naggerine, or "one who nags", or Eve for short. Eve became such a pain in Adamo's rear that he stopped giving her attention. So Eve took it upon herself to get them cast out of Zone S5769, "Eden", by entering the Anunnaki's spaceship and hacking their library archives. Suffice to say the Anunnaki were not happy, and thus decided to wipe Adamo and Eve's memories and leave planet Earth. Adamo and Eve woke up to find themselves naked, likely violated, and watching a bright light trail through the sky into the horizon.

Hundred's of years passed before a few Anunnaki decided to visit Earth again to see what came of their human creations. To their surprise the human race had multiplied quite a bit. On several occasions the Anunnaki came down to speak with tribal leaders and direct them in various decisions and courses of actions (e.g. Abraham, Issac, Moses). On many occasions the Anunnaki displayed their intolerance for disobedience. When their spaceship landed atop Mt Sinai, clouds of smoke and glows of fire and tremblings of the ground from their hyperdrives could be seen by the Israelites. Attempting to deter their curiosity, the Anunnaki instructed Moses that anyone who attempted to climb to the top of the mountain and lay eyes on their spaceship would e instantly killed (you can't make this stuff up people, it's in the Bible).

A few hundreds year later the Anunnaki returned and decided way too much sex was going on in Soddom and Gamora, and they were likely irrate by the fact that a mob attempted to rape them in the street. So they dropped a nuke on the city wiping them all out. When Lot's wife turned around to look, she was blinded by the flash and likely died from radiation poisoning because she didn't get to the mountains in time as she was instructed to do so by the two Anunnaki messengers (it's in the Bible people, you can't make this stuff up). Plus there's evidence since scientists have found sand turned into a specific type of glass that requires millions of degrees of heat.




RE: You're all wrong
By plastichairball on 6/1/2012 3:47:49 AM , Rating: 2
Ahhhh! The old science versus religion debate! Let's take stock of what's happened so far!

The pro-science camp believes that if you have a faith that guides your life then you are naive, intellectually challenged, closed-mind and unenlightened. Where is the proof for what you believe, they ask.

The pro-faith camp seeks to share their reasoning and rationale for what they think and feel, to explain and educate and reason with those who disagree with them. Here is our proof, they say, not that you like it or necessarily accept it.

Why is it that so many see science and religion as incompatible? What of the Christian scientists? How can they possibly believe in God and evolution, the laws of physics and the other mysteries that are constantly being unravelled, tested and explained? How does one view that strange creature, the Christian scientist?

Is it perhaps fair to say that science is also based on faith? Well, science depends on experiments and theories that are tested and proved to be correct or false. It seems to me (and I may be wrong) that it is not possible for your average scientist to conduct any level of science without faith and belief that the experiments and work of his predecessors is correct and trustworthy, something he can use as a framework for his own work. Indeed, this scientist probably read about these things that he now believes in a book (perhaps even a very old one!), or perhaps someone who was an authority on the subject told him verbally about it.

I submit therefore, that science and religion need not be mutually exclusive. Science is great and really useful, without it I wouldn't have the computer I'm typing on now! Those of the faith can't seriously exclaim that there is no place in the world for science and expect to be taken seriously. On the flip side, those who place their faith in science alone cannot boldly proclaim that the world would be a better place without religious beliefs and expect any rationally minded person to take them seriously.


RE: You're all wrong
By Human Ape on 6/1/2012 11:29:09 AM , Rating: 2
"On the flip side, those who place their faith in science alone cannot boldly proclaim that the world would be a better place without religious beliefs and expect any rationally minded person to take them seriously."

You're wrong to say "faith in science". Scientific facts don't require faith because they have something called "evidence". Can you say "evidence"?

Would the world be a better place without childish idiotic religious fantasies? Well, there would be no more suicide bombings, no more Christian war against science education, and no more brainwashing of innocent children. And there would be unlimited human progress with no Dark Ages superstitions to get in the way.

But let's say in a world of no religious stupidity everyone would become an axe murderer. Is that your excuse to throw out all common sense so you can believe in god fairy with unlimited magical powers? Is that your excuse for being a gullible cowardly moron?

This must be a joke: "rationally minded person"

Since when did god-soaked idiots become rational?

darwinkilledgod dot blogspot dot com


RE: You're all wrong
By Quadrillity on 6/1/2012 10:34:55 PM , Rating: 2
You have to have faith somewhere; in this case faith is placed in the accuracy of your conclusions from evidence. People always crack me up when they profess to have faith in nothing. A total lack of faith would mean you are omniscient (and some people really are that arrogant).


RE: You're all wrong
By spread on 6/1/2012 11:47:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You have to have faith somewhere


Why? Can you prove this?

quote:
in this case faith is placed in the accuracy of your conclusions from evidence


That's not faith. That is saying "this is the best I can do right now" and then someone can confirm or refute your findings. That is not faith, that is a process. Faith is NOT a cold calculating process, it is faith. What is wrong with you? Seriously.

quote:
A total lack of faith would mean you are omniscient


So computers are omniscient? Wow. That means computers are God. How insulting. Get out, you and your garbage. Leave.


RE: You're all wrong
By plastichairball on 6/6/2012 4:43:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're wrong to say "faith in science". Scientific facts don't require faith because they have something called "evidence". Can you say "evidence"?


Please re-read my previous post about scientists not being able to replicate ALL experiments ever done, hence they must have faith that their predecessors' work must be accurate.

quote:
Would the world be a better place without childish idiotic religious fantasies?

I'm sensing a lot of petty anger here, is that the right attitude to adopt when trying to have an intellectual debate?

quote:
Well, there would be no more suicide bombings

Is that so? Can that be said with absolute certainty? As a rational person, I must ask you to back up this statement, or should I say prognosis?

quote:
no more Christian war against science education

I think this is a predominantly American situation, where I grew up we were taught science, evolution and religion in the same classes. We were taught to think for ourselves, to question everything and seek the ultimate truths. If anything, that lead me TOWARDS rational faith as opposed to away from it. Not to say that America education is poor or anything, just noting that this sort of opposition between religion and scientific education is a particularly sore point in the US. As a Christian I was taught science at school, I accept evolution as a fact and still believe that God was the author and guider of that evolution.

quote:
unlimited human progress with no Dark Ages superstitions to get in the way

Were not the Dark Ages brought on by the decline of the Roman Empire? Perhaps you need to elaborate more on that point. However, do you deny point blank the contribution religion has made to science over the ages?

quote:
gullible cowardly moron?

I must say I find that quite offensive, I don't think you have any right to pass that judgement on me. I assume you are a nice, ordinary person wishing to have an intelligent discussion, but you are bringing hateful emotions to something that need not be so spiteful. I know this kind of topic cuts to our core and really makes us think about who we are and why we're here, it's really stirring that way, but such blatant anger and childishness makes me want to take you less seriously.

quote:
Since when did god-soaked idiots become rational?

I must say, this sort of petty name calling tends to detract from your own credibility as a rational individual. If you can't discuss these thoughts and concepts without resorting to infantile bile then you really aren't giving the purely evidence based and logic crowd that oppose religion a good name.

Instead I ask you this:
Let's say science can lead us to some kind of Utopia. That through laboratories, experiments and copious studies we will be lifted to our pinnacle. Can you seriously tell me that, seriously, that the baser, evil intentions of man will be washed out because of physics? Biology? Psychology? There will be no more war, no more rape, no more human suffering or ignorance because religion will not be around to pollute people's minds. Because no war atrocities were ever committed by secularists. No "enlightened" peoples ever raped, killed or maimed. No, of course not. And all the evidence that exists in history, nature and books that proposes the Christian God to be real and involved in the world that has lead rational, educated people to believe in Him? That will be destroyed and repressed, obviously. It makes more sense to tell people what to believe than to let them examine conflicting opinions and theories and decide for themselves, right?
Now that may come across as a bit facetious and for that I apologise, but that is the crux of what I think it is that you are proposing, yes?


Mutually exclusive, not so much
By elderwilson on 6/1/2012 9:35:06 AM , Rating: 3
There is a religion (I won’t mention the name of the church because most people would stop reading) that believes when science and religion disagree, either one or both is wrong. This same religion teaches evolution at its universities and actively encourages its members to pursue scientific understanding. Man’s ability to comprehend aspects of nature does not diminish Deity’s omnipotence.

So why is there such controversy over evolution? Because “Christianity” today has digressed so far into the ridiculous that it would be unrecognizable to any member of the primitive church (33AD to about 110AD) including Jesus Himself. For most people religious worship has become a business. Ministers and Pastors are making money by selling a “religion” that people want. One of the tools they have to use is ignorance. They don’t have any real answers so they teach their congregations to hostilely oppose anything they don’t understand. I’m sure there are many clergy men and women that work with genuine intent, but I have yet to meet one.




RE: Mutually exclusive, not so much
By Quadrillity on 6/1/2012 10:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
so they teach their congregations to hostilely oppose anything they don’t understand

It always comes down to your kind telling everyone that they are too stupid to understand the concepts. Have you ever stopped to think that you might be wrong, and what are the consequences of that?


By Cheesew1z69 on 6/2/2012 11:18:04 AM , Rating: 2
Don't understand and calling someone "stupid" are 2 different things, quit putting words into peoples mouths when they didn't say "stupid".

quote:
Have you ever stopped to think that you might be wrong, and what are the consequences of that?
And you are right?


RE: Mutually exclusive, not so much
By Boze on 6/2/2012 10:52:05 PM , Rating: 2
Not too stupid, too uneducated. There's a difference.

The problem with most religious people is that they attack a scientist's hard work, in some cases, many thousands or even millions of scientists (evolution for instance), then the best theory they can offer is that a supremely powerful being did it all, and of course they offer no tangible proof or even testable theories, so you have to take their word for it.

In many cases, science offers both (tangible and testable). That is why science is superior.


I see the opposite being established
By MartyLK on 6/1/2012 6:12:36 PM , Rating: 2
They are saying science will provide overwhelming proof of evolution, but ironically, from what it is providing, it's going to show how God actually did it all and for what purpose. To me it looks like the whole history of the creation of the universe and the creation of matter and eventual existence of galaxies and planets, all the way through how life began in the history of the Earth through all of the stages of development and extinctions to the point humanity is at right now looks seriously like a divine guiding hand with the ultimate eventual establishment of a perfect paradise through the continued technological development of mankind.

The dots connecting together from the big bang through all the development stages of everything screams intelligent and purposeful design with the end of that development still yet to come when the world and environment has been mastered through technology to be a realm of perfect peace and paradise for humanity and only for humanity. All of the previous creatures played their parts parts to bring the world closer to the ultimate outcome of establishing that paradise for humanity. When each previous creature...be it the earliest organisms to the dinosaurs...fulfilled their purpose on the creation of the stages of development of the world, they were eliminated through extinction events.

To me it looks exactly like a forger forging his work and bringing about an eventual outcome of pure beauty. He doesn't start out with an object of beauty but rather an unformed and raw material which he works and works to bring it to the eventual beauty he intends.

This is what I see science eventually revealing...how God did it all and extrapolating from the evidence and ultimate outcome or purpose.




By Cheesew1z69 on 6/2/2012 11:20:19 AM , Rating: 2
SMH....


Retards will always...
By Motoman on 5/31/2012 4:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
...insist on believing in the unbelievable, and denying the reality that one can show them as being physically true.

They'll continue to misuse the term "theory" as they always have. They'll discount rock-solid proof in support of evolution while inventing non-existent "proof" to counter it. They'll re-use long-debunked arguments over and over again, never remembering the last time it was shot down.

In short, the *debate* was over a very, very long time ago. That fact is unimportant to the religious, however, who just simply insist on fighting a battle that they lost generations ago...and won't admit it.




By faster on 6/1/2012 7:59:50 AM , Rating: 2
Two million years in the future, the highly intelligent cockroach species will be glad that homo sapiens aren't still roaming the earth much the same way we are glad that dinosaurs aren't still roaming the earth. Who knows what they will think of their own evolution.




I really doubt it will be over
By Gideonic on 6/1/2012 10:33:32 AM , Rating: 2
I really doubt it will be over as It's not about any scientific reasoning. The opponents have religious resoning, therefore no amount of proof will convince those zealots.




The debate is already over
By japlha on 6/1/2012 11:10:29 AM , Rating: 2
The debate won't "soon" be over. It already is. It's been over for a long time. I suppose people could debate it in the same manner that "flat-earthers" can debate "non flat-earthers" but what's the point?

Evolution is supported by vast amounts of evidence.
It is the best explanation for the diversity of life. It is a sound scientific theory based on facts, repeatable experiments and is consistent with other areas of science.

To think there is some on-going debate in the scientific community about evolution is ridiculous.




By Arbie on 6/1/2012 12:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
The facts are obvious: For all the millenia up to Darwin, nobody had any explanation for how people got here. So they had to believe in a god or gods.

Darwin recognized and explained the process of evolution, which at last gives us the answer to our origins. We are so lucky to have been born after that landmark event. Think about it!

However, many people still want to believe in a god because it comforts them, though their rational brain knows better. So they live in a state of doublethink - simultaneously holding two mutually contradictory beliefs. This is both stupid and self-delusional, and is a strain in itself. But that's their choice. The shame, and their crime against humanity, comes when they demand that others do the same thing.

==> Mankind needed a god to explain things. We no longer do. To keep insisting that there must be one is idiotic, ignorant, and harmful.




lol
By apcrap on 6/1/2012 12:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
I dont mind it that pepole belive in what they want like the toothfairy or the easter bunny thats fine me,but who am i to judge to know .

But i hate the fact that all the belivers in GOD refer to god as a HIM WTF
If your going to belive in it the right way.Cause there is no HIM in GOD (if there was a GOD)




I always wondered...
By JackRyan46 on 6/1/2012 2:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
does this debate even takes place outside of US?

Honestly I have never heard about Evolution being controversial anywhere else, or at least to that extent.




Is Evolution a faith?
By drycrust3 on 6/1/2012 8:02:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He claimed that within 15 to 30 years the evidence proving evolution would be so overwhelming that "even the skeptics can accept it."

There is one major problem for Leakey, which is that the skeptics won't accept it. Why should they? Evolution is a theory, and as long as it is a theory it gives everyone the right to treat it as exactly that: a theory.
In fact, one can even go further and suggest science is remiss if they don't at least consider alternative theories because one of them may well be a better theory at explaining the natural world around us than the theory of Evolution.
Like it or not, we have really only scratched the surface of why we are all here, and as we've seen so many times before, just when we think we know it all we discover something new that sweeps away all our previous thinking.




Nosepicker
By schmizz on 6/3/2012 10:26:21 PM , Rating: 2
I heard that this guy is a chronic nose picker. Just saying.




By TileGuyJesse on 6/5/2012 11:51:30 PM , Rating: 2
Wait, Don't "most scientists" agree that Entropy, the first-ever statistical law in physics. (Order to chaos) pretty much makes Evolution impossible? And yet they go along with it. Why?
Because the alternative would be unthinkable, believing in God, a designer. Can't have that.

"They have EXCHANGED the truth for a lie, professing to be wise they have become fools."
Makes perfect sense to me!




By ss2010 on 6/6/2012 9:14:19 AM , Rating: 2
As for contingence, it prevails over and surrounds all of the cosmos. For we see that all things, universal or particular, big or small, from God’s Throne down to the ground, from the atom to the planet, all are sent to the world with a particular essence, a specific form, a distinct identity, particular attributes, wise qualities, and beneficial organs. Now to bestow on that particular essence and quiddity its peculiarities, from amongst the infinite possibilities available; to clothe it in its specific, distinctive and appropriate form, from among the possibilities and probabilities that are as numerous as the forms that may be conceived; to distinguish that being with the identity suited to it, from among the possibilities as numerous as the other members of its species; to endow with special, suitable and beneficial attributes the created object that is formless and hesitant midst the possibilities and probabilities that are as numerous as the varieties of attribute and degree; to affix to that aimless creature, perplexed and distraught amidst the innumerable possibilities and probabilities that result from the infinitude of conceivable paths and modalities —to affix to it wise qualities and beneficial organs and equip it with them— all of these are indications, proofs, and affirmations to the number of the innumerable possibilities of the necessary existence, infinite power and unlimited wisdom of the Necessary Existent Who creates, chooses, specifies, and distinguishes the quiddity and identity, the form and shape, the attribute and situation of all contingent beings, whether they be universals or particulars.

They indicate, too, that no object and no matter is hidden from Him, that nothing is difficult for Him, that the greatest task is as easy for Him as the smallest, that He can create a spring as easily as a tree, and a tree as easily as a seed. All this, then, pertains to the truth of contingence, and forms one wing of the great testimony borne by the cosmos.




By Celestion on 6/7/2012 2:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
Favorite Bible verse: "And if any man think that he knows any thing, he knows nothing..."

This verse applies to us Christians as well. Simple observation suggests humans evolved from a more primitive species and that evolution is probably responsible for the presence of all forms of life on earth. This is mutually exclusive with the strict 7-day creationism interpretation of the Bible. However, given the above verse, any interpretation of the Bible is at best, speculative. Thus, 7-day creationists need to stop ignoring their ability to see and agree that evolution is the most probable explanation of life on earth and that it is not mutually exclusive with the Bible, only certain interpretations of the Bible.

This above verse also has lots of super interesting metaphysical implications as well. Ultimately, though, and logic would agree, humans can prove nothing.




I think it's time
By Cheesew1z69 on 6/3/2012 11:15:55 AM , Rating: 1
We all just stop discussing this now, because Tony, er, I mean Quadrillity, is an expert on all of this and has the answers to everything. Why bother debating any further? I mean shit, he knows all and we are all just fools apparently for believing science and facts and the people who have been doing this for decades. Even when the facts show he is wrong, he is still right!




to Quadrillity
By mpriester on 6/3/2012 9:59:03 PM , Rating: 1
Let us say for your sake there is a God.
I don't care when He created anything.

What happened to all the "souls" people that were killed before Christ turned up? Were they sent to Hell? Apparently they weren't saved before Christ was here.

Why does God let babies be murdered? Are they bad babies?
Why do serial killers exist?

You can say God exists and is all powerful and He is good and all the bullshit you want, but you cannot ever answer these questions without just making up some bullshit to cover it.

God wanted it , or God doesn't control everything. And then the next person says God controls everything. It is all BULLSHIT.

You are deceiving yourself. You have been indoctrinated.
Someday we on this planet are going to kill ourselves or the planet is going to incinerate during the Sun's red giant phase. And everyone here is going to be gone and every animal with it.

The universe will still be here but not us. I do not care if you believe in God or not. But to teach creationism in school is tantamount to teaching a cult following.

Earlier you stated that numbers clearly exist. No numbers do not exist in nature. There are constructs humans have invented to represent quantities of things we observe.

So your statement indicates that we can observe things and then draw conclusions from that to "know" things for sure.

Do we "know for sure", well your have to assume we all are in the same universe and all see the same things, but yes we do know for sure many things. Just because we can't explain everything does not make it God's creation.

Jesus shows up in human history about 2000 years ago. Much of the Bible was written hundreds of years later.

Today with video of what happens, we can't get a straight story about what really happened. Yet you believe with poor communications and an agenda to believe in something to look up to / forward to when there was all that suffering going on at the hands of the Romans, that nothing written in the Bible can be wrong/made up?

You are a sheep if nothing else if you have no questions as to any of this as being true. Believe what you want, I do not care, but keep the faith from the schools. That is for the church and home. Let us keep science at school.

As for a one species becoming another, mutations can in fact make this happen. We have not seen it yet I don't believe.
However, the genetic closeness of many species, does indicate that there was a common ancestor. You don't have to believe, I have faith in it for both of us.




no offense but
By sprockkets on 5/31/12, Rating: -1
RE: no offense but
By 3minence on 5/31/2012 3:28:25 PM , Rating: 5
Never ignore the power of the faithful to ignore irrefutable evidence and hang on to their baseless beliefs.


RE: no offense but
By curelom on 5/31/12, Rating: -1
RE: no offense but
By Motoman on 5/31/2012 3:57:46 PM , Rating: 5
...but insisting on believing something wildly implausible with no evidence to support it is not nearly the same thing as accepting a well-proven scientific theory based upon seemingly infinite amounts of evidence.

You people try to paint it as being two sides of the same coin...and it's not even close. One is accepting reality. The other is insisting on believing a fairy tale. Rationality vs. irrationality.

There is no valid comparison.


RE: no offense but
By christojojo on 5/31/2012 4:01:42 PM , Rating: 2
The problem I have is not whether to believe in one or another or even both. My problem is with the dangerous concept that belief in any theory by a quorum automatically turns that theory into law. I was hoping Humanity was beyond might makes right in the scientific field.A billion pieces of evidence of probability doesn't make it truth. IT makes it probable but not law. Go with the theory accept it as probability. Stop the show-boating and get on with exploration and investigation.


RE: no offense but
By Motoman on 5/31/2012 5:44:12 PM , Rating: 5
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not actually that stupid, but are trying to use an old lame creationist tactic to paint science as just another religion.

All scientific theories are falsifiable - by definition, because if you craft something that can't be proven to be false, it's not a scientific theory.

And when a "quorum" agrees that a theory is true, it's not just set on a shelf and declared to be capital T Truth. A scientific theory is in constant jeopardy of either being changed to accommodate new information that falsified part of it, or utterly thrown away if new information shows it to be completely wrong. Which is why, to be most technically correct, nothing in science is ever a "fact" - but I'm sure you knew that already.

Case in point...not too long ago we were teaching our students that gravity would ultimately halt the expansion of the universe and reverse it, causing all matter & energy in the universe to collapse upon itself in a "big crunch" - the flipside of the big bang, if you will. This was what cosmologists believed, and was accepted theory. But something happened...we discovered that the universe's rate of expansion was actually accelerating - not slowing down, like the theory said it should. That upended a *lot* of stuff in cosmology...and has given rise to the concept of "dark energy" which so far seems to be the best explanation of what we're now seeing - and it's completely changed what we understand the ultimate fate of the universe to be. Now, instead of a gravitationally-induced "big crunch" we understand that the universe is simply going to keep expanding infinitely, until such a point in time when all stars have completely burned out, and matter is so dispersed that not even the most unimaginably advanced culture could gather resources fast enough to sustain their existence. Instead of an incredibly hot, explosive end to our universe, it's going to simply fade into utter darkness and coldness and an eternity of nothingness.

...unless we discover something else that shows that *that* theory is wrong, and we have to either make another adjustment or just start all over from scratch. THAT is what science does. No laws...nothing sacred...everything always subject to being shown incorrect.


RE: no offense but
By knutjb on 6/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: no offense but
By Motoman on 6/1/2012 12:45:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why does Leakey imply a "fact" by saying that the debate will soon be over? What other reason could explain such a comment?


He clearly has a baseless enthusiasm for the intelligence of humanity...assuming that at some point, everyone who's insistent on not accepting reality will relent and stop being stupid. Not going to happen.

quote:
The attempt to prove or disprove religion or evolution as an absolute from a sliver of information that is implied through subjective meaning is arrogant.


There you go trying to equate science with religion again...you people never learn. There is no point in trying to "prove" or "disprove" any given religion, because they're completely untestable fairy tales - you can no more prove/disprove a religion than you can prove/disprove that there are invisible 6-dimensional leprechauns living in my butt. Evolution, on the other hand, has ENORMOUS amounts of information that can be empirically analyzed to prove or disprove it - to date, ALL information that has ever been gathered has supported the theory of evolution. If, someday, something comes to light that shows that evolution is wrong...well guess what: evolution will either have to change, or get tossed away and a new theory will take it's place.

As for this:
quote:
From your post you plainly don't like religion. Fine. Show me a successful culture that didn't have a deity, mono or plural, based religion.


Show me any culture that didn't fail miserably that didn't have some religion. Your point is meaningless. It's also akin to saying "show me some presidential candidate that didn't at one time sh1t his pants on a regular basis." Babies are dumb and incapable of using a toilet. When children grow up, as a rule, they stop sh1tting their pants and start using the toilet - the fact that they *used* to sh1t their pants can't be used against them, because that's what babies do. Religion is something that "baby" cutures did...because they didn't know any better. Some people have grown up, and moved on from religion...other people still insist on mentally sh1tting their pants.


RE: no offense but
By JediJeb on 6/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: no offense but
By topkill on 6/1/2012 5:27:40 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Sometimes we find the childish beliefs we had are more correct than the ones we have as teenagers when we believe that the world revolves around us.


ROFL So you want us to all believe in the tooth fairy and santie claus too?


RE: no offense but
By knutjb on 6/2/2012 6:04:19 AM , Rating: 2
Jedijeb, point well proven.


RE: no offense but
By knutjb on 6/2/2012 6:02:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
He clearly has a baseless enthusiasm for the intelligence of humanity...assuming that at some point, everyone who's insistent on not accepting reality will relent and stop being stupid. Not going to happen.

My specific point as to why Leakey said what he did has to do with money. He needs more of it to continue his work and what better way than to rile the likeminded. It certainly worked on you.

quote:
There you go trying to equate science with religion again...you people never learn. There is no point in trying to "prove" or "disprove" any given religion, because they're completely untestable fairy tales - you can no more prove/disprove a religion than you can prove/disprove that there are invisible 6-dimensional leprechauns living in my butt.
You are so angry at religion you ignorantly convoluted the point. Did you even read the article? As for equating science with religion, again you are blinded by your anger at religion. There a number of groups whose behavior mimics extreme religious behavior. Environmentalism is the most prominent among them. They treat their beliefs as a fanatical religion by denying new data or hypothesis to the contrary as heretical lies. In addition, you should seek medical treatment for those leprechauns.
quote:
Show me any culture that didn't fail miserably that didn't have some religion. Your point is meaningless. It's also akin to saying "show me some presidential candidate that didn't at one time sh1t his pants on a regular basis."
When a culture fails, take the Romans, they became corrupted in their religion and society. Religion in and of itself wasn't the cause of the failure but the failure to follow it. They lost any and all ethical morality. Religion is usually the source of that ethical behavior. Your analogy is woefully lacking of any rational thought. Since this concept flew over let me lower it to your level. When religion is in a culture it places man as number two in the food chain. If man has a belief that there is a higher being that he must answer to he is more likely to behave better. Mao and Stalin had no such fear and their record shows their concern for humanity.

That said I am not pushing a religion. I am making an empirical, macro observation of civilization. You on the other hand are unable to separate your abhorrence of religion from rational analysis.


RE: no offense but
By JediJeb on 6/1/12, Rating: -1
RE: no offense but
By Motoman on 6/1/2012 2:32:20 PM , Rating: 4
Everything you just said is either an outright lie, or purposefully misrepresented.

You've firmly demonstrated yourself to be thoroughly removed from reality, and not worth any more time. Therefore, I invite you to STFU and GTFO. You're making the internet more stupid with every post.


RE: no offense but
By SPOOFE on 6/1/2012 3:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wish someone would tell the IPCC and its climatologist this.

Why, because they are more political than scientific? Then why do you use them as an example of scientists, instead of politicians?

Dishonest argument is dishonest. God told you a thing or two about bearing false witness. Mayhaps you should actually read the Bible before you start spewing from it.


RE: no offense but
By curelom on 5/31/12, Rating: -1
RE: no offense but
By jRaskell on 5/31/2012 4:29:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
and not scientific at all.


I find it wildly amusing that you should criticize other people's statement for being "not scientific at all". I recommend you look up the word hypocrite.


RE: no offense but
By curelom on 5/31/12, Rating: -1
RE: no offense but
By 3minence on 5/31/2012 5:26:18 PM , Rating: 4
Evolution does not disprove God, just as the Sun centered universe didn't disprove God (despite the proclamations of the church at the time), nor will the existence of extraterrestrial life disprove God. What it does disprove is a the claim of fanatics who say God created man literally as described in the book of Genesis.

Having said that, the lack of evidence disproving the existence of God does not prove the existence of God. I'm sorry, but in order to prove the existence of God you must provide evidence.


RE: no offense but
By Quadrillity on 5/31/12, Rating: -1
RE: no offense but
By 3minence on 5/31/2012 6:08:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Back when geocentricism was a popular theory, non-theistic science pushed it as well.

Yes they did, but it was the church that locked Galileo up. And the church was pushing geocentricism too. Many writings by clergy from that time period argued against a sun-centric universe as it lowered the importance of mans place in the universe. Kinda like the arguments against evolution (we evolved from monkeys? Outrageous!).
quote:
My guess is that you would deny the existence of God even if he spoke directly to you.

Actually not. I cannot tell you God exists because I have no evidence of it, but nor can I tell you God doesn't exist because their is no evidence of that either. I can only say that based on the evidence we have now, we evolved and were not "created".


RE: no offense but
By Quadrillity on 5/31/12, Rating: -1
RE: no offense but
By 3minence on 5/31/2012 7:08:29 PM , Rating: 5
But what if we're all wrong and God exists and did create man? Then I will stand by my life's actions. I've helped little old lady to cross streets, I've given to charity, I've volunteered my time to charities. While I am not a Christian, I have lived a very Christian life (more Christian then many Christians I see). If after all that God still sends me to hell because I didn't believe in creationism, then he's no God that I'm willing to worship anyway.


RE: no offense but
By Quadrillity on 5/31/12, Rating: -1
RE: no offense but
By 3minence on 5/31/2012 8:30:21 PM , Rating: 5
So Gandhi is burning in hell right now? People born in the deepest, most remote parts of the Amazon where they've never heard of Christ are damned to hell? Really? I disagree.

For this I must refer to scripture (Chronicles of Narnia, The Last Battle, chapter 15): And Aslan said: "...if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, child?"


RE: no offense but
By Quadrillity on 5/31/12, Rating: -1
RE: no offense but
By 3minence on 5/31/2012 10:06:59 PM , Rating: 2
But children who die at birth before being baptized go to hell (at least according to Catholicism).

Actually, that was a cheap shot. It sounds like your at least thinking somewhat rationally about the subject. I will put it this way. Lets say that the God of of Jesus exists (as opposed to the God of Abraham who acted like a complete jerk). The teachings of Jesus portrayed God as a loving, compassionate God, very inclusive and accepting of others, be they whores or whatever else. How can a God who loves and forgives all condemn a good man (and I'm not talking specifically about me) to an eternity of hell? Gandhi knew all about Christianity and Jesus, and was a good man. Is he really burning in hell? It does not make sense and I simply can not believe it to be true. It goes against the fundamental lessens taught by Jesus.


RE: no offense but
By MZperX on 6/1/2012 12:25:20 PM , Rating: 1
by 3minence on May 31, 2012 at 10:06 PM
But children who die at birth before being baptized go to hell (at least according to Catholicism).


Not even remotely true. Where do you get this stuff? Are you a Catholic and this is what you were taught? Doubtful. Please stop spreading your ignorant opinions as fact. What you posted above is absolutely and categorically NOT according to Catholic teaching (assuming that by "Catholicism" you referred to the Roman Catholic Church).


RE: no offense but
By knutjb on 6/1/2012 6:08:30 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
People born in the deepest, most remote parts of the Amazon where they've never heard of Christ are damned to hell? Really? I disagree.
If you knew what you were talking about you would know that is a false statement.

If you are going to condemn something you might want to have your facts straight.


RE: no offense but
By kyp275 on 5/31/2012 9:49:18 PM , Rating: 5
yea... ghandi will burn in hell, while all them priests that molested little boys and girls gets to chill in heaven because they believe in your god.

awesome system really, and it reflects so well upon the omnipotent being that you worships :P


RE: no offense but
By FaaR on 6/1/2012 6:08:21 AM , Rating: 2
You can keep your "God", and your mind-prison that is "sin"; I myself refuse to be bound by such imaginary superstitions.

Besides, any deity that insists on being worshipped, and condemns those who do not worship, is not worthy of being worshipped. End of story.


RE: no offense but
By plastichairball on 6/1/2012 7:09:36 AM