intelligent design bashing is getting old...

[Teutooni]

Yes, grasping the idea of evolution can be hard... The dead can't have children, right? The living can. Still with me? Good. Now if A dies and B does not, B can get children, and B's qualities get passed on. It's that simple. I'm not saying it explains everything under the Sun, but the logic is undeniable.

The tongue might have developed from an organ that had a totally different purpose at first, then the environment changed making the 'pre-tongue' useless, and thus evolving into a tongue. Propably through many, many stages.

Oh, and evolution doesn't lead to an universally superior entity, just superior in a given environment and circumstances.

There's also a thing called cultural evolution. Cultural traits which for example aid the survival of individuals, or are otherwise preferrable over competing traits, spread in the population. The definition of preferrable is next to impossible to determine, it can be as arbitrary as something being more cool.

[Dash_Riprock]

Basically, natural selection is nature's brute-force algorithm.

Seriously though, while these people are clearly idiots, anyone who bases their opinion about an entire group of people on some news clip isn't much better. While Im not really Christian, I do know plenty of intelligent religious people, most of whom understand that evolution is a scientific theory and not a religion, and dont deny that they can co-exist.

Of course, I think it's also foolish to take evolution as we understand it as some sort of perfect explanation for all of biology, as there are numerous "jumps" (most of which I'm not too familiar with) that it has a very difficult time explaining.

[rattle]

A trailer park trash family lives in tornado alley, alongside 50 other trailer park trash families that all watch nascar, and are universally reviled by the rest of the world, even being called "trailer park trash" sometimes.

So there's location, distribution, and relationships, figure out why they're still alive

Because you need them for the idiot jobs no one wants to do. Much like immigrants.

[Zpock]

Science will probably f*** us over in the end, the less intelligent and knowleadagble we are the less trouble we can cause ourselves. With The apple thing, bible will have it's last laugh.

[KDR_11k]

Basically, natural selection is nature's brute-force algorithm.

Seriously though, while these people are clearly idiots, anyone who bases their opinion about an entire group of people on some news clip isn't much better. While Im not really Christian, I do know plenty of intelligent religious people, most of whom understand that evolution is a scientific theory and not a religion, and dont deny that they can co-exist.

Of course, I think it's also foolish to take evolution as we understand it as some sort of perfect explanation for all of biology, as there are numerous "jumps" (most of which I'm not too familiar with) that it has a very difficult time explaining.

We're laughing about creationists, not Christians in general.

Science will probably f*** us over in the end, the less intelligent and knowleadagble we are the less trouble we can cause ourselves. With The apple thing, bible will have it's last laugh.

Remember when "dentistry" consisted of "smash it with a rock"? Knowledge just means we can focus on the man vs man struggle instead of having both that and the larger man vs nature struggle.

[Caydr]

The thing you guys have to understand is, there's a wide variety of religions under the so-called "Christian" umbrella. I think that's why it pisses me off so much when people make fun of creationism - they almost certainly either:
a) have only experienced the assclown-end of creationism
or
b) have become "devout" (for lack of a better word) evoloutionists simply because they've never had an opportunity to hear a properly developed REASONABLE counter-argument.

For instance, take this one. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Period. Notice the period at the end of that.

Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness...
Also the bible at no time states that the earth was created first. That's just when the book starts. It covers the time beginning when the earth was created, which it only covers in a handful of sentences, then it jumps ahead to humanity. So no, the idea that the universe is billions of years old is not mutually exclusive with creationism.

This is just the tip of the iceberg for this nonsense. How many of you are hearing this for the first time? And if you asked your local priest would he say the same thing? Probably not, since the qualifications to be a priest (or pastor or what have you) are that you know how to read, are a good speaker, and haven't been caught breaking any biblical laws.

So much is just made up you've got no idea. So I find it hard to even call people who blindly believe that crap "creationist", more like "ignorists".

In my view, real creationism can be summed up like this: you look at the world and can't just write absolutely everything off as coincidence. I mean... this isn't much of an example but take the moon for instance. It rotates at the perfect speed that we only ever see one side of it illuminated. It rotates in sync with its orbit around the earth. It has evidently protected the earth from a large number of extinction-level impacts. It has the perfect orbit, is the precise distance away, and is the precise size, to precisely eclipse the sun. It is almost white, allowing the maximum amount of light to reflect off it, allowing us to see at night (most of the time). This isn't much of an example, it's just what jumped into my head as I was writing this post, but it's an example of an *incredible* coincidence if there's no such thing as God.

Unfortunately "pure" evolutionism has the ultimate comeback to any argument: Billions of galaxies, billions of stars, billions of planets, SURELY IT WOULD HAPPEN TO ONE OF THEM. ^^ I can't prove that wrong of course, but notice that it is the exact same argument they use AGAINST creationists as if it's stupid - that there's no way to prove them wrong. There are nigh-infinite possibilities, and there's no way to prove there's not a god, so at that point the dogma begins and neither side says anything more useful.

[Teutooni]

they've never had an opportunity to hear a properly developed REASONABLE counter-argument.

Indeed. Please, give me one.

I think that's what science is about. The most reasonable theory is used until a more comprehensive one is invented. That, and backing it up with observable evidence

[Zpock]

I believe in the existance of everything, it's simplest that way, occams... (think bigger then just lots of galaxies etc, think parallell worlds). The laws of nature and stuff like that is fined tuned this way.

[LordMatt]

This thread is one of the many reasons I wish moderation was a bit more strict on political/philosophical/religious/heated discussions like this. Thoughts and discussion existed on the TA Universe site and the drivel there-in made me lose much respect for those who posted there.

I like threads like these. They sort the idiots from the serious people. Those who have thought carefully about the world around them, learning a little bit of the knowledge accumulated by mankind, and those who have failed to do so. For example the more I hear from Teutooni the more I respect the guy.

As a comparative neuroanatomist (Someone who studies the brain anatomy of different species and compares the differences in anatomy to differences in cognitive abilities, in my case, of primates) I am as outspoken a supporter of evolution as they come, having discovered new evidence of the evolutionary connectedness of humans, chimpanzees, and monkeys myself. The fact is, the world is full of evidence of evolution, if you know where to look and what you are looking for.

[rattle]

But the bible says...

[pharoph]

i didnt read the bible.

[Caydr]

they've never had an opportunity to hear a properly developed REASONABLE counter-argument.

Indeed. Please, give me one.

My counter-argument is that even the vast majority of creationists can't agree on everything, even when those things are clearly stated in the books they allegedly take their rules and ideals from. For that reason, people - rightly - get a bad impression from them. I gave you my more moderate, more sensible, less head-up-ass view. I think there's a god, but I think some form of evolution is not ruled out. I think there are too many things that can't just be written off as "coincidence". I gave a few very weak examples of such things, given a few minutes I could probably come up with something better.

With evolution, I see things that don't make sense. As far as I know, evolution is largely about "survival of the fittest". An animal evolves, it becomes more suited to its environment. But I see things that don't seem to be consistent with this. I can see why an organism might become more suited to an area, but I don't understand why an entirely new organism would develop, regardless of the amount of time involved. Something might become more adapted to a cold climate - the animals with less fur die off over time, more "furry" genes survive, and the animal becomes furrier. But why would it just spontaneously grow wings? The whole process of going from "no wings" to "wings" involves a heck of a long stage of "semi-winged with thin, hollow bones" which in my opinion would not be a creature suited to survival, let alone thriving for millions of years until those wings just start working and they figure out how to fly.

The entire process of going from "no eyes" to "eyes" must take millllllions of years. During that whole time the animal just keeps on developing them. They're useless the whole time. Totally useless. Why would an animal continue to develop something that's useless? Where do the "eyes" genes come from? Like... just take a step back and think, how does something like that start? Does a bunch of nerves just start growing on the brain, and then the skull becomes thinner and thinner at that location until the nerves can pop out... oh shit now the brain is exposed to the outside world and it dies the next time it rains. Ok but some of them live in a cave. So they're alright, and these nerves decide, let's turn into a ball of fluid and see if that does anything useful. .... just trying to figure out how something like this could plausibly happen gives me a headache. Someone tell me how it works... I'm not being sarcastic, I just don't get how people can believe that stuff just starts growing and functioning.

I'm not here to be the person with the magic words to disprove evolution, I can't do that, I'm just not smart enough. Maybe it can't be disproven, I don't know. At the end of the day, people who believe exclusively in evolution have the iron-clad "billions of galaxies etc etc etc" argument, while creationsists have the iron-clad "can't be disproven" argument. Neither side can possibly, ever, ever, ever, ever prove the other wrong.

In my opinion, "pure" evolutionists haven't got a lot to look forward to - whether they die by disease, old age, as punishment for crime, or some god's wrath, they're going to die. "pure" creationists, reasonable or informed or not, believe they might live again. They believe they are accountable for their actions. Which of these two do you think is going to live a happier life? Forget whether it's true or not, which one do you think will be happier? So why piss around trying to prove them wrong when you know with absolute certainty that you cannot?

[SwiftSpear]

INCOMING WALL OF TEXT, GET THE F**K DOWN!

[Caydr]

Lol no kidding

Since nobody's going to read that, the main bit was, please explain why stuff just starts to spontaneously grow and develop into functioning complex systems. Where do eyes come from? The liver, the heart, the immune system, the kidneys, the lungs...

Why are such obviously inefficient things developed? Myself I think it would be benficial to be able to breathe and eat at the same time.

It gives me a headache.

I can agree that it's conceivable that animals would adapt, but I don't understand the notion that these things would spontaneously grow in the first place. Let's say, humans are decended of apes, and heck all fish are from one common fish. Anything like that. But where does that obscenely complex system start, and why have none of the flaws inherent to virtually all animals been worked out, like choking? Why are even the strongest humans essentially defenseless against animals unless we're armed? Shouldn't we be stronger? For the whole of human history being strong was regarded as a good thing, and at least for recorded history up until maybe a hundred years ago, people had to work REALLY HARD just to stay alive! So according to the idea that people have been around for millions of years, we should be freaking badasses, hammering nails with our bare hands! Even WITH tools the stronger you are the more effective you'll be and the more likely to survive. The people with the best "upper body strength" genes should be the most likely to survive, so why are we completely pathetic compared to chimpanzees?

[Peet]

What I really don't understand, is why people can't take genesis symbolically... Considering that if the christian god exists, it would be trivial (and make a lot of sense) for him/it to pre-arrange the singularity precluding the Big Bang to unfold into the universe as it is. The seven days could easily be a symbolic representation of 13 billion years - and a reflection of the fact that in the 5-10th centuries BC as genesis was written, people, including its authors, would certainly have a hard time comprehending the concept of 13 billion years, and the processes taking place during that time span

[Caydr]

Exactly! Like I already said, the word rendered "days" as in the "days" of creation, IIRC it simply refers to a certain time period, undefined. It's taken for granted it means days, but it could mean "a while". Or "a billion years". It's not that it should or shouldn't be taken as a literal number, it's that it shouldn't be taken as either. If there's no certain answer, people shouldn't talk as though it's one or the other.

I am as outspoken a supporter of evolution as they come, having discovered new evidence of the evolutionary connectedness of humans, chimpanzees, and monkeys myself.

Can you explain that article better? From the way it's written it sounds like all you've proven is that chimpanzees have similar brains to humans but which are not as advanced in the area of language, something we already knew. I'm trying to phrase that not sounding like a smartass, what I means is that I'm just confused, not trying to sound condescending or rude at the discovery that got you the attention.

[Forboding Angel]

Actually a direct quote from somewhere in the bible (look it up if you really want to know where, I cba).

"... a thousand years is like a day to the Lord."

Well if you took it in direct context, you could have 7000 years right there. If you were to believe that there is a God, then I'm pretty sure he could manage to start a universe in 7000 years.

[KDR_11k]

What I really don't understand, is why people can't take genesis symbolically...

Most do but most don't insist on teaching genesis as science either.

Of course if you interpret a story abstract enough you can match it to anything, that's how fortune telling works (just a bunch of vague statements that the person will interpret to match the actual events).

As for superstrength and stuff like that, with greater abilities comes greater cost, a more advanced lifeform needs more food and time to grow to adult size. That's pretty much the reason those super-specialized or huge animals are on the verge of extinction, slow reproduction and high food consumption make it hard to regrow a population quickly, meanwhile small and "spammy" specieses are everywhere. Humans are very expensive as-is, adding more and more features would be prohibitive. Our main features are pretty much intelligence (allowing the use of tools as upgrades that don't impact our reproduction cost) and adaptability (means more space to inhabit, not every species can survive in all climates). We don't need the strength of a bear because we have the ability to do the same things with much less strength.

[Teutooni]

I'm not trying to rule out the existance of a god, like Caydr said that is impossible. What I don't understand is why take an arbitrary statement which cannot be possibly proven or disproven, and base the whole understanding of natural wolrd on that statement. There will always be mysteries - things that don't make sense until they are solved. The creationists see god in every "I don't know" the scientists give.

As for the development of complex organs, I already explained how the tongue might have developed. It made enough sense to me at least. Not that it has to - I can accept there are mysteries which just need the right set of mind and evidence to solve.

In my opinion, "pure" evolutionists haven't got a lot to look forward to - whether they die by disease, old age, as punishment for crime, or some god's wrath, they're going to die.

So you feel there has to be something more? You want to live forever? In heaven? Well, I guess you are not alone. Throughout the history, most cultures have dismissed the idea of death with afterlife or reincarnation.

I find the idea of dying, consciousness fading into nothingness, somewhat more comforting and reasonable than afterlife. There will be no joys or worries, no looking back at life and thinking "aw crap I should have done that".

[AF]

Its not our job to disprove gods existence, its your job to prove he exists to begin with.

"In your house there is a magical unicorn that proves god does not exist. It is undetectable, cannot be touched smelt seen heared, and it is infinitely small. You cant prove it doesn't exist therefore it exists and that means god doesn't exist!"