Off Topic - Main

[-Archmage-]

John, what you're talking about is "micro-evolution". When the species reproduce things change, yes, that's combining the genes that already exist, but getting a totally new species out of micro-evolution is not possible, no completely new genes get created, so the species will very a lot but no matter what, you will still have some kind of deer.

[John.d.h]

Guess what happens when microevolution occurs continuously over a longer period of time.

[modman]

Guess what happens when microevolution occurs continuously over a longer period of time.

We get speciation, which is evolution!

Anybody here read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins? It was a very interesting read.

Yup!  Best book for atheists, hands down.

John, what you're talking about is "micro-evolution". When the species reproduce things change, yes, that's combining the genes that already exist, but getting a totally new species out of micro-evolution is not possible, no completely new genes get created, so the species will very a lot but no matter what, you will still have some kind of deer.

Eliminator knows this, because he is my facebook friend.  I continually post links to discussions between Ray Comfort (a TV evangialist, and a liar IMO) and Thunderf00t from YouTube.  I want people to watch these!  Tf00t eventually got Ray to admit that he had absolutely no knowledge of true evolution even though Ray had written several books on the subject.  Oh yea, and what was that that Jesus said when he tore up the temple?  Something like "do not dirty my Father's house with your money changing?  Ray sells his many books, including a version of Darwin's "The Origin of Species" with a trojan horse 40+ page intro whose text is twice as big as Darwin's, out of his house!

My opinion about free will is that it is impossible to tell if there is free will or not.  We live in reality, and determinism and free will are both descriptors of reality.  To test either would require that one leave reality, which is impossible.

[assassin]

Haha reminds me of the matrix..

[wciow]

Anybody here read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins? It was a very interesting read.

Has anybody read "The Dawkins Delusion". Its a very interesting book by two christian authors. The whole book basically attacks Dawkins as an overzealous atheist and hardly touches on his actual arguments 

[assassin]

Well, he's an easy target for angry creationists.

[-Archmage-]

Guess what happens when microevolution occurs continuously over a longer period of time. Roll Eyes

John, no new species will be created from that.
Only variations of the same type of animal, no new genes are produced, only mixes of the old ones.
I believe micro-evolution happens, but obviously no completely new animal can be produced.

Do any of you know anything about evolution, or only about micro-evolution?

Hey, has anybody played Combat Arms?

[modman]

Evolution is complete BULLSH*T.
Evolution is racist, evil, and you know what, why don't you watch the movie: "The Mysterious Islands"..........After you watch that you should be able to understand how completely wrong Evolution is.

Creationism is complete BULLSH*T.
The Old Testiment is racist, evil, and you know what, why don't you read a book or two: Unweaving the Rainbow and The God Delusion, both by Richard Dawkins..........After you read one or more of these, you should be able to understand how completely wrong theism and creationism are.

No, no, I understand that calling hypotheses  names (or theories, in the case of evolution) contributes nothing to debate, and so I will present evidence, and then a logical argument.

Speaking of racist and evil...

A few other things about Jesus:

Jesus says that those who have been less fortunate in this life will have it even worse in the life to come.  Mark 4:25

Jesus sends the devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea.  Clearly Jesus could have simply sent the devils out, yet he chose instead to place them into pigs and kill them. This is called animal abuse.  Mark 5:12-13

Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it was out of season.  Jesus must not be as smart as Christians would have us believe, for he was retarded enough to do something this silly.  You’d think the son of god (god incarnate) would know that trees don’t bear fruit in dry season.  Mark 11:13

Luke 12:47 Jesus okays beating slaves.

I think a very good question would be if you know anything about evolution, or only what you’re told by not-so-reputable sources.  I have had a high school biology class for one semester, although it was admittedly an overview.  Sorry to say it, but because evolution conflicts with creationism, religious leaders sometimes tell flat-out lies about it to small children who don’t know the difference.  If you want to know about science, go see a real scientist, not some over-zealous religious leader making money by telling Biblical mythology.  Do you seriously believe that Noah survived 40 days in a boat filled with wild animals?  What would the lions eat?  Better yet, where would the diversity of life come from?  There are 30 million species of animals today.  And where would the plants go?  Did they microevolve too?  The plants would need both sun and water.  Put them on the top deck and they would drown and not get any sun at all anyways (the sun don’t shine in the rain), but in lower decks animals might eat them and there would be no sun.  Did Noah have desk lamps?

Also, if you think all life came from two humans, you should think about that for a while; that’s some serious inbreeding!  By the third generation, there would probably not be any individuals capable of having another generation.  Let’s not even think about that; just draw me a picture of what the first human family tree looked like.

We can expect such ridiculous beliefs from primitive people, because they did not understand what was logically wrong.  Unfortunately for you, Archmage, there are more accurate facts now, and we can understand why all world languages did not form from the waving of a wand.

Also, would like an actual reply picking apart this post head to toe.  If there is one part you and others cannot refute, then we must assume it is true, or rather, you must.  You should have good reasons for your beliefs.

[-Archmage-]

I am not debating evolution vs creation although in some cases........
I'm debating evolution, and so far no real proof has been presented.

I'm asking for a logical debate and all you guys do is get angry and thrash at me with your crap.

[modman]

Your default is creationism.  The way you have it set up, if evolution does not seem likely enough based on the proof you see, creationism will win by default.  That's not an accident, and those videos you referenced were likely made by a religious group.

//EDIT:

What version are you talking about?  The ones on Wikipedia don't mention evolution.  Besides, it's my Jules Verne wrote the book in 1874, only 15 years after On the Origin of Species was published.

[-Archmage-]

There's another useless thrash.

I think I ought to right a book called: "The Debating with Evolutionists Delusion" because you guys just thrash and thrash because you know that Evolution is hopeless.
If you think I'm thrashing I'm about to break out in laughter at how bad you guys are debating this.

Come on Eliminator I could use another person on my side so I don't feel like I'm the only rational person here(besides John, Omega, and maybe someone else).

[modman]

There's another useless thrash.

Whatever you call it, it generally happens only when you fail to present any argument whatsoever, besides making global statements like "evolution is evil, racist etc".  Really?  Only acts have a morality value; ideas do not, and so evolution cannot be evil.

You have two choices: either tell us why another theory is more likely (that the evidence points to creationism, for example), or show that evolution is impossible.  Those are the choices.  If you expect to win the debate, you need to play offense.

[-Archmage-]

If I were you I would really stop accusing me of making bad/immoral posts. I'm just trying to get you to present something useful...
PRESENT SOMETHING FOR ME TO ARGUE AGAINST INSTEAD OF ALL THIS USELESS ATTACKING!!!
Then we will have something to debate, I mean really look at your posts, I'm asking for a logical argument, so please present something.
I'm debating only Evolution, Creationism now has nothing to do with this.
The debate is: "Evolution - True or False".
Present stuff like, a detailed description of how Evolution works, all the backup proof, you know...........EVERYTHING.

[modman]

I understand that you want an example.  In light of the fact that I am not convinced you understand the gravity of my previous comment, I will appease you.  The following is cut-and-pasted from a scientific website, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html.

One of the most celebrated examples of transitional fossils is our collection of fossil hominids (see Figure 1.4.4 below). Based upon the consensus of numerous phylogenetic analysis, Pan troglodytes (the chimpanzee) is the closest living relative of humans. Thus, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees. Over the past century, many spectacular paleontological finds have identified such transitional hominid fossils.


Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.) (larger 76K JPG version)

        * (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
        * (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
        * (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
        * (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
        * (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
        * (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
        * (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
        * (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
        * (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
        * (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
        * (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
        * (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
        * (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
        * (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

//End Cut-and-Paste

I don't have that much knowledge in biology, but astrophysics, so I may not understand what is actually going on.  But for me, this is the most vivid picture of evolution, and of common decent.

Even though you don't understand the relationship between creationism and evolution, I will allow you to pick this apart as you wish.

Since there is no real logic to pick apart here (what did you expect, this is science, not philosophy!  A creationism debate however, because of the lack of evidence, would have been philosophical) I will give another link to a bigger piece of evolution, from the same site:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#chronology

[-Archmage-]

I can't really trust any of this, there has been tons of fraud.
One thing that really "cracks Evolutions skull" is the fact that if it actually happened and could work, there would be tons of intermediate species, but there aren't!

I'd like it if we could hold off on the debate for a little while, we can get back into it another time, I'm modeling stuff, and also trying to do other stuff I've never done before, and having this on my mind is quite distracting.
I'd hate if we were to become hostile torwards each other elseware, let's cool off for now.

Don't consider this running away from the argument, I hope you'll understand.......I just think it's best if we cool off, and that I finish what I'm doing without making mistakes.

[John.d.h]

there would be tons of intermediate species, but there aren't!

Err... you mean like these?:

        * (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
        * (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
        * (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
        * (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
        * (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
        * (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
        * (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
        * (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
        * (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
        * (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
        * (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
        * (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
        * (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
        * (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

???

[-Archmage-]

That confuses me as well, I don't know much about this area.

[hailstone]

read a book or two: Unweaving the Rainbow and The God Delusion, both by Richard Dawkins

Those books seem like a good read from what I read on Wikipedia. I'm curious if you have read any of the responding books.

Jesus says that those who have been less fortunate in this life will have it even worse in the life to come.  Mark 4:25

I'm not sure that you have actually read Mark chapter 4 (or the others). He is talking about parables and the foundation of understanding. Mark 4:21-25 is really a summation of Mark 4:13-20

Sorry to say it, but because evolution conflicts with creationism, religious leaders sometimes tell flat-out lies about it to small children who don’t know the difference.

People may use evolution to explain away a God and religious leaders may be deceitful because of their belief in creationism but I don't believe one cannot exist because of the other.

[JavaWolfPro]

    * (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
        * (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
        * (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
        * (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
        * (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
        * (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
        * (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
        * (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
        * (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
        * (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
        * (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
        * (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
        * (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
        * (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

wth ! First  how the hell do you there human  and there are only 14 found in the hole world so those cud just have misformed humans for al we know
and can we just stop posting  over such useless stuff . If you believe in evo then fine thats your pro and if you do well still thats you pro just get on with it already and get over it .

[John.d.h]

I never said I believed in evolution or creationism.  In fact, if you read some of my earlier posts, you'll find me supporting each.  I'm undecided, and frankly I don't really care which one is right.  I'm just trying to guide the discussion in an intelligent manner.  I don't think I'm doing it very well.

[assassin]

This is a waste of time. Archmage seems to ignore what he does not want to see, and only respond to parts of posts which are easy to attack.

There is no way to prove that God exists except if you experience him yourself, or he tells you.

Well then, I believe in the flying spaghetti monster. Try to disprove his existance.

God is omnipotent, and omniscient,

Ohh.. Nice paradox.

How can an omniscient god find the omnipotence to change that which he already knows?

Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it? If he can, then the rock is now unliftable, limiting God's power. But if he cannot, then he is still not omnipotent.

I can't prove God to you

Them why the hell do you believe in him? doesn't seem like thee act of a "sentient" or "intelligent" being to me.

Questions to everybody: HOW DOES EVOLUTION WORK? PROOF? EVERYTHING ELSE THAT COULD POSSIBLY HELP?

Having an open mind?

, you call the truth comedy, you support Barrack Obama which is DESTROYING THE COUNTRY!!!

That's right, I find these attempts for creationist Americans to justify what they only believe because there parents made them downright hilarious. And so creating a society which cares about poor people is bad is it? Hmm, ever actually read the bible?

All stuff you ignored

P.S: Anyone else play tomb raider: underworld?

[wciow]

Everyone is bashing Archmage for his obviously sincere beliefs.

He may be wrong but live and let live 

If everyone had exactly the same ideas the world would be a very boring place. I'm quite happy for religious people to exist as long as they keep it quite and only appear once in a while to entertain everyone else with their rantings 

[@kukac@]

wth ! First  how the hell do you there human  and there are only 14 found in the hole world so those cud just have misformed humans for al we know
and can we just stop posting  over such useless stuff . If you believe in evo then fine thats your pro and if you do well still thats you pro just get on with it already and get over it .

VS

http://img27.imageshack.us/i/logica.jpg/

Talk is free.

[-Archmage-]

You know this argument has gotten so bad that I think we should start over........

[modman]

I think a better way to go about this debate would be to discuss a more specific topic.  These topics would preferably be objections to evolution, because someone who "doesn't believe in evolution" would present these.  By the way, evolution is not debated or questioned anymore in scientific circles.  It has been a fact for over a century.  It is just called a theory because that is what everything when it describes observations we make, for example similar-looking skulls.

A more specific topic then: Does the second law of thermodynamics contradict evolution?

I hear this too much, especially from people who don't understand what thermodynamics means.  Religious leaders pick up on this, though, because it agrees with what they've been saying all along: that we live in a "fallen world".

Let me put it this way.  To understand the second law of thermodynamics is to understand why perpetual motion machines will not work.