Evolution Sucks!

POSTED BY: dougp59
UPDATED: Monday, July 27, 2026 16:36
VIEWED: 32323
PAGE 11 of 20

PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 12, 2006 3:08 AM

Chris,

The problem I see here is that the scientific justification of God becomes leverage for the acceptance of a lot of presupposition about the will of God which is not meritted by the findings.

Any proof that there was an entity of some significance would not necessarily push the conclusion that gays should be flogged, but will lead people to return to the bible, and draw that conclusion.

A safer attempt to explain the christian God would probably be something in the collective unconscious, and not in space.

Just a thought.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Thursday, January 12, 2006 3:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The problem I see here is that the scientific justification of God becomes leverage for the acceptance of a lot of presupposition about the will of God which is not meritted by the findings.

That is a problem with people, and ideally wouldn't need to be brought up unless we were talking spesifically about people.

Nothing is ever ideal. For example:

Quote:
Any proof that there was an entity of some significance would not necessarily push the conclusion that gays should be flogged, but will lead people to return to the bible, and draw that conclusion.

Religion, and the bible is an example of it, is created by human beings, and it has been said that nothing separates people from god more effectively than religion. If there is a god worthy of praise I think that statement is probably true.

The idea that people should connect god to a religion is faulty, and I wish people would drop it. Unfortunately that is unlikely.

For example if you could somehow prove that Jesus was indeed the Christ with all its modern connotations that would not mean you should necessarily take the Bible as correct because even if all of the words of his are recorded correctly and accurately translated (doubtful) there is a hell of a lot more there than just what he said.

Quote:
A safer attempt to explain the christian God would probably be something in the collective unconscious, and not in space.

I was just using that as an example of a possible situation because I know that the particle I described would have recently been considered the product of random chance. Whether or not it is still considered as such I do not know. Whether or not it really would be a result of random chance is something I certainly don't know.

I believe there is a god, but I don't believe I understand how that god works, if I wanted to do that I would be a scientist, which I am not.

PSANDUSKY

Thursday, January 12, 2006 5:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by nevered:
I'm really curious as to how anyone can justify believing an argument that sounds so stupid.

"The Invisible Space Wizard Did It!"

Of course!

That must be it!

How could we be so blind?

Bull.

Didn't your mama teach you about Flying Spaghetti Monsterism?

PSANDUSKY

Thursday, January 12, 2006 6:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dharmagal:
Interesting thread. All I have to say is this: if you really think evolution sucks, you only get one flu shot.

Did you happen to read the recent Doonesbury strip on that very topic? Came out in a Sunday strip, no less.

Ran a li'l sum'fin like this:

Doctor: (thinking) Uh-oh... Hope he's only a Sunday creationist.
Patient: TB? My God! Are you sure?
Doctor: Afraid so. But we caught it early.
Patient: So my prognosis is good?
Doctor: Depends. Are you a creationist?
Patient: Why, yes, yes I am. Why do you ask?
Doctor: Because I need to know whether you want me to treat the TB bug as it was before antibiotics... or as the multiple-drug-resistant strain it has since evolved into.
Patient: Evolved?
Doctor: Your choice. If you go with the Noah's Ark version, I'll just give you streptomycin.
Patient: Um... What are the newer drugs like?
Doctor: They're intelligently designed.

God bless Doonesbury, I say...

CUNKNOWN

Thursday, January 12, 2006 6:32 AM

I would like to point out something that may not have been emphasized enough in this thread, imo. In Darwin's time, the evidence for evolution was very strong. Although the fossil record and lack of a good method of inheritance (Mendelian Genetics wouldn't make its splash until later) were problems for the theory, it still seemed fairly clear that life wasn't static in the forms it took.

Today, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and any reasonable person is simply compelled to accept it. No, there isn't absolute "proof" per se that humans evolved from an ape-like primate, for example, but at the same time, there isn't really "proof" of anything if you want to get skeptical enough. Evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

In order to believe that life is static and never changes (or even that it never changes -much-), you have to be willfully ignorant of everything that is known in the field of biology today. Creationists talk a lot about, "Can they prove this??" "Where is the transitional form for this, huh??", but if they took even a small amount of time to actually study the basics of evolution with an open mind, they would realize their mistake. And besides, I'm sure many of those transitional forms have actually been found--have these Creationists been perusing the latest Paleontology journals lately? Have they made the slightest effort to find out if any of their questions have actually been answered by scientists yet? Of course not.

These "Seven Problems with Evolution" webpages are intellectually dishonest and don't even deserve a response. The proof for evolution is out there, if you make any effort at all you can find it.

VALICK

Thursday, January 12, 2006 6:54 AM

The only thing I have to say is How does something that wasn't there explode and make goo which then makes itself into something more intricate by the decade? I say, there is a God, he made a boom and evolution did take place. All happy, decided, no more arguing.

Why again are we talking about this on a Firefly website? I'd like to point out we all believe in something that we KNOW doesn't exist. Enough said

CITIZEN

Thursday, January 12, 2006 9:14 AM

Quote:
My sister in law is the head optic engineer of laser diagnostic inc., she says the speed of light is not a constant, so I accept that. But it's not unconstant in an ever diminishing way that would explain the astrological anomolies we see in space.

And she's absolutely right, the speed of light is not constant, the speed of light in a vacuum *is* constant, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. May seem like I'm being pedantic but the constant c being a constant is extremely important to modern physics

.

Quote:
but there's enough evidence to suspect that the universe is in fact a black hole within a larger universe. Also, there's no such thing as a singularity, that's an illusion.

I think that's something you need to take up with Hawking...

The mathematics work quite well to show that matter compresses in to an infinitesimally small point (a singularity) it's just at the point of singularity our current understanding of physics breaks down...
But how would the compressed particles and plasma (plasma is still comprised of particles, it's just superheated disassociated ionised matter) orbit a central point if there's nothing there to generate the gravitational centre?
I've never seen a supporting theory, or a mathematical model to support what you suggest in anyway is all...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

CITIZEN

Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:31 AM

I'm sorry, Valick, are we not discussing topics from your approved list? Can you tell us what we are allowed to talk about, thanks.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 12, 2006 1:35 PM

Chris,

Outside of the agenda for support of the presupposition like the Bible, et al., the concept of God is absurd. I think flying spaghetti monster *litterally* has more chance of success. It is rediculous, yes, but less so than God. I can actually envision the set of circumstances that would be necessary in order for the FSM situation to be possible, in order for God to possible a set of circumstances much be envisioned that would by necessity be almost totally delusional. Spending time considering the possibility might be like spending time considering the possibility that the Iraqis are going to respond to attacks by US forces by turning us into squirrels, and adjusting US strategy to account for such.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 12, 2006 1:48 PM

Citizen,

The speed of light in a vaccuum is also not constant, which does open the possibility for the variable speed of light theory, but accepting the theory out of hand is not wise, as the theory itself draws conclusions which don't follow, and it is probably false. If true, it would explain nothing, accept maybe a different expansion of the universe.

The mathematics are absurd, and were originally only meant as approximations. We don't need to know whether or not it is possible for matter to be compressed into a singularity, which I believe is not possible, because we already know it not to be so. If you haven't run into studies about the unstable nature of the black hole gravitational sense or its spin, both of which lead to the idea of something moving inside, or the random particles leaving a black hole, you could simple look up at the sky, knowing that you are inside a black hole, and figure that the behavior of this universe represents a macromodel of what behavior inside a black hole must be like

Furthermore, the idea of the big bang is absurd, and not supported by quantum mechanics. The concept of spontaneous particle generation is a misnomer, the particles are not generated out of nothing, they come to pass because of the interaction of energies. The spontaneous generation of a particle the mass of the universe is simply impossible. The spontaneous generation of a particle the mass of a walnut is exceedingly unlikely, if not impossible.

The universe was created very slowly, and no study of our universe is going to reveal that nature, since our universe is a black hole, and so probably got its material by sucking it in from whatever is outside.

PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE