Political opinions

you aren't an owl


and I agree with everything danice just said, entropy disproves evolution making things more complex

natural selection makes things more simple, and radiation cant add more genes, insert random letters into minecraft code and see what happens

tell me when you add a block that way

You guys aren't going to disprove evolution for the same reason I'm not going to disprove the existence of a god.

98% of all owls are atheist. Radiation messes around with the growing eggs of a being, and changes it. What doesnt work dies.

Wow, one day I did not check the forums and there are 5 pages of arguing. I cannot say I am surprised.

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

You guys aren't going to disprove evolution for the same reason I'm not going to disprove the existence of a god.

Well true, but this fact proves something that most scientists today don't like to hear. You can't disprove god because people don't believe it because of facts, but because of faith. And the same is with evolution. Scientists take it on faith that their god , millions of years, can cause creation. Its just another religion, but this one worshiping science.

Which is why I object to it being taught in schools. If your going to teach religious views, cover them all. If your not, stick to facts, not vague theories.

Danice123 wrote:

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

You guys aren't going to disprove evolution for the same reason I'm not going to disprove the existence of a god.

Well true, but this fact proves something that most scientists today don't like to hear. You can't disprove god because people don't believe it because of facts, but because of faith. And the same is with evolution. Scientists take it on faith that their god , millions of years, can cause creation. Its just another religion, but this one worshiping science.

Which is why I object to it being taught in schools. If your going to teach religious views, cover them all. If your not, stick to facts, not vague theories.

'

exactly my point(s)

although thinking that inserting random errors into the most complicated code system in the world and expecting it to 'evolve' is just... a fallacy

Danice123 wrote:

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

You guys aren't going to disprove evolution for the same reason I'm not going to disprove the existence of a god.

Well true, but this fact proves something that most scientists today don't like to hear. You can't disprove god because people don't believe it because of facts, but because of faith. And the same is with evolution. Scientists take it on faith that their god , millions of years, can cause creation. Its just another religion, but this one worshiping science.

Which is why I object to it being taught in schools. If your going to teach religious views, cover them all. If your not, stick to facts, not vague theories.

I have heard the 'Science is just another religion' line before, and all I can say is that it's bullcrap, you know it's bullcrap, I know it's bullcrap, so we shouldn't act like we don't.

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

Danice123 wrote:

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

You guys aren't going to disprove evolution for the same reason I'm not going to disprove the existence of a god.

Well true, but this fact proves something that most scientists today don't like to hear. You can't disprove god because people don't believe it because of facts, but because of faith. And the same is with evolution. Scientists take it on faith that their god , millions of years, can cause creation. Its just another religion, but this one worshiping science.

Which is why I object to it being taught in schools. If your going to teach religious views, cover them all. If your not, stick to facts, not vague theories.

I have heard the 'Science is just another religion' line before, and all I can say is that it's bullcrap, you know it's bullcrap, I know it's bullcrap, so we shouldn't act like we don't.

why the hell do you always clump actual science with the theory of evolution?

very little actual science relies on this, except for anthropology, and that's just stupid, it hasn't helped humanity at all

Evolution is real.

We have carbon dating and fossils showing that species go through change over time, the very definition of evolution.

The only counter to that I've heard is that 'God spent weeks making all the species and made changes!'

But again, carbon dating. And why would god leave the 'prototype' species to die out when they'd done nothing wrong? According to the Bible he's the 'loving god' whom 'cares about even the smallest sparrow'...it doesn't add up.

Whereas the scientific alternative makes perfect sense and is backed up by fact, and we can even see it in practice in our own modern lives. (iPhone 3 to iPhone 4S, Core2Duo to i3, etc). Unless you want to pull the conspiracy card...which kinda defeats any argument you make anyhow.

Evolution isn't just radiation messing with DNA. It's also caused by physical stimuli, it's even happening to you right now! Your wisdom teeth, they are whacking out and making odd shapes because you don't need them anymore. Also, dogs, how did they get from wolves to dogs? Humans bred them for specific things and their bodies changed to better fill those roles.

Sir Tielton wrote:

Evolution is real.

We have carbon dating and fossils showing that species go through change over time, the very definition of evolution.

The only counter to that I've heard is that 'God spent weeks making all the species and made changes!'

But again, carbon dating. And why would god leave the 'prototype' species to die out when they'd done nothing wrong? According to the Bible he's the 'loving god' whom 'cares about even the smallest sparrow'...it doesn't add up.

Whereas the scientific alternative makes perfect sense and is backed up by fact, and we can even see it in practice in our own modern lives. (iPhone 3 to iPhone 4S, Core2Duo to i3, etc). Unless you want to pull the conspiracy card...which kinda defeats any argument you make anyhow.

And he loves you and wants you go to hell if you do one tiny thing wrong.

Loving parents.

Yet another hole. I tend to lean more towards the JW interpretation since that's what I was raised as. There they say there's going to be Armageddon and after that all the good people go to paradise.

Much more sound, but still not quite believable. Essentially the writers of the Bible created a benevolent character who loves everyone, but then made him hate the things they hated.

Someone could just as easily write a book discriminating against Arabs and such and in a few centuries there'll be religions centered around it.

CoalMiningAlchemist wrote:

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

Danice123 wrote:

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

You guys aren't going to disprove evolution for the same reason I'm not going to disprove the existence of a god.

Well true, but this fact proves something that most scientists today don't like to hear. You can't disprove god because people don't believe it because of facts, but because of faith. And the same is with evolution. Scientists take it on faith that their god , millions of years, can cause creation. Its just another religion, but this one worshiping science.

Which is why I object to it being taught in schools. If your going to teach religious views, cover them all. If your not, stick to facts, not vague theories.

I have heard the 'Science is just another religion' line before, and all I can say is that it's bullcrap, you know it's bullcrap, I know it's bullcrap, so we shouldn't act like we don't.

why the hell do you always clump actual science with the theory of evolution?

very little actual science relies on this, except for anthropology, and that's just stupid, it hasn't helped humanity at all

No, it's not stupid. I call evolution science because it is. You can't refute evolution without eventually refuting everything. There're truckloads (literally) of evidence for evolution, and exactly one book that supports creationism, and quite frankly, enough of the other stuff in there is stupid to make me dislike the whole thing. John Scalzi's article on the Creationism Museum sums it up quite nicely.

You think anthropology is stupid?

Spoiler:

The stand will now go to the creationists.

I call God to the stand.

Sir Tielton wrote:

I call God to the stand.

*Whispers in Sir Tielton's ear* God's busy at the moment, we sent in Jesus instead...

Sir Tielton wrote:

Evolution is real.

We have carbon dating and fossils showing that species go through change over time, the very definition of evolution.

The only counter to that I've heard is that 'God spent weeks making all the species and made changes!'

But again, carbon dating. And why would god leave the 'prototype' species to die out when they'd done nothing wrong? According to the Bible he's the 'loving god' whom 'cares about even the smallest sparrow'...it doesn't add up.

Whereas the scientific alternative makes perfect sense and is backed up by fact, and we can even see it in practice in our own modern lives. (iPhone 3 to iPhone 4S, Core2Duo to i3, etc). Unless you want to pull the conspiracy card...which kinda defeats any argument you make anyhow.

Lets see...

Carbon dating is faulty. Mount St. Helen's dating was wayy off (before you start yelling this is an example of the faults of carbon dating, not that it isn't accurate). Plus it insinuates that the atmosphere and stuff has been the same for millions of years. Which I don't believe. Maybe carbon broke down slower/faster in the past or there might have been more/less it in the past. It's based on a HUGE assumption.

And the flood explains a lot. What if all those layers were created in a few months. And the reason that single celled organisms are fossilized at the bottom is that they are the only thing that died when the water was that low. And as the water became higher, ocean creatures started dying, then smaller land creatures, then the larger ones. Thus our fossils. And since Noah couldn't take more than one kind of animal into the ark, and since natural selection had been going on since Adam before that, many gene pools were left behind, explaining the differences between animals now and then.

ACH0225 wrote:

Evolution isn't just radiation messing with DNA. It's also caused by physical stimuli, it's even happening to you right now! Your wisdom teeth, they are whacking out and making odd shapes because you don't need them anymore. Also, dogs, how did they get from wolves to dogs? Humans bred them for specific things and their bodies changed to better fill those roles.

Thats called natural selection. Not evolution. A wolf turning into a dog is possible because they are similar, possibly the same kind of animal. Evolution is a fish turning into a dog, they aren't the same kind of animal. And I haven't seen that recently, have you?

Last_Jedi_Standing wrote:

No, it's not stupid. I call evolution science because it is. You can't refute evolution without eventually refuting everything. There're truckloads (literally) of evidence for evolution, and exactly one book that supports creationism, and quite frankly, enough of the other stuff in there is stupid to make me dislike the whole thing. John Scalzi's article on the Creationism Museum sums it up quite nicely.

Hey, did you know that up til about 200 years ago, creationism was the only theory? That the flood was generally accepted by scientists? Evolution is pretty new on the scene compared to creation, buddy.

Only because Church officials killed anyone who said otherwise, likely because they wanted their power safe and comfortable.

Need I say more?

I will say more. Theology=Dictatorship as far as I'm concerned. Individuals grasping power based on flawed principles.

Danice123 wrote:

Carbon dating is faulty. Mount St. Helen's dating was wayy off (before you start yelling this is an example of the faults of carbon dating, not that it isn't accurate). Plus it insinuates that the atmosphere and stuff has been the same for millions of years. Which I don't believe. Maybe carbon broke down slower/faster in the past or there might have been more/less it in the past. It's based on a HUGE assumption.

First of all, Mount St. Helen's is an volcano. Carbon dating works on lifeforms.

Danice123 wrote:

And the flood explains a lot. What if all those layers were created in a few months. And the reason that single celled organisms are fossilized at the bottom is that they are the only thing that died when the water was that low. And as the water became higher, ocean creatures started dying, then smaller land creatures, then the larger ones. Thus our fossils. And since Noah couldn't take more than one kind of animal into the ark, and since natural selection had been going on since Adam before that, many gene pools were left behind, explaining the differences between animals now and then.

So, Noah takes 1.7 million * 2 animals on board his ship, with what, a months notice?

Danice123 wrote:

Thats called natural selection. Not evolution. A wolf turning into a dog is possible because they are similar, possibly the same kind of animal. Evolution is a fish turning into a dog, they aren't the same kind of animal. And I haven't seen that recently, have you?

Because it is completely unreasonable to think that horses and cattle are related. Don't look the bit the same, don't have any similar genetic makeup, no fossils of something like a common ancestor.

Khmac wrote:

Sir Tielton wrote:

I call God to the stand.

*Whispers in Sir Tielton's ear* God's busy at the moment, we sent in Jesus instead...

Speaking of which, just what the **** is God doing through all this? He made us, he knows we're not perfect. He'd have predicted his son would die at our hands, so why bother?

Why not just come down and say "Hey dudes, I'll, like, be up here. Pray to me if you need anything. Halla!"

Keon wrote:

Danice123 wrote:

And the flood explains a lot. What if all those layers were created in a few months. And the reason that single celled organisms are fossilized at the bottom is that they are the only thing that died when the water was that low. And as the water became higher, ocean creatures started dying, then smaller land creatures, then the larger ones. Thus our fossils. And since Noah couldn't take more than one kind of animal into the ark, and since natural selection had been going on since Adam before that, many gene pools were left behind, explaining the differences between animals now and then.

So, Noah takes 1.7 million * 2 animals on board his ship, with what, a months notice?

Thats exactly what I didn't say. He didn't need to take every animal on earth on his boat. Just a few different kinds of them. Plus the boat was pretty big.

Also get your history right, it wasn't a MONTHs notice, try about 100 years.

Keon wrote:

Danice123 wrote:

Thats called natural selection. Not evolution. A wolf turning into a dog is possible because they are similar, possibly the same kind of animal. Evolution is a fish turning into a dog, they aren't the same kind of animal. And I haven't seen that recently, have you?

Because it is completely unreasonable to think that horses and cattle are related. Don't look the bit the same, don't have any similar genetic makeup, no fossils of something like a common ancestor.

I didn't say they were related?

Noah took in around 14 of every species, and was 600 years old (apparently) when God told him the Flood was coming, after building something the size of a modern day Battleship with his bare hands. Then it flooded for 7 months.

Granted, he was probably enlightened with 'Holy Spirit' so I'll give that the benefit of the doubt.