That's a good point. How long until they turn back into amoeba's?

Wait, it's the opposite of that you are trying to convince me of.

Everytime someone says "just a theory" do a shot.



 

Gravity may just be a theory, but if I let go of a hammer 10 feet above your head, it doesn't matter what you believe, you're gonna get knocked out.

Same thing with evolution vs creationism, it really doesn't matter what we believe. We're here, we can't change history, and we'll continue to piss each other off over trivial shit like this.

I've heard almost all of those dozens and dozens of times.







 

But there's no way to prove that without the theory of gravity.



Without understanding gravity, why does everything go "down"? Can it choose to go up sometimes?



 

Mount St. Helens Lava? I haven't heard that one.

The hurt is strong here. I get that you and others in this thread disagree with Christians or Religious people but the way a lot of you project yourselves really hurts your position from a standpoint of effective communication.

I think Subnet is on point with these types of issues.  Sometimes you gotta live and let live.

How does me believing in God ruin your day?

You? Probably doesn't.





Other people who want to replace science education with religion? That's a different story.





 

And I'm the jackass troll?.....

I'm a man of science,  but I don't pretend to understand everything in the universe. And I certainly won't attempt to discredit any theories that were formulated and greatly suppported by people FAR smarter than me.

But I do know, for a fact, than when hit on top of the head with a hammer, from 10 feet, you will wake up on the ground.

I am already drunk.  

Are you seriously saying that you don't see those exact phases by creationists in every one of these threads?





Seriously.  Its not attacking anyone. Its not belittling religion.  Its simply acknowledging the facts that these talking points will always come up in every creationist thread.





Its practically a law of physics.



ETA::Hell, some of them are in the OP.





 

Not all that concerned about when Humans started writing and then reading; the Navajo code talkers during WWII were selected BECAUSE they had a vocal history (I don't remember anything unless I write it down).

Here's what I'd like to know: at what point did Humans figure out how to start and manage FIRE? Or did we always have that ability?

The apes in the jungle don't set the woods on fire, then run away!

And interestingly enough those same children would believe in a god vs. evolutionary "happenings".  You see God Himself put in us the desire to realize He exists. We have to suppress our nature to try and prove that God does not exist.

Why do we need sleep? Why do we laugh? Even your unlearned babies from this experiment would laugh at something they thought was funny without being "trained" to do so. How does a baby know something is funny? Why because it was put into us by God.

Evolution is an idea that things evolve to get better. Really???  What in the universe winds up? Your born and then you begin to deteriorate. You buy a new car and it deteriorates. The sun is deteriorating. Nothing but mans stupidity evolves.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  No other religious book starts off with such a profound statement. In that first verse you can settle all of mans problems. Quit relying on man, and turn back to your creator! Now God knew that we could not relate to Him. So He Himself came to us in a form we can relate to. That form was Jesus Christ=God in the flesh. He was and is the ONLY thing that can save your eternal soul. Nothing else! You cannot outsmart God, but you can understand when you come to him through His human form Jesus Christ. Where are all the other religious leaders today? The popes, Muhammad's, Buddhas, etc....In a grave! Where is the One who can save you?  I will give you a clue, He ain't in no grave. Folks science will do everything to prove God wrong, but in the end it simply will not work. All you have to do is realize that you are a sinner, and ask Jesus Christ to save you. Just believe in Him and let Him show you. Simply and sincerely say Lord Jesus, be merciful to me a sinner. I do now receive you as my personal Saviour. Please save me.  

I would agree with that. I think a religious person should value science.

As far as one replacing the other,  in current educational environments from grammar school through college,  the push is on the side of science and the idea of a creator is the one under attack.

No, but you weren't interested in the correct description because it would just interfere with your rant. Right?

Actually, probably not. I recall reading a few articles about the idea in the movies that a blow on the head would reliably knock someone out (apparently without causing serious brain damage in the process). They related a few items from medical journals where people came in to hospitals with trenches in their head where someone had whacked them with a pipe and the people were still conscious. From what they said, knockouts are far more likely to happen from things like arm punches where the head and nerves are snapped.

So . . . science over mythical stories. Too bad they didn't do this one on Mythbusters.

Your argument would be dismissed less easily if you had an understanding of what you're arguing against.  Search every (scholarly) book on evolution, and you will find nothing about "better." "Better equipped to survive?" Yes, but there is no overarching, evolutionary goal such as "bettering" a species. Evolution isn't a straight line with bacteria on one end and the goal of intelligent apes on the other. Something that can live longer and make more offspring is does so...that's about it.

I absolutely don't believe in creationism, but I at least understand it enough to discuss the subject at hand without making wildly incorrect statements.

As to "why do babies laugh," I would recommend googling the phrase "biological basis of behavior," should you ever be genuinely curious as to why we (and other animals) act like we do.



Religious people seem to value science as long as they can warp it to meet their beliefs, or they can directly benefit from it. I don't see many religious people raging against the internet and other things that make life more comfortable.

Maybe you missed the not so subtle hint in that post.

As in, this happened to me. In real life. And I got knocked the fuck out.

Got any proof?

No, it isn't.

Irrelevant. Norse mythology says Odin rid the land of frost giants. I don't see any of those around. So because it makes a grandiose claim, with some evidence to back it up, that means it should get equal weight as your chosen religion, right?

 The story of Christianity isn't a big surprise here in the west. You aren't going to convince anyone by just repeating it.

You were lucky. The point being that the method is unreliable.

Why can't you "buy" that?

It's not like Apollo came down from Mount Olympos and granted writing to humanity.  

"Modern" humans, initially, weren't much different than "archaic" humans.  Most likely scavengers in small hunter/gatherer bands armed with crude stone tools and weapons.  These bands would be pure nomads, literally carrying all they owned, and the world was a very scary place at that point in time with lots of very large predators that could easily kill several humans.

Now, imagine you are living 200,000 years ago.  You are veritable genius.  the einstein of your generation.  You are a member of a small family band of 20-30 members.  Your primary concerns are getting enough food to survive, defending yourself against predators, and defending yourself against raids from neighboring tribes.

Now, again, imagine, out of pure spontaneous genius, you figure out how to scratch symbols into the dirt that represent your guttural language.  Alas, dirt doesn't last very long.  You don't know how to fire clay to create clay tablets.  Paper - well, that doesn't exist yet.  Lets say you are really a genius and you figure out how to create all of this so you can pass knowledge down to your tribe.  Well, that works great, but while you were working on those things, the genius in the neighboring tribe was working on how to kill more effectively, and his tribe comes in and kills you.

Oh, and about 70,000 years ago, the human population was reduced to about 2000 breeding pairs.

Paper, and even fired clay tablets don't survive very well over tens of thousands of years, I suspect.  Especially when many of the coastal areas that existed back then have since flooded with the retreating of the glaciers.

So maybe we did have writing.  Chances are, writing was invented multiple times before dark ages swallowed up societies.

Knowledge accumulation is a classical example of a network effect.  The more knowledge, the more knowledge is generated, and the faster it is accumulated.

But starting out, the only thing people have to work with was oral tradition and skills passed down from elder to novice.  It took a long time for people to figure out even basic animal husbandry and agriculture.

Sigh. Evolution is CHANGE. Not necessarily change for the better - but change. It explains quite well the changes we see in the variety of life on earth.  It does not mean there is no God. It does mean that God used a natural process he created form the world we see today, vs willing it into magic. Nothing in nature or science will disprove God, as they are his constructs.

But at the same time believing in a literal Genesis is incorrect. You can learn about the world around you, accept it, and still except God and Christ.

Um, if you think this is what evolution is, you are grossly ignorant of evolutionary "theory".

Evolution, simply defined, is that allelic frequency changes over generations.

Are you identical to your father?  Nope, nor are you identical to your mother.  

This is also the primary hypothesized mechanism behind speciation.  You know all those infertile couples out there where the wife has good eggs and the guy has good sperm?  There are ring-species of birds that can interbreed continuously throughout their population range, but the two groups furthest from each other are unable to breed with each other - the beginning of speciation into two different (or more) species.

Most evolution is circular, not linear progress going up, endlessly getting better.

We are slowly coming to the realization that most evolution is driven by parasites, not predator-prey relationships, and most sexual fitness cues are indicators of parasite resistance.  Big heads.  Male peacock tails.  These are expensive to grow.   We don't need to be as smart as we are.  Peacock tails don't help them survive...at all.  But they signal fitness, an ability to shrug off parasitic infection.

Parasite / bug / germ / virus arises, wipes out 90% of the population, leaving 10% immune.  Remaining population passes their resistance on to next generation, virus fades back into the background.  Gene for resistance is no longer necessary, so it slowly starts working it's way out of the population until it flares back up again, wiping out most of the population.  On and on it goes.

You are the first person to go on my ignore list.

How? by not mentioning it?



 

I'm not sure if you are serious but my point is that big bang is in and intelligent design is out.  Has been trending that way for some time.

Quick question. Do you believe in man made global warming or have an issue with oil spills that do not effect coastal habitats?

God of the Gaps.

I do not understand, therefore, god!

Intelligent design is not science, so of course it shouldn't be taught in science class.





End of story.



Is astrology under attack because all they teach is astronomy now?
 

I believe that the Chinese calendar also only goes back around 6,000 years, though you should check me on that since I'm working from memory.

But, speaking of the Theory of Evolution, it's pretty much at odds with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Then there's The Flood.  Numerous cultures have a tale of a world wide flood.  If that happened around 6,000-8,000 (just to pick some numbers out of the air) it might take until 4,000 BC to start building up population again.

Just some thoughts for you here.

No, its not at odds with the second law of thermodynamics.






You don't understand evolution, thermodynamic, or both.



First and foremost is the fact that the earth isn't a closed system.






Second is if you think evolution is against the second law of thermodynamics, do you also think selective breeding is against the law of thermodynamics?
You too should get a refund on your science education.
Worldwide flood myths? Easily explained by ancient people seeing fossils in limestone deposits and making up stories.
 

Evolution is the changing of organisms over time. Enough changes end up as a sub-division of a overal species. But a change is still evolution.

Humans having multiple-faceted aspects of evolvement. Ever been to Colonial housing? Notice how the doors are so short? Theirs a reason...

Ah.... The internet;  where idiots argue who's the bigger idiot.... Damn its entertaining.

Congratulations, you win!




 

Not very good ones though.  Evolution is in no way at odds with the second law, and the fact you think it is shows you don't understand the second law any more than you understand evolution.  The second laws says "IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, entropy will increase over time. Earth is NOT a closed system.  

As for flood myths...well, Golly Gee, what a shock it is that many civilizations would  have flood myths considering MOST civilizations are built on the flood plains of river valleys.

And the idea you propose at the end is far from new, too.  St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, posited that the non-literal reading of days and of the creation process in general in Genesis is the more rational one, although barring more evidence, either one could be true given God's nature.  There is no real biblical reason why the Earth cannot be billions of years old, and the universe billions of years older, and there is no reason based on empirical evidence to believe conclusively that God or some other form of creator or grand architect of the universe does not and cannot exist.

So that is why they have been seeing evidence of a global flood around the world?

I would disagree, also, with evolution is against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Hence I gave an example.

Warning: The usual anti-creationist arguments don't work on me. In-fact I challenge many creationists I see to understand evolutionary science in a different perspective. I have won over quite a few but some cling to a very stern interpretation of creationism. Kinda like when Galileo was throwing out ideas about heavenly bodies. Some Christains saw what he was seeing & moved forward with their own research. Darwin, Newton & many others that are the founders of modern science were creationists that simply tried to understand creation. It is arrogantly postulous of modern man to say he now has all the answers, however.

Who is they?



 

Well, duh, creationists!

incorrect.  we can only witness the effects of gravity.  what gravity is can't be observed.

Evidence of a global flood? Got a source on that one?

If you don't want the same old anti creationist talking points, then come up with an original objection. Again, Talk Origins covers most of them. I would actually love to hear something new, instead of the same "2nd Law," "why do we have monkeys," and "water firmament" bullshit.

no one authorized rational thinking in this thread.

cut that shit out.

Exactly.
 

Intelligent design is just as scientific as the big bang. They are both theories.  

You never answered my questions.

No, Intelligent Design is NOT a Theory.

No.
Please look up what "Theory" means in a scientific context.

Not one that can currently be tested via the scientific method, anyways.  It is also a theory that may very well never be one to which the scientific method can be applied due to human limitations and the grand nature of the question.  Perhaps one day we'll be able to test it and find some evidence in its favour, but I doubt we'll ever reach the point where, simply using empirical methods, we can arrive at the truth in a fully conclusive manner.  Given the grand nature of the question, the scale of which brings our humanity into the proper perspective in the context of the universe, it would make sense for God to provide other means to arrive at the truth, i.e. means other than empiricism.  He gave us the capacity for reason, he gave us intuition as part of our nature, and he gave us the capacity for faith, which is necessary to accept the veracity of divine revelation.  Men can and have arrived at the truth of other things via reason, intuition, and divine revelation, and they are valid means to expand the knowledge of the world, physical or otherwise, in combination with empirical methods.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Scientific_theory
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory

Please click on at least one of these links. If something hasn't been and can't be tested, it is, by definition, NOT a theory.

I'm using the word theory in the broader sense than that used by the previous poster.