It sickens me how many people in this country don't believe in evolution. I heard a statistic that it's around half, but I doubt it's that many. Science is about rational thought and testable ideas and experiments. Rejecting the scientific theory of the origin of the human race is like not believing in friction, saying something like that it's god's will that things don't move infinitley. Even though most fundamental scientific principles are proved indirectly at first (like the spherical nature of the earth), when we are able to directly observe it, we are right because it has been tested indirectly so much. Religious extremists dismiss evidence like fossils as "tricks by god to test our faith" or something like that. I bet if someone took a born again christian or another religious extremist in a time machine back 65 million years ago, observed dinosaurs, and returned, they would still reject their direct observations as "hethanistic trickery" or something like that. Courts have ruled in some places that scientific arguments in favor of creationism can be taught in public schools, what will they have to show? This intelligent design theory they yammer about is nothing more than pseudoscience, and a lazy underestimation of the power and magnitude biodiversity, natural selection, and time can accomplish.
Name:
Anonymous2005-08-30 14:38
Did creationists create evolutionists or did evolutionists evolve from creationists?
>>201
Evolutionists evolved from stupid forms of life to smart, while creationists are clearly not evolutionist.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-04 12:32
age
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-08 11:43
Scientists don't really know how evolution works; it describes some unknown and undefinable mechanism of biological change. There are many good ideas about species variation, but none really explain what drives evolution, and of course it has never been observed first hand anywhere.
Evolution is paradoxically impossible not to believe. Science can only deal with what is observable and repeatable, and any new ideas about how evolution works are going to fall within the framework of "naturalistic" biological changes, with the result that whether god did indeed have a hand in it becomes irrelevant.
However, the inability of scientists to produce an acceptable model of evolution's mechanism, effectively associates any change at all that is scientifically observable in the natural world to be assimilated into an overarching, consolidated grand-evolutionary theory. Basically, CHANGE = EVOLUTION, it comes down to that.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-08 11:51
>>183
I find this digression on chi to be quite hilarious. It reminds me of the time a I read a quotation in a popular magazine which went something along the lines of "Western science is now beginning to see the dissolution of the barriers between food and medicine". Of course anyone with any knowledge at all of so called "Eastern" medicine will realise they had known it for millenia.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-08 12:30
Yes, but how much of eastern philosophy isn't pure baloney? There's a lot of untestable statements that lead to superstition and magical thinking.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-08 12:51
What are you saying? philosophy is all crap?
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-08 13:16
No, it just makes claims that can't be proven/disproven, although some of it may be accurate
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-08 17:51
>>205
"Scientists don't really know how evolution works; it describes some unknown and undefinable mechanism of biological change."
Truth. They would have you believe that such mutations are random and weeded out through natural selection. Yet what they are proposing is a severe statistical improbability... even given millions of years. The fact that evolution occures is very apparent, but the current theory on how it occures is hard to believe. I want to see some radical ground breaking ideas on what else might be a driving force of evolution.
>>212
With that attitude, even the Earth will turn to be evolutionary inferior and we'll fuck up ourselves without having had a chance to expand.
It's not like we should protect endangered animals, it's like we should STOP FUCKING KILLING THEM FOR FUCKS SAKE!
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-10 20:08
>>214
LOL, you think we can destroy the Earth? You overestimate humans. Unless we blow it literealy into pieces, this planet survived being nothing but volcanos. Im pretty sure it can survive any nuclear annialation of all living things that we can come up with.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-10 20:29
>>215
It might be so, but if we destroy ourselves, we prove us evolutionary shitty, but we have killed millions of other species in the process, which makes me think we are a stupid virus that shouldn't have existed in the first place.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-10 20:48
Watch more George Carlin.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-10 23:12
>>216
millions of species have died on the Earth many many times. IT'S ALL A CYCLE, WOT.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-11 5:54
>>218
It's not a cycle to throw shit into rivers until everything dies. I call it "retardation".
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-11 11:08
"The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic...plastic came out of the earth, the earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children...could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place: it wanted plastic for itself, didn't know how to make it, needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old philosophical question...why are we here? Plastic, assholes."
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-11 20:09
Please stop with the pretending the earth is alive.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-12 7:27
>>221
THE EARTH HAS MAGNETIC FIELDS DUE TO A MOLTEN SPINNING CORE BUT IT IS NOT ALIVE
infinite worlds, perhaps an entity just decided to make his own...much as we would make our own forum out of invision or what not, or how moot made 4chan, and is now revered. He did'nt create the code, he just put it here, and drew us to it. On another note, the problem of the mind being just meat.
I like to think of the mind as our interface to the body. Basically, our "souls'" way of controlling this vast piece of machinery. Much like you need a computer to access the internet. Who knows, maybe the body is just a shield for the body. AT field anyone?
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-15 20:51
Cryptic stuff.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-16 1:23
>>229
You fool. moot IS a god. Now bow down before him you heathen.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-16 2:35
I can imagine that somewhere in the far future 4chan has gained independent consciousness and realise ZOMG humans are the pox. Then it will vaccinate itself against us. EVOLUTION FTW.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-16 9:02
>>232
Perhaps it will become aethiest and deny the existance of a moot.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-19 13:47
Creationists believe in micro-evolution, not macro-evolution; ie. they believe that viruses/bacteria can evolve to defend against new medicines or that dogs can evolve into new breeds.
They don't believe in macro-evolution which is chimpanzees evolving into humans or amphibians evolving from aquatics.
It's like God made a chimpanzee and then tweaked a bit here and took away some hair and voila: humans. Or to better fit the Bible, God made humans and then modified the human genes and a chimp appears. Because chimps are just cute, you know.
The reason I hate the micro-evolution argument is because it is difficult to argue against, but formed by the pure stubborness of the creationists.
"God must exist, but this evolution argument is a tough one, therefore lets merge the two" = micro-evolution.
I'd ask them to explain the dinosaur.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-19 19:46
>>234
Believers have a hard time believing in what seems too grand for their little heads.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-19 20:38
>>236
Or maybe they just don't believe in macro-evolution.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-20 7:22
>>235 "The reason I hate the micro-evolution argument is because it is difficult to argue against"
Hahaha that makes you no better than a creationist
Name:
Mothra!DWDMFPPpRw2005-09-27 12:47
The micro-evolution argument is bullshit. Prove that some mechanism exists to stop small changes from accumulating to form large change and go win the Nobel prize for it, then I might look at it.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-27 15:20
>>239
you can't prove the opposite of that either. fossils don't count because the creationists can just say that it was made by god who killed it because he made a mistake or something like that. humans just have not had a long enough history to see and record changes from one species to another.