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:
Anonymous2005-09-28 12:06
it was made by god who killed it because he made a mistake or something like that
God doesn't make mistakes! Incidentally, shouldn't circumcision be considered sacrilegious? It's essentially saying that God made a mistake when he designed the penis and we need to remove part of it to correct that mistake.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-29 13:44
legendary thread
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-29 18:06 (sage)
sage for let it go
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-30 12:15
>>242
I wish 4chan word filters worked here. Snacks? (Around Snacks, word filters)
>>1
Well, a lot of people don't really know for certain what evolution theory is, however they will state they believe in evolution because other theories, like creationism, are retarded. Thus, people will have more faith in a theory they don't even know about rather than have faith in creationism.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-01 5:11
Just goes to show how crappy and pc our education system is
"I pledge [allegiance] some occasional recognition
to the [Flag] symbols of oppression
of the [United States] diverse indigenous peoples of [America] the landmass referred to by oppressive European conquistadors as "America"
and to the [Republic] totalitarian theocracy for which it stands,
[one nation,] a Balkanized patchwork of cultures,
[under God,] under each individuals' personal belief system
[indivisible,] divided into innumerable unique communities of culture,
[with liberty and justice for all.] where some are more equal than others.
>>248 would be happier living in Cuba... rite? (Or are Cubans trying to get the fuck out of their free, unopressed, indigenous, plural country as soon as they can??? Can't ask them because they're not allowed to browse the intarweb, lol.)
>>253 doesn't seem to understand how to display a sarcastic intention in a post and therefore is unsatisfied that fellow 4channers are not mind readers.
Sweet idea dude, let's go!
...
...
Is this a date?
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-11 12:21
go pvt?
Name:
krunzi2005-10-11 18:59
>>33 "If god were to explain the beginning of life to the people of today, he would describe it according to the actual scientific terms, don't you think?"
if God where to... lol wait, god's not going to explain anything, because "god can do everything" and "God" is too good to communicate, haha, maybe he'll tell you when you're dead and goes to heaven, which will be completely useless since you can't communicate with people on the physical side. so... god is pretty much useless if you want to know how things work? so why is it just right i should believe that God actually knows anything, just tell me WHY it is i should believe god as anything to do with anything, other than a 2000 year old book?
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-11 19:12
>>264
you don't have to believe. just respect the fact that they believe.
this is creationism vs. evolution. so you have to take as given that god is real for the argument.
Name:
krunzi2005-10-12 9:57
>>265
but that's pretty much why this discussion is so fucked up.
we have a bunch of people who believe in god, and for who believing that god is real is needed for their argumentation to be sure.
And we have a bunch of people who don't think god is real, and simply won't "assume" that god is real, for the sake of their counterparts theory to be true.
So untill someone "proves" that God is real, the discussion will never end. :S
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-13 8:51 (sage)
>>265 "this is creationism vs. evolution. so you have to take as given that god is real for the argument."
Only if you're a creationist and, accordingly, wrong. You never have to take God's existence as a given. That's why creationists draw fucked up conclusions and scientists don't. Chant it with me:
OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE ONLY
OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE ONLY
OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE ONLY
And inferences based ONLY on that evidence.
Despite criticism this is a valid point. If there is no God, then it makes no sense to talk about Creationism. Full stop.
Therefore, if you refuse to admit the possibility of God, it makes no sense to argue against Creationism. Full stop.
If one admits the possibility of God the argument makes sense; if not, it is precisely equivalent to arguing which is more aerodynamic, a unicorn or an F-16.
Name:
krunzi!ybkogoQQ362005-10-13 15:03
>>269
ohh come ON! everybody knows unicorns don't exist! DUH!
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-13 16:05
The F-16 is more aerodynamic than the unicorn. So do you mean that evolution rocks?
No, stfu, unicorns are perfectly aerodynamic. They are Riemann surfaces. Here is mathematical proof:
f : C \ {infinity} -> C, f(z) = z
g : C \ {0} -> C, g(z) = 1/z and g(infinity) = 0
See what I mean?
From a Euclidean perspective, they appear to have extension (i.e., take up space), but from the perspective of gravity and electro-magnetism, they are point objects. That's how they can appear to move faster than the speed of light, and travel through solid matter.
This is based largely on the Riemann-Hilbert work on Cthulhian hyper-extension, which allows extradimensional beings of inconceivable horror to rotate in 3 dimensions while holding still in their nth dimensional home.
Also, God exists and he's really angry at you.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-14 14:10
>>f : C \ {infinity} -> C, f(z) = z
>>g : C \ {0} -> C, g(z) = 1/z and g(infinity) = 0
Does that mean that unicorns are aerodynamic and that creationism rocks? I thought unicorns were mythological creatures (like creationism, in a way) that don't really exist. Oh yer, THEREFORE, WHAT UNICORN HAVE YOU TESTED THIS AERODYNAMIC SWEET UNICORN THEORY ON. I SEEM TO HAVE A FOUND A LITTLE WHOLE IN YOUR THEORY YOU RELIGIOUS PROPANGANDIST. GO BACK TO CHURCH YOU BIBLE BASHER.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-15 0:41
>>275
"No, stfu, unicorns are perfectly aerodynamic. They are Riemann surfaces."
No. Unicorns are solids embedded in R3. A Riemann surface must cover the complex plane. ^^
>>269
"Despite criticism this is a valid point."
No it's not.
"If there is no God, then it makes no sense to talk about Creationism. Full stop."
No. Whether or not something is realistic has nothing to do with whether or not talking about it makes sense. In fact, there is at least one thing that can always be stated sensibly about unrealistic scenarios: the fact that they are unrealistic.
"Therefore, if you refuse to admit the possibility of God, it makes no sense to argue against Creationism. Full stop."
It's not refusing to admit anything. A good scientist never refuses to admit anything. He simply states only what can be inferred from observable evidence (i.e. evolution; and no one had better get started on "evolution isn't observable"; do your homework and look up "infer"). And it still makes sense to say that Creationism /doesn't/ make sense. Disbelief in something doesn't mean you can't talk about it anymore. What are you, some kind of sense-or?
>>268
Lol, we study it. It's called archeology. Our behavior and it's evolution is study by Sociologists. Wow. Religious Conservatisim breeds serious ignorace :/
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-24 15:44 (sage)
This coming from a dev neuro grad. Science often is mistaken by people as absolute truth. Whereas, in actuality, it is merely expression and/or explanation of truths. Science is a tool people, a logical method of approach to queries. To enslave yourself to your own tool defeats the very logic from which said tool originated. One must remain flexible when out to seek what one may not know. So when one completely writes off that which is not currently recognized as science, one succumbs to the same forces that plague much of organized religion. That is, he forgoes his own wisdom to make room for the intellect of others. "Blind worship" to those hating on religion. "Idolatry" to christians, among others, hating on science.
Remember that science is not the reason we have five fingers, but it explains the shit out of how we end up with five fingers. My personal conclusion thus far on the so-called creationism vs. evolution debate is that it's all one and the same. Consider the very crayola fundamentals of superstring theory. If God is as omni-everything as his camp says he is, then he is HUGE. Compared to us, who are TINY. So what was a mere thought to him can be eons of evolution to us. Did the first cell precursors not arise in clay substrate submerged in the "soup"? And the name Adam also has certain roots in an ancient word, adoma(serious sp), meaning clay.
Just remember how we can never be absolutely sure that there is no "higher" consciousness in the animals and bacteria we manipulate in the lab. You can't see the world as a bird if you're not a bird. And it follows that the things larger than us, like those smaller than us, will be just as impossible to fully comprehend. We can discover it, name it, analyze and manipulate it to invoke reproducible results. But we can't be it. At least, not with the collective consciousness we have today.
Name:
Anonymous2005-10-24 20:05
Evolution is not a theory, it is a friggin' FACT. Anyone with the least bit of knowledge in the mathematics and mechanisms involved will be able to see this. And if you don't have such knowledge, then you have no business making an opinion about it. But go ahead anyway, you'll at least seem to be intellectual to the other half-wits who don't understand it either. I know I'm being terribly arrogant and pompous, but I'm RIGHT, AMIRITE? RICHARD DAWKINS FTW!11//1!1