Evolution is a DIRTY LIE (129)

1 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-05-16 15:43 ID:fM7LLXTR

http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta07/ERES1580.htm

> 1. The aim of this report is not to question or to fight a belief – the right to freedom of belief does not permit that. The aim is to warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science. It is necessary to separate belief from science. It is not a matter of antagonism. Science and belief must be able to coexist. It is not a matter of opposing belief and science, but it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science.

Stopped reading there.

There is NO evidence of evolution. It is a belief. Objective science doesn't support evolution no matter how many frauds and hoaxes are fabricated to support evolution. The truth always trickles out.

Life doesn't just happen. That alone totally defies the Laws of Science.

The Judeo Christian G-D, made it happen. G-d is the Author of all science. It is no coincidence that leading evolutionists are atheists. THAT is by design. These atheistic evolutionists do not find G-d acceptable in their premises. Their premise is that there is NO G-D.

Professing to be wise they have become fools .... intolerent fools.

2 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-05-16 15:49 ID:SpB9jiV2

Obvious troll is obvious.

3 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-05-16 16:00 ID:Heaven

4 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-05-16 17:12 ID:K91n0BQm

>>1, in the unlikely event that you are not just yanking our chains, can you provide empirical evidence for any of the quite astonishing claims you've just made?

If you come here seeking civil debate you will find many willing to oblige you. If you're just copypasting silliness trying to get a rise out of us, 4chan is that way -->

5 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-05-16 17:42 ID:j9/FZ79V

>G-d

It's a Jewish troll.

6 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-05-16 17:52 ID:zt36k23t

There is NO evidence that bullets cause gunshot wounds. There are numerous wounds that occur without bullets, and the vast majority of bullets are never connected to any wound.

Police, criminals, and the gun lobby want us to believe that guns can hurt people, but it is only a belief, not science. Have you ever SEEN a bullet enter a real body? No one has! - The so-called evidence is controlled by the police and gun manufacturers, who want to use guns to control you!

7 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-05-16 23:29 ID:Q4Om2pYp

There is NO evidence that sex causes babies. Sure, people say the do, but that's such obvious bullshit.

8 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-05-17 01:42 ID:aF1OEemS

ITT our reductio ad absurdam threatens to become reductio ad nauseam instead.

9 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-05-20 04:15 ID:Heaven

or reductio ad hominem
in which case I'm still waiting for the hurt little girl to come out and convert us

10 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-06-06 20:24 ID:AN+kugUp

If there is a god, I doubt he is proud of his creation. No "god" would allow poverty, starvation, totalitarian dictators, and republicans. No god would allow this shit. Period.

12 Name: The Chemist : 2008-06-22 03:43 ID:Lr1/71Aj

Its a theory, not a proof. So you cannot say its false or true. Its far more believeable an explanation than God, or so it seems.

13 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-06-22 04:42 ID:K91n0BQm

>>12
You can test the predictions the theory makes. If the theory makes predictions that observation shows to be false, the theory is wrong.

14 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-06-22 09:07 ID:IdjkH+nc

>>1 = JAPANESE IS LIAR THERE IS NO COREAN SEX ARMY ON EARTH!!!!!!

15 Name: The Chemist : 2008-06-22 17:32 ID:Lr1/71Aj

You can't test evolution

16 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-06-22 20:19 ID:K91n0BQm

>>15
Evolution is change in allele frequencies over time in a breeding population. How is this not testable?

17 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-06-22 21:04 ID:pcNyygQy

It is actually possible to make predictions about things that have already happened, you simply predict that no evidence will ever be uncovered to contradict your hypothesis. In the context of evolution we would not expect to find a rabbit in the pre-cambrian, and therefore predict that no rabbit fossils dating to that era shall ever be uncovered.

18 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-06-27 23:16 ID:izkHTMI1

>>14
WAT

19 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-06-29 06:57 ID:rMkpViyq

>>16

I think he meant you cant test macroevolution

20 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-06-29 20:27 ID:PukKZGZD

>I think he meant you cant test macroevolution

And >>17 pointed out that you can.

21 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-06-30 00:27 ID:rMkpViyq

>>20
isn't what >>17 is saying borders, "if i can't see it, it doesn't exist" line of thought?

22 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-06-30 13:21 ID:FD+iuUA0

This just in: Evolution of a significant new trait observed in lab. Macroevolution pretty much proven to exist. ( http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/conservapedias-evolutionary-foibles.ars/1 )

>>21
Actually, no. >>17 just laid down a simple way to disprove evolution: If any fossils were found in a layer of the earth that could not, according to evolutionary theory, possibly be in that layer - due to not existing yet when that layer formed - then that would be evidence suggesting that evolution is wrong.

So far, all fossils that have been found formed at just the time evolutionary theory would suggest they have. It's not like no one is looking - it's just that it's pretty likeley that such evidence simply happens to not exist, and the evolution is indeed right.

23 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-07 18:31 ID:Bd6y8aj4

>>21
furthermore, while religion likes to be absolutist, science is just the opposite. There is no 100% chance of anything (thank you entropy theory). We can be 99.999999999999999999999999999999^to the googolplex power % sure of something but never 100%. we have not proven macroevolution and science does not claim this. we have shown that it is by far the most likely possibility. we have also shown that by contrast, creationism as currently presented is ALMOST completely unlikely (0% also doesnt exist in science. u see how science doesnt rule shit out entirely because it recognizes the possibility of the undiscovered?) Evidence suggests that we evolved from things. Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a myth. The difference here is that to be a theory, you must present a criterion that can be either supported or discredited EMPIRICALLY. Creationism relies on supernatural explanations which, by deifinition, cannot be naturally or empirically explained or meassured. Creationists like to claim anything evolution cannot currently account for as proofs for creationism. Thats like saying that because a car does not contain any red pigment in its' paint, it is proven to be blue. The conclusion does not follow the prmeise, and is, therefore a FAILURE! now if you wanted to reconcile the 2, you could say that god is an amoeba and created us in his image (that of primordial slime) and that "eating the fruit of knowledge" was a metaphore for the beginins of evolution. both science and chrisitanity agree that we are all made of dust (various forms of star dust, according to science). but thats up to you if you want to reconcile the 2. bottom line, creationism is not science because it does not measure things empirically. evolution is a theory but it is one that has sufficient evidence to be the current standing truth. Science is always open to change, provided you can back it up.

tl;dr OP is either stupid or a troll. creationism isnt science; evolution is. threads over; pool's closed.

24 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-07 21:52 ID:aF1OEemS

>>23, the problem is that you are rational and reasonable, and wiling to change your model of the world if new evidence becomes available.

One does not "believe in" evolution. Or gravity. Or relativity. Or electrons.

One provisionally accepts them as useful models that help us think about the world, pending empirical evidence that shows them to be false.

Religion on the other hand is all about "believing in" things, and refusing to change one's mind no matter what.

25 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-08 19:07 ID:Bd6y8aj4

>>24

"provisionally accepting" something is "believing" in it. you just have a rational reason for it. it ceases to be faith when logic is involved.you don't have "faith" in science but you do "believe" in it. bu i agree. thats why i can truthfully call myself agnostic. i am not bound to allegiance one way or the other. am i biased? of course. im biased AGAINST religion. I admit it. im not virulently against it but i am heavily against it because i lack the capacity for faith. i fuction through logic and reason and that means i am enslaved to empiricism. if, without the use of drugs, i experiences something "supernatural" in nature (ie god talks to me, i walk miraculously after being a paraplegic with no scientific reasoning, i see an angel, ect) and others see it to 9so as to rule out dumb luck or dilusions) i will believe in said supernatural being/effect because i now have empirical proof (i experienced it first hand). I would not be able to prove this unless i could recreate the scenario because the proof would only be temporary. i would, however, accept it. if you want a mystical experience, you can believe whatever you wants and take psychedelic drugs to experience what you believe in. garuanteed to make you "see" god or whatever else you believe in. i need proof. thats all. im willing to accept that i am wrong, that sience fails, and that the bible is truth... just as soon as i am with a group of my atheist friends and we see god or the pacific parts for us and is ombserved and recorded. if that happens, i would automatically become the MOST fundamentalist believer of whatever faith said being comanded me to because i would have PROOF that this is a superior being. until then, i cannont do so. Bear in mind, at high enough levels of math and science, physics, logic, and math FAIL. ultimately, beyond the subatomic level of neutrons, protons, and electrons, science fails. all of science ultimately boils down to chaos, giving credende to the idea that everything was born from chaos. hence entropy and dark matter and dark energy (qwhich science hypothesises comprise 90% of the universe). there is much that science doesnt answer.

26 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-08 19:14 ID:Bd6y8aj4

(>>25 continued)

Further more, i dont feel comfortable just saying that god answers what science doesnt. to me, that insults both science and "god" or any other divinity you put in that place. That reduces the divine to whatever we don't understand. That means that god shrinks as our knowledge expands. it also means that it makes science gods rival. and that is stupid, arrogant, and disruptive for both sides. it means that following science is effectively attempted Deicide (god killing). it also promotes willful ignorance in the name of religion. BAD approach. Science is not perfect but nothing in the universe is. not even god (if you believe in him). if he were perfect he would not have made something which he knew would fail him (humanity). if the christian god was perfect, he would have known the free will involves suffering and that his creating would not obey him. he may be nigh perfect. but he has made errors. (once again bearing in mind that u postulate that he exists.)
if there is a religion that hope is true, it would have to be wicca. at least in that respect, everything lives, dies, and is reborn and the god/goddess duo are merely observers. it leave people free to do as they wish and assume responsibility for their actions or inactions.

27 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-08 19:27 ID:Bd6y8aj4

>>24

also bear in mind that you are grossly overgeneralizing when you say, "Religion on the other hand is all about 'believing in' things, and refusing to change one's mind no matter what."

That is false. Hinduism and buddhuism are quite the opposite. Particularly zen buddhism. They all hold that knowledge is the key to enlightenment and freedom from rebirth and that therefor, you should alter your way of life as you become more enlightened. Zen, in particular, holds that one can only learn things first hand, as no second hand knoledge is sufficient. Only first hand experience will suffice to zen buddhists. a popular zen story tells of a zen monk who was asked how deep the Zen River was wilste standing on a bridge. He immediataly grabbed the person who wasked him and would have thrown him into the river if he had not been stopped by onlookers. The monk wanted the person who asked him to go to the bottom of the river to measure it himself. Zen holds that all outside help for knowledge is futile. And this has some merrit. You can read books all you want but until you actually get experience, it is all theoretical knowledge and is worthless. Thats why when you leave law school, you have to start as an intern or junior attorney. Thats why to be a teacher you must be an interns before you get your credentials. you lack experience and must gain first hand experience before you're deemed worthy to teach.

hinduism and buddhism have MANY different schools and denominations which are so large that they could be seen as their own religions. and they all mandate one gain person knowledge and alter their world view accordingly. and they all venerate knowledge. why do you think Ghandi is so respected. he was a hindu monk. inspite of the fact that he was racist against black people, he insisted that people learn from the past. he knew violent revolts would not defeat the worlds greatest empire but civil resistance would and so, he urged people to change their method of revolt. and it worked.

lumping religion into a big pile like that falls into the same trap that most religions do. not all christianity is blind. there are many liberal forms of christianity that view the bible as largely metaphorical. i just dont believe it because it lacks empirical evidence

28 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-09 10:28 ID:xiB1jNQ4

This 'evolution is a lie!' stuff is such an American phenomenon. Europe, for example, simply accepts that it is the best explanation for what we can observe, which is possible a result of the more secular society to be found here.

29 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-09 16:07 ID:Bd6y8aj4

>>28
Yes but you forget, we're "stupid Americans" over here. Look at who we elected for president... TWICE! Believe it or not, he is (sadly) an accurate representation of the educational level of the average American citizen. I'm not talking about the people that live in the cities. I'm talking about the vast majority of the US population that lives in rural or suburban areas. They are horrendously ignorant. Most cannot find Africa on a map. They are poorly educated and those that are aware of their lack of education do not care. The average American finds it far easier and more gratifying to act like their everyday life is another visit to 4chan's /b/. They are ignorant, bigoted, intollerant, virulently xenophobic, pro-government, and jesus obssessed. The very concept of objective thought, reason, and logic are almost tantamount to heresy in most of the country. With the exceptions of Wisconsin, florida and texas, this patern is easily observed. All the states that have one or more of our " MegaMetropolae" ( cities like L.A, New york City, San Fransisco, Chicago, Boston, ect) are all blue states - politically liberal. They have a tendancy toward more european policies like universal health care and huge social welfare programs. Florida, Louisiana, Alaska, the New England States, and Texas are the exceptions. Lousisiana is primarily rural and suburban but it is included because it has New Orleans (a HUGE city ) and is a red state - basically leaning towards fascism minus the death camps. The states that are primarily rural and have no Megacities tend to be red states. The notable exceptions are the new england states, Alaska, and wisconsin. They are all relatively low in population, and most do not have Mega Cities (That is in reference to New England. New England contains various states with HUGE cities like Boston, New York City, and Philadelphia.) The point here being that the less urbanized a state is, the more ignorant it is. this explains why the vast majority of the nation is comprised of neoconservative leaning states and why many are surprised to see that the majority of the country leans towards the religious right. Small communities tend to be more religious and less secularized. Europe, by contrast, has very little land mass compared to its population. You Many countries that, together, easily fit into a mid sized state like new york. This means many of your nations are very urban and live in more crowded cities. If the tred one observes in america holds true, this means you are far more secularized or, at least, more capable of separating church and state. being forced to live so closely to others would seem to make you more tolerant. Even more so after having the logical conclusion of extreme intolerance (read Hitler and Moussolini) occur within the past 65 years. Tolerance leads to more moderate thinking and, eventually the acceptance of evolution, wether or not you are religious.

30 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-10 13:05 ID:Heaven

PARAGRAPHS! GODDAMN!

31 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-10 15:22 ID:Bd6y8aj4

>>30
eh, too much trouble. This is the interbutts, man. correct spelling is optional, provided that you can understand what is said. wut makes u thnk that paragrafs are ne difrent? (misspellings are intetionally placed to make a point.)

32 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-10 17:49 ID:XsntQ5MV

>>28

>This 'evolution is a lie!' stuff is such an American phenomenon. Europe, for example...

Well, if you only count white people, sure.

33 Name: sage : 2008-07-11 01:12 ID:0KCMMJI+

tl;dr

gb2/politics/

34 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-11 01:15 ID:0KCMMJI+

>>27
These belief systems are still likewise dependent upon the existence of spirits and souls, and non-testable, non-provable claims of things like reincarnation, are they not?

35 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-11 16:22 ID:Bd6y8aj4

>>34

They are, as far as we know. however, still speaking from my entirely neutral position as an agnostic that i have established thus far, let me play devils advocate here. does science not postulate many things it cannot yet test? sure. we accept it because we discover more each day. these religions can always claim that you are simply not enlightened enough to understand the "scientific" process by which reincarnation works.

Let me ask you, can you prove that Quark stars exist? what about strangelets or Bekenstein-Hawking radiation? no. and we cannot test these either because we leack the technology. The fact remains that both Stepehen Hawkins and the buddhist/Hindu camps of thought want people to lkeep learning and to change their point of view on life based on that knowledge.

All of this arguing is, infact irelevant because your counter arguement is neither here nor their.

Here your are saying "These belief systems are still likewise dependent upon the existence of spirits and souls, and non-testable, non-provable claims of things like reincarnation, are they not?" to what I said in >>27 , which itself was a counter to "the problem is that you are rational and reasonable, and wiling to change your model of the world if new evidence becomes available.
One does not 'believe in' evolution. Or gravity. Or relativity. Or electrons.
One provisionally accepts them as useful models that help us think about the world, pending empirical evidence that shows them to be false.
Religion on the other hand is all about 'believing in' things, and refusing to change one's mind no matter what."

Your current arguement, while pointing at untestable beliefs these religions hold, does not address the fact that contrary to your previous arguement, these religions dont ask you to refuse to change your mind no matter what. They DEMAND the opposite. In buddhism, there are but 3 sins. One of them is willful ignorance.

36 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-12 01:21 ID:0KCMMJI+

> these religions can always claim that you are simply not enlightened enough to understand the "scientific" process by which reincarnation works.

You just proved my point.

Non-testable, non-falsifable claims = meaningless noise, net information content: zero.

With the scientific method, we observe the world, we posit a testable hypothesis about the world, we devise an experiment to test the hypothesis. Then, with the additional information that the experiment gives us, we go back to step 1.

With religion, we merely accept a priori claims of all this ghosts-and-pixies stuff, which vary wildly around the world by culture but which pretty much universally have in common the idea that everyone is bad and stupid and in need of "enlightenment" or "salvation" or "good karma," which the grinning old guy in the robes can give you if you give him enough money.

Testing the claims is impossible because they have been crafted deliberately to be non-testable. See also, Thomas Aquinas. See also, sophistry. See also, casuistry.

37 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-12 05:07 ID:KwJ61fqB

>>36
buddhist and hindu monks take vows of poverty (hence the robes and the begging for food). "enlightenment" as those religions see it is philosophical in nature. Their "preaching revolves around seeing inherent flaws in ways of thinking. as a matter of fact, many of the CORE tennet of both hinduism and buddhism can be tested (namely that everything is inter-related). no, you cannot test spirits and ghosts. you cant test reincarnation. you can, however, test that what harms you, harms me. you can test the fact that attachment to material goods is a weakness (that was the underlying message of fight club). They point to this and ask you to learn from your mistakes. im not saying that religion is testable. im simply stating that not all religions are dogmatic and they dont all demand belief in bs without allowing you to change and learn.

38 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-16 00:35 ID:fiPZFTRU

You don't really have to be religiously biased to discredit the theory of evolution:
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/index.htm

I never did feel like it was very plausible, even though I accepted it for some time because I was presented with no alternatives. I'm scandinavian btw. I've grown up with evolution theory as unquestionable canon, I've supported it even though in doubt. Now however, when I'm a bit more educated I'm more about supporting what is actually fact. In this light it turns out that the hypothesis supporting evolution theory are virtually vacant of facts, i.e. empirical evidence shines in its absence, testability is virtually zero, scientific tests all fail or have failed. All that remain is heaps of "qualified", but nonetheless unproven conjecture.
Quite honestly, it feels more like the bulk of people endorsing evolution theory do so out of spite for the popular alternatives(just as op claims), wishful thinking/belief and/or lack of insight.

39 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-16 04:20 ID:ihUsLAYa

Whoa! There is some people still posting in this thread! XD

40 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-16 04:22 ID:ihUsLAYa

Talking about evolution, I just heard about apes are actually related to bats(!). If this true that means........???? (scared....). Any explanations on these guys??

41 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-16 09:13 ID:fiPZFTRU

>>40
You do know about batman, right?

42 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-16 13:01 ID:XtwTyQRI

>>41
Thats why.....XD

43 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-16 16:03 ID:Bd6y8aj4

>>38
The difference being that this "conjecture" is backed by genetic similarities between creature that are somehow related ( there are something like only about 2 chromosomes difference between humans and chimps.)This would give credence to said conjecture. this is why it is called a theory. it has not been proven but there is evidence to support its feasibility. creationism, on the other hand, has no credible evidence backing it. people simply look at the worlds complexity and refuse to accept that this world could have been a random outcome. they dont stop to consider that with all of the thousands of galaxies out there, there allso googols (yes, googl is a real number and that is how it is spelled) of stars, each with the capacity to have planets. this, in turn, amounts to endly possibilities of life in various states. this could easily be the one place with the right combination for life as we know it out of a massive trial and error randomness that we call the universe. could creationism be true? sure. is there ANY imperical vdence to back it? no. meanwhile, modern medicine is pretty much built on the back of the evolution theory as it is a cornerstone of modern biology. that alone is enough to give it credence (since, you know, medice works!). when was the last time someone dying of heart failure prayed to the "great engineer" and suddenly had a perfectly funtioning heart? because i know the third world heart transplant using a pig's heart would have worked. There is your imperical evidence. it works. now, if i try to use a galapagos turtle's heart, it will fail even though at the right age, said turtle's heart would be the right size. go figure.

44 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-16 16:03 ID:Bd6y8aj4

>>38
The difference being that this "conjecture" is backed by genetic similarities between creature that are somehow related ( there are something like only about 2 chromosomes difference between humans and chimps.)This would give credence to said conjecture. this is why it is called a theory. it has not been proven but there is evidence to support its feasibility. creationism, on the other hand, has no credible evidence backing it. people simply look at the worlds complexity and refuse to accept that this world could have been a random outcome. they dont stop to consider that with all of the thousands of galaxies out there, there allso googols (yes, googl is a real number and that is how it is spelled) of stars, each with the capacity to have planets. this, in turn, amounts to endly possibilities of life in various states. this could easily be the one place with the right combination for life as we know it out of a massive trial and error randomness that we call the universe. could creationism be true? sure. is there ANY imperical vdence to back it? no. meanwhile, modern medicine is pretty much built on the back of the evolution theory as it is a cornerstone of modern biology. that alone is enough to give it credence (since, you know, medice works!). when was the last time someone dying of heart failure prayed to the "great engineer" and suddenly had a perfectly funtioning heart? because i know the third world heart transplant using a pig's heart would have worked. There is your imperical evidence. it works. now, if i try to use a galapagos turtle's heart, it will fail even though at the right age, said turtle's heart would be the right size. go figure.

45 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-16 16:05 ID:Bd6y8aj4

as for >>43and>>44

b4 u complain about double post, i have already posted on another thread. the office server is having issues where i am and is double sending information such as emails so they are working on it. im gonna cut back on my posts but right now they are working on it (so they claim).

46 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-16 16:05 ID:Bd6y8aj4

as for >>43and>>44

b4 u complain about double post, i have already posted on another thread. the office server is having issues where i am and is double sending information such as emails so they are working on it. im gonna cut back on my posts but right now they are working on it (so they claim).

47 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-17 00:30 ID:XtwTyQRI

lol you again...XD

48 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-18 09:30 ID:Heaven

OP is a DIRTY LIE

49 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-18 12:14 ID:lD85iniC

>>48
Tell more about this to us rather than just flaming around. We can't go anywhere like this forever....

50 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-24 14:59 ID:qe/nRNAK

I've always wondered - what would happen if one day, somehow this argument was settled one way or another?

If Science's theory of Evolution was the real answer, does that push God out of the equation? do you think Religion would go out the window? no, now people would just say that God created a universe where evolution was possible.

if it was proved that God just smacked some life onto Earth, would science then be useless? no, because science is meant to observe nature and understand it. The only change would be that the existence of God would be a more widely held belief.

So, I guess I don't see the point in having the massive discussion for such a blah result.

51 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-24 16:47 ID:/vuoybb/

>>51
You got the point...

52 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-24 16:47 ID:/vuoybb/

>>50
You got the point...

53 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-24 18:37 ID:fVbDOWt7

This just in: nobody ever changes their opinions about anything and there's no reason to give a shit what other people think anyway.

54 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-24 20:55 ID:/vuoybb/

people believe what they want to believe.....

55 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-25 02:59 ID:fiPZFTRU

>>53
Wish I wrote this

56 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-25 06:47 ID:/vuoybb/

XD

57 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-30 00:02 ID:FpEd18Kg

>>50 Isn't God itself too complicated to just happen? Whether Evolution is scientific fact or not (which I urge people to read about it) is irrelevant to the fact that he is a complicated being himself which is given in answer to why complicated beings ( and a complicated world ) exists. Which is a real shitty answer to existence because you just tip-toed everything by suddenly adding this all power full entity into the equation and told everyone not to question it cause it was "there from the beginning".
Faith is transfered from parents to children as a set of blind beliefs which the child is too young to question. But as people leave their religion because various reasons, they will not transfer their religion to their kids. And I like to think that in today's world the chance of some one who doesn't believe in god ending up a believer is less that an believer leaving their faith. If this holds true, religion can eventually be driven out.

>>53 I have slowly changed my opinion about the origin of the world in the past 4 years. From practicing Muslim to being an atheist. Ironically boards such as this did help a little bit in my decision.

58 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-30 05:16 ID:FlIzuDc2

heh....

59 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-30 18:07 ID:qe/nRNAK

it's kinda funny, >>57.

I was an atheist, until I got to thinking about it, and I figure that a God has to exist, otherwise the whole universe is pointless and we might as well not even be here. the fact is the universe is here, we're here, we're alive, so there must be a reason.

that's getting aside from the evolution topic though. personally i think the idea that god smacked evolved life into the universe (and planted evidence to the contrary to fool us for some reason) is rather silly.

60 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-30 18:28 ID:UTkKAkKv

>>59
The argument basically sounds like:

I don't have a Ferrari, because I'm poor.
I bullshit myself to believe that I have a Ferrari.
???
I have a Ferrari.

61 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-31 15:30 ID:Bd6y8aj4

>>60
no it doesn't. It's more like he chose between two unprovable options because one was less stressful. Its like if you ate some nasty tasting puddling. One person tells you it that some beef gravy fell into it and made it taste nasty. Someone else told you that the lunch lady puked into it. Both seem to have an equal amount of prove for their claim (or lack thereof). So you choose to believe it was gravy because thinking otherwise would be disgusting and you cannot prove either story anyways.

>>59
What makes you so sure that there has to be a reason for us being here. You are basically saying, " The fruit basket is here, the blender is here, therefore we must be in a juicebar."
The conclusion does not follow the premise.
We very well could just be here without a reason. Why cant the universe be pointless. Furthermore, if in order for the universe to not be pointless god has to exist, then who created him and what is his purpose. If his creator didn;t exist and he is just there, then he created us for the lulz and neither the universe nor god has any reason other than just because. Which takes you back to square one.

62 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-07-31 19:49 ID:+2QHEhT5

Being an agnostic is good for me at this time being :/

63 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-08-01 05:39 ID:C7NtfBPk

I've actually being doing some pretty deep thinking really and I've come up with the idea that God is the universe itself in its entirety. that would mean the the universe itself would be a consciuos being which isn't that unbelievable. Everything is a part of him and reflects infinty in the form of complexity. we all as humans and animals reflect a higher form of complexity. Evolution is the process of chemicals advancing in complexity. consciuosness is one of its highest states which makes us similar to god because we contain a higher reflection of infinity possibly making us able to retain our conscioness in some unknown demension?

64 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-08-01 13:40 ID:+2QHEhT5

This reminds of sayings like "god is in everything" thing....

65 Name: Dr Oetker : 2008-08-03 22:46 ID:EDSRSD73

>>61

First i would like to state that i am as big of an atheist as it gets, i even lead an organized structure in my city that tries to get people out of an obsessive habit in religion to a more manageable way of life in society... With or (preferred) without god.

Second, your point towards 59 invalidates itself
If the universe can be pointless (my personal belief) then it can also be that god was created by a pointless entity and we ourselves have been created with a reason by the pointlessly created god.

Basically it all boils down to this:

-God does not exist, because if he doesn't and we devoted our lives to him then we would have had pointless lives...

-God exists, because if we did not believe in him and we came to die and go to hell (or whatever belief system you want to discuss) we would be pretty much fucked, but then again god would prove he is a deceptive asshole who clearly does not deserve his leadership role for various reasons, but mainly for not showing up on the job for 2000 years straight... (besides for some sms text messages now and then by an anonymous number to his secretary personnel)

I stick with God does not exist because if he does then he is an asshole who clearly does not deserve me devoting even a single second of my mortal life to his immortal everlasting puppetry peepshow, even if it should mean i go to hell i would be in peace of mind there.

66 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-08-04 07:09 ID:nGaS1ltQ

>>65
You just remind me of "If god is great why he need angels?" questions...hm......

67 Name: Dr Oetker : 2008-08-04 20:37 ID:EDSRSD73

>>66

If god can create anything he wants (omnipotence) can he create a rock that he cannot lift? a tool that he cannot use? a chair he cannot sit in?

whatever your answer is, it will always mean that god if he exists, is not omnipotent

68 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-08-26 19:06 ID:J9aMS/Db

I was wondering why people seem to think God actually is supposed to do things? that would be unfair interference into our freedom of choice.

Why can't God have just created everything, and allows us to play the games that we play.

Can s(he) not just be an observer, or adviser?

69 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-08-26 19:17 ID:J9aMS/Db

also, as an addendum to what i just said, the idea that there is an eternal punishment after death is also rather childish. what would be the point of sending you to your room for eternity for disobeying rules you never heard of?

as others have mentioned, some god who allowed that to happen wouldn't be possible with all the other descriptions of power and benevolence. So, obviously, either the stories or the descriptions are false. Would you truly believe: that there is a pointless struggle between good and an evil created by good that is somehow in doubt over the victor, or such stories are fanciful when considering the nature of an all powerful, all knowing, all present, benevolent entity?

70 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-08-27 02:26 ID:7Rtfg8Mq

I've actually taken some theology courses regretably and as it turns out from the lectures is that the whole judgement thing is your own doing you judge your self after being presented with the perfection that is God.
Also there is no evil just the absence of good just like darkness is the absence of light.

71 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-08-27 18:04 ID:hrNx1+ym

Science does not deny God.And you should really read Darwin,
EVOLUTION IS REAL.If you have a philosophical problem because we share the same origin of an ant,thats your business,but don't stop progress.

72 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-08-27 21:05 ID:Heaven

was it a cat I saw?

was it a rat I saw?

73 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-08-29 13:59 ID:Io9w2I9D

Evolution might be true and might not be, but if God didn't exist, we wouldn't be here... at least that's what I think...

74 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-08-30 01:37 ID:Heaven

>>73
why?

75 Name: Dr Oetker : 2008-08-31 23:22 ID:EDSRSD73

>>68 >>that belief system is not compatible with the Christian teachings, if god would be an observer, we would have never heard about god, unless we made him up ourselves

if god would be only an adviser he would have intervened a couple of times (no way moses can split an ocean by hand, garden of eden, jesus, etc etc...)

if he can do it once, he can do it multiple times, if he can do it multiple times he can do it whenever he wants, if he can do it whenever he wants and does not use it to end ultimate suffering (holocaust) he does not care about our wellbeing/puts mental/moral advance above wellbeing of the weak

if he puts the wellbeing of the weak above mental/moral advance he would not subject against embryonic stem cell research, and wants us to do it even though it might turn out bad in the end, so that we learn from our mistakes

in other words, i can trow the whole of Christianity into the trash bin if what you say is even remotely correct

>>70 >>absence of good

we like to refer to it as evil, if someone has very few amounts good in him he is evil

actually good and evil are names for a complex system of mental calculation all based on how you where raised and how your surroundings treated you when you where young, but your theologists teacher does not tell you that... because it undermines everything he is taught about theology

76 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-01 06:40 ID:C7NtfBPk

Humans are meant to suffer. Suffering according to christian beliefs is bad and to be avoided and all that but it is important for us as it serves as a tool to better ourselves bring us closer to God. God won't just eliminate all suffering and conflicts because it would hinder our salvation rather then help it. Also the ideas of physcology and other sciences all feed into theology according to previously mentioned theologian with the addition though of spiritual concepts and laws. There is goodness it exists as an idea beyond just each individuals mind. Or something like that I don't care either way just trying to see if I still believe in all this still. I can explain these ideas better just don't feel like writing it all down now

77 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-01 15:59 ID:gJi6rC8e

>>76

Absolutely. Why is this so hard a concept for many people to understand? We gain strength through our sufferings. Imagine for a moment a father who owns a mansion. He has 100 kids and they all grow up in the mansion given anything they want by countless servants.

The father wants them to learn and grow on their own so he finally sends them on their way into the world. What they do is up to them, some will hurt the others, some will decide they hate their father and everyone else and try and ruin everything the father created, but it's their own choice. If the father sends his servants out every time one of his children are in trouble what have they learned? If the father punishes a child before he hurts another one of his children how is that fair?

God allows bad things to happen to good people for two reasons. He allows us all to make our own choices, if I want to go next door and murder my neighbor it's my choice God won't stop me, I'll be punished later but for now the choice is mine. He allows us to suffer for our benefit as well, we gain strength through our trials.

78 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-02 04:13 ID:4nFH5rmf

I think we didn't came from evolution, but from alien manipulated gene changes.

79 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-02 12:50 ID:Heaven

>>78

I don't think you have any extra terrestrially manipulated genes. Enjoy your earthbound DNA.

80 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-03 15:03 ID:qe/nRNAK

Earthbound eh..?

So, is Giygas the alien gene manipulator?

81 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-04 00:57 ID:Heaven

>>80

No. He doesn't even exist!!!

82 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-04 15:12 ID:Heaven

>No. He doesn't even exist!!!

Science can't disprove my faith in Giygas.

83 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-04 19:14 ID:Heaven

disbelieving in Giygas only makes him stronger you know.

84 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-10 03:44 ID:Cam+JryK

Who's Giygas?

85 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-11 18:41 ID:8SQg1kDe

universal cosmic destroyer.

made a cameo appearance as the final boss in Earthbound.

86 Name: Prof Sai : 2008-09-14 19:11 ID:BIUMZAO/

Aliens don't make any difference as far as evolution goes. If we were created by aliens then the aliens would have to have evolved naturally. So you are back to exactly the same question: How did the first life evolve?

There is nothing in the fossil record that "needs" aliens. Good natural explanations for things like eyes and flight are easy to find if you are willing to look, and put in the effort of understanding.

87 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-15 02:22 ID:j9/FZ79V

We "need" aliens for the fossil record because it's a mess. Who in his right mind designed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark_teeth for the sharks?

88 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-15 17:25 ID:8SQg1kDe

Hi, I'm >>87 and I sure do love unqualified statements.

89 Name: Crysis Warhead Torrent : 2008-09-16 19:20 ID:Heaven

Oh is this still going on? Might as well use this thread to post hot news topics in order to bring people in via google.

Especially with morgellons and brianna denison, the important thing to remember, OP, is that glass steagall repeal will always be by your side. Mm, a nice plate of obama waffles sure does pick me up in the morning.

gq magazine might be DQN, prurigo nodularis might be internet-addicts.

Is it bad that I have no idea what these words from http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends mean?

hehe, almost forgot my captcha code.

heh.

90 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-17 15:25 ID:Heaven

you forgot lol, rofl, haxxorz, warez, boobs, teen, voyeur, gamez, paris hilton, britney spears, cheese...

91 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-26 03:16 ID:YHCMk2WS

Science is a faith like any other. It's basically what would occur if the practioners of Jewish Kaballah extended the scope of their investigations to include everything and removed the aspect of the Tanahk.

92 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-09-26 10:20 ID:Heaven

>Science is a faith like any other. It's basically what would occur if the practioners of Jewish Kaballah extended the scope of their investigations to include everything and removed the aspect of the Tanahk.

I'm studying the molecular biology of cancer at the minute and it's actually less than 50% kabbalistic mysticism (we don't even look at the biology of daemonic possesion until the second semester).

93 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-10-03 16:52 ID:6UAu7ehi

Science could be considered a 'faith' of sorts, as we cannot hope to prove every little fact of science to every individual - some facts and equations we just have to take as true to keep forging ahead.

Science, however, encourages (and forces) introspection, and often changes its 'beliefs' to better match the world. True religions do not do this.

Also, the fact that what science discovers actually corresponds to what is measured much of the time, as well as the fact that science can predict events and important happenings, makes it the winner in my book.

94 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-10-08 14:39 ID:Heaven

>>93
Accountancy is my faith. Pay your bills on time.

95 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-10-31 20:41 ID:1rVYK1K2

If it weren't for God man would still be swinging from the trees and throwing feces at each other!

96 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-11-02 12:19 ID:6eDehJsw

>>95

Could argue the same point for lions and other large cats. Try again. >:3

97 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-11-04 01:57 ID:csaoQpx+

>>1

You do know that, um...
evolution is pretty much proven...
...right?

I mean, there IS a crap ton of evidence that was discovered prior to the advent of modern genetics, that just happens to fit perfectly with it? Like, evolution has been observed multiple times?

You do also know that there's no reason to assume that a fairy tale intelligence made anything happen, right? Like, you could assume that natural laws set everything in place and that the point of termination is there... you know this, right?

And I'm sure you realize that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. That's abiogenesis.

But you knew all that, right?
......right??

You are terrified of doubting what you've been indoctrinated to believe. You read the intro to an article which made it very clear that you shouldn't be offended or feel attacked AND YOU MISSED THE ENTIRE EFFING POINT right off the bat.

You've been taught to stick your fingers in your ears and go LA LA LA FAIRY TALE.

As my captcha says, FOTT.

98 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-11-10 07:23 ID:Heaven

Lies are not inherently dirty, as they have no method of picking up or transmitting bacteria or other harmful microflora.

99 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2009-12-28 17:33 ID:Heaven

I can't even be bothered to read the replies except to say that I really hope that 1-san is trolling.

100 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2010-02-19 09:07 ID:d1LZUMaM

>>1 Actually life does just happen. They proved it at Cornell.

101 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2010-02-20 02:42 ID:Heaven

102 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2010-03-01 21:09 ID:dqhRpI4u

>102 replies

LOLOLOLOLOL

103 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-06-10 15:22 ID:/g4yRNCU

>>Isn't God itself too complicated to just happen?

God doesn't happen, He IS.

I have changed my opinion from flaming atheist to believer and seeker and then to christian. All of this based on evidence I had the luxury of seeing.

>>97

Evolution needs intermediate fossiles to be proven, and there is no such thing, there are however specialists stating that such a thing is a fairytale, an impossible one.

104 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-06-11 16:46 ID:+vSyzkhw

I immediately noticed that OP post makes a justified accusation of how naturalism is a faith that passes itself off as science.

Cue all the skepticism being directed only at creationism.

Naturalism is a belief supported by faith.

So often they use an argument that starts with how there's no way to objectively test the existence of God, and rightly charge that assuming god must exist is a belief rooted in faith.

They however seem blind to the fact that the untestability means faith is required for EITHER assumption. The end result is that they basically take it that because their beliefs don't include the supernatural, places of worship, sacraments, or other visibly religious practices, that their own beliefs are unquestionable science and not a faith resting on their personal biases.

In other words, naturalists are blind to their own bias.

Now some terminology confusion. A lot of people use "evolution" where they would more appropriately use "naturalism." The key reason for this is that evolution is the primary process being extrapolated, in a form of static analysis that goes "creatures are changing, so this process must go backwards all the way explaining all diverse life."

105 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-06-15 20:36 ID:C6O62q8s

Remarkable how many folk claim to be God's spokesmen by stating on His behalf and in His name that He has not, does not and will not use evolution as His means of creation.

106 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-06-22 00:55 ID:KgAm4HUG

107 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-06-23 04:58 ID:HV4xgzTt

>>106
Every citation on that page is from a book whose goal is to exposure fraudulent archaeology. I wonder if I read any of these supposedly edifying tomes, they'd cite that website in return.

108 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-06-28 20:20 ID:8Xr4QcEx

We are so used to thinking serial, we forget that life is a massively parallel system.

109 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-07-06 18:00 ID:tAfqcN2h

>>104
yes, but doesn't naturalism, if I may use that word in the sense that I think you are using it, require less faith and fewer, smaller ontologically untenable assumptions?

Occam's Razor is relevant here. If we have, say, three models of the universe,

1) assumes the existence of two undetectable and untestable supernatural gods
2) assumes the existence of one undetectable and untestable supernatural gods
3) does not require us to assume the existence of supernatural beings in order to have a usable and useful model of the world around us

which one do you think is an appropriate place to start a scientific investigation?

110 Name: just passerby : 2012-07-19 12:29 ID:howOJJQz

Evolution doesn't exist. It's a fairy tale for people. People believe, that the can develop, move on, that they are not at an impasse. But people are the same as at the beginning of their existence. They began to dress differently and live in other dwellings, established new laws and built a new city. But everything is new - it is well forgotten old. They are a little altered his life, but not moved forward even a step. People were deadlocked in their evolution long ago.
P.s. probably i sound like a fool, because i read just a title and the first line's of post and already write an answer. But i just wanted to show my view at the existence of evolution.

111 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-07-24 16:24 ID:XPfPApjZ

Were there no evolution, all males would look the same within a species, as would all females. And DDT would have killed off every mosquito in SE-Asia already.

112 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-07-25 16:21 ID:3k4jFctP

>>111
Excuse me the old testament says angels came down and did the dirty with humans, so clearly the genetic variation came from them.

I bet they fucked the mosquitoes too. They were like Zeus and just took whatever form got them some beastly sex.

113 Post deleted.

114 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-09-20 20:47 ID:VWwWcDY8

If I return all the way up to the OP, the claim here is that there is no evidence for evolution. Well, that's one big fat lie.

There's a huge lot of evidence that evolution exists and works, literally thousands of examples and experiment results. If I should name just one of all, there's nylon-eating bacteria. Nylon is a completely artificial material, no such material has ever existed on Earth before it was created by humans and when it was created, there was no organism on Earth that could digest it. But in a few years, some bacteria surprisingly started being able to digest nylon. If god created life at the beginning and there was no evolution, the bacteria couldn't have evolved to digest nylon.

The question whether the life has evolved from common ancestors or whether it was created by some kind of god is of course completely different question. Nobody can return back in time to check that, so what we're left with is evidence in form of paleontological finds, and our beliefs. In short, we can trust science, or we can trust religion.

In my opinion, anybody is free to believe all life and humanity was created by their preferred kind of god any time they consider suitable pretty much the same as anybody is free to believe there is an angel talking to them from their cellphone. The basis of both is about the same.

Personally I prefer believing the smart people who invented cellphones that it's all caused by invisible waves of energy going through me and everything around, and similar smart people who dig in the ground searching for prehistoric fossils and putting our history together from them. But that's of course just my personal preference.

115 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-09-22 00:43 ID:Heaven

>>114
How do you know the bacteria weren't already capable of digesting it before nylon was invented?

116 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-10-09 14:26 ID:DpX1MdXz

If matter, energy,time and pancakes were eternal, that means an eternal ammount of time would need to pass before us, so they can't be eternal.

If they aren't eternal they must come from another source, and I'm out of sources if I don't place God there.

That plus: Where did the first humans get the notion that their morals should agree with the commandments so that we have them today? The fact that you blush doesn't make those morals seem like something taught in the first place.

Let's go from this demonstration of the existence of God to the point of evolution, now. If there is somebody skilled to do it, of course.

117 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2012-10-15 05:22 ID:Heaven

> If matter, energy,time and pancakes were eternal, that means an eternal ammount of time would need to pass before us, so they can't be eternal.

Why not?

> If they aren't eternal they must come from another source, and I'm out of sources if I don't place God there.

Try the "circle of wind" as described in Theravada Buddhist cosmology. There's just as much basis for it as there is for God, i.e. none.

> Where did the first humans get the notion that their morals should agree with the commandments so that we have them today?

You mean Judeo-Christian commandments like "thou shalt have no other gods before me?" The morals of Chinese, Japanese and Indian people certainly agree with that one.

> Let's go from this demonstration of the existence of God to the point of evolution, now. If there is somebody skilled to do it, of course.

I've always thought that people who believe in this 'God', but think He wasn't clever enough to have designed evolution and that everything He supposedly told people from 6000 years ago must have been the literal truth (rather than, say, metaphor for concepts they couldn't possibly have understood) must have a pretty low opinion of the guy's intellect.

118 Post deleted.

119 Post deleted.

120 Post deleted.

121 Post deleted.

122 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2015-09-02 18:13 ID:nSZLHB+a

Would you have sex with something that evolved from an ape?

123 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2015-09-06 20:10 ID:Heaven

>>122
I'm asexual, so no, I wouldn't have sex with anything.

124 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2015-09-10 17:57 ID:segyI+0X

>>123
Too bad. It's interested in you anyway.

125 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2016-07-18 03:13 ID:5TNG0Gm5

In the Old Testament, there are many references made to God leading the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt with a "strong hand and outstretched arm." There, reference to God's hand is clearly metaphorical, as he uses the plagues to free the Israelites, not a giant hand. God is a transcendent being, and thus does not have hands in the human sense. I think that the same is true of where it says in Genesis 2 that God formed man from dust he had gathered; God acts through the natural processes He created to carry out his will, as befits a being of His stature. However, the Bible occasionally using figures of speech should not be taken to detract from its spiritual truth.

126 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2016-07-23 04:50 ID:UuH/njL9

>>1
If life spontaneously appearing defies the "Laws of Science", as you call them, what property of the entity you refer to as "G-d" allows it to create life, in violation of the "Laws of Science"? If this entity can circumvent the "Laws of Science", can they really be said to be laws? And if as you say this entity is responsible for the creation of life, does that not imply that the "G-d" entity is not itself alive?

127 Post deleted.

128 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2016-11-02 16:56 ID:usdMZ3Fw

The Prophet Mohammad (pieces of shit be upon him)

129 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2017-08-19 18:29 ID:DHAQ3Sv+

I made a LINE stamp.
https://line.me/S/sticker/1534511
Please use it if you like i

Name: Link:
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
More options...
Verification: