"God did not create the universe" - Stephen Hawking

[Dr. Cakey]

You cant just go around bashing religions like that its rude and obnoxious i do not i repeat I DO NOT believe in any religion however just because i dont believe in Evolution suddenly makes me a religious ignorant git. Quit trying to convert me because your acting exactly like any religious person going door to door trying to get people to follow them. And dont say you arent because you ARE! You cannot i repeat CANNOT prove Evolution is soundly true fact just as any religious person CANNOT prove that a GOD exists. However if i emphasised that this wouldnt be a debate so...

 

I apologize i shouldnt freak out like that you see i try to tolerate anything. So not many people agree with me that includes that i tolerate joking about certain things that some people would find offending in fact i find Offensiveness in General to be a stupid and idiotic emotion.

The irony in all this is that the theory of relativity has some holes in it, while the theory of evolution seems free of fundamental error.

 

When Darwin presented his theory, he presented copious evidence, but a lot of it was circumstantial and rejecting it would make sense, particularly since it was frankly rather odd. After hundreds of years - and most especially the discovery of DNA - the evidence has become colossal beyond measure.

 

All you need to do to prove evolution is to look at DNA: generations have slightly different DNA, meaning that successive generations are more and more different. This accounts for change. Environmental pressures then control what organisms survive.

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

Call me all you want your not going to change my mind so you might as well give up. everymans opinion matters not just one theory. I couldnt care less what it means you people are just Shallow, Ignorant, Sociopaths. (Yea thats right I resorted to name calling im sooooooo stupid (even though its true.)) And by the way ingorance means refusing to Accept or Tolerate certain Ideas, Things, and/or People, for a specific reason which is excactly what you people are.

[Dark]

Call me all you want your not going to change my mind so you might as well give up

 

Stereotypical stubborn religious fellow that refuses to believe facts.

 

everymans opinion matters not just one theory

 

My theory is that you were dropped on your head by Satan as a baby, and you will end up burning in hell for all of eternity because of your foolishness, and furthermore you will be reborn as a chicken lacking a brain, and subsequently die three milliseconds aftwards.

 

My opinion matters!

 

you people are just Shallow, Ignorant, Sociopaths

 

> Intelligent people are shallow.

> Intelligent people are ignorant.

> Intelligent people are sociopaths.

 

Where "intelligent people" is the same as "those who believe in evolution".

 

And by the way ingorance means refusing to Accept or Tolerate certain Ideas, Things, and/or People, for a specific reason which is excactly what you people are.

 

I'm not going to tolerate some random bullshit creationism that interferes with my children's education, nor am I going to accept such a ludicrous conjecture.

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

Intelligence is what has screwed are country before. And i guess im gonna have to say this again IM NOT RELIGIOUS i have no religion.

[Dark]

Implying that intelligence is a very, very bad thing. I'm sure we'd have airplanes and cars if we were all complete dumbasses like you.

 

And I understand that you are not religious, but you have about as much intelligence and the same amount of logic and rational thought as the most extreme religious person that can ever exist in our current world.

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

Ah you have me there however i never will be convinced Evolution is true. Thank you this is starting to become fun, anyways I find that Ancient astronaut theorism is my standpoint so maybe if you research that you will find much evidence to prove this true. (However Unlikely)

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Pointing out how stubborn you are by saying you'll never change your mind is annoying. And:

People like you, with ridiculous theories anyone can see is dead wrong with an ounce of logic, are the ones that aggravate me.

 

 

At least, in this age of enlightenment, you're becoming the minority.

[Dark]

From what I can tell you believe that aliens planted life on Earth. However stupid that maybe, it is still a hypothesis about the origin of life.

 

I am talking about evolution in terms of its basic principles: the development of generations, the changing of alleles and genes, et cetera. One is regarded as stupid if they consider this entirely false, as we have proved it (and are currently proving it) true simply by living. If one happens to develop a mutant gene, they can pass it through multiple generations until those that have the gene and those who don't split into two seperate species. That is fact. Evolutionary theory states that we evolved from monkeys and chickens evolved from dinosaurs. There is a substantial amount of fact to convince most people with at least a quarter of a brain, but the sad fact is that we've not proven it through observation.

 

If you deny the fact that is evolution, you are just stupid. If you deny the theory that is evolution, I am shocked that you consider all of the facts provided in defense of evolution as false.

[DARKPLANT RISING]

From what I can tell you believe that aliens planted life on Earth. However stupid that maybe, it is still a hypothesis about the origin of life.

 

I am talking about evolution in terms of its basic principles: the development of generations, the changing of alleles and genes, et cetera. One is regarded as stupid if they consider this entirely false, as we have proved it (and are currently proving it) true simply by living. If one happens to develop a mutant gene, they can pass it through multiple generations until those that have the gene and those who don't split into two seperate species. That is fact. Evolutionary theory states that we evolved from monkeys and chickens evolved from dinosaurs. There is a substantial amount of fact to convince most people with at least a quarter of a brain, but the sad fact is that we've not proven it through observation.

 

If you deny the fact that is evolution, you are just stupid. If you deny the theory that is evolution, I am shocked that you consider all of the facts provided in defense of evolution as false.

Is it possible that Aliens planted life on earth using two moons, created a giant impact, sent two humanoid beasts into the earth under Antarctica and Japan, and sent fifteen demons to incinerate life, ending in a mysterious organization to destroy all life on earth and absorb them into a cosmic girl who normally has blue hair and red eyes and uses a robot to fight

 

I think that the belief that Aliens planted life on Earth, and the descendants of the life planted on by Aliens grew to be like this, isn't deniable.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Excuse me Dark.

 

Evolutionary theory states that we evolved from monkeys

 

Not monkeys, but a common ancestor. Common misconception.

[CrabHelmet]

Let me see if I can summarize tonymann's argument:

 

1) Hitler was intelligent, therefore I should avoid acquiring knowledge because intelligence is obviously bad.

2) All statements are equal and should be respected equally. To prefer truth to falsehood is intolerant.

 

Did I miss anything?

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

Obviously you do not know anything about AAT it is the theory that we once lived on another planet however when for some reason we REcolonized on this one.

 

@Crab Helmet you need to realize the fact you DONT know everything.

 

And i do accept some principles of evolution i dont accept other however.

 

[spoiler=Evolution (MY TAKE!)] This is about a book by Jerry Coyne about why Evolution Is True with some comments.

 

 

Here is Coyne’s definition of evolution:

 

 

"In essence, the modern theory of evolution is easy to grasp. It can be summarized in a single (albeit slightly long) sentence: Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection. 1"

 

 

 

Notice that he intentionally excludes the origin of life. He postulates the existence of a single kind of living thing, “perhaps a self-replicating molecule,” upon which all subsequent changes build. Because of this definition, he avoids all discussion of how a lifeless Earth produced that first living thing.

 

According to Coyne, evolution begins with a living thing that already contains a mechanism for obtaining energy from the environment, a mechanism for storing that energy, converting the energy to other forms, using that energy for useful purposes, the ability to grow, the ability to reproduce itself, intrinsic genetic information, and has a method for expressing that genetic information as physical features. This living thing came about by some natural process which we can’t even begin to imagine, but isn’t of any real importance to answering the question of how we came to be on this Earth.

 

Clearly, the origin of that first living thing is vital to the theory of evolution. Why doesn’t Coyne include the origin of life in his definition of evolution? You know the answer. He can’t begin to explain it. Defining evolution as he did gives him an excuse to not even try.

 

 

Why We’ve Never Seen It

Nobody has ever observed macroevolution in the laboratory or in nature. Here is his excuse for why we have not.

 

 

"Further, we shouldn’t expect to see more than small changes in one or a few features of a species—what is known as macroevolutionary change. Given the gradual pace of evolution, it’s unreasonable to expect to see selection transforming one “type” of plant or animal into another—so-called macroevolution—within a human lifetime. Though macroevolution is occurring today, we simply won’t be around long enough to see it. Remember that the issue is not whether macroevolutionary change happens—we already know from the fossil record that it does—but whether it was caused by natural selection, and whether natural selection can build complex features and organisms." [italics his] 2

 

 

 

There is a process known as “microevolution” that really does occur. Microevolution is the variation within a species that occurs because of loss of genetic information. But he is talking about “macroevolution,” which is the creation of a new kind of living thing resulting from genetic information that previously did not exist.

 

He asserts, without proof, that macroevolution is occurring today, while admitting that one can’t see it happening. That is, genetic information is supposedly arising spontaneously that will create a new kind of creature. He just knows it, even though nobody can actually see it. The alleged reason nobody can see it is because it happens so slowly.

 

 

"For one thing, natural selection in the wild is often incredibly slow. The evolution of feathers, for example, probably took hundreds of thousands of years. Even if feathers were evolving today, it would simply be impossible to watch this happening in real time, much less to measure whatever type of selection was acting to make feathers larger. 3"

 

 

 

The real reason why nobody has ever seen it is because it hasn’t happened! Genetic information doesn’t just magically appear.

 

He thinks he sees macroevolution in the fossil record. This is remarkable because he spends so many pages trying to explain why there are no missing links in the fossil record!

 

[CrabHelmet]

Obviously you do not know anything about AAT it is the theory that we once lived on another planet however when for some reason we REcolonized on this one.

Of course! We lived on another planet with conditions similar enough to those of Earth to permit our survival on either planet, became so scientifically advanced that we obtained space travel, spent untold years traveling through space, landed safely on this planet, obliterated all trace of our advanced technology, divided ourselves among different areas of the planet based on skin color, planted fossils designed to fool generations thousands of years in the future into thinking we evolved on this planet, and removed all cultural memory of our origin and scientific knowledge! It's so simple and obvious, and it makes perfect sense, and there's so much evidence supporting it! Why didn't I think of that?

 

@Crab Helmet you need to realize the fact you DONT know everything.

Indeed! For example, I never knew until you enlightened me that Battlestar Galactica was non-fiction.

 

Wait, remind me how "YOU ARE NOT MAGICALLY OMNISCIENT EVEN THOUGH YOU MADE NO CLAIMS TO MAGICAL OMNISCIENCE I JUST THOUGHT I SHOULD MENTION THAT" refutes anything I've said or makes your insane posts make any more sense?

 

And i do accept some principles of evolution i dont accept other however.

And I accept electromagnetism but not gravity. See? I'm rational too!

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

okay then but im really interested in your take on gravity Please enlighten me.

planted fossils designed to fool generations thousands of years in the future into thinking we evolved on this planet,

 

 

Um... no we only refer to the humans of us we make no claims that the dinosaurs and fossils never originally existed here we only talk about us everything else was already here.

[Dr. Cakey]

Here is Coyne’s definition of evolution:

 

 

"In essence, the modern theory of evolution is easy to grasp. It can be summarized in a single (albeit slightly long) sentence: Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection. 1"

 

Notice that he intentionally excludes the origin of life. He postulates the existence of a single kind of living thing, “perhaps a self-replicating molecule,” upon which all subsequent changes build. Because of this definition, he avoids all discussion of how a lifeless Earth produced that first living thing.

 

According to Coyne, evolution begins with a living thing that already contains a mechanism for obtaining energy from the environment, a mechanism for storing that energy, converting the energy to other forms, using that energy for useful purposes, the ability to grow, the ability to reproduce itself, intrinsic genetic information, and has a method for expressing that genetic information as physical features. This living thing came about by some natural process which we can’t even begin to imagine, but isn’t of any real importance to answering the question of how we came to be on this Earth.

 

Clearly, the origin of that first living thing is vital to the theory of evolution. Why doesn’t Coyne include the origin of life in his definition of evolution? You know the answer. He can’t begin to explain it. Defining evolution as he did gives him an excuse to not even try.

Incorrect. The theory of evolution is not intended to describe the origin of life. That would be like asking why Newtonian physics doesn't explain how the sun works. There is a separate theory - the theory of abiogenesis, to explain how life can be produced from non-life under certain conditions. If you say, "the Urey experiment didn't create life" you would be correct, but that was also something like fifty years ago, and he got the early Earth's elements and proportions wrong. Great progress has been made in the mean time.

 

 

Why We’ve Never Seen It

Nobody has ever observed macroevolution in the laboratory or in nature. Here is his excuse for why we have not.

 

"Further, we shouldn’t expect to see more than small changes in one or a few features of a species—what is known as macroevolutionary change. Given the gradual pace of evolution, it’s unreasonable to expect to see selection transforming one “type” of plant or animal into another—so-called macroevolution—within a human lifetime. Though macroevolution is occurring today, we simply won’t be around long enough to see it. Remember that the issue is not whether macroevolutionary change happens—we already know from the fossil record that it does—but whether it was caused by natural selection, and whether natural selection can build complex features and organisms." [italics his] 2

 

There is a process known as “microevolution” that really does occur. Microevolution is the variation within a species that occurs because of loss of genetic information. But he is talking about “macroevolution,” which is the creation of a new kind of living thing resulting from genetic information that previously did not exist.

Incorrect. I'll explain once I annotate further.

 

He asserts, without proof, that macroevolution is occurring today, while admitting that one can’t see it happening. That is, genetic information is supposedly arising spontaneously that will create a new kind of creature. He just knows it, even though nobody can actually see it. The alleged reason nobody can see it is because it happens so slowly.

You also can't see an electron. In fact, it is physically impossible to see an electron no matter how sophisticated our microscopes become.

 

"For one thing, natural selection in the wild is often incredibly slow. The evolution of feathers, for example, probably took hundreds of thousands of years. Even if feathers were evolving today, it would simply be impossible to watch this happening in real time, much less to measure whatever type of selection was acting to make feathers larger. 3"

 

 

 

The real reason why nobody has ever seen it is because it hasn’t happened! Genetic information doesn’t just magically appear.

Actually, it does. Well, not by magic, but it does appear. When DNA is transcribed during meiosis, there are three possible ways for an "error" to occur. A nucleotide could be removed. A nucleotide could be switched with a different nucleotide. Or a nucleotide could be...inserted. Every group of three nucleotides codes for a certain protein. This means that inserting a single nucleotide causes a 'frame shift' that changes every successive protein as well.

 

He is wrong about one thing, though: we can see macroevolution occur. Search "observed instances of speciation". Or, you could just click here.

 

He thinks he sees macroevolution in the fossil record. This is remarkable because he spends so many pages trying to explain why there are no missing links in the fossil record!

He sees macroevolution in the fossil record...and there are no missing links...and this is shocking?

 

Do I win the Internet?

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Crab, could you please ban Tony? I am under the suspicion that this is all an elaborate troll, which simply cannot be tolerated.

[CrabHelmet]

Crab, could you please ban Tony? I am under the suspicion that this is all an elaborate troll, which simply cannot be tolerated.

Personally, I suspect him of just being an idiot.

 

At any rate, contrary to what people seem to believe, my standards for banning people that I've been arguing against are actually much higher than my general banning standards. If this were my first time visiting this topic, I might ban tonymann, but since I'm now involved, I'm going to need more evidence that he is indeed a troll (as opposed to a moron) to ban him.

 

Another moderator, of course, is free to ban him themselves.

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

DR.Cakey thank you ive learned something today Now perhaps i wasnt clear however i do believe in certain proponents of evolution but some i dont believe thank you for correcting my mishaps and showing me what wrong the link was impressive and i learned a lot thank you. Oh and yes you win the internets. in my view.

[DARKPLANT RISING]

DR.Cakey thank you ive learned something today Now perhaps i wasnt clear however i do believe in certain proponents of evolution but some i dont believe thank you for correcting my mishaps and showing me what wrong the link was impressive and i learned a lot thank you. Oh and yes you win the internets. in my view.

...It seems he's not a failtroll at least. A shame. I would have loved to have him get banned.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

you want your not going to change my mind so you might as well give up.

 

And by the way ingorance means refusing to Accept or Tolerate certain Ideas,

 

:unsure:

[Dark]

Excuse me Dark.

 

 

 

Not monkeys, but a common ancestor. Common misconception.

 

In all fairness, I knew that we did not directly evolve from monkeys, but in the spur of the moment I just typed whatever came to mind.

 

Let me see if I can summarize tonymann's argument:

 

1) Hitler was intelligent, therefore I should avoid acquiring knowledge because intelligence is obviously bad.

2) All statements are equal and should be respected equally. To prefer truth to falsehood is intolerant.

 

Did I miss anything?

 

Godwin's Law. <___<

[Dr. Cakey]

Godwin's Law. <___<

Crab is immune to to Godwin's Law. obv

 

Well, tony sir, I guess I'm glad to see you learned something at least. Is there anything else you think is a weakness to evolution or something like that?

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

I wanna learn more about crabs thing on gravity... (POUT)

[CrabHelmet]

Godwin's Law. <___<

I'm not comparing my opponent to Hitler; on the contrary, I claim that tonymann's argument indirectly associates intelligence with Hitler, albeit doing so in a much more indirect "intelligence is often bad" manner.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Godwin's Law. <___<

 

Is stupid because some people are bound to hate on legitimate connections(in this case something that doesn't even compare the opponent to Hitler) on account of a joke rule.