Current Events > What don't you get about evolution?

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4
GATTJT 09/03/18 6:48:16 PM #51:	Herugrim posted... dolomedes posted... Herugrim posted... If humans evolved from Apes, then why are Apes still Apes? humans are still apes, for the record. you don't evolve out of a group. we are apes, we are mammals, we are vertebrates, we are deuterostomes, we are animals, we are alive. So humans can mate with apes then? I mean, if we're the same species, shouldn't that be a thing? Cause I'm pretty sure Humans and Apes are Anthropoids, not that Humans are Apes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae Hominidae (/hmndi/), whose members are known as great apes[note 1] or hominids, are a taxonomic family of primates that includes eight extant species in four genera: Pongo, the Bornean, Sumatran and Tapanuli orangutan; Gorilla, the eastern and western gorilla; Pan, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo; and Homo, which includes modern humans and its extinct relatives (e.g., the Neanderthal), and ancestors, such as Homo erectus.[1] --- http://steamcommunity.com/id/gamerfanfan/wishlist <cite>GATTJT posted [p:908051843] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>Herugrim posted...</cite> <quote><cite>dolomedes posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Herugrim posted...</cite> <quote>If humans evolved from Apes, then why are Apes still Apes?</quote> humans are still apes, for the record. you don't evolve out of a group. we are apes, we are mammals, we are vertebrates, we are deuterostomes, we are animals, we are alive.</quote> So humans can mate with apes then? I mean, if we're the same species, shouldn't that be a thing? Cause I'm pretty sure Humans and Apes are Anthropoids, not that Humans are Apes.</quote> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae Hominidae (/hmndi/), whose members are known as great apes[note 1] or hominids, are a taxonomic family of primates that includes eight extant species in four genera: Pongo, the Bornean, Sumatran and Tapanuli orangutan; Gorilla, the eastern and western gorilla; Pan, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo; and Homo, which includes modern humans and its extinct relatives (e.g., the Neanderthal), and ancestors, such as Homo erectus.[1]</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#52	Post #52 was unavailable or deleted.
#53	Post #53 was unavailable or deleted.
Dragonblade01 09/04/18 12:36:42 AM #54:	That's probably because evolution is inefficient. Wildly inefficient, even. <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:908070846] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote>That's probably because evolution is inefficient. Wildly inefficient, even.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#55	Post #55 was unavailable or deleted.
Zikten 09/04/18 12:40:50 AM #56:	metaIslug posted... I don't get some weirder nuances. Like for example, why asian people have the eyes they do. Another thing I don't get is how seemingly inefficient it is. I would argue humans haven't needed body hair or nails in ages. If evolution was faster we wouldn't spend energy on growing either. We could eat less, maybe sleep less,etc. So what's the deal Asian eyes are because the first asians lived in a region with lots of dust in the air. The eyes are shaped how they are to limit debris getting into the eye <cite>Zikten posted [p:908070983] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>metaIslug posted...</cite> <quote>I don't get some weirder nuances. Like for example, why asian people have the eyes they do. Another thing I don't get is how seemingly inefficient it is. I would argue humans haven't needed body hair or nails in ages. If evolution was faster we wouldn't spend energy on growing either. We could eat less, maybe sleep less,etc. So what's the deal</quote> Asian eyes are because the first asians lived in a region with lots of dust in the air. The eyes are shaped how they are to limit debris getting into the eye</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Irony 09/04/18 12:41:45 AM #57:	I don't get how Espeon and Umbreon weren't a thing in gen 1. Was everyone evolving their Eevee tge second they got them or what? --- I am Mogar, God of Irony and The Devourer of Topics. <cite>Irony posted [p:908071018] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote>I don't get how Espeon and Umbreon weren't a thing in gen 1. Was everyone evolving their Eevee tge second they got them or what?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#58	Post #58 was unavailable or deleted.
Ivany2008 09/04/18 12:43:56 AM #59:	What I don't get is why it stopped or is on a standstill. If we truly evolved from apes, then surely there must be something we will evolve into afterwards. <cite>Ivany2008 posted [p:908071073] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote>What I don't get is why it stopped or is on a standstill. If we truly evolved from apes, then surely there must be something we will evolve into afterwards.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#60	Post #60 was unavailable or deleted.
Vindris_SNH 09/04/18 12:49:22 AM #61:	Transitional fossils... They only make sense with the premise of evolution. With the premise of intelligent design, they're just unique species that were all there initially. Anything to counter this? Rebuttals are welcome. --- glitteringfairy: Just build the damn wall ThyCorndog: and how exactly will that stop the mexican space program from orbital dropping illegal immigrants? <cite>Vindris_SNH posted [p:908071261] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote>Transitional fossils... They only make sense with the premise of evolution. With the premise of intelligent design, they're just unique species that were all there initially. Anything to counter this? Rebuttals are welcome.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 09/04/18 1:09:40 AM #62:	Vindris_SNH posted... Transitional fossils... They only make sense with the premise of evolution. With the premise of intelligent design, they're just unique species that were all there initially. Anything to counter this? Rebuttals are welcome. Well, there's no basis to say they were intelligently designed, so there's no real reason to begin with that premise to begin with. <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:908072039] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>Vindris_SNH posted...</cite> <quote>Transitional fossils... They only make sense with the premise of evolution. With the premise of intelligent design, they're just unique species that were all there initially. Anything to counter this? Rebuttals are welcome.</quote> Well, there's no basis to say they were intelligently designed, so there's no real reason to begin with that premise to begin with.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nicklebrah 09/04/18 1:38:11 AM #64:	Ivany2008 posted... What I don't get is why it stopped or is on a standstill. If we truly evolved from apes, then surely there must be something we will evolve into afterwards. it didn't stop, its not on a standstill. Don't know why you'd think that it was. --- I have an alt now <cite>Nicklebrah posted [p:908072979] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>Ivany2008 posted...</cite> <quote>What I don't get is why it stopped or is on a standstill. If we truly evolved from apes, then surely there must be something we will evolve into afterwards.</quote> it didn't stop, its not on a standstill. Don't know why you'd think that it was.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DanKiller7 09/04/18 5:37:21 AM #65:	https://goo.gl/images/fFSn1Z Why does one evolve into 3 and are they one mind? Or does each head have its own thoughts? Is there one body? So many unanswered questions. --- Collateral Shot! This is too easy.. <cite>DanKiller7 posted [p:908078564] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote>https://goo.gl/images/fFSn1Z Why does one evolve into 3 and are they one mind? Or does each head have its own thoughts? Is there one body? So many unanswered questions.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
omega cookie 09/04/18 5:44:41 AM #66:	I don't understand it at all. I've never been able to understand how an organism can go from, say, having gills to having lungs. I understand the overarching process of course, but I can't "visualize", for lack of a better term, how it actually works. --- FFRK: BRKB - Eiko - Guardian Mog FFBE: 885,063,087 - Orlandeau - 931 ATK <cite>omega cookie posted [p:908078672] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote>I don't understand it at all. I've never been able to understand how an organism can go from, say, having gills to having lungs. I understand the overarching process of course, but I can't "visualize", for lack of a better term, how it actually works.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PokemonExpert44 09/04/18 7:32:05 AM #67:	Dragonblade01 posted... Vindris_SNH posted... Transitional fossils... They only make sense with the premise of evolution. With the premise of intelligent design, they're just unique species that were all there initially. Anything to counter this? Rebuttals are welcome. Well, there's no basis to say they were intelligently designed, so there's no real reason to begin with that premise to begin with. So, a trilobite's high level sophistication is not evidence for intelligent design how, exactly? --- I might just 6-0 you in Pokemon. Watch out for my teams. <cite>PokemonExpert44 posted [p:908080834] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Vindris_SNH posted...</cite> <quote>Transitional fossils... They only make sense with the premise of evolution. With the premise of intelligent design, they're just unique species that were all there initially. Anything to counter this? Rebuttals are welcome.</quote> Well, there's no basis to say they were intelligently designed, so there's no real reason to begin with that premise to begin with.</quote> So, a trilobite's high level sophistication is not evidence for intelligent design how, exactly?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Aressar 09/04/18 8:33:18 AM #68:	Many sceptics toward evolution often argue: "There's no way everything worked out as perfectly as it did all by itself." It's not like it happened overnight. Like others said before, evolution takes a very, very long time. It takes millions of years for species to evolve into various types and it has been going on for billions of years. Keep in mind that a species does not knowingly choose to evolve a certain way, like a frog did not decide that being able to jump very well would be a good trait. From what I've read on evolution, this might help explaining it: Every now and then, in every species, a member of that species is born with deviation, or mutation, or different kind of behaviour. Sometimes this makes life more difficult for that being, but sometimes it fares better than most other members of that species. Its deviating trait makes it slightly better at surviving than others, like being able to blend into their surroundings better, or is more protective of their offspring. When the deviation works to the being's advantage like that, it has a better chance of adapting, procreating and surviving. Others end up being less efficient at that, and end up with a lesser chance of survival, produce less offspring, and/or even die out eventually. Remember that while this happens sporadically and not super often, it takes place over billions of years, and many beings who were not efficient at adapting died out. A lot species died out throughout history, and those who were most apt at not dying out remained, continued to exist and eventually underwent the cycle I just described again. Why the old species died out when it was surviving and procreating before usually has to do with a change of habitat, such as migration due to lack of available food. Sometimes this leads to a being changing its diet, like eating meat due to lack of other food and finding that they can live on that just as well, and passing that habit on to their offspring. TL;DR: a member of a species either adapts by having a certain trait that increases their chances at survival and procreation, or they eventually decline and die out. --- If I were to ask you to have sex with me, would your answer be the same as to the question I just asked you? <cite>Aressar posted [p:908082384] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote>Many sceptics toward evolution often argue: "There's no way everything worked out as perfectly as it did all by itself." It's not like it happened overnight. Like others said before, evolution takes a very, very long time. It takes millions of years for species to evolve into various types and it has been going on for billions of years. Keep in mind that a species does not knowingly choose to evolve a certain way, like a frog did not decide that being able to jump very well would be a good trait. From what I've read on evolution, this might help explaining it: Every now and then, in every species, a member of that species is born with deviation, or mutation, or different kind of behaviour. Sometimes this makes life more difficult for that being, but sometimes it fares better than most other members of that species. Its deviating trait makes it slightly better at surviving than others, like being able to blend into their surroundings better, or is more protective of their offspring. When the deviation works to the being's advantage like that, it has a better chance of adapting, procreating and surviving. Others end up being less efficient at that, and end up with a lesser chance of survival, produce less offspring, and/or even die out eventually. Remember that while this happens sporadically and not super often, it takes place over billions of years, and many beings who were not efficient at adapting died out. A lot species died out throughout history, and those who were most apt at not dying out remained, continued to exist and eventually underwent the cycle I just described again. Why the old species died out when it was surviving and procreating before usually has to do with a change of habitat, such as migration due to lack of available food. Sometimes this leads to a being changing its diet, like eating meat due to lack of other food and finding that they can live on that just as well, and passing that habit on to their offspring. TL;DR: a member of a species either adapts by having a certain trait that increases their chances at survival and procreation, or they eventually decline and die out.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 09/04/18 8:35:38 AM #69:	PokemonExpert44 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Vindris_SNH posted... Transitional fossils... They only make sense with the premise of evolution. With the premise of intelligent design, they're just unique species that were all there initially. Anything to counter this? Rebuttals are welcome. Well, there's no basis to say they were intelligently designed, so there's no real reason to begin with that premise to begin with. So, a trilobite's high level sophistication is not evidence for intelligent design how, exactly? Because contrary to what some may believe, complexity is not a hallmark of design. <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:908082435] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>PokemonExpert44 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Vindris_SNH posted...</cite> <quote>Transitional fossils... They only make sense with the premise of evolution. With the premise of intelligent design, they're just unique species that were all there initially. Anything to counter this? Rebuttals are welcome.</quote> Well, there's no basis to say they were intelligently designed, so there's no real reason to begin with that premise to begin with.</quote> So, a trilobite's high level sophistication is not evidence for intelligent design how, exactly?</quote> Because contrary to what some may believe, complexity is not a hallmark of design.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
apolloooo 09/04/18 8:42:30 AM #70:	How did the first archeae merged with bacteria to form the first multi cellular life. Nothing we know today will exist if not for that. @dolomedes i actually read this in a book "i contain multitudes" which is fascinating so far. It talks about bacteria, and especially human's microbiome and how 75% ( okay the number is off) of bacterial and microbes life actually are beneficial for humanity in one way or another. It so far does a good job explaining things for non scientist academic like me, but maybe because i am already sonewhat of a nerd so i get some of the more technical part of the boook. --- http://i.imgtc.com/iJyp6bF.png http://i.imgtc.com/ZBw36Qh.png Thanks for the peeps that made the pics <3 if i make typos it means i am on phone <cite>apolloooo posted [p:908082626] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote>How did the first archeae merged with bacteria to form the first multi cellular life. Nothing we know today will exist if not for that. @dolomedes i actually read this in a book "i contain multitudes" which is fascinating so far. It talks about bacteria, and especially human's microbiome and how 75% ( okay the number is off) of bacterial and microbes life actually are beneficial for humanity in one way or another. It so far does a good job explaining things for non scientist academic like me, but maybe because i am already sonewhat of a nerd so i get some of the more technical part of the boook.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PokemonExpert44 09/04/18 9:07:36 AM #71:	Dragonblade01 posted... PokemonExpert44 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Vindris_SNH posted... Transitional fossils... They only make sense with the premise of evolution. With the premise of intelligent design, they're just unique species that were all there initially. Anything to counter this? Rebuttals are welcome. Well, there's no basis to say they were intelligently designed, so there's no real reason to begin with that premise to begin with. So, a trilobite's high level sophistication is not evidence for intelligent design how, exactly? Because contrary to what some may believe, complexity is not a hallmark of design. Complexity in the form of "irreducible complexity," and, "specified complexity," sure is massive amounts of evidence for intelligent design, though. --- I might just 6-0 you in Pokemon. Watch out for my teams. <cite>PokemonExpert44 posted [p:908083468] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PokemonExpert44 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Vindris_SNH posted...</cite> <quote>Transitional fossils... They only make sense with the premise of evolution. With the premise of intelligent design, they're just unique species that were all there initially. Anything to counter this? Rebuttals are welcome.</quote> Well, there's no basis to say they were intelligently designed, so there's no real reason to begin with that premise to begin with.</quote> So, a trilobite's high level sophistication is not evidence for intelligent design how, exactly?</quote> Because contrary to what some may believe, complexity is not a hallmark of design.</quote> Complexity in the form of "irreducible complexity," and, "specified complexity," sure is massive amounts of evidence for intelligent design, though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#72	Post #72 was unavailable or deleted.
skermac 09/04/18 9:12:48 AM #73:	If evolution exists why dont we have wings to fly by now --- To the edge of the universe and back, endure and survive <cite>skermac posted [p:908083631] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote>If evolution exists why dont we have wings to fly by now</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#74	Post #74 was unavailable or deleted.
Colorahdo 09/04/18 9:25:00 AM #75:	My degree is centered around evolution If you're not smart enough to understand something as simple as "small changes over millions of years add up" then there's no convincing you --- But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me ~Jesus Christ <cite>Colorahdo posted [p:908084085] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote>My degree is centered around evolution If you're not smart enough to understand something as simple as "small changes over millions of years add up" then there's no convincing you</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AlisLandale 09/04/18 9:26:01 AM #76:	Whats the difference between evolution and digivolution? What evolved first, the mouth or the butt? --- Sigs are for losers <cite>AlisLandale posted [p:908084126] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote>Whats the difference between evolution and digivolution? What evolved first, the mouth or the butt?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 09/04/18 9:27:01 AM #77:	PokemonExpert44 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... PokemonExpert44 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Vindris_SNH posted... Transitional fossils... They only make sense with the premise of evolution. With the premise of intelligent design, they're just unique species that were all there initially. Anything to counter this? Rebuttals are welcome. Well, there's no basis to say they were intelligently designed, so there's no real reason to begin with that premise to begin with. So, a trilobite's high level sophistication is not evidence for intelligent design how, exactly? Because contrary to what some may believe, complexity is not a hallmark of design. Complexity in the form of "irreducible complexity," and, "specified complexity," sure is massive amounts of evidence for intelligent design, though. "Specified complexity" also does not provide evidence for design and is completely bunk, and "irreducible complexity" in the context of biology is little more than a dolled up argument from ignorance. <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:908084167] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>PokemonExpert44 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PokemonExpert44 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Vindris_SNH posted...</cite> <quote>Transitional fossils... They only make sense with the premise of evolution. With the premise of intelligent design, they're just unique species that were all there initially. Anything to counter this? Rebuttals are welcome.</quote> Well, there's no basis to say they were intelligently designed, so there's no real reason to begin with that premise to begin with.</quote> So, a trilobite's high level sophistication is not evidence for intelligent design how, exactly?</quote> Because contrary to what some may believe, complexity is not a hallmark of design.</quote> Complexity in the form of "irreducible complexity," and, "specified complexity," sure is massive amounts of evidence for intelligent design, though.</quote> "Specified complexity" also does not provide evidence for design and is completely bunk, and "irreducible complexity" in the context of biology is little more than a dolled up argument from ignorance.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PokemonExpert44 09/04/18 9:39:05 AM #78:	Dragonblade01 posted... PokemonExpert44 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... PokemonExpert44 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Vindris_SNH posted... Transitional fossils... They only make sense with the premise of evolution. With the premise of intelligent design, they're just unique species that were all there initially. Anything to counter this? Rebuttals are welcome. Well, there's no basis to say they were intelligently designed, so there's no real reason to begin with that premise to begin with. So, a trilobite's high level sophistication is not evidence for intelligent design how, exactly? Because contrary to what some may believe, complexity is not a hallmark of design. Complexity in the form of "irreducible complexity," and, "specified complexity," sure is massive amounts of evidence for intelligent design, though. "Specified complexity" also does not provide evidence for design and is completely bunk, and "irreducible complexity" in the context of biology is little more than a dolled up argument from ignorance. Specified complexity is evidence for intelligent design because that's what every organism shows; a specified pattern from intelligence in the genomes and pathways of organisms. Also, irreducible complexity has never been refuted, and, it also provides evidence for intelligent design due to what we know of stuff like the flagellum, transduction, and, gene duplication. It also means that our current knowledge of the irreducible/specified complexity of organisms is due to our research and knowledge about them, and, it's so not due to our so-called ignorance of them, and also, it never has been due to ignorance, but rather our continuing discoveries about how they work. --- I might just 6-0 you in Pokemon. Watch out for my teams. <cite>PokemonExpert44 posted [p:908084588] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PokemonExpert44 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PokemonExpert44 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Vindris_SNH posted...</cite> <quote>Transitional fossils... They only make sense with the premise of evolution. With the premise of intelligent design, they're just unique species that were all there initially. Anything to counter this? Rebuttals are welcome.</quote> Well, there's no basis to say they were intelligently designed, so there's no real reason to begin with that premise to begin with.</quote> So, a trilobite's high level sophistication is not evidence for intelligent design how, exactly?</quote> Because contrary to what some may believe, complexity is not a hallmark of design.</quote> Complexity in the form of "irreducible complexity," and, "specified complexity," sure is massive amounts of evidence for intelligent design, though.</quote> "Specified complexity" also does not provide evidence for design and is completely bunk, and "irreducible complexity" in the context of biology is little more than a dolled up argument from ignorance.</quote> Specified complexity is evidence for intelligent design because that's what every organism shows; a specified pattern from intelligence in the genomes and pathways of organisms. Also, irreducible complexity has never been refuted, and, it also provides evidence for intelligent design due to what we know of stuff like the flagellum, transduction, and, gene duplication. It also means that our current knowledge of the irreducible/specified complexity of organisms is due to our research and knowledge about them, and, it's so not due to our so-called ignorance of them, and also, it never has been due to ignorance, but rather our continuing discoveries about how they work.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Romes187 09/04/18 9:52:00 AM #79:	Competence without comprehension <cite>Romes187 posted [p:908085072] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote>Competence without comprehension</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
spikethedevil 09/04/18 9:57:13 AM #80:	Herugrim posted... If humans evolved from Apes, then why are Apes still Apes? Humans still are apes. --- A garbage pod!? It's a smegging garbage pod! <cite>spikethedevil posted [p:908085300] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>Herugrim posted...</cite> <quote>If humans evolved from Apes, then why are Apes still Apes?</quote> Humans still are apes.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#81	Post #81 was unavailable or deleted.
#82	Post #82 was unavailable or deleted.
Dragonblade01 09/04/18 10:27:47 AM #83:	PokemonExpert44 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... PokemonExpert44 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... PokemonExpert44 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Vindris_SNH posted... Transitional fossils... They only make sense with the premise of evolution. With the premise of intelligent design, they're just unique species that were all there initially. Anything to counter this? Rebuttals are welcome. Well, there's no basis to say they were intelligently designed, so there's no real reason to begin with that premise to begin with. So, a trilobite's high level sophistication is not evidence for intelligent design how, exactly? Because contrary to what some may believe, complexity is not a hallmark of design. Complexity in the form of "irreducible complexity," and, "specified complexity," sure is massive amounts of evidence for intelligent design, though. "Specified complexity" also does not provide evidence for design and is completely bunk, and "irreducible complexity" in the context of biology is little more than a dolled up argument from ignorance. Specified complexity is evidence for intelligent design because that's what every organism shows; a specified pattern from intelligence in the genomes and pathways of organisms. Also, irreducible complexity has never been refuted, and, it also provides evidence for intelligent design due to what we know of stuff like the flagellum, transduction, and, gene duplication. It also means that our current knowledge of the irreducible/specified complexity of organisms is due to our research and knowledge about them, and, it's so not due to our so-called ignorance of them, and also, it never has been due to ignorance, but rather our continuing discoveries about how they work. And, again, I have to point out that this complexity that you speak of is not actually a hallmark of design. Furthermore, the argument from ignorance is simply conclusions drawn from lack of knowledge rather than drawn from specific evidence for something. That is precisely the kind of argument that comes from claims to irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity does not, itself, evidence design (because complexity doesn't evidence design). Rather, the argument is that "we don't know how it could be anything other than design, therefore it's design." <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:908086718] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>PokemonExpert44 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PokemonExpert44 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PokemonExpert44 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Vindris_SNH posted...</cite> <quote>Transitional fossils... They only make sense with the premise of evolution. With the premise of intelligent design, they're just unique species that were all there initially. Anything to counter this? Rebuttals are welcome.</quote> Well, there's no basis to say they were intelligently designed, so there's no real reason to begin with that premise to begin with.</quote> So, a trilobite's high level sophistication is not evidence for intelligent design how, exactly?</quote> Because contrary to what some may believe, complexity is not a hallmark of design.</quote> Complexity in the form of "irreducible complexity," and, "specified complexity," sure is massive amounts of evidence for intelligent design, though.</quote> "Specified complexity" also does not provide evidence for design and is completely bunk, and "irreducible complexity" in the context of biology is little more than a dolled up argument from ignorance.</quote> Specified complexity is evidence for intelligent design because that's what every organism shows; a specified pattern from intelligence in the genomes and pathways of organisms. Also, irreducible complexity has never been refuted, and, it also provides evidence for intelligent design due to what we know of stuff like the flagellum, transduction, and, gene duplication. It also means that our current knowledge of the irreducible/specified complexity of organisms is due to our research and knowledge about them, and, it's so not due to our so-called ignorance of them, and also, it never has been due to ignorance, but rather our continuing discoveries about how they work.</quote> And, again, I have to point out that this complexity that you speak of is not actually a hallmark of design. Furthermore, the argument from ignorance is simply conclusions drawn from lack of knowledge rather than drawn from specific evidence for something. That is precisely the kind of argument that comes from claims to irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity does not, itself, evidence design (because complexity doesn't evidence design). Rather, the argument is that "we don't know how it could be anything other than design, therefore it's design."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Vindris_SNH 09/04/18 11:04:21 AM #84:	Dragonblade01 posted... Vindris_SNH posted... Transitional fossils... They only make sense with the premise of evolution. With the premise of intelligent design, they're just unique species that were all there initially. Anything to counter this? Rebuttals are welcome. Well, there's no basis to say they were intelligently designed, so there's no real reason to begin with that premise to begin with. What's the basis to say they evolved? --- glitteringfairy: Just build the damn wall ThyCorndog: and how exactly will that stop the mexican space program from orbital dropping illegal immigrants? <cite>Vindris_SNH posted [p:908088545] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Vindris_SNH posted...</cite> <quote>Transitional fossils... They only make sense with the premise of evolution. With the premise of intelligent design, they're just unique species that were all there initially. Anything to counter this? Rebuttals are welcome.</quote> Well, there's no basis to say they were intelligently designed, so there's no real reason to begin with that premise to begin with.</quote> What's the basis to say they evolved?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Colorahdo 09/04/18 11:12:58 AM #85:	I can't believe CE is arguing about evolution this is like arguing with flat earthers. There's no point. --- But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me ~Jesus Christ <cite>Colorahdo posted [p:908088989] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote>I can't believe CE is arguing about evolution this is like arguing with flat earthers. There's no point.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Vindris_SNH 09/04/18 11:20:15 AM #86:	Colorahdo posted... I can't believe CE is arguing about evolution this is like arguing with flat earthers. There's no point. Yeah evolution is a perfect theory with no flaws, everyone should just trust what they're being taught and never question it because scientists have never been wrong. --- glitteringfairy: Just build the damn wall ThyCorndog: and how exactly will that stop the mexican space program from orbital dropping illegal immigrants? <cite>Vindris_SNH posted [p:908089354] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>Colorahdo posted...</cite> <quote>I can't believe CE is arguing about evolution this is like arguing with flat earthers. There's no point.</quote> Yeah evolution is a perfect theory with no flaws, everyone should just trust what they're being taught and never question it because scientists have never been wrong.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
apolloooo 09/04/18 11:24:46 AM #87:	dolomedes posted... i actually never finished that book. distractable! i'm not sure how familiar you are with the author, but he had an amazing blog for years (not exactly rocket science) The name isnt unfamiliar, i kinda rarely pay attention to article authors tho, but yeah i know the name but isnt following hin too closely or anything ( which will probably change after i finisjed this book) --- http://i.imgtc.com/iJyp6bF.png http://i.imgtc.com/ZBw36Qh.png Thanks for the peeps that made the pics <3 if i make typos it means i am on phone <cite>apolloooo posted [p:908089613] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>dolomedes posted...</cite> <quote>i actually never finished that book. distractable! i'm not sure how familiar you are with the author, but he had an amazing blog for years (not exactly rocket science)</quote> The name isnt unfamiliar, i kinda rarely pay attention to article authors tho, but yeah i know the name but isnt following hin too closely or anything ( which will probably change after i finisjed this book)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 09/04/18 11:27:41 AM #88:	Vindris_SNH posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Vindris_SNH posted... Transitional fossils... They only make sense with the premise of evolution. With the premise of intelligent design, they're just unique species that were all there initially. Anything to counter this? Rebuttals are welcome. Well, there's no basis to say they were intelligently designed, so there's no real reason to begin with that premise to begin with. What's the basis to say they evolved? Because evolution is an observable phenomenon. It's kind of like how we observed gravity in our local environment first and then developed a model using it to describe the motion of objects in space, rather than assuming some invisible being was physically moving them. <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:908089785] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>Vindris_SNH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Vindris_SNH posted...</cite> <quote>Transitional fossils... They only make sense with the premise of evolution. With the premise of intelligent design, they're just unique species that were all there initially. Anything to counter this? Rebuttals are welcome.</quote> Well, there's no basis to say they were intelligently designed, so there's no real reason to begin with that premise to begin with.</quote> What's the basis to say they evolved?</quote> Because evolution is an observable phenomenon. It's kind of like how we observed gravity in our local environment first and then developed a model using it to describe the motion of objects in space, rather than assuming some invisible being was physically moving them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Vindris_SNH 09/04/18 11:47:25 AM #89:	Dragonblade01 posted... Vindris_SNH posted... Dragonblade01 posted... Vindris_SNH posted... Transitional fossils... They only make sense with the premise of evolution. With the premise of intelligent design, they're just unique species that were all there initially. Anything to counter this? Rebuttals are welcome. Well, there's no basis to say they were intelligently designed, so there's no real reason to begin with that premise to begin with. What's the basis to say they evolved? Because evolution is an observable phenomenon. It's kind of like how we observed gravity in our local environment first and then developed a model using it to describe the motion of objects in space, rather than assuming some invisible being was physically moving them. How has evolution been observed first hand if our current scientific methods aren't old enough to have recorded evolution as it has been theorized to have occurred? Evolution supposedly takes a very long time, even for small changes to occur, yet you claim we've seen evolution in action? I think perhaps we've observed some minor levels of adaptation and hybridization, but have we observed speciation? --- glitteringfairy: Just build the damn wall ThyCorndog: and how exactly will that stop the mexican space program from orbital dropping illegal immigrants? <cite>Vindris_SNH posted [p:908090995] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Vindris_SNH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Vindris_SNH posted...</cite> <quote>Transitional fossils... They only make sense with the premise of evolution. With the premise of intelligent design, they're just unique species that were all there initially. Anything to counter this? Rebuttals are welcome.</quote> Well, there's no basis to say they were intelligently designed, so there's no real reason to begin with that premise to begin with.</quote> What's the basis to say they evolved?</quote> Because evolution is an observable phenomenon. It's kind of like how we observed gravity in our local environment first and then developed a model using it to describe the motion of objects in space, rather than assuming some invisible being was physically moving them.</quote> How has evolution been observed first hand if our current scientific methods aren't old enough to have recorded evolution as it has been theorized to have occurred? Evolution supposedly takes a very long time, even for small changes to occur, yet you claim we've seen evolution in action? I think perhaps we've observed some minor levels of adaptation and hybridization, but have we observed speciation?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 09/04/18 12:13:03 PM #90:	Vindris_SNH posted... How has evolution been observed first hand if our current scientific methods aren't old enough to have recorded evolution as it has been theorized to have occurred? Evolution supposedly takes a very long time, even for small changes to occur, yet you claim we've seen evolution in action? I think perhaps we've observed some minor levels of adaptation and hybridization, but have we observed speciation? First, you don't have to observe speciation in order to observe evolution. The phenomenon of evolution is merely the change in genetic traits in a population over time. Even Darwin himself observed the phenomenon in action (although we've obviously come a long, long way since his initial findings). Second, though evolution does indeed take a very long time, we can still observe small speciation events thanks to the exceedingly fast generation cycles of certain organisms (such as bacteria). If you are asking whether we've directly observed one creature changing into a significantly different looking creature after countless successive generations, then no. Third, while the concept of speciation is important to us as we try to understand the creatures on this planet, it's important not to get too wrapped up in it. Taxonomy is essentially an ambitious exercise in labeling things based on certain criteria. While this is obviously helpful in our understanding of life on Earth, the phenomenon of evolution itself is largely separate from the process of labeling the creatures which result from it. After all, from the standpoint of evolution, every organism is just a different variation on the original lifeform. It doesn't really care how we choose to label said variations. Fourth and last, for all the effort made to poke holes in evolution, there's still a need to provide evidence for intelligent design if that's what you would propose. Going back to the theory of gravity as analogy; even if you were to demonstrate that the theory of gravity is a completely untenable model to explain what we observe, that still wouldn't make it reasonable to assume some intelligent being was personally moving the objects in space themselves. You'd have to demonstrate that claim separately. <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:908092478] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>Vindris_SNH posted...</cite> <quote>How has evolution been observed first hand if our current scientific methods aren't old enough to have recorded evolution as it has been theorized to have occurred? Evolution supposedly takes a very long time, even for small changes to occur, yet you claim we've seen evolution in action? I think perhaps we've observed some minor levels of adaptation and hybridization, but have we observed speciation?</quote> First, you don't have to observe speciation in order to observe evolution. The phenomenon of evolution is merely the change in genetic traits in a population over time. Even Darwin himself observed the phenomenon in action (although we've obviously come a long, long way since his initial findings). Second, though evolution does indeed take a very long time, we can still observe small speciation events thanks to the exceedingly fast generation cycles of certain organisms (such as bacteria). If you are asking whether we've directly observed one creature changing into a significantly different looking creature after countless successive generations, then no. Third, while the concept of speciation is important to us as we try to understand the creatures on this planet, it's important not to get too wrapped up in it. Taxonomy is essentially an ambitious exercise in labeling things based on certain criteria. While this is obviously helpful in our understanding of life on Earth, the phenomenon of evolution itself is largely separate from the process of labeling the creatures which result from it. After all, from the standpoint of evolution, every organism is just a different variation on the original lifeform. It doesn't really care how we choose to label said variations. Fourth and last, for all the effort made to poke holes in evolution, there's still a need to provide evidence for intelligent design if that's what you would propose. Going back to the theory of gravity as analogy; even if you were to demonstrate that the theory of gravity is a completely untenable model to explain what we observe, that still wouldn't make it reasonable to assume some intelligent being was personally moving the objects in space themselves. You'd have to demonstrate that claim separately.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Vindris_SNH 09/04/18 2:50:15 PM #91:	I would argue that a lot of the evidence for evolution could also be used as evidence for intelligent design. Good example is the fossil records we have that seem to suggest transitional species... Or from an intelligent design point of view, one being created all living things, so it stands to reason that all living things will have similarities. Of course evidence doesn't outright prove anything. I would never argue that intelligent design can be proven, but there certainly is evidence for it, and it can't be disproved. Which to me, basically means you're only insulting your own intelligence and open-mindedness by making fun of others for deciding to believe we were created. But the same goes for people going after evolution. I have criticisms of our current theory of evolution, but I maintain an open mind, and believe in God regardless, because I understand that evolution and God can coexist... And the lack of that understanding is what sparked religious groups to attack evolution; because they thought the validity of evolution threatened their beliefs. --- glitteringfairy: Just build the damn wall ThyCorndog: and how exactly will that stop the mexican space program from orbital dropping illegal immigrants? <cite>Vindris_SNH posted [p:908101370] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote>I would argue that a lot of the evidence for evolution could also be used as evidence for intelligent design. Good example is the fossil records we have that seem to suggest transitional species... Or from an intelligent design point of view, one being created all living things, so it stands to reason that all living things will have similarities. Of course evidence doesn't outright prove anything. I would never argue that intelligent design can be proven, but there certainly is evidence for it, and it can't be disproved. Which to me, basically means you're only insulting your own intelligence and open-mindedness by making fun of others for deciding to believe we were created. But the same goes for people going after evolution. I have criticisms of our current theory of evolution, but I maintain an open mind, and believe in God regardless, because I understand that evolution and God can coexist... And the lack of that understanding is what sparked religious groups to attack evolution; because they thought the validity of evolution threatened their beliefs.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PokemonExpert44 09/04/18 3:03:34 PM #92:	Vindris_SNH posted... I would argue that a lot of the evidence for evolution could also be used as evidence for intelligent design. Good example is the fossil records we have that seem to suggest transitional species... Or from an intelligent design point of view, one being created all living things, so it stands to reason that all living things will have similarities. Of course evidence doesn't outright prove anything. I would never argue that intelligent design can be proven, but there certainly is evidence for it, and it can't be disproved. Which to me, basically means you're only insulting your own intelligence and open-mindedness by making fun of others for deciding to believe we were created. But the same goes for people going after evolution. I have criticisms of our current theory of evolution, but I maintain an open mind, and believe in God regardless, because I understand that evolution and God can coexist... And the lack of that understanding is what sparked religious groups to attack evolution; because they thought the validity of evolution threatened their beliefs. God and evolution can't both be right, though. --- I might just 6-0 you in Pokemon. Watch out for my teams. <cite>PokemonExpert44 posted [p:908102102] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>Vindris_SNH posted...</cite> <quote>I would argue that a lot of the evidence for evolution could also be used as evidence for intelligent design. Good example is the fossil records we have that seem to suggest transitional species... Or from an intelligent design point of view, one being created all living things, so it stands to reason that all living things will have similarities. Of course evidence doesn't outright prove anything. I would never argue that intelligent design can be proven, but there certainly is evidence for it, and it can't be disproved. Which to me, basically means you're only insulting your own intelligence and open-mindedness by making fun of others for deciding to believe we were created. But the same goes for people going after evolution. I have criticisms of our current theory of evolution, but I maintain an open mind, and believe in God regardless, because I understand that evolution and God can coexist... And the lack of that understanding is what sparked religious groups to attack evolution; because they thought the validity of evolution threatened their beliefs.</quote> God and evolution can't both be right, though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Vindris_SNH 09/04/18 3:10:24 PM #93:	PokemonExpert44 posted... God and evolution can't both be right, though. Sure they can. God could have set the events of evolution in motion. --- glitteringfairy: Just build the damn wall ThyCorndog: and how exactly will that stop the mexican space program from orbital dropping illegal immigrants? <cite>Vindris_SNH posted [p:908102485] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>PokemonExpert44 posted...</cite> <quote>God and evolution can't both be right, though.</quote> Sure they can. God could have set the events of evolution in motion.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GS4Life 09/04/18 3:11:57 PM #94:	DirkDiggles posted... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXMOvMba2bM" data-time=" Too late to this topic, Eh fuck it Evolution is a mystery.... --- -Grove Street 4 Life- If you were able would you go change the past to mend a faux pas with one last chance <cite>GS4Life posted [p:908102579] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>DirkDiggles posted...</cite> <quote> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXMOvMba2bM" data-time="</quote> Too late to this topic, Eh fuck it Evolution is a mystery....</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PokemonExpert44 09/04/18 3:55:52 PM #95:	Vindris_SNH posted... PokemonExpert44 posted... God and evolution can't both be right, though. Sure they can. God could have set the events of evolution in motion. theistic evolution is false, bro --- I might just 6-0 you in Pokemon. Watch out for my teams. <cite>PokemonExpert44 posted [p:908105215] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>Vindris_SNH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PokemonExpert44 posted...</cite> <quote>God and evolution can't both be right, though.</quote> Sure they can. God could have set the events of evolution in motion.</quote> theistic evolution is false, bro</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Prestoff 09/04/18 5:41:40 PM #96:	PokemonExpert44 posted... Vindris_SNH posted... PokemonExpert44 posted... God and evolution can't both be right, though. Sure they can. God could have set the events of evolution in motion. theistic evolution is false, bro It really depends in my opinion. It's only false if they try to invoke that it's the Judeo Christian God from the bible to be the one who kickstart evolution because the concept of evolution goes directly against not only the creation story but that God is supposedly all powerful, loving, and knowing. Like if the God of the bible is so perfect, why did he use the most slow and inefficient way to help man became what they became to this day? Why couldn't he make us perfect from the start? I'm not entirely against the idea of intelligent design, only when they try to do the "god of the gaps" logic to their deity. --- It's what all true warriors strive for! <cite>Prestoff posted [p:908111214] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>PokemonExpert44 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Vindris_SNH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PokemonExpert44 posted...</cite> <quote>God and evolution can't both be right, though.</quote> Sure they can. God could have set the events of evolution in motion.</quote> theistic evolution is false, bro</quote> It really depends in my opinion. It's only false if they try to invoke that it's the Judeo Christian God from the bible to be the one who kickstart evolution because the concept of evolution goes directly against not only the creation story but that God is supposedly all powerful, loving, and knowing. Like if the God of the bible is so perfect, why did he use the most slow and inefficient way to help man became what they became to this day? Why couldn't he make us perfect from the start? I'm not entirely against the idea of intelligent design, only when they try to do the "god of the gaps" logic to their deity.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Vindris_SNH 09/04/18 6:52:12 PM #97:	Prestoff posted... PokemonExpert44 posted... Vindris_SNH posted... PokemonExpert44 posted... God and evolution can't both be right, though. Sure they can. God could have set the events of evolution in motion. theistic evolution is false, bro It really depends in my opinion. It's only false if they try to invoke that it's the Judeo Christian God from the bible to be the one who kickstart evolution because the concept of evolution goes directly against not only the creation story but that God is supposedly all powerful, loving, and knowing. Like if the God of the bible is so perfect, why did he use the most slow and inefficient way to help man became what they became to this day? Why couldn't he make us perfect from the start? I'm not entirely against the idea of intelligent design, only when they try to do the "god of the gaps" logic to their deity. Or Genesis was allegory. --- glitteringfairy: Just build the damn wall ThyCorndog: and how exactly will that stop the mexican space program from orbital dropping illegal immigrants? <cite>Vindris_SNH posted [p:908115437] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>Prestoff posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PokemonExpert44 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Vindris_SNH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PokemonExpert44 posted...</cite> <quote>God and evolution can't both be right, though.</quote> Sure they can. God could have set the events of evolution in motion.</quote> theistic evolution is false, bro</quote> It really depends in my opinion. It's only false if they try to invoke that it's the Judeo Christian God from the bible to be the one who kickstart evolution because the concept of evolution goes directly against not only the creation story but that God is supposedly all powerful, loving, and knowing. Like if the God of the bible is so perfect, why did he use the most slow and inefficient way to help man became what they became to this day? Why couldn't he make us perfect from the start? I'm not entirely against the idea of intelligent design, only when they try to do the "god of the gaps" logic to their deity.</quote> Or Genesis was allegory.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Prestoff 09/04/18 10:41:17 PM #98:	Vindris_SNH posted... Prestoff posted... PokemonExpert44 posted... Vindris_SNH posted... PokemonExpert44 posted... God and evolution can't both be right, though. Sure they can. God could have set the events of evolution in motion. theistic evolution is false, bro It really depends in my opinion. It's only false if they try to invoke that it's the Judeo Christian God from the bible to be the one who kickstart evolution because the concept of evolution goes directly against not only the creation story but that God is supposedly all powerful, loving, and knowing. Like if the God of the bible is so perfect, why did he use the most slow and inefficient way to help man became what they became to this day? Why couldn't he make us perfect from the start? I'm not entirely against the idea of intelligent design, only when they try to do the "god of the gaps" logic to their deity. Or Genesis was allegory. Still goes against the nature that the Judeo-Christian God from the bible is all loving, knowing, and powerful. Evolution is a messy system, involves animals eating and killing each other, not to mention it's slow and inefficient. --- It's what all true warriors strive for! <cite>Prestoff posted [p:908128971] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>Vindris_SNH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Prestoff posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PokemonExpert44 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Vindris_SNH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>PokemonExpert44 posted...</cite> <quote>God and evolution can't both be right, though.</quote> Sure they can. God could have set the events of evolution in motion.</quote> theistic evolution is false, bro</quote> It really depends in my opinion. It's only false if they try to invoke that it's the Judeo Christian God from the bible to be the one who kickstart evolution because the concept of evolution goes directly against not only the creation story but that God is supposedly all powerful, loving, and knowing. Like if the God of the bible is so perfect, why did he use the most slow and inefficient way to help man became what they became to this day? Why couldn't he make us perfect from the start? I'm not entirely against the idea of intelligent design, only when they try to do the "god of the gaps" logic to their deity.</quote> Or Genesis was allegory.</quote> Still goes against the nature that the Judeo-Christian God from the bible is all loving, knowing, and powerful. Evolution is a messy system, involves animals eating and killing each other, not to mention it's slow and inefficient.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Vindris_SNH 09/04/18 11:06:48 PM #99:	Prestoff posted... Still goes against the nature that the Judeo-Christian God from the bible is all loving, knowing, and powerful. Evolution is a messy system, involves animals eating and killing each other, not to mention it's slow and inefficient. Not really --- glitteringfairy: Just build the damn wall ThyCorndog: and how exactly will that stop the mexican space program from orbital dropping illegal immigrants? <cite>Vindris_SNH posted [p:908130440] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>Prestoff posted...</cite> <quote>Still goes against the nature that the Judeo-Christian God from the bible is all loving, knowing, and powerful. Evolution is a messy system, involves animals eating and killing each other, not to mention it's slow and inefficient.</quote> Not really</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Prestoff 09/05/18 12:05:35 AM #100:	Vindris_SNH posted... Prestoff posted... Still goes against the nature that the Judeo-Christian God from the bible is all loving, knowing, and powerful. Evolution is a messy system, involves animals eating and killing each other, not to mention it's slow and inefficient. Not really ya rly --- It's what all true warriors strive for! <cite>Prestoff posted [p:908133486] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>Vindris_SNH posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Prestoff posted...</cite> <quote>Still goes against the nature that the Judeo-Christian God from the bible is all loving, knowing, and powerful. Evolution is a messy system, involves animals eating and killing each other, not to mention it's slow and inefficient.</quote> Not really</quote> ya rly</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 09/05/18 12:18:09 AM #101:	Vindris_SNH posted... I would argue that a lot of the evidence for evolution could also be used as evidence for intelligent design. Good example is the fossil records we have that seem to suggest transitional species... Or from an intelligent design point of view, one being created all living things, so it stands to reason that all living things will have similarities. Of course evidence doesn't outright prove anything. I would never argue that intelligent design can be proven, but there certainly is evidence for it, and it can't be disproved. Which to me, basically means you're only insulting your own intelligence and open-mindedness by making fun of others for deciding to believe we were created. But the same goes for people going after evolution. I have criticisms of our current theory of evolution, but I maintain an open mind, and believe in God regardless, because I understand that evolution and God can coexist... And the lack of that understanding is what sparked religious groups to attack evolution; because they thought the validity of evolution threatened their beliefs. But the thing is, and I don't mean to sound too blunt, there is no evidence that points to design. These aren't two equal ideas where the same evidence can be used to support both. Transitional fossils evidence evolution by showing consistent trends in the development of certain traits. But how do they evidence design? Because they could also exist in a designed world? That's not evidence, you're just acknowledging that they exist regardless of the model that explains them. But we already know they exist. Just because it might be possible for something to be true, that doesn't make it reasonable to believe. <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:908134074] in What don't... [t:76959750]...</cite> <quote><cite>Vindris_SNH posted...</cite> <quote>I would argue that a lot of the evidence for evolution could also be used as evidence for intelligent design. Good example is the fossil records we have that seem to suggest transitional species... Or from an intelligent design point of view, one being created all living things, so it stands to reason that all living things will have similarities. Of course evidence doesn't outright prove anything. I would never argue that intelligent design can be proven, but there certainly is evidence for it, and it can't be disproved. Which to me, basically means you're only insulting your own intelligence and open-mindedness by making fun of others for deciding to believe we were created. But the same goes for people going after evolution. I have criticisms of our current theory of evolution, but I maintain an open mind, and believe in God regardless, because I understand that evolution and God can coexist... And the lack of that understanding is what sparked religious groups to attack evolution; because they thought the validity of evolution threatened their beliefs.</quote> But the thing is, and I don't mean to sound too blunt, there is no evidence that points to design. These aren't two equal ideas where the same evidence can be used to support both. Transitional fossils evidence evolution by showing consistent trends in the development of certain traits. But how do they evidence design? Because they could also exist in a designed world? That's not evidence, you're just acknowledging that they exist regardless of the model that explains them. But we already know they exist. Just because it might be possible for something to be true, that doesn't make it reasonable to believe.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4

Current Events > What don't you get about evolution? (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > What don't you get about evolution?