# Why Is It...



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 4, 2011)

That most people who don't accept the theory of evolution simply don't understand it. Like, you never see anyone really who understands the theory who still doesn't accept it... Yet these people deny it and _pretend_ like they understand it, then when you ask them details about it they show a clear lack of understanding, usually not even at a high school level. 

Who here can honestly say they understand it and still don't accept it? Anyone?


----------



## racerboy71 (Mar 4, 2011)

not me.. i'd rather just believe some magical man invented the whole thing and then had a kid born from a mother who never had sex and than escaped out of a cave after he was killed and magically lives up in the clouds somewhere waiting for the day to come when he can come back down to earth and save us all... lmao...
NOT...


----------



## Kartel Kriminal (Mar 4, 2011)

If the theory of evolution is so definitive then why is so much of it speculated? I don't have to thoroughly understand any man-made concept if I know what its major flaws are.


----------



## destructo (Mar 4, 2011)

Kartel Kriminal said:


> If the theory of evolution is so definitive then why is so much of it speculated? I don't have to thoroughly understand any man-made concept if I know what its major flaws are.


you should point out all of it's major flaws.


----------



## RollUpMikey (Mar 4, 2011)

The theory has yet to be proven completely flawless, but then again.. look at the bible. (notice how i didn't capitalize on the 'B')
If Stephen Hawking had another 20 years with a full psychical working body, Science would not necessarily only prove it right, but make it obsolete.
Tithing on Sunday's church has become a thing of the past. People tithe to keep their own religion alive, and also puts big bucks into the creator of their churches wallet.
People "donate" more $ into their church each year then annually on fundraisers and legitimate causes.


----------



## dam612 (Mar 4, 2011)

View attachment 1475560
i think you have to be dumb not to believe 
"


(A) _Pan troglodytes_, chimpanzee, modern
(B) _Australopithecus africanus_, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) _Australopithecus africanus_, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) _Homo habilis_, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) _Homo habilis_, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) _Homo rudolfensis_, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) _Homo erectus_, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) _Homo ergaster_ (early _H. erectus_), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) _Homo heidelbergensis_, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) _Homo sapiens neanderthalensis_, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) _Homo sapiens sapiens_, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) _Homo sapiens sapiens_, modern


----------



## smokebros (Mar 4, 2011)

jah mon!!!!!


----------



## Kartel Kriminal (Mar 5, 2011)

destructo said:


> you should point out all of it's major flaws.


The only one I care to mention is the lack of necessary fossils. Fossils that would show proof of each evolutional phase for any given species. These fossils being found is not probable. There would have to be an astronomical amount of ancient animals we have no knowledge of. There would be fossils per each animal that was the proto-type for the next animal that evolved from it. We DEFINIATELY would have found those by now.

The theory of evolution has alot in common with pokemon.


----------



## destructo (Mar 5, 2011)

Kartel Kriminal said:


> The only one I care to mention is the lack of necessary fossils. Fossils that would show proof of each evolutional phase for any given species. These fossils being found is not probable. There would have to be an astronomical amount of ancient animals we have no knowledge of. There would be fossils per each animal that was the proto-type for the next animal that evolved from it. We DEFINIATELY would have found those by now.
> 
> The theory of evolution has alot in common with pokemon.


If you have any curiosity about the subject, I suggest you look through this. It explains that very issue and many others people have with evolution. There actually are a lot of intermediate fossil records now.

http://www.skeptic.com/downloads/top-10-evolution-myths.pdf


----------



## mellokitty (Mar 5, 2011)

<3 clay bennett


----------



## del66666 (Mar 5, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> That most people who don't accept the theory of evolution simply don't understand it. Like, you never see anyone really who understands the theory who still doesn't accept it... Yet these people deny it and _pretend_ like they understand it, then when you ask them details about it they show a clear lack of understanding, usually not even at a high school level.
> 
> Who here can honestly say they understand it and still don't accept it? Anyone?


huh, i dont understand what your saying mate.................


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 5, 2011)

Do you know anyone who knows the in's and out's of the theory of evolution, took more than a high school course on it, etc. that still doesn't accept it as fact? 

Do these people exist? I'd put money down that they don't and that all the millions of people out there who don't accept it at this point simply don't understand it, and if they did - they would.

hmm...


----------



## del66666 (Mar 5, 2011)

i did understand you really, i know people who are in the god squad that get real mad when i mention evolution...........


----------



## destructo (Mar 5, 2011)

del66666 said:


> huh, i dont understand what your saying mate.................


lol, I could tell you had some kind of hidden reason for posting that.


----------



## VER D (Mar 5, 2011)

i don't like the theory of evolution simply on the fact that i dont know what caused it and how it happend and how did it originate to make simple i dont know how it even got started in the 1st place and what made animals evolve what help em was it genetic mutation what caused genetic mutation


----------



## del66666 (Mar 5, 2011)

VER D said:


> i don't like the theory of evolution simply on the fact that i dont know what caused it and how it happend and how did it originate to make simple i dont know how it even got started in the 1st place and what made animals evolve what help em was it genetic mutation what caused genetic mutation


things evolved due to enviroment and over a long long time, if change is to quick there is no time to evolve and you and me wouldnt be here, evolution is the fight of all living things to survive.


----------



## VER D (Mar 5, 2011)

del66666 said:


> things evolved due to enviroment and over a long long time, if change is to quick there is no time to evolve and you and me wouldnt be here, evolution is the fight of all living things to survive.


 i kno that but how did it get started what got it started, on another not so what your saying a nigga in the hood would evolve different than a nigga who in a gated community


----------



## destructo (Mar 5, 2011)

VER D said:


> i don't like the theory of evolution simply on the fact that i dont know what caused it and how it happend and how did it originate to make simple i dont know how it even got started in the 1st place and what made animals evolve what help em was it genetic mutation what caused genetic mutation


Natural selection is the cornerstone of evolution. In the process of natural selection, individuals in a population who are well-adapted to a particular set of environmental conditions have an advantage over those who are not so well adapted. The advantage comes in the form of survival and reproductive success. For example, those individuals who are better able to find and use a food resource will, on average, live longer and produce more offspring than those who are less successful at finding food. Inherited traits that increase individuals' fitness are then passed to their offspring, thus giving the offspring the same advantages. 

Aquired mutations are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, these changes cannot be passed onto the next generation. A new mutation is an alteration in a gene that is present for the first time in one family member as a result of a mutation in a germ cell (egg or sperm) of one of the parents or in the fertilized egg itself, this can be passed on to offspring. Another form of genetic change is meiosis which is a special type of cell division necessary for sexual reproduction. Meiosis is what gives rise to genetic diversity. If Independent Assortment or genetic mutation create beneficial alleles, the result would be a better species more able to survive. On the other hand, detrimental changes in DNA would result in a species with a lower chance of survival. An allele is one of two or more forms of the DNA sequence of a particular gene. Each gene can have different alleles. Sometimes, different DNA sequences (alleles) can result in different traits, such as color. Other times, different alleles will have the same result in the expression of a gene.


----------



## W N L (Mar 5, 2011)

I don't mind what others believe as far as religion. Im not a fan, but in my honest outlook, I think religion is for people (In general) that can't deal with death. Not everybody, and I don't want to offend by any means, but people in general get far too serious when challenging their 'god'. I don't understand how something that speaks of so much peace (all religions) can follow up with so much hostility and anger towards another's beliefs. So much hate packed into a supposed 'non hate' practice..


----------



## VER D (Mar 5, 2011)

destructo said:


> Natural selection is the cornerstone of evolution. In the process of natural selection, individuals in a population who are well-adapted to a particular set of environmental conditions have an advantage over those who are not so well adapted. The advantage comes in the form of survival and reproductive success. For example, those individuals who are better able to find and use a food resource will, on average, live longer and produce more offspring than those who are less successful at finding food. Inherited traits that increase individuals' fitness are then passed to their offspring, thus giving the offspring the same advantages.
> 
> Aquired mutations are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, these changes cannot be passed onto the next generation. A new mutation is an alteration in a gene that is present for the first time in one family member as a result of a mutation in a germ cell (egg or sperm) of one of the parents or in the fertilized egg itself, this can be passed on to offspring. Another form of genetic mutation is meosis which is a special type of cell division necessary for sexual reproduction. If Independent Assortment or genetic mutation create beneficial alleles, the result would be a better species more able to survive. On the other hand, detrimental changes in DNA would result in a species with a lower chance of survival. An allele is one of two or more forms of the DNA sequence of a particular gene. Each gene can have different alleles. Sometimes, different DNA sequences (alleles) can result in different traits, such as color. Other times, different alleles will have the same result in the expression of a gene.


to me this sounds more like adapting


----------



## Earths Widdler (Mar 6, 2011)

Adaptation is evolving my friend...Its forever happening everywhere with everything


----------



## Kartel Kriminal (Mar 6, 2011)

Earths Widdler said:


> Adaptation is evolving my friend...Its forever happening everywhere with everything


Adapting is not evolving. You can use the word adapt to _supplement_ the theory of evolution, but adaptation is still NOT evolving. Adaptation is happening everywhere with everything but not necessarily evolution. Sounds like an equivocation fallacy to me.


----------



## Earths Widdler (Mar 6, 2011)

you can argue it all day long and literally use what ever word you choose to describe whats really happening...perhaps i should have said everything is constantly changing but then isnt change adapting and if adapting suplements the theory of evolution which again evolution is change there all the same right? words are tricky but the meaning is the same


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 6, 2011)

Kartel Kriminal said:


> If the theory of evolution is so definitive then why is so much of it speculated? I don't have to thoroughly understand any man-made concept if I know what its major flaws are.


 Give examples of speculation? Do you understand what inductive reasoning is? We can find commonalities and differences among all of the species on this planet. Some clearly are more related to each other. These differences and similarities show up not only in anatomy and morphology, but physiology, embryology and genetics. Each time we look at relationships among various species, all of our methods confirm one another. Not only did the creationist Linnaeus classify humans as apes that are closely related to chimpanzees and other African apes, but he did so decades BEFORE Darwin. Darwin merely proposed a mechanism for how that relationship came about. Modern genetics also shows that we are closely related to chimps and other apes. The fact that we have multiple lines of evidence all pointing to the same conclusion gives us great confidence that we are correct. This is why we call the tree of life a double nested hierarchy. It is confirmed both from the top down and the bottom up with absolutely no exceptions. The evidence that evolution occurred is undeniable when you examine the evidence. The theory of evolution is not a way to demonstrate that evolution actually happens but is merely the proposed mechanism for how it happens. The fact of evolution is evident even if we remove every piece of fossil evidence.


----------



## Hypnos (Mar 6, 2011)

To me the evoultion theory (of Darwin) makes some sense but im not really interested in it.
What is much more interesting to me is the theory of evolution of consciousness.
The Mayan Tun calendar is a good starting point to get some idea of it.
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-8689261981090121097&hl=nl#
http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&p=Ci4HO3kMAA&search=consciousness&trestr=0x401


----------



## crackerboy (Mar 9, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Do you know anyone who knows the in's and out's of the theory of evolution, took more than a high school course on it, etc. that still doesn't accept it as fact?
> 
> Do these people exist? I'd put money down that they don't and that all the millions of people out there who don't accept it at this point simply don't understand it, and if they did - they would.
> 
> hmm...


Dr. Arial Roth. His credentials are a mile long. There are hundreds of scientists that signed the Decent from Darwinism. Most where professors from major universities. Many of those where Biologists. Even evolutionists argue about how the first organism evolved. Actually it has been proven impossible to duplicate. And yes Abiogenesis is a part of evolution no matter what anyone tries to say. It is the process that had to have happened for evolution to take place. So evolution is full of only half truths.


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 9, 2011)

crackerboy said:


> Dr. Arial Roth. His credentials are a mile long. There are hundreds of scientists that signed the Decent from Darwinism. Most where professors from major universities. Many of those where Biologists. Even evolutionists argue about how the first organism evolved. Actually it has been proven impossible to duplicate. And yes Abiogenesis is a part of evolution no matter what anyone tries to say. It is the process that had to have happened for evolution to take place. So evolution is full of only half truths.


And any theory of gravity needs massive bodies to have formed for gravity to work on, chemicals and atoms are needed for chemistry and atomic theory to work, bacteria and viruses necessarily must exist for germ theory of illness to make sense, yet none of those theories are criticized by religionists for their failure to explain their origins. It appears you save this special criticism only for evolution. 

BTW, learn the difference between 'where' and 'were'. Your ignorance about biological evolution is compounded when it appears you have been unable to get past second grade level English.


----------



## VER D (Mar 10, 2011)

Earths Widdler said:


> Adaptation is evolving my friend...Its forever happening everywhere with everything


 well u might as well say evolution is living but my problem with evolution is that it has no beginning


----------



## VER D (Mar 10, 2011)

and by begging i mean how it all got started


----------



## Balzac89 (Mar 10, 2011)

Genetic variation caused by procreation is what caused these mutations. And Evolution is the idea that animals with certain genetic variations would survive to pass on their genetic traits to sucessive enerations. The animals with mutations that hasten survival like retardation would die off.

How do you not understand that?

You know when to people fuck they have a baby. The baby is a combination of the two peoples DNA which results in a new being with the genetic variations of both parents. These genetics variations are all characteristics of individuals. Which can be good and bad. Such as high intelligence or alcoholism. Ones lives and one dies, ones passes on Genetics and one does not. Laymens terms. 

Our society skews the entire theory with our advancement in technologies. Now the idiots bang like crazy because they live longer and the world is full of idiots who don't understand a basic concept like evolution.


----------



## Balzac89 (Mar 10, 2011)

Animals don't "Adapt" they have no control over their own genetics. It is all random.


----------



## secretweapon (Mar 10, 2011)

Religion will be the downfall of man, Richard dawkings the god delusion is a good read. OP some people just don't want to see the truth.


----------



## Balzac89 (Mar 10, 2011)

secretweapon said:


> Religion will be the downfall of man, Richard dawkings the god delusion is a good read. OP some people just don't want to see the truth.


If it wasn't religion people would kill each other over something else.


----------



## secretweapon (Mar 10, 2011)

Balzac89 said:


> If it wasn't religion people would kill each other over something else.


I agree, I truly believe that we are all some form of advanced bacteria consuming our host, earth. That could be our purpose .


----------



## destructo (Mar 10, 2011)

Balzac89 said:


> Animals don't "Adapt" they have no control over their own genetics. It is all random.


It's not exactly random, that's where natural selection falls in.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 10, 2011)

Balzac89 said:


> If it wasn't religion people would kill each other over something else.


 But do you agree organized religion provides the medium for otherwise good people to do terrible things?


----------



## Balzac89 (Mar 10, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> But do you agree organized religion provides the medium for otherwise good people to do terrible things?


Literally anything could replace religion in your statement.


----------



## karri0n (Mar 10, 2011)

I have no doubt of evolution. It's certainly the origin of species, but it's not a complete explanation of the origin of life on earth(and it doesn't claim to be). There can be no natural selection before life exists. I also hold a bit of doubt over evolution being the *only* factor in the origin of *intelligent* human life on this planet.

I think a big part of the problem, however, is due to the people who don't understand it fully as you state, and those same people propagating the idea that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. The idea that the diverse species we have simply popped into existence is outdated and even several Christian authorities have embraced evolution as being the most probable explanation.


----------



## Balzac89 (Mar 10, 2011)

Life is short everyone should just live their lives to the fullest and not waste time hurting each other. one love


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 10, 2011)

Balzac89 said:


> Literally anything could replace religion in your statement.


"*organized religion provides the medium for otherwise good people to do terrible things*"

I disagree. 

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."

-Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics

That's the original quote. 

There's not very many things that will make a good man do something that will harm another person, but organized religion is one of them.


----------



## karri0n (Mar 10, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> "*organized religion provides the medium for otherwise good people to do terrible things*"
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> ...



Can you give me an example? In my opinion, religion or not, if they are doing something to hurt others, then they aren't good people.


----------



## secretweapon (Mar 10, 2011)

Trying to explain evolution to a creationist will get you nowhere.

[video=youtube;YFjoEgYOgRo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo[/video]


----------



## crackerboy (Mar 10, 2011)

[video=youtube;og-ll0SZXNk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og-ll0SZXNk[/video]


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 10, 2011)

karri0n said:


> Can you give me an example? In my opinion, religion or not, if they are doing something to hurt others, then they aren't good people.


http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-birmingham/christian-parents-indicted-for-neglect-regarding-faith-healing-debacle?do_not_mobile_redirect=1

Good people do bad things and make terrible decisions all the time, such things could be avoided..


----------



## VER D (Mar 10, 2011)

Balzac89 said:


> Genetic variation caused by procreation is what caused these mutations. And Evolution is the idea that animals with certain genetic variations would survive to pass on their genetic traits to sucessive enerations. The animals with mutations that hasten survival like retardation would die off.
> 
> How do you not understand that?
> 
> ...


 ok but what caused these mutations was it like the ninja turtles were the walked in to radioactive waste and they turned in to ninjas(not tryin to make fun of evolution its the only example i could think of)


----------



## karri0n (Mar 10, 2011)

VER D said:


> ok but what caused these mutations was it like the ninja turtles were the walked in to radioactive waste and they turned in to ninjas(not tryin to make fun of evolution its the only example i could think of)


That's pretty much exactly what causes them. Every time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Causes


----------



## VER D (Mar 10, 2011)

probably radiation


----------



## crackerboy (Mar 11, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> BTW, learn the difference between 'where' and 'were'. Your ignorance about biological evolution is compounded when it appears you have been unable to get past second grade level English.


Why do you always feel the need to point out some minor spelling mishaps on a stoner website. Yeah I get really high and type fast. By the way I was a science and math major. My trig teacher couldn't spell worth a crap but he could see equations in everything. But its mostly cause I'm stoned and just don't pay that much attention. Some times auto correct will screw you if your not paying attention.


----------



## crackerboy (Mar 11, 2011)

Dawkins exposed
[video]http://www.youtube.com/user/ppsimmons#p/c/F95949699306D21A/9/9W4e4MwogLo[/video]


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 11, 2011)

crackerboy said:


> Why do you always feel the need to point out some minor spelling mishaps on a stoner website. Yeah I get really high and type fast. By the way I was a science and math major. My trig teacher couldn't spell worth a crap but he could see equations in everything. But its mostly cause I'm stoned and just don't pay that much attention. Some times auto correct will screw you if your not paying attention.


It just makes you look bad, mp points it out for your benefit. You'd want someone to point out if you had some corn in your teeth right? Its all the same. 

Ps. Have you noticed nobody seems to fit the description I asked for? Where are the evolutionary literate theists? 

That should tell you something crackerboy..

..the people who don't accept the theory of evolution simply don't understand it, this thread and many other things prove it.


----------



## karri0n (Mar 11, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> It just makes you look bad, mp points it out for your benefit. You'd want someone to point out if you had some corn in your teeth right? Its all the same.
> 
> Ps. Have you noticed nobody seems to fit the description I asked for? Where are the evolutionary literate theists?
> 
> ...



Implying that this forum is likely to contain the broader part of the academic and scientific community. That's like making a thread asking if anyone on the forum smokes crack, receiving no replies, then asserting that your thread proves nobody in the world smokes crack.

Also, as is always done in these threads, both you and MP completely skipped over the part of Crackerboy's post that provides a relevant argument(or in this case, not even an argument, but some information that you requested). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were both too busy commenting on his grammar to see the requested info, and reiterate it for you:



crackerboy said:


> Dr. Arial Roth. His credentials are a mile long. There are hundreds of scientists that signed the Dissent from Darwinism.


Full disclosure: I didn't look into Dr. Arial Roth, but I highly doubt you did either.


----------



## secretweapon (Mar 11, 2011)

anyone watch the vid of Dawkings talking to Wendy Wright. That lady is a nut.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 11, 2011)

I didn't... Know why? Because I have before, and all it amounts to is more creationist logic. Howabout you look into that, then while you're at it go check out the list of Steve's... Lmao. Get back to me...


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 11, 2011)

karri0n said:


> Also, as is always done in these threads, both you and MP completely skipped over the part of Crackerboy's post that provides a relevant argument(or in this case, not even an argument, but some information that you requested). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were both too busy commenting on his grammar to see the requested info, and reiterate it for you:
> 
> 
> 
> Full disclosure: I didn't look into Dr. Arial Roth, but I highly doubt you did either.


First of all, I never requested such names, I know they exist. There are whole websites dedicated to these liars for Jesus. 

Second, we have already discussed these folks before and have shown crackerboy that they do nothing but regurgitate the same tired creationist attempts to discredit evolution while never actually doing any science that will support their tired, rehashed arguments. There are about the same number of scientists that support a flat earth as there are that support creationism. http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 11, 2011)

crackerboy said:


> Why do you always feel the need to point out some minor spelling mishaps on a stoner website. Yeah I get really high and type fast. By the way I was a science and math major. My trig teacher couldn't spell worth a crap but he could see equations in everything. But its mostly cause I'm stoned and just don't pay that much attention. Some times auto correct will screw you if your not paying attention.


 I don't _always _feel a need to point out misspellings, it is your atrocious grammar that becomes tiresome to read. You continually make the same mistakes, it's not an occasional misspelling. but of course you would blame being high. Blame everything but yourself. You're not misspelling, you are using the wrong fucking words, they mean different things. Quit blaming your computer's spell-check, it isn't intended to fix grammatical errors. 

All of this ignores the point that my comment about your inability to speak proper English was an aside and yet you decide that was the more important thing to quote and respond to rather than the actual criticism of your argument that was the main part of the post. This is so typical of you, to deflect and ignore the pertinent comments to take focus off the fact that you continue to lie, evade questions and conflate theories about the origin of life with the theory of how life changes over time once it exists.


----------



## VER D (Mar 11, 2011)

what if god made us evolved


----------



## kbo ca (Mar 11, 2011)

RollUpMikey said:


> The theory has yet to be proven completely flawless, but then again.. look at the bible. (notice how i didn't capitalize on the 'B')
> If Stephen Hawking had another 20 years with a full psychical working body, Science would not necessarily only prove it right, but make it obsolete.
> Tithing on Sunday's church has become a thing of the past. People tithe to keep their own religion alive, and also puts big bucks into the creator of their churches wallet.
> People "donate" more $ into their church each year then annually on fundraisers and legitimate causes.


At my church you see what your tithe goes to. The money goes to charities and work for God, such as missions to third world countries where we build houses, feed people, provide medicine, the list goes on. Some of the money the church generates goes to a church mortgage, payment for pastorial services equipment upkeep etc. Don't think that all the money you tithe goes in to somebody's wallet because that just isn't true.


----------



## karri0n (Mar 11, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> First of all, I never requested such names, I know they exist. There are whole websites dedicated to these liars for Jesus.
> 
> Second, we have already discussed these folks before and have shown crackerboy that they do nothing but regurgitate the same tired creationist attempts to discredit evolution while never actually doing any science that will support their tired, rehashed arguments. There are about the same number of scientists that support a flat earth as there are that support creationism. http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/


1. No, but Pad requested them with the OP of this thread.

2. The flat earth society is a forum full of trolls/satirists. There are no scientists involved here.

Once again, I'm not supporting creationism. Pad asked for the names of someone who understands evolution yet still disputes it. Crackerboy did this. That's really all there is to it.


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 11, 2011)

karri0n said:


> 1. No, but Pad requested them with the OP of this thread.
> 
> 2. The flat earth society is a forum full of trolls/satirists. There are no scientists involved here.
> 
> Once again, I'm not supporting creationism. Pad asked for the names of someone who understands evolution yet still disputes it. Crackerboy did this. That's really all there is to it.


 I gotcha. I guess all I was saying is that I don't really think it's relevant to consider people that aren't able to respond in this thread. We have no way of questioning someone like Dr. Roth and putting tough questions to him. I have no idea if he dismisses all of the evidence for common ancestry or find out other details. For example, Behe and Dembski, the two heavyweights of ID both admit that species have common ancestry. Behe has also admitted that in order for ID to be considered a science, the definition of science has to change to include the supernatural. Of course this opens Pandora's box wrt every other supernatural and extraordinary claim including astrology, crystal power and basically anything magical. Most rational people see this as fallacious right away. *http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/19/national/19evolution.html

*


VER D said:


> what if god made us evolved


This is essentially the argument that Behe and Dembski appear to be making. Let me ask, if a god made all species but somehow made it appear as if they evolved through natural means, that is a deceitful god and not one worthy of worship. Either that or the question become merely philosophical masturbation because one could just as easily ask what if god makes it so gravity works? What if god controls whether electrons act as a wave or particle? It's really meaningless to ask a question that can never be tested or falsified.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 11, 2011)

Lmfao crackerboy proves the point of the thread!

Point is- nobody who really understands the theory of evolution disputes it. The only ones that do... Don't understand it...


----------



## secretweapon (Mar 12, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Lmfao crackerboy proves the point of the thread!
> 
> Point is- nobody who really understands the theory of evolution disputes it. The only ones that do... Don't understand it...


Please explain your side of the theory of evolution? 

From what i understand is we have a very good understanding of evolution as well as the basics laws in physics, if your talking about if we were made from an Intelligent Designer, well i think its prob not true. If man could believe in Zues or Athena, God or Allah. to me its doesn't work. We lie. (When i say "We Lie" at some point we lie either to ourselves or to someone else.) it prob comes from our evolutionary state that we are like that. Survival instincts.


----------



## Kartel Kriminal (Mar 12, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Lmfao crackerboy proves the point of the thread!
> 
> Point is- nobody who really understands the theory of evolution disputes it. The only ones that do... Don't understand it...


 
Thats still a negative buddy. Only an ignoramus would stand by such a broad statement. You have no clue how many people you speak for when you say BS like that. You only account for the ones that are on your side.


----------



## plantvision (Mar 12, 2011)

Evolution is defined by the changing of an organisim to better its chance of surviving. Today we can see it happening all the time, plants, animals, and yes even humans. Humans have become slowly taller, everything is changing constantly. So you cannot say that evolution is false. Now did we evolve from apes, I don't know, possibly. God said he created man, he never said what man was to look like, but years of evolution has most assuritily change us. 
Creation still can exist with evolution. It does not have to be one or the other. But there needed to be a higher power, to start all of this.


----------



## researchkitty (Mar 12, 2011)

My father denies the big bang and denies the theory of evolution. There's nothing "theory" about it, it's fact. It's the Science of Evolution.

I compare his believing in the magic man in the sky and disbelieving evolution the same as a child that believes in "Santa Clause Theory" or "Stork Theory". They just have to grow up still.

I do however always get confused why people compare these facts to religious beliefs. We dont know what goes on in other dimensions or after death so it's impossible to say what's really the next step. The Evolutionary developments just show how everything happened, it doesnt say that a god does or doesnt exist, it has nothing to do with the actual topic.


----------



## krok (Mar 12, 2011)

Evolution is NOT a faith or belief.

It's not only a fact, it's LIFE - happening TODAY. Every day. You can see it in a microscope. You can even trace the DNA, and PROVE that X was evolved before Y.
Other scientific fields overlap and prove each other. Everything we see support it.

There will always be unknowns and errors in science - which is the way we learn. 

The scientific method is the best tool we humans have to figure out the world, as it is CONSTANTLY creating new FACTS... which leads to electric lights, cars, plains etc.

I do not see why religion is a topic here? Somebody enligthen me? How did this evolution-bashing start in the USA? From over here you look stupid.


----------



## researchkitty (Mar 13, 2011)

krok said:


> How did this evolution-bashing start in the USA? From over here you look stupid.


From over here you look ignorant by bashing another country. Charles Darwin was English, and the bashing started when he published his book "On the Origin of Species" which included (and was) his Theory of Evolution in 1859. All of the press of the book was local until information spread it globally. People in England hated it just as much.


----------



## Kartel Kriminal (Mar 14, 2011)

If the theory of evolution doesn't require faith or belief, then the backbone of the whole thing must be laced with pseudo-facts. That is the only logical determination I can come to when people believe in a damn theory that HAS NOT been proven.


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 14, 2011)

Kartel Kriminal said:


> If the theory of evolution doesn't require faith or belief, then the backbone of the whole thing must be laced with pseudo-facts. That is the only logical determination I can come to when people believe in a damn theory that HAS NOT been proven.


 Proof is for math and booze, science never 'proves' anything. You appear to fundamentally misunderstand what the word theory in science actually means. A theory is merely a model that ties together all of the facts, data, observations and laws. A theory is the highest level of knowledge that can be reached in science because it has explanatory power. Theories can only be disproved. 

As far as evolutionary theory goes, there has never been another explanation that explains the relatedness among species that we actually observe, better than common ancestry. I guess it might be possible you could come up with an alternative explanation for the observations of relatedness but it has to be better than common ancestry for anyone to take you seriously.


----------



## Kartel Kriminal (Mar 14, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Proof is for math and booze, science never 'proves' anything. You appear to fundamentally misunderstand what the word theory in science actually means. A theory is merely a model that ties together all of the facts, data, observations and laws. A theory is the highest level of knowledge that can be reached in science because it has explanatory power. Theories can only be disproved.
> 
> As far as evolutionary theory goes, there has never been another explanation that explains the relatedness among species that we actually observe, better than common ancestry. I guess it might be possible you could come up with an alternative explanation for the observations of relatedness but it has to be better than common ancestry for anyone to take you seriously.


The Library of Alexandria contained a great deal of information both _scientific_ and _biblical_ before it was burned to the ground. How would you feel if a holy text was meant to be written with proper scientific elements but never was due to humans' destructive nature? Would you be more inclined to embrace the idea of god or a religion? Evolution begatting from creationism seems to a viable compromise between scientific and religous beliefs.


----------



## loquacious (Mar 14, 2011)

dam612 said:


> View attachment 1475560
> i think you have to be dumb not to believe
> "
> 
> ...


Actually even though I know evolution is what happened, Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens were two different creatures. They may have interbred though to create us.


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 14, 2011)

Kartel Kriminal said:


> The Library of Alexandria contained a great deal of information both _scientific_ and _biblical_ before it was burned to the ground. How would you feel if a holy text was meant to be written with proper scientific elements but never was due to humans' destructive nature? Would you be more inclined to embrace the idea of god or a religion? Evolution begatting from creationism seems to a viable compromise between scientific and religous beliefs.


What does any of this have to do with your incorrect assertion that evolution needs to be proven in order to say it doesn't require faith? 

Evolutionary theory makes no claim about the origin of life. If life was indeed started by a god or aliens, then that does not any way change the evidence that we have for common ancestry. Science doesn't seek compromise, it seeks the truth. A compromise sounds to me like a defeatist attitude, "I guess we can never know for sure, so I will just believe that god began life and evolution took over." 
That has no explanatory power, it gives us nothing to test.


----------



## researchkitty (Mar 14, 2011)

Kartel Kriminal said:


> If the theory of evolution doesn't require faith or belief, then the backbone of the whole thing must be laced with pseudo-facts. That is the only logical determination I can come to when people believe in a damn theory that HAS NOT been proven.


This is where we differ. We show facts of why evolution happened. You just say "Oh no, cant be right". Ok, WHY? ***WHY*** is it wrong? Evolution isnt based on anything other than logical observation. There isnt even any math involved nor anything to do with a creator or any religious beliefs.

So what *exactly* makes you disbelieve this?

And a theory is never "wrong" in total most of the time. It may be wrong or inaccurate in a certain area, but then the theory is refined. Its only a theory till we find nothing new to add or to disprove about it then it's scientific fact. Our theories about atoms are still right, but the model has been revised a number of times because its not the smallest particle we know of anymore.


----------



## destructo (Mar 14, 2011)

karri0n said:


> That's pretty much exactly what causes them. Every time.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Causes


I feel the need to point out that genetic mutations caused by radiation and other similar things after birth are not passed onto offspring which means that it has no relation to evolution.


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 14, 2011)

destructo said:


> I feel the need to point out that genetic mutations caused after by radiation and other similar things after birth are not passed onto offspring which means that it has no relation to evolution.


 Except for mutations that occur in haploid germ cells.


----------



## karri0n (Mar 16, 2011)

destructo said:


> I feel the need to point out that genetic mutations caused by radiation and other similar things after birth are not passed onto offspring which means that it has no relation to evolution.



I hope you didn't think I was serious in stating that the "ninja turtle" theory was correct...

As an aside,
MP, your "God created life then evolution took over" isn't exactly a compromise. That, precisely, is why I can't understand the whole evolution - vs - creation debate. They aren't mutually exclusive, whether you believe in a form of creation or not. This is really more directed to the creationist side, as we don't have any evidence for creation using the scientific method. However, even if we embrace the concept of creation, there is plenty of evidence proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that evolution occurs.

I'd like to assert that people who flat-out deny evolution altogether simply because they believe in a creator are the people that fall under Pad's heading of people that don't actually understand evolution, OR have been duped into believing propaganda that has been pushed by these people.


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 16, 2011)

karri0n said:


> I hope you didn't think I was serious in stating that the "ninja turtle" theory was correct...
> 
> As an aside,
> MP, your "God created life then evolution took over" isn't exactly a compromise. That, precisely, is why I can't understand the whole evolution - vs - creation debate. They aren't mutually exclusive, whether you believe in a form of creation or not. This is really more directed to the creationist side, as we don't have any evidence for creation using the scientific method. However, even if we embrace the concept of creation, there is plenty of evidence proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that evolution occurs.
> ...


 Very well said. It is for this reason that it becomes frustrating discussing the science with someone that continues to claim that lack of knowledge about the origin of life itself, somehow makes what we see about the life about that we find over a billion years after we find that life actually could have started. We know very little about when evolution actually began but it appears horizontal gene transfer among prokaryotes means they might not have evolved the manner we usually mean when we use that term. It might be possible that early life didn't so much as evolve as just merely replicate. The thing is, it is very likely that variations still occurred, albeit much more slowly, but it means that natural selection had something to work with.


----------



## karri0n (Mar 17, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> somehow makes what we see about the life about that we find over a billion years after we find that life actually could have started.


uhh....
View attachment 1499526


----------



## woodsmaneh! (Mar 17, 2011)

They say a picture is worth a 1000 words


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 17, 2011)

karri0n said:


> uhh....
> View attachment 1499526


 lol!!


Damn, and I usually do so well even when I'm stoned.

Basically, I'm saying that the earliest forms of life are still quite a mystery. They might leave some evidence of their existence but no information about their structure is able to fossilize so we don't know about anything much simpler than stomatolites and Archaebacteria and they are already quite complex so we can only infer that there was a common ancestor to all known lifeforms both extant and extinct. I think this is why the most exciting new research is from Jack Szostak and John Sutherland's labs. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/origins-life.html
They, among some others, will help show us examples of simpler life from the bottom up rather than keep going from the top down. Finding ways in which self-replicating molecules can form will tell us one possible way in which life can arise naturally. It still won't mean it is how we came about but IMO, if the evidence is strong that life does form spontaneously, maybe even quite readily in certain conditions giving us more certainty that extraterrestrial life has formed too, then continuing to stick god in there will be much harder to do.


----------



## plantvision (Mar 17, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Very well said. It is for this reason that it becomes frustrating discussing the science with someone that continues to claim that lack of knowledge about the origin of life itself, somehow makes what we see about the life about that we find over a billion years after we find that life actually could have started. We know very little about when evolution actually began but it appears horizontal gene transfer among prokaryotes means they might not have evolved the manner we usually mean when we use that term. It might be possible that early life didn't so much as evolve as just merely replicate. The thing is, it is very likely that variations still occurred, albeit much more slowly, but it means that natural selection had something to work with.


Why is it frustrating? I am that person, can you explain the start of life itself, nobody has, it would be great if you could. Evolution is a known fact. They may call it a theroy, but how can you call it a theroy when all around us evolution is happening everyday. As for myself, I also believe in Creation, untill somebody comes along and proves me wrong. I am well versed in science, so I would love to discuss this further. 

Most religion nowdays sadly has nothing to do with spiritual growth.


----------



## mindphuk (Mar 17, 2011)

plantvision said:


> Why is it frustrating? I am that person, can you explain the start of life itself, nobody has, it would be great if you could. Evolution is a known fact. They may call it a theroy, but how can you call it a theroy when all around us evolution is happening everyday. As for myself, I also believe in Creation, untill somebody comes along and proves me wrong. I am well versed in science, so I would love to discuss this further.
> 
> Most religion nowdays sadly has nothing to do with spiritual growth.


 You are not that person if you accept the fact of evolution. As karri0n pointed out, I had a stoner moment when I was editing my post. I didn't say what I meant. There are some creationists that deny the reality of evolution because of the very fact that we don't know about life's origin. Our lack of knowledge about the absolute origins in no way affects the extremely strong evidence we have for continuous evolution from single celled organisms to us. 

The only theoretical parts have to do with how things evolve, which is where natural selection is named as the powerful mechanism. This was the incredible intuitive leap that Darwin made. This is one of those things that seem so obvious in hindsight, when we look at the state of knowledge about the natural world we had during his time, we can see how amazing his insight was.

Unfortunately, some of the religious scientists that I know are using this gap in knowledge to place their god. This will get harder and harder to do as we learn more about abiogenesis.


----------



## researchkitty (Mar 17, 2011)

Creation and I have a big problem. There's zero fact or evidence whatsoever that this magical "creator" exists. All you have is a book from when people were learning how to write thousands of years ago. That's wonderful, my grandfather told bedtime stories too, I just didnt publish them as the "Bible".

Show me one single shred of evidence that a mysterious being created the Universe and man. Zero..... Just what "other people" "said they saw".


----------



## ChubbySoap (Mar 17, 2011)

i always assumed cells developed before replicating molecules....i know, batty huh?

i only say that cause of all the iron sulphide rocks near hot, hydrothermal vents on the sea floors...they are everywhere...and even have tons of microscopic spheres and capsule types of forms littering the sea floors...rocks are really porous.
they always looked like keen incubators to me...seriously
...first cells where non-living, then hydrothermal fluids with different densities wash over these tiny metallic spheres with a hole running through them, surface tension of these differing liquid mixes forms a skin across these micropored rocks, instantly providing the right micro-environment for chemical reactions to take place...

simple...laughable...omg
...that means this shit can easily happen on most primitives bodies, comets, and even possibly ordinary mountain sized randomly flying rocks.


----------



## karri0n (Mar 18, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> Creation and I have a big problem. There's zero fact or evidence whatsoever that this magical "creator" exists. All you have is a book from when people were learning how to write thousands of years ago. That's wonderful, my grandfather told bedtime stories too, I just didnt publish them as the "Bible".
> 
> Show me one single shred of evidence that a mysterious being created the Universe and man. Zero..... Just what "other people" "said they saw".


There IS a creator - the error lies in the way you're trying to understand it. It's not a literal, white robed, bearded wizard in the sky. It's the fundamental energy upon which all of reality sits. It has been described as a "zero point field", "quantum sea", "the force", "prana", "chi", and countless other terms


----------



## researchkitty (Mar 18, 2011)

karri0n said:


> There IS a creator - the error lies in the way you're trying to understand it. It's not a literal, white robed, bearded wizard in the sky. It's the fundamental energy upon which all of reality sits. It has been described as a "zero point field", "quantum sea", "the force", "prana", "chi", and countless other terms


I disagree, but scientifically. Out of nothing there *HAS* to be something. Nothing creates something. The arguments come from this 65 minute lecture that is incredibly easy to understand on any level.

[youtube]7ImvlS8PLIo[/youtube]

....and finally for the people who dont want to spend 65 minutes on a video (*which is strongly recommended)

[youtube]sFRKPlZMavE[/youtube]

...this is a 3 minute quick summary, cliffnotes style. 



Therefore, unless you believe (believe being the key word) that the "creator" is some form of raw energy, there's nothing to create and nothing to create from. If you believe its just "raw energy" then that's good and dandy, but if you do, then you collapse every religion across the entire known habitable Universes beliefs. What exactly is this place called hell and this heaven place that people think they go to? Believing that "something" created us is scientifically an unanswerable question, which is why threads like this exist of course. 

But if this energy creator existed, how many of our morals and existance was planned and all of these rules to live by? OH RIGHT -- That was man, not a "god".  Religion is what I have a problem with, I dont have a problem with a creator (or any opinion or care, just like to review evidence both ways).


----------



## karri0n (Mar 18, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> . If you believe its just "raw energy" then that's good and dandy, but if you do, then you collapse every religion across the entire known habitable Universes beliefs.


A pretty bold(or ignorant?) statement. Where did you get your degree in world religion? Protip: I'm religious, and I indeed belive this.

There are many religious people that hold this as a fairly basic tenet. Have you ever heard the saying "all gods are one god"? This is derived from the basic tenet that all gods that are worshipped come from the same raw energy(or some prefer divine energy) source that makes up everything in existence. It's not something the human mind can truly understand, so people come up with personifications that can be assigned qualities that can be understood and drawn upon. This isn't ssomething just made up - even Carl Jung has shown that these archetypes are something heavily ingrained into our subconscious.


----------



## researchkitty (Mar 18, 2011)

karri0n said:


> A pretty bold(or ignorant?) statement. Where did you get your degree in world religion? Protip: I'm religious, and I indeed belive this.
> 
> There are many religious people that hold this as a fairly basic tenet. Have you ever heard the saying "all gods are one god"? This is derived from the basic tenet that all gods that are worshipped come from the same raw energy(or some prefer divine energy) source that makes up everything in existence. It's not something the human mind can truly understand, so people come up with personifications that can be assigned qualities that can be understood and drawn upon. This isn't ssomething just made up - even Carl Jung has shown that these archetypes are something heavily ingrained into our subconscious.


I'd say uninformed would be better than ignorant to classify it.  I'm not trying to start a ruckus, just express my point of view...... That's all I got, as nobody knows the real answers and probably wont within our lifetime..... But what you write is basically my argument against religion, in that they all pretend to believe in one thing and then each have their own views to support their own desires for life whether it be religion for polygamy, scientology, catholicism, any of it. They all have such drastic views, and they tell me if I dont follow their ways, I'm doomed to hell.

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. No thanks! I believe in science because there's proof...... that's all I got.


----------



## plantvision (Mar 20, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> I'd say uninformed would be better than ignorant to classify it.  I'm not trying to start a ruckus, just express my point of view...... That's all I got, as nobody knows the real answers and probably wont within our lifetime..... But what you write is basically my argument against religion, in that they all pretend to believe in one thing and then each have their own views to support their own desires for life whether it be religion for polygamy, scientology, catholicism, any of it. They all have such drastic views, and they tell me if I dont follow their ways, I'm doomed to hell.
> 
> Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. No thanks! I believe in science because there's proof...... that's all I got.


This is the downfall of man, taking something and trying to impress upon other people what they believe. I believe, strong emphasis on "I", that my faith is my faith, if it is good then I am to be an example of it. By no means am I to start a crusade. If it is good then people will see and will wonder what it is I have. I do not believe in organized religion as it has come to be known now. I was a member of a beautiful church, 20 members, we believed in all aspects of the gifts of God. Nobody was better than anybody else, the pastor was even with the congergation. Then came people with ideas of how it was supposed to be. The church failed. Organized religion is not how God wanted it. I cannot decide another persons destiny. I at times wonder if I will see heaven, for I am as sinful as the person besides me. This is the fruit of organized religion, people angred by other peoples ideas of them.

I also believe in science, you can have them both. Creation and evolution, science and religion.

May all you find peace.

God created all things good, including the drugs that we use, be at peace with it all, but do not over indulge.


----------



## researchkitty (Mar 20, 2011)

plantvision said:


> This is the downfall of man, taking something and trying to impress upon other people what they believe. I believe, strong emphasis on "I", that my faith is my faith, if it is good then I am to be an example of it. By no means am I to start a crusade. If it is good then people will see and will wonder what it is I have. I do not believe in organized religion as it has come to be known now. I was a member of a beautiful church, 20 members, we believed in all aspects of the gifts of God. Nobody was better than anybody else, the pastor was even with the congergation. Then came people with ideas of how it was supposed to be. The church failed. Organized religion is not how God wanted it. I cannot decide another persons destiny. I at times wonder if I will see heaven, for I am as sinful as the person besides me. This is the fruit of organized religion, people angred by other peoples ideas of them.
> 
> I also believe in science, you can have them both. Creation and evolution, science and religion.
> 
> ...


It might be the downfall of women, sure. =P Anyhow, you cant expect threads in the SPIRITUALITY section to not discuss one side or the other. If you ONLY want to hear YOUR point of view, hit alt+f4 and then go watch a bible dvd or something. =) I respect your opinions, you, your faith, everything, but come on, dont come in here telling us that we're bad for discussing things in the discussion forums.


----------



## noxiously (Mar 20, 2011)

I wish I had more info on what I'm about to say, but I'll research more on it later lol. I was watching this program a few months ago and they were talking about how these scientists found a meteorite and when they put some fragments from the center of the meteor under a microscope they discovered tons of amino acids. This certain type of amino acids are actually the building blocks of life. I guess these types of amino acids, if given the right conditions could form into simple bacteria. If these bacteria were given the right conditions, over millions of years could evolve into a higher form. Who knows, maybe we came from outer space. One could look at it like this: Say we are like plants. Lets say that our "Home planet" was dying off millions/billions of years ago. Lets say, somehow, it fragmented when this earth like planet came to an end, resulting in "Pollen" (amino acids) being released into the cosmic air, on these meteors like the pollen of a weed plant, or like the seeds floating in the air from dandelions, in search of a fertile planet to impregnate/pollenate. So one day, one of those fragments that was carrying these amino acids/pollen collided with earth and voila, the beginnings of evolution. Our universe is too big to describe. We have trillions of planets, trillions of stars, who says that there isn't another planet out there, maybe millions of planets out there with humans living on them. 

Lol, now here I go, maybe I should just go to bed. I was wondering about this the other day when I was driving home from work. What if there is another planet out there that is exactly like earth. And lets say that planet had evolution going on as well. Now, before mammals, there were dinosaurs right? They say the dinosaurs became extinct because of an asteroid hit earth (maybe the one that carried the right amino acids). O.k., so the dinosaurs on our earth became extinct because the sun got blocked out, and blah blah blah you know the story. But what if on that other earth like planet no asteroid hit, nothing major happened to make the dinosaurs become extinct. Would humans and other mammals be on that planet? Would they be behind on the evolutionary chain? Or would humans have came about and living side by side with dinosaurs. 

Wow, I'm rambling, I'm going to bed now. lol But does anyone get what I'm saying?


----------



## MomaPug (Mar 20, 2011)

Kartel Kriminal said:


> If the theory of evolution doesn't require faith or belief, then the backbone of the whole thing must be laced with pseudo-facts. That is the only logical determination I can come to when people believe in a damn theory that HAS NOT been proven.


It's a very personal choice, but the same argument can be had for Creationism. "the whole thing must be laced with pseudo-facts. That is the only logical determination I can come to when people believe in a damn theory that HAS NOT been proven." Compounding that is the fact that there is no scientific proof backing it.

Religion has been handed down for eons by people. Ever play the game "Telephone"? Start a story and pass it around, by the 4th or 5th person you have a different story...imagine passing a story down for centuries? 

Evolution makes sense to me, and there are scientific facts that back it. 

Humans have the ability to reason. If I had never heard of either religion or evolution and was introduced to both, I must say evolution sounds a lot more plausible to me...I tend to weigh facts, not stories.


----------



## sir rance alot (Mar 21, 2011)

It doesnt matter if you believe in string theory, or membrane theory, or even the big bang or creationism. It had to have a beginning.

You only have to ask YOURSELF... Was the beginning created by a GOD? or was the beginning the birth of GOD?

Now something had to create the beginning... it doesnt matter if it was started by a chemical reaction or an electrical charge. Something created it. Whatever it was that created it in my opinion qualifies as GOD.

My personal belief is that something as powerful as a GOD that can create the energy to form the universe would not have such a petty trivial emotion as jealousy. Or have the need for a lower life form than himself pray to him, worship him etc. That is the equivilent of a human wanting all the ants on the planet to worship him. But I do believe that if a being had the power to create the universe on purpose, he would also have a way to pick better disciples to spread His word. 

Just the fact that we are expected to believe in a book that was written by people who didnt know what a germ was, didnt know where the sun went at night, didnt know what the sun even was, and thought volcanoes were angry demons.. Just the fact that we are expected to believe these peoples books (bible) even after the extremely broken translations. The translations of the translations all the while getting the translators own thoughts of what the original author (meant to say).. Because I am expected to believe that nonsense is why I never will.. 

This may mean I am destined to burn in hell....but if GOD wants me to put Him above all others, then I need a little more than a book written by slingblade...umm hmm


----------



## researchkitty (Mar 21, 2011)

sir rance alot said:


> Now something had to create the beginning... it doesnt matter if it was started by a chemical reaction or an electrical charge. Something created it. Whatever it was that created it in my opinion qualifies as GOD.


Quantum fluctuations that start as nothing from nothing is what created exacly enough energy to create our Universe.  Since out of nothing, we have something, and without the nothing we'd have to have something, then god is nothing and nothing is god. What happened before the big bang happened before time existed, so what happened before it doesnt actually make sense as an actual question. Our Universe *is* here because of nothing, and from nothing.


----------



## karri0n (Mar 21, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> Quantum fluctuations that start as nothing from nothing is what created exacly enough energy to create our Universe.  Since out of nothing, we have something, and without the nothing we'd have to have something, then god is nothing and nothing is god. What happened before the big bang happened before time existed, so what happened before it doesnt actually make sense as an actual question. Our Universe *is* here because of nothing, and from nothing.


The concept in that video you posted has about as much evidence as creationism has backing it up, and it seems like you have about as much understanding of the point they are making as the average creationist has of evolution. The idea that quantum fluctuation caused the net energy of everything(or nothing) in existence to move from zero to something more than zero is a novel idea, but where is the evidence? Along that same token, the nature of energy and particles on a quantum scale dictates that there could NEVER be a net energy of completely zero, meaning minute fluctuations over or under what it was at the time would not have this effect of "suddenly there is energy and boom goes the big bang"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 21, 2011)

Karri0n, are you taking the position that the universe was created by some kind of creator, i.e. God?


----------



## karri0n (Mar 21, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Karri0n, are you taking the position that the universe was created by some kind of creator, i.e. God?


Probably not in the sense that you are picturing - My position is that there's a basic, fundamental energy that all of existence consists of and rests on top of. It's from this energy, which we(and especially primitive peoples) can't truly fathom and understand, that people form personifications(deities, gods) in order to be able to understand and work with it.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 21, 2011)

karri0n said:


> Probably not in the sense that you are picturing - My position is that there's a basic, fundamental energy that all of existence consists of and rests on top of. It's from this energy, which we(and especially primitive peoples) can't truly fathom and understand, that people form personifications(deities, gods) in order to be able to understand and work with it.


All things that exist have energy, OK I agree with that. 

Then the next sentence you say we can't understand this energy, which I don't agree with.

Why can't we understand it? Why do you call this energy "god"?


----------



## sir rance alot (Mar 21, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> Quantum fluctuations that start as nothing from nothing is what created exacly enough energy to create our Universe.  Since out of nothing, we have something, and without the nothing we'd have to have something, then god is nothing and nothing is god. What happened before the big bang happened before time existed, so what happened before it doesnt actually make sense as an actual question. Our Universe *is* here because of nothing, and from nothing.


You cant have any fluctuation of something that doesnt exist yet. You also MUST have something for a fluctuation to occur in! So the point is: what created the actual space possible for a fluctuation to occur, be it quantum or any other. 

I propose to you that what ever you think of as the smallest, the largest, or the earliest event to take place that sparked the beginning of everything, still had to happen in a physical space. There is no debate about that unless you are ignorant to facts. The question still remains.....Who or what created that space for it to happen?


----------



## sir rance alot (Mar 21, 2011)

I will give you a clue..... Math wont help you to answer it..


----------



## karri0n (Mar 21, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> All things that exist have energy, OK I agree with that.
> 
> Then the next sentence you say we can't understand this energy, which I don't agree with.
> 
> Why can't we understand it? Why do you call this energy "god"?


We can't understand it because it's too big to quantify, and too basic a construct of reality to really observe. Only in recent years are we developing technologies to even know definitively of its existence. As of now we don't know the full nature of it - which by definition means we don't understand it.

I don't think I called it "god", but it is the creator of the universe in that all of existence(creation) is based on and comes from it.


----------



## sir rance alot (Mar 21, 2011)

I grabbed an exposed 240 volt ballast wire once and released a bit of quantum fluctuation in my shorts.

Im just sayin'


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 21, 2011)

karri0n said:


> We can't understand it because it's too big to quantify, and too basic a construct of reality to really observe. Only in recent years are we developing technologies to even know definitively of its existence. As of now we don't know the full nature of it - which by definition means we don't understand it.
> 
> I don't think I called it "god", but it is the creator of the universe in that all of existence(creation) is based on and comes from it.



The "energy" is too big to quantify? Too "basic" to observe? 

That doesn't make sense. Try to explain it differently please.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Mar 21, 2011)

Side note, 11 pages and still not a single person claiming to understand the theory of evolution and still denies it...

Can't say I'm surprised...


----------



## karri0n (Mar 21, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> The "energy" is too big to quantify? Too "basic" to observe?
> 
> That doesn't make sense. Try to explain it differently please.


I'm thinking you understand what I'm getting at but are simply trying to be combative - I'll give it a shot anyway.

Quantum mechanics puts forth the theory that all matter, energy, empty space, etc consists of energy that is vibrating or fluctuating at different wavelengths. The frequency it is vibrating at gives the particles or photons their properties. We can't really view or quantify the energy because of the fact that we don't see the table in front of us as formless energy with a vibration, but as a solid table. It's not until we get to extremely subatomic levels that we can observe things as little more than energetic waveforms. 

This energy is what makes up everything, and this is what I'm talking about. We can't quantify it because we don't know everything in the universe, and we can hardly observe it in the first place.


----------



## sir rance alot (Mar 21, 2011)

String Theory is soooooo old school.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Mar 22, 2011)

karri0n said:


> I'm thinking you understand what I'm getting at but are simply trying to be combative - I'll give it a shot anyway.
> 
> Quantum mechanics puts forth the theory that all matter, energy, empty space, etc consists of energy that is vibrating or fluctuating at different wavelengths. The frequency it is vibrating at gives the particles or photons their properties. We can't really view or quantify the energy because of the fact that we don't see the table in front of us as formless energy with a vibration, but as a solid table. It's not until we get to extremely subatomic levels that we can observe things as little more than energetic waveforms.
> 
> This energy is what makes up everything, and this is what I'm talking about. We can't quantify it because we don't know everything in the universe, and we can hardly observe it in the first place.


saw this cartoon on lecture in previous page it just fits here perfectly i think


----------



## karri0n (Mar 22, 2011)

Xkcd. I've seen that one before - lots of others too. Great webcomic.

www.xkcd.com


----------



## researchkitty (Mar 22, 2011)

karri0n said:


> The concept in that video you posted has about as much evidence as creationism has backing it up, and it seems like you have about as much understanding of the point they are making as the average creationist has of evolution. The idea that quantum fluctuation caused the net energy of everything(or nothing) in existence to move from zero to something more than zero is a novel idea, but where is the evidence? Along that same token, the nature of energy and particles on a quantum scale dictates that there could NEVER be a net energy of completely zero, meaning minute fluctuations over or under what it was at the time would not have this effect of "suddenly there is energy and boom goes the big bang"
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy


The evidence in the video was there the entire way. That's what the video screen and the diagrams were that explained how they came to each conclusion, how the scientific community agrees with it, and how its pretty much fact.

Since you clearly did not watch the video (If you had, you would have never typed a reply like that, because the video debunks everything you said AND provides the proof)


In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth&#8217;s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of "nothing" is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all &#8211; that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg&#8217;s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called "virtual particle" pairs are known as "quantum fluctuations." Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other &#8211; but even if they didn&#8217;t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.




What do I know my boyfriend is just a theoretical physicist that deals with quantum electrodynamics and does this for a living. =P And yea, we've reviewed this post together. =) Learn your positive and negatives and then you understand the Universe.....


----------



## researchkitty (Mar 22, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> saw this cartoon on lecture in previous page it just fits here perfectly i think


That's a cartoon joke that was created in the 1990's. 20 years later we know a *lot* more about the Universe(s).


----------



## ginjawarrior (Mar 22, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> That's a cartoon joke that was created in the 1990's. 20 years later we know a *lot* more about the Universe(s).


it was more a poke at karri0n saying that our gods are an attempt to discover the higher god/ energy that lies in the vibrations of strings 

@ karri0n "if god is the energy in the stings what does that imply in comparison to our worldy gods?"

*https://www.rollitup.org/members/karri0n-19878.html*


----------

