When the Pope Dies

[zimmah]

Just because you can't take a monkey and expect it to become a human in a few decades doesn't disprove evolution.

And theorising about evolution over millions of years doesn't disprove Creationism.

Thankfully the burden of proof is not on me, seeing how creationism is an unfalsifiable hypothesis with no scientifical basis whatsoever.

evolution does not have a scientific basis either. gene mutations is the best 'proof' they can come up with. which does not proof it at all. evolution is nothing more then a theory. evolution does not even explain the existence of earth in the first place. evolution also does not explain a lot of other things. and if the bible is not the word of god, then why did they write it in the first place? nothing more then extremely accurate ancient literature that happen to predict the future in stunning detail, guess they were just lucky in their predictions then.

how do you explain archaeological finds proving the existence of people and events happening in the bible being correct? the bible was supposed to be fiction right, isn't fiction supposed to never have happened? then why is there proof things happened?

[barackattack]

If it's unfalsifiable then all your screaming 'Creationism is LIES' is worthless.

I don't think you know what unfalsifiable means in this context.

It means 'it cannot be logically proven false'. I think you'll find it means that in whatever context we use it in.

You're either a troll or a McDonald's worker-level moron so I'm done.

[natty dread]

that's just as valid as saying 1+1 is 2 so in a million years 1+1 will be 3, it will slowly chance to becoming

No it's not, that's just stupid.

species are species

Species are just our definitions, they're not hard-coded to the DNA of organisms. There's no strict boundaries between species, pile enough mutation on one species and it becomes another.

evolution is a myth based on mutations

No, evolution is an established scientific theory backed by tons of evidence. If you want to prove it false, go ahead... but smarter people have tried and failed.

mutating genes do not prove the evolution from one specie to another. i know genes mutate over time given the condition, it happens all around you, you don't need to tell me those things, but i just don't see the logic in that it would proof evolution over design.

I keep giving you evidence for evolution, but you just plug your ears and go "nuh-uh".

• The most powerful evidence for common descent includes:
  
  Anatomical homologies - Throughout the domains of life, organisms show a distinct pattern of constraints based on homology in development and construction of the body. For example, tetrapods have five digits because the ancestor of tetrapods had five digits. When a tetrapod does not seem to have five obvious digits, a review of their development shows that they start development with five and that they fuse together later to form fewer numbers.
  
  DNA and RNA code - Almost all organisms use the same three-letter code for translating RNA into proteins. There are variations, such as the code used by mitochondria and some bacteria and fungi, but the differences are only minor. Regardless of the slight differences, all organisms use the same coding mechanism for translating the code into amino acid sequences.
  
  Endogenous retroviral insertions - Ancient retroviruses inserted inactivated viral genes into genomes. For a retrovirus to be inherited in all members of a species, a series of highly improbable events must occur. The virus must insert into a gamete cell and it must mutate so it is inactive. That gamete cell must be used to make an embryo that lives to reproduce and whose genome fixates into the population at random location in the genome. This rare event is usually species specific.
  
  Pseudogenes - Shared errors are a powerful argument for a common source. If two books describe the same concept in similar language, it's possible they just both converged on the same wording. However, if they both share the same grammar or spelling errors it becomes improbable to assume that they did not derive from a common source. There are genes that no longer code for a protein due to a mutation or error. Species often share the same pseudogene with the same inactivating mutation. A famous example of this is the L-gulonolactone oxidase that synthesizes vitamin C. All simians including humans share one pseudogene of inactivated L-gulonolactone oxidase, but the guinea pig has a different pseudogene indicating a different mutation.
  
  Embryology - The pharyngula stage of embryonic development appears to be highly conserved. At this stage, it is difficult to tell the difference between various vertebrate species. This conserved state screams common ancestry, and the field of evolutionary development has expanded our knowledge of developmental genes and their consequent embryo ontogeny to amazing levels of detail, all thanks to acknowledging common descent.
  
  Chromosome fusion - Gene fusion or chromosome fusion is when two chromosomes are spliced together. As an example, chimpanzees have one more chromosome than humans do. If the two species share a common ancestor, scientists should be able to figure out what happened to that chromosome. Researchers have found that chromosome 2 in humans is actually the fusion of two separate chimpanzee chromosomes. At the end of each chromosome is a marker called a telomere, which usually appears only on the ends. In human chromosome 2 it also appears in the center, marking where the two ends fused.
  
  Convergence - The phylogenetic trees constructed using anatomical homology, DNA homology, pseudogenes, endogenous retroviral insertions, and many other methods all converge on a similar looking tree. There are slight differences but the general relationships of the trees are intact. If any of these methods were flawed, they would not converge on the same tree.

Also, this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o ... speciation

If you walk around on an island you assumed was uninhabited and suddenly you see a stone tablet with words on it, would you assume it's just some random occurring and the letters do not mean anything?

That has nothing to do with anything. Stop parroting ID talking points and USE YOUR OWN BRAIN for fucks sake.

just because you don't want to believe someone wrote it down years ago?

I believe what the evidence indicates to be true. You, on the other hand, are unable to look past your own indoctrination, and thus you try to fit everything to support what your religion says. The overwhelming amount of evidence you have to willingly ignore to keep believing in ID is simply staggering.

That's why ID fails. It takes the preconception that "the universe MUST be designed" and then tries to cherry-pick evidence to support it's claims. Real science has no preconceptions, it takes all the evidence as it is, and makes the conclusions based on evidence, no matter what that evidence shows. And that evidence shows evolution to be a fact.

How can something as complex as life itself just be created out of nowhere?

Logical fallacy - Appeal to ridicule. Just because you don't understand how something can happen, doesn't make it impossible. Reality doesn't depend on your understanding of it.

Also, evolution has nothing to do with how life was created. Evolution only describes how life, you know, EVOLVES. What you're looking for is abiogenesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

even lifeforms that scientist call 'simple lifeforms' are so extremely complex that the best scientist ca not even come close to creating them

Synthetic life is being studied all the time, and it is close to being achieved. An experiment has already succesfully been performed where synthetic DNA was transfered to an empty bacterial cell to create a new bacteria. It's only a matter of time until the process can be perfected to create organisms from scratch - starting only from amino acids.

We've already been over this. You just keep touting the same talking points, and whenever I disprove them, you just ignore them and move on. It's a classic creationist strategy, and I won't have none of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_biology

and what about the universe, i mean, just take a look only at our solar system. the sun is just about big enough, stable enough to sustain life, and the distance we have to it is just about perfect to sustain a temperate climate that is able to sustain life in almost any part of the globe, on top of that our moon is exceptionally large, which is good because it keeps the rotation and the axis of the earth stable, and also gives us tides which is good. Also, our atmosphere, magnetic field, and the big outer planets like Jupiter keep dangers from outer space away from earth. those 3 things shield us from most comet impacts and cosmic rays that would otherwise totally destroy life on earth. ye, that's pretty much all random luck right?

Yawn... this again. You have this all ass-backwards. The universe was not created to accommodate us. We evolved to adapt to the universe.

Let's say after rain there's a puddle of water. There's a shallow hole in the ground and it's full of water. Then you see the puddle and claim it can't be a coincidence - the puddle has just the right amount of water to fill the hole in the ground! What are the odds?

You can't seriously think this is sensible.

the chances of that to happen are even lower then the chances of you throwing straight 6's on your next million games. so tell me when that happens.

The chances of that to happen are 1 since it already happened. The chances of the universe being designed are infinitely lower.

evolution does not have a scientific basis either. gene mutations is the best 'proof' they can come up with.

There's loads of more proof, which I've presented, but you keep ignoring it.

evolution is nothing more then a theory.

More ID talking points? Pleeeeeeease.

In science, a "theory" doesn't mean "some stuff you made up". A scientific theory is a framework that explains already observed phenomenon. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, which has so much strong evidence behind it that it can be considered a scientific fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_ ... y_and_fact

evolution does not even explain the existence of earth in the first place.

No, because it's not even supposed to do that. There are other theories for explaining other things, evolution only explains how organisms evolve over time.

Abiogenesis explains how life can be spontaneously born from non-life. The Big Bang theory explains how the universe can be spontaneously born.

and if the bible is not the word of god, then why did they write it in the first place?

The same reason they wrote the Quran, Bhagavad-Ghita, Talmud or any other "holy book" ever written. Why is the bible any more correct than any other "holy book"? How do you know which of them is correct? There's no objective evidence for any of them.

how do you explain archaeological finds proving the existence of people and events happening in the bible being correct?

Easy, there's no such evidence. You're making it up, or you've been lied to by ID proponents.

Latest archeological evidence actually disproves large parts of the bible. The Israelites were never enslaved by Egyptians. Exodus never happened. And so on and on.

[barackattack]

ITT: natty continually fails to grasp the elemental difference between fact and theory.

[natty dread]

argleblargleblargh I can't read

[zimmah]

species are species

Species are just our definitions, they're not hard-coded to the DNA of organisms. There's no strict boundaries between species, pile enough mutation on one species and it becomes another.

repeating the same false statements over and over do not suddenly make them more correct.

[zimmah]

evolution is a myth based on mutations

No, evolution is an established scientific theory backed by tons of evidence. If you want to prove it false, go ahead... but smarter people have tried and failed.

so you agree it's just a theory, nothing more.

the·o·ry   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

theory, not fact.

[zimmah]

about the DNA and RNA using the same patterns often, and a lot of animals having things in common i can say this:

let's just assume you were to design a game, a game needs an engine, and you'll need a programming language to write the game.

if you would write a game, would you write the part of the game about humans in C++, the part about buildings in C#, the part about animals in Java, and the part about physics in Pearl?

that would not make sense now does it?

then why is it so hard to grasp that god would also use the same 'code' in all his creations?

[zimmah]

Also, evolution has nothing to do with how life was created. Evolution only describes how life, you know, EVOLVES. What you're looking for is abiogenesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

so the theory is still incomplete even if it would be true, besides, it isn't even able to proof the evolution of life past the stage of simple slight mutations, which don't even mean much. ye, appairance, behavior and voice chances slightly, that's about it.

[zimmah]

big bang theory: first there was nothing, and then it exploded.

nice theory, might even be correct, however, what (or who) initiated it?

seriously, if you see the mona lisa you'd also not just say "wow that's a nice painting, i wonder how that got here, it must have been evolved from a tree, since it has wood in it"

then why do you believe even far more complex things just suddenly appear? what's the most complex thing you have EVER seen appear out of nowhere, in you life, ever?

i can't remember anything.

[natty dread]

species are species

Species are just our definitions, they're not hard-coded to the DNA of organisms. There's no strict boundaries between species, pile enough mutation on one species and it becomes another.

repeating the same false statements over and over do not suddenly make them more correct.

Funny that you brought it up. Do you have any evidence at all of boundaries between species being hardcoded in their genetics? No? Thought so.

I'm not the one repeating false statements, you see. I have evidence, I've posted links. You, on the other hand, have so far been doing nothing but repeating your false statements.


So... Are you going to address the evidence I've presented, or are you going to keep up ignoring everything that doesn't fit in your preconceived worldview?

[natty dread]

evolution is a myth based on mutations

No, evolution is an established scientific theory backed by tons of evidence. If you want to prove it false, go ahead... but smarter people have tried and failed.

so you agree it's just a theory, nothing more.

the·o·ry   [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

theory, not fact.

No, it's not "just a theory". The definition you posted does not apply to scientific theories.

A scientific theory is a framework that explains an observed phenomenon.

A scientific theory that is firmly established with enough empirical evidence to support it is considered a scientific fact.

Therefore, evolution is BOTH A THEORY AND A FACT. I ALREADY WENT OVER THIS IN MY LAST POST!!!

if you would write a game, would you write the part of the game about humans in C++, the part about buildings in C#, the part about animals in Java, and the part about physics in Pearl?

that would not make sense now does it?

#1 - it's Perl, not "Pearl"

#2 - actually, many software are written in multiple programming languages, with each language used in a different part of the program... for example, you might have libraries that deal with the hardware written in C and the interface written in Python, or any such combination...

So, your point was?

then why is it so hard to grasp that god would also use the same 'code' in all his creations?

Because there's no reason to include god in any of this. The theory of evolution works just fine without a god. Which is something that can be said about any established scientific theory.

See, that's just what ID does. You presuppose a god, then you try to build hypotheses around that supposition, and cherry pick only the data that supports or can be twisted to support your claim. That's not science, that's idiocy.

so the theory is still incomplete even if it would be true

So you'd say a book about 16th century France is "incomplete" because it doesn't tell you anything about Mayan culture?

besides, it isn't even able to proof the evolution of life past the stage of simple slight mutations, which don't even mean much.

Yes it is. There's tons of evidence of this, and the only reason you argue against it because you don't want to admit that your god story is bunk.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

And yet they're still foxes/wolves (don't know which as you used both in you comment). It doesn't matter whether they look or behave the same: they're still the same species. They didn't turn into a cat (or whatever would be the next species in the chain).

Fail. The foxes are essentially a different breed, and this is only after 50 years. Given a few hundred to a few thousand, and they wouldn't be able to breed with the original fox breed, ergo new species. And looking and behaving differently ARE important, because these are phenotypes, the expression of genes, which means the gene pool is changing. I mentioned the wolf because ancient humans domesticated the wolf, and through selective breeding made the modern dog breeds we have today. This is almost exactly the same. If you're denying any sort of evolution, then you're also denying artificial selection, which is just ignorant.

It continually amazes me that people think that evolution is this simple linear progression, as if the species just level up or something. The foxes would never "turn into a cat," and that's not "the next in the chain." Felines and canines share a common ancestor from millions of years ago, and evolved concurrently. btw it might help you to consider evolution as a branching tree rather than this ridiculous chain.

like i said, genetic mutations does not equal evolution.

they won't become dogs or cats or rabbits, no matter how long you keep feeding them and caging them, they won't.

their behavior might change, their appearance might change, those things are proven to happen. but it does not prove evolution, nor does it disprove the existence of god.

obviously life has been created to adapt to their environment, within boundaries.

Are you just trolling me and natty? As I mentioned earlier, behavior and appearance are all products of genes, and as we are all aware, genes produce everything else about organisms. This means that change can extend to more than just behavior and such, and eventually we have a different organism. ffs, did you go through the slide? Their ears and tails were already different. What about when this will start to affect their size, or their bodily dimensions, and their senses? Eventually these foxes will become so different that they wouldn't be comparable to the original species.

Are you saying that life was designed? Because if so, then you know nothing about anatomy or physiology. If someone designed the human species, I'd probably call them a shitty designer.

Recurrent laryngeal nerve Terrible design... it's described as circuitous. If someone had designed life then they would have made this nerve more direct. (a giraffe's RLN detours over fifteen feet--that's a whole lot of nerve that is susceptible to damage)

Lower back pain, hernias, prolapsed uteruses... these are all a result of what originally were quadrapeds becoming bipedal. The lumbar vertebrae and joints of humans have a hard time dealing with the extra weight that should normally be carried on the upper limbs.

that's just as valid as saying 1+1 is 2 so in a million years 1+1 will be 3, it will slowly chance to becoming 2,0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 and for some reason it keeps on going to become 3.

Yes because abstract numbers behave the same as matter. Do you not understand the idea of accumulation?

-TG

[Army of GOD]

that would not make sense now does it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1QI4P0Y ... re=related

[barackattack]

I spent far too much time composing my most recent response to this debate in an online forum

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I spent far too much time composing my most recent response to this debate in an online forum

pssh that was like 5-10 minutes. A good rebuttal or case-building in mafia games can take upwards of an hour, even more if you've gotta search through tons of posts.

-TG

[barackattack]

God bless partisanship.

A scientific theory is a framework that explains an observed phenomenon.

Here you confuse an 'explanation' with a 'fact'. Creationism is just as much of an 'explanation' for humanity's existence as evolution.

A scientific theory that is firmly established with enough empirical evidence to support it is considered a scientific fact.

I.e. it shifts from being 'theory' to 'fact'. The evidence supporting evolution theory is compelling, yes, but it is not conclusive. No one can logically conclude that evolution is definite fact. Just like Creationism (or whatever), all you have is a strong correlation.

(P.S. You're also mistaken if you think that a lack of empirical evidence discredits religious theory. Religion is theology, not science. The two are seperate discourses and developments in one do nothing to disprove developments in the other)

[Aradhus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8S9uI6R1FM

[natty dread]

I don't understand the definition of a scientific theory.

Have no fear,
help is near.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[Victor Sullivan]

And yet they're still foxes/wolves (don't know which as you used both in you comment). It doesn't matter whether they look or behave the same: they're still the same species. They didn't turn into a cat (or whatever would be the next species in the chain).

Fail. The foxes are essentially a different breed, and this is only after 50 years. Given a few hundred to a few thousand, and they wouldn't be able to breed with the original fox breed, ergo new species. And looking and behaving differently ARE important, because these are phenotypes, the expression of genes, which means the gene pool is changing. I mentioned the wolf because ancient humans domesticated the wolf, and through selective breeding made the modern dog breeds we have today. This is almost exactly the same. If you're denying any sort of evolution, then you're also denying artificial selection, which is just ignorant.

It continually amazes me that people think that evolution is this simple linear progression, as if the species just level up or something. The foxes would never "turn into a cat," and that's not "the next in the chain." Felines and canines share a common ancestor from millions of years ago, and evolved concurrently. btw it might help you to consider evolution as a branching tree rather than this ridiculous chain.

Tails is spot on here. Scientists/Biologists have actually witnessed speciation in our modern times. The unfortunate side of this is, is it really macroevolution? Technically, the concept of a species is man-made and our man-made definition isn't even well-defined (morphological species concept, biological species concept, phylogenetic species concept, etc.). So, sure, a Vireo gilvus and a Vireo vicinior might be 'cousins' in the evolutionary tree, but can man have really come from the slime? I'm skeptical, but I'm by no means 'against' evolution.

like i said, genetic mutations does not equal evolution.

they won't become dogs or cats or rabbits, no matter how long you keep feeding them and caging them, they won't.

their behavior might change, their appearance might change, those things are proven to happen. but it does not prove evolution, nor does it disprove the existence of god.

obviously life has been created to adapt to their environment, within boundaries.

Are you just trolling me and natty? As I mentioned earlier, behavior and appearance are all products of genes, and as we are all aware, genes produce everything else about organisms. This means that change can extend to more than just behavior and such, and eventually we have a different organism. ffs, did you go through the slide? Their ears and tails were already different. What about when this will start to affect their size, or their bodily dimensions, and their senses? Eventually these foxes will become so different that they wouldn't be comparable to the original species.

Are you saying that life was designed? Because if so, then you know nothing about anatomy or physiology. If someone designed the human species, I'd probably call them a shitty designer.

Recurrent laryngeal nerve Terrible design... it's described as circuitous. If someone had designed life then they would have made this nerve more direct. (a giraffe's RLN detours over fifteen feet--that's a whole lot of nerve that is susceptible to damage)

Lower back pain, hernias, prolapsed uteruses... these are all a result of what originally were quadrapeds becoming bipedal. The lumbar vertebrae and joints of humans have a hard time dealing with the extra weight that should normally be carried on the upper limbs.

As far as the Bible and God are concerned, humans fucked themselves over. Not God. It says so in Genesis...3, I think.

-Sully

[barackattack]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

I'd suggest you read that yourself. Funnily enough the Wiki, much like every other source, does not equate theory with concrete fact.

It is accepted in scientific method and the philosophy of science that knowledge isn't really worth anything if it can't be tested. If a piece of knowledge is impossible to test then how can we verify its truth?

If knowledge can be tested then as well as the possibility of a test confirming it there is also the possibility a test might falsify it.

As a result, we cannot be certain that any knowledge is the definite truth (as all knowledge might one day be altered or even overturned). Look at Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. It was taken as wrote for over 100 years that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light; researchers have just disproven that.

Evolution may look like the most likely explanation, but it is not the explanation.

[natty dread]

is it really macroevolution?

but can man have really come from the slime? I'm skeptical

And you're a school teacher? For shame.

[Victor Sullivan]

is it really macroevolution?

but can man have really come from the slime? I'm skeptical

And you're a school teacher? For shame.

Perhaps the shame is best placed upon you, as I'm afraid you are mistaken.

-Sully

[natty dread]

I'm having trouble with reading comprehension. Can someone please clarify to me what is the difference between theory and fact, and how a theory can be considered a fact?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_ ... _fact#Fact

[barackattack]

You are a total faggot. The last paragraph of your second link explicitly makes the exact point I made in my previous post (a point which invalidates your argument). Can you read?

Evolution is a subjective interpretation, not a cold, hard fact. Your incredible partisanship and desire to usurp religious theory doesn't change that.