Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Dingdongs

Creationism or Evolution?

Recommended Posts

sivispacem

 

It is not the easiest to explain, I'll link a video later if I can, but it is very confusing especially to the scientists trying to figure out what it all means. Alot of them are beginning to believe that these bits of non-living matter are actually bits and pieces of consciousness.

I'd really, really like to see some evidence to support that claim.

Congratulations on nitpicking my post and completely ignoring everything else in my post sigh.gif lol

 

No, I carefully selected a bit where you made a completey unsubstantiated and likely untrue statement and then asked you to verify it. If you make comments like that, then how can I trust the rest of your post is anything other than horsesh*t?

 

 

Can you explain where the incredibly complex code that operates all life came from, where or even how the laws of physics came to be and why they are so precise? If just one of our four main forces were to be varied just a tad, our whole universe as we know it would be incapable of harboring life at all. The strong and weak nuclear forces are so precise that if one of them were to be altered just a fraction, atoms would not be capable of holding together therefore nothing would exist. The laws of physics are obviously set to harbor life and existence as a whole.

 

No, I can't, but, as I have said dozens of times, that doesn't mean that there isn't an explaination for it. Just because something cannot be explained right now does not mean that it will not be explained in the future. To suggest that science has reached it's peak and that we somehow are incapable of any further understanding is stupid as it is incorrect. Regardless, does the existance of a divine power really answer the questions you're posing? No, it does not. All you end up with is another stage to have to explain the workings, input, methodology and processes of. You may personally believe that there is a divine power which provides answers as to the complexity of the material world around us, but even you can surely see that the very nature of one's existance raises more questions than it answers?

 

 

The ways our brains work with taking in electromagnetic waves and turning them into fully colored pictures inside our brain is exactly as to how computers process digital information. I'll ask how did the retina, optic nerves, and visual cortex Evolve simultaneously while also producing a code to make the whole thing operate correctly? What good is a partially formed retina with no optic nerves, or what goods optic nerves without the visual cortex? But then what good is all that without the code that turns the electrical signals into a living picture? You can throw all the parts needed for a graphics card into a dryer and let it tumble around for a million, hell even a billion years and lets just say it somehow assembled itself, what good are all those parts without the code that allows it to operate?

 

And? So? What's the relavence here? "Grandmaster Smith in 'computers vaguely similar to brains' shocker"? It's a tenuous link at best, and one that I don't quite see the relavence in. As for the comment about the evolution of, for instance, the complex composition that makes up the human eye- has it not occurred to you that such a think does not just miraculously appear? The eyes of other living creatures are vastly simpler than the human eye- for instance, fish and insects, and only serve a very basic purpose. It's pretty evident how the stream of evolution has occurred over the millions of years. Now, how the concept of an eye came to be in the first place isn't that difficult to grasp- living things with a greater awareness of their surroundings are more likely to avoid preditors and survive. It might seem bizarre to you that something so specialised could evolve out of requirement but I would challenge that it has more to do with your lack of proper understanding of the concept of evolution (as all you've really been able to band about is the kind of "childrens-lite" version) than it does any actual flaws in the theory.

 

 

 

That is just one example of the many multi-part systems in our bodies that require other parts to fully operate. It is very very obvious that there was some sort of planning or blueprints needed, there is no way a mindless random mutation can know how to build a system from the ground up without some intent of the final system in mind, which points towards some form intelligence was needed somewhere along the line.

 

Why is some kind of planning or blue-print needed? What's so hard to understand that complex sequences of events, complex patterns even more astonishing than the creation of such specialised sensory organs, come out of mere chance? As a species we've proven that given the right circumstances, seemingly random combinations can produce complex patterns and orders. Why is the natural world any different? Anyway, how does this tie into animals and species that do have partially developed senses, but not fully- or those with non- or poorly-functioning organs or body parts? We're they lower down the creators priority list? As I said, the idea of a creator raises far more questions than it answers.

 

If you think there's no way that order can be formed from a seemingly random combination of chances, then good for you. Cling to that comforting belief in a higher power if you like. But the simple fact of the matter is that for someone who doesn't already possess the belief in such a being, jumping from a lack of understanding to the lack of understanding being caused by a creator deity is an utterly absurd and completely illogical fallacy.

 

 

I know that saying 'god did it' doesn't solve anything, but never have I claimed that if god exists then we can all just give up on science. Science and math are the tools used to create our reality, but you cannot use those tools to explain our origin, only help us understand that which created it. Much like a knife, it is a tool used to cut things, but it cannot be used to cut itself.. if that makes sense.

 

Look, this debate won't get solved by your attitude. The thing that those who do believe in a higher power never seem to grasp is that those who don't believe don't see any of this evidence that they claim is so prevalent. You might look at the outside world and see constructed, perfectly designed beauty, but I do not, and nor do many others. You can't just sit there and constantly insist that something must be how you say it is, because the empirical evidence isn't there and all you're doing is distorting a lack of scientific understanding to fit your personal oppinion or viewpoint.

 

Let me ask you this. If science were to produce empirically testable, logically watertight arguments that answered all your questions on the complexity of the natural world without the need for a higher power, would you believe them? I would guess not, as rather than using the evidence to inform their understanding, those of divine belief tend to twist the evidence to suppot their personal spiritual views. There's nothing wrong with the belief in a higher power, per se, but trying to rationalise it to someone who doesn't believe is no more sensible than trying to rationalise the existance of invisible pink unicorns.

 

 

I find it an insult to nature to claim it was all a mindless accident when you really look at it and all its orchestrated cycles and beauty. The creator of nature would have to have been a mathematical genius to make everything work so seamlessly. You'd have to be extremely ignorant to say there is no design in nature..

 

I find it an insult to human acheivment and understanding to question the value of scientific and technican enlightenment with a half-baked theory about an invisible, omnipotent power. The living material world around us is far more chaotic and far less pretty than your overly rosy and stereotypically-hippie-ish rambings make it out to be. Nor does any part of it work particularly effectively or seamlessly. You'd have to be extremely ignorant to ignore the sheer number of elements in nature that lack functionality or are not effective at their percieved role. If there is an intelligent designer, they're a bit crap at their job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

I would have to spend alot of time looking for where I was reading through that. It was merely speculation on their part that consciousness, whatever that truly may be, is what makes up the energy which in turn make up the quarks that build the atoms to make molecules and so on. The reason they speculate this is because with different experiments they are finding that non-living matter is somehow capable of being 'aware' of their surroundings. What we previously thought of to be non living matter is now seen as conscious.

 

And yes, what if there is an explanation for the code that builds up everything in our known reality, just you wont allow that answer to be a possibility? I like how you quickly answer your own question of if posing the reason of our existence is due to a divine creator, then it still wouldn't answer any of my question.. lol of course it would answer my questions so quit trying to put words in my mouth. Of course there would be more questions brought up if a designer were the case, but isn't that all part of the scientific method? You find out something, which in turn makes you ask more. And the connection between the human mind and a computer shows that there is intelligence required to build this machine, it is not a result of random chances.

 

You seem to be completely missing my points as to how evolution of certain systems would be impossible to come to be solely due to random mutations. I know evolutionists claim that our modern day eyes came from a less evolved ancestor, but that still isn't answering my question.. Even for what we supposedly evolved from, it would've still required basic blueprints to properly function. Randomly grown light sensitive cells are as useless as an eyeball connected to your big toe because the less evolved LS cells are still going to require a connection to a central nervous system and an optic nerve to make that connection. Then even if a creature were somehow miraculously able to simultaneously evolve all these parts together through mindless random mutations, it all would still require a code to translate the data it is receiving from the outside world and process it into some sort of image inside the brain. So I'll ask you, what use to natural selection is a half evolved visual system? If one of the parts isn't there, the visual system simply isn't going to work. So I'll ask again, what evolved first, the light sensitive cells, the visual processing center, the optic nerve, or the code that is all so essential for the whole system? And if only one part is evolved at a time, what purpose do they serve and what advantage does that give over natural selection?

 

Another example is our teeth. They are grouped together very well in a brilliantly designed way (Now of course not everyone has perfect teeth but generally speaking here). All of our teeth are carved and shaped to properly fit against all the surrounding teeth. Now I'll ask you, how is this a end result of random mutations, or does it show more signs of being designed? I really thought about this one and thought that maybe the teeth just happened to have formed just by rubbing against eachother, but then I learned how our teeth are actually completely formed before they ever even exit the gums. There are separate genes from the ones that tell them to grow than those to tell them which shape to form. If random mutations were the case, then why dont we have random teeth sprouted about or just in block shapes? How do they already know what shape the other teeth are going to be so they can conform to their shape so they properly fit? Our teeth are a perfect example of designed>random mutation. Now I haven't gone that deep into detail but I just want to round this up.

 

But why do we find symmetry in the geometry of our faces? Why are we all the same? Are we just at a point in time where evolution has been perfected? Why don't we find a plethora of useless bones and muscles or any half evolved systems today inside our bodies? Why is it if you take any single one of the almost 7 billion people on earth and match them with anyone else, they can always breed no matter what? Why hasn't man continued to evolve at all? The one process the has supposedly came to shape every living creature we know today has just decided to stop with us? I've heard people say, 'well we have technology now so that's our continuation of our evolution' or 'technology allows us todo what mutations would, therefore we no longer need to evolve because we have technology'.. but isn't evolution a completely random process and doesn't make any choice whether to evolve or not, it just happens? We can obviously observe adaptation of a species to create a wider variation within the whole, but never a whole leap to another 'type.' Out of the billions and billions of people and the last 200,000 or so years, you would've expected to see atleast one person mutate and become incompatible with another human, yet we don't. Not even that, but we've never even observed one single beneficial mutation to a human being EVER. They always result in deformity and/or the inability to reproduce. We even find millions of year old fossils of animals exactly identical to ones we find today, through millions of years evolution just never touched them?

Edited by GrandMaster Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

I would have to spend alot of time looking for where I was reading through that. It was merely speculation on their part that consciousness, whatever that truly may be, is what makes up the energy which in turn make up the quarks that build the atoms to make molecules and so on. The reason they speculate this is because with different experiments they are finding that non-living matter is somehow capable of being 'aware' of their surroundings. What we previously thought of to be non living matter is now seen as conscious.

 

I still don't believe it. It sounds like an outlandish and wild statement you are now back-tracking on whilst still trying to maintain your position.

 

 

And yes, what if there is an explanation for the code that builds up everything in our known reality, just you wont allow that answer to be a possibility? I like how you quickly answer your own question of if posing the reason of our existence is due to a divine creator, then it still wouldn't answer any of my question.. lol of course it would answer my questions so quit trying to put words in my mouth. Of course there would be more questions brought up if a designer were the case, but isn't that all part of the scientific method? You find out something, which in turn makes you ask more. And the connection between the human mind and a computer shows that there is intelligence required to build this machine, it is not a result of random chances.

 

My point was this- a divine creator doesn't provide answers as to how or why any of the features of living organisms have evolved. The process is as important, if not more important, than the cause or the effect. "It was god" produces no coherent or empirical answer that aids in our understanding of the natural world- it cannot be proven, it cannot be demonstrated, if anything, it actually worsens our understanding of the world we live in. As for the computers example, I still don't get the point you are making. Are all complex things the work of a designer? How about the atomic structure of various complex molecules, which can be produced with nothing more than heat? Complexity doesn't necessarily require an intelligent creator, all it requires is an intelligent mind to understand it.

 

 

You seem to be completely missing my points as to how evolution of certain systems would be impossible to come to be solely due to random mutations. I know evolutionists claim that our modern day eyes came from a less evolved ancestor, but that still isn't answering my question.. Even for what we supposedly evolved from, it would've still required basic blueprints to properly function. Randomly grown light sensitive cells are as useless as an eyeball connected to your big toe because the less evolved LS cells are still going to require a connection to a central nervous system and an optic nerve to make that connection. Then even if a creature were somehow miraculously able to simultaneously evolve all these parts together through mindless random mutations, it all would still require a code to translate the data it is receiving from the outside world and process it into some sort of image inside the brain. So I'll ask you, what use to natural selection is a half evolved visual system? If one of the parts isn't there, the visual system simply isn't going to work. So I'll ask again, what evolved first, the light sensitive cells, the visual processing center, the optic nerve, or the code that is all so essential for the whole system? And if only one part is evolved at a time, what purpose do they serve and what advantage does that give over natural selection?

 

Another example is our teeth. They are grouped together very well in a brilliantly designed way (Now of course not everyone has perfect teeth but generally speaking here). All of our teeth are carved and shaped to properly fit against all the surrounding teeth. Now I'll ask you, how is this a end result of random mutations, or does it show more signs of being designed? I really thought about this one and thought that maybe the teeth just happened to have formed just by rubbing against eachother, but then I learned how our teeth are actually completely formed before they ever even exit the gums. There are separate genes from the ones that tell them to grow than those to tell them which shape to form. If random mutations were the case, then why dont we have random teeth sprouted about or just in block shapes? How do they already know what shape the other teeth are going to be so they can conform to their shape so they properly fit? Our teeth are a perfect example of designed>random mutation. Now I haven't gone that deep into detail but I just want to round this up.

 

The eye argument has been addressed by a number of people, as to how eyes would have evolved. There are some articles here and here which address the idea in varying amounts of simplicity. In fact, here's a quote from one of them

 

 

In this case, you would want to explore the evolution of the eye itself. The “seeing organ” has evolved at least 11 different times in the history of life on earth. The evolution of the eye is basically a transition from photosensitive cells to an organ that specializes in focusing light rays and interpreting their images...A discussion of the evolution of the eye specific to human evolution must first start with an examination of how the human eye differs from that of other primates. This examination will show that humans differ primarily in the fact that they show more variation in eye color (pigmentation of the iris). You could therefore conclude that that evolution of the human eye is an investigation of eye color variation. Brown is the most common human eye color, and that is the only eye color you see in most primates. So, blue, green and hazel eye colors are human innovations. You will also note that these lighter eye colors are more common in fair skinned people (but not East Asian people). What is going on here? It appears that light eye colour is less sensitive to glare, which could be an advantage to people living in northern climates.

 

Seems pretty rational to me. The eye evolved from light-sensitive pigmented skin spots that enabled organisms to determine whether it was daylight or night, enabling them to feed more effectively and to avoid predators. You still seem to have this bizarre notion that there was suddenly a creature with fully-functioning, human-esque eyes. Do you not realise that many animals currently alive do not have properly functioning eyes? Those mammals that live underground, for instance, have evolved from creatures that did require eyesight, but as they no longer do, they have essentially evolved to no longer see. As for the argument regarding teeth- The human mouth is perfect evidence of gradual evolution. Teeth are nothing more complex than enamelled, evolved scales, rather akin to chitin, which gradually evolved in order to provide living organisms an advantage whilst hunting or foraging. They fit a logical, semi-spherical pattern because that is the most effective trade between space and bite size. Other animals do not have such regularly patterned mouths, often because a different shape suits their feeding better (for instance, fish like Lampreys). There's a nice article addressing your comments here.

 

 

But why do we find symmetry in the geometry of our faces? Why are we all the same? Are we just at a point in time where evolution has been perfected? Why don't we find a plethora of useless bones and muscles or any half evolved systems today inside our bodies? Why is it if you take any single one of the almost 7 billion people on earth and match them with anyone else, they can always breed no matter what? Why hasn't man continued to evolve at all? The one process the has supposedly came to shape every living creature we know today has just decided to stop with us? I've heard people say, 'well we have technology now so that's our continuation of our evolution' or 'technology allows us todo what mutations would, therefore we no longer need to evolve because we have technology'.. but isn't evolution a completely random process and doesn't make any choice whether to evolve or not, it just happens? We can obviously observe adaptation of a species to create a wider variation within the whole, but never a whole leap to another 'type.' Out of the billions and billions of people and the last 200,000 or so years, you would've expected to see atleast one person mutate and become incompatible with another human, yet we don't. Not even that, but we've never even observed one single beneficial mutation to a human being EVER. They always result in deformity and/or the inability to reproduce. We even find millions of year old fossils of animals exactly identical to ones we find today, through millions of years evolution just never touched them?

 

Hang on, are you saying there aren't elements of the human body that are currently redundant and undergoing gradual, evolutionary removal? How about the appendix- that performs no role now that we do not need to digest complex plant fibres. How about the redundant extra muscles around our ears which once would have been able to aid is in locating prey or each other? The Plantaris muscle in our feet, which theoretically enables us to grip objects with them but has already partially evolved out of use? Wisdom teeth, which serve no purpose other than promoting infection and aren't even growing through in ever increasing numbers of people? The Coccyx? All are pretty compelling evidence of humans undergoing evolution and you willingly just choose to ignore them?

 

Why would humans evolve to be incompatible with each other? The entire purpose of evolution is to further the species, to continue to produce offspring. Or are you saying that some people don't have genetic "deficiencies" which render them incapable of reproducing? Because if you are, then you're wrong- they're not even that uncommon. No, we are continuing to evolve, but you appear to be very selective in what you are classing as "evolution". And what are you talking about "no beneficial mutations to the human being?" We have grown considerably taller over the last thousand years or so, providing ourselves with a better vantage point when hunting or foraging, for one. How about developing immunity to various diseases- there are people in various African nations who are developing resistance to HIV, for example. That's evolution, whether you like it or not. Has it not struck you that we are already the dominant species on the planet, and therefore small evolutions do not tend to give individuals any greater chance of survival, meaning that they often get lost into a large and ever-growing gene pool and therefore do not have an opportunity to become the norm?

 

GMS, I admire your dedication to the debate, and you have made some pretty good points. But I urge you to read something on evolution that isn't a critique of it, as most half-decent books present counters to your arguments far better than the few I've stated above. Whilst you seem to have a pretty decent awareness of the creationist critiques of evolution, you have fallen into the same trap as many creationists do which is believing your own propaganda about evolution rather than exploring the idea independently and for yourself- as such, your understanding of it is rather lacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

The appendix use is to help the immune system by storing bacteria in the colon, the coccyx serves purpose to link many tendons and muscles together, if man were intended to live much longer lives the cranium would continue to grow and which would allow further expansion of the mouth to allow room for wisdom teeth. I ignored those because they do serve purpose therefore aren't random nor useless.

 

But I still feel you don't fully understand my main point. I can see how evolution makes sense when working backwards, but when working from the ground up evolution is absolutely impossible. First of all, dna is exactly as to a binary code, it's in sequences of 1's, 2's, 3's and 4's. Out of these four different molecules, information is stored and used exactly as to how we use letters to communicate or computers use binary code. There Must be a source of information, a writer of this language. There is no way around it, something had to have been the source of information for the dna. Science is only and will only strictly be materialistic. It can describe the chemical reaction of the ink binding with the paper, but could never explain how the blobs of ink on paper come to form and create a complex language.

 

If you just look at music, sound alone doesn't even exist. Outside of our skulls there is absolutely no sound at all. None. Not even a whisper of the breeze. Sound is only a perception of air waves Inside of the mind. Why is there an art to music? Why is it if you stack 3 sequentially spaced semi-tones, you create a chord which is pleasing to the senses? Why is it if you take the 3rd note and drop it one semitone to create a minor chord it effects the soul and gives you a feeling of sadness? Yet you openly strum a standard tuned guitar and it's just a mix of noise? We obviously did not create music, there was a pre-designed system to the art of music. There is absolutely no need for music to survive. There is no 'real' sound either, it is only a perception which is played to us through a process in the mind that is written out once again in code. Not only that, there is no sound playing in our head at all.. how is this even possible and where is it truly being experienced? There is much more the the material physical world, just science won't allow it.

 

Also my question to you, how were the first organisms able to distinguish light from dark? Remember just like sound, there is no 'real' light outside of our minds, it is only colorless, lightless electromagnetic waves. You act as if there is literal physical light and a light sensitive cell is just somehow capable of telling light from dark.. There is atleast a neccesity of code needed to translate the electromagnetic waves to pulses which in turn are processed in the central nervous system as either light or dark. Simply 'evolving' light sensitive cells won't do a thing, there is still the need for that pesky code. Also all evidence I've ever seen for 'evolution' are simply examples of variation. You selectively breed a series of dogs, and you come up with a chihuahua. No matter what though these variations or adaptations always have limits. No matter how much farmers breed their pigs, they will only get to a certain size and will never grow any bigger. Every species has their limitations. Of course you can claim that over a course of billions of years these adaptations can build up on top of eachother and create an entirely new species but the second you do that is then leaving the grounds of factual science and are stepping into the realm of religion for belief and faith are required for there is no actual evidence. You find similar features across species not because they evolved from the same ancestor, but because they have the same designer. You may find similar parts in a corvette and camaro, not because they both evolved from a bel air, but because they both have the same designer.

 

What has science told us about life? The cambrian explosion shows endless examples of fully formed complex organisms popping up with no previous ancestor (except very simple single cell organisms, simple in comparison), and we still today can find living fossils from then. What has science told us about the beginning of the universe? Out of a single singularity of NOTHING, came everything in a single instant which created not only space and matter, but time as well. Before this moment, time did not exist, or atleast as we know it. This means that something exists outside our realm of space AND time, perfectly allowing an eternal entity. Are we yet capable of fully understanding this? Of course not, we're only just digging into the cells and learning about their amazing complexity, our brains would fry if we tried to understand that which has created it and everything else. Science can speculate, but truly has no idea as to how or where the force or energy even came from for the big bang. We live in a matrix, us conscious observers are what help build this reality as physical. Without us or any life form, there wouldn't be a reality because without anything to perceive anything, reality would be a mix of different energy waves with no absolute solidity.

Edited by GrandMaster Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilikensrs
But I still feel you don't fully understand my main point. I can see how evolution makes sense when working backwards, but when working from the ground up evolution is absolutely impossible. First of all, dna is exactly as to a binary code, it's in sequences of 1's, 2's, 3's and 4's. Out of these four different molecules, information is stored and used exactly as to how we use letters to communicate or computers use binary code. There Must be a source of information, a writer of this language. There is no way around it, something had to have been the source of information for the dna. Science is only and will only strictly be materialistic. It can describe the chemical reaction of the ink binding with the paper, but could never explain how the blobs of ink on paper come to form and create a complex language.

Just because you are unable to understand something does not mean it is impossible. Have a look at "Climbing Mount Improbable"( or most of Dawkins' other books, or an entry level high school biology textbook, or wikipedia, or any of the countless websites that exist to explain evolutionary theory, or find a podcast on the subject, or write a letter to a lecturer in the biology department of your local university or college, or phone in to a radio science show in which audience members are asked to submit questions, or even read a science magazine available at any newsstand) and you will find a clear and succinct explanation of how evolution occurs through the twin means of descent with modification and natural selection. To be frank I think the reason you don't think evolution makes any sense is because you are unwilling to view any of the above sources with an open mind because they disagree with your preconceived notions on the subject.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

The appendix use is to help the immune system by storing bacteria in the colon, the coccyx serves purpose to link many tendons and muscles together, if man were intended to live much longer lives the cranium would continue to grow and which would allow further expansion of the mouth to allow room for wisdom teeth. I ignored those because they do serve purpose therefore aren't random nor useless.

 

But I still feel you don't fully understand my main point. I can see how evolution makes sense when working backwards, but when working from the ground up evolution is absolutely impossible. First of all, dna is exactly as to a binary code, it's in sequences of 1's, 2's, 3's and 4's. Out of these four different molecules, information is stored and used exactly as to how we use letters to communicate or computers use binary code. There Must be a source of information, a writer of this language. There is no way around it, something had to have been the source of information for the dna. Science is only and will only strictly be materialistic. It can describe the chemical reaction of the ink binding with the paper, but could never explain how the blobs of ink on paper come to form and create a complex language.

 

If you just look at music, sound alone doesn't even exist. Outside of our skulls there is absolutely no sound at all. None. Not even a whisper of the breeze. Sound is only a perception of air waves Inside of the mind. Why is there an art to music? Why is it if you stack 3 sequentially spaced semi-tones, you create a chord which is pleasing to the senses? Why is it if you take the 3rd note and drop it one semitone to create a minor chord it effects the soul and gives you a feeling of sadness? Yet you openly strum a standard tuned guitar and it's just a mix of noise? We obviously did not create music, there was a pre-designed system to the art of music. There is absolutely no need for music to survive. There is no 'real' sound either, it is only a perception which is played to us through a process in the mind that is written out once again in code. Not only that, there is no sound playing in our head at all.. how is this even possible and where is it truly being experienced? There is much more the the material physical world, just science won't allow it.

 

Also my question to you, how were the first organisms able to distinguish light from dark? Remember just like sound, there is no 'real' light outside of our minds, it is only colorless, lightless electromagnetic waves. You act as if there is literal physical light and a light sensitive cell is just somehow capable of telling light from dark.. There is atleast a neccesity of code needed to translate the electromagnetic waves to pulses which in turn are processed in the central nervous system as either light or dark. Simply 'evolving' light sensitive cells won't do a thing, there is still the need for that pesky code. Also all evidence I've ever seen for 'evolution' are simply examples of variation. You selectively breed a series of dogs, and you come up with a chihuahua. No matter what though these variations or adaptations always have limits. No matter how much farmers breed their pigs, they will only get to a certain size and will never grow any bigger. Every species has their limitations. Of course you can claim that over a course of billions of years these adaptations can build up on top of eachother and create an entirely new species but the second you do that is then leaving the grounds of factual science and are stepping into the realm of religion for belief and faith are required for there is no actual evidence. You find similar features across species not because they evolved from the same ancestor, but because they have the same designer. You may find similar parts in a corvette and camaro, not because they both evolved from a bel air, but because they both have the same designer.

 

What has science told us about life? The cambrian explosion shows endless examples of fully formed complex organisms popping up with no previous ancestor (except very simple single cell organisms, simple in comparison), and we still today can find living fossils from then. What has science told us about the beginning of the universe? Out of a single singularity of NOTHING, came everything in a single instant which created not only space and matter, but time as well. Before this moment, time did not exist, or atleast as we know it. This means that something exists outside our realm of space AND time, perfectly allowing an eternal entity.  Are we yet capable of fully understanding this? Of course not, we're only just digging into the cells and learning about their amazing complexity, our brains would fry if we tried to understand that which has created it and everything else. Science can speculate, but truly has no idea as to how or where the force or energy even came from for the big bang. We live in a matrix, us conscious observers are what help build this reality as physical. Without us or any life form, there wouldn't be a reality because without anything to perceive anything, reality would be a mix of different energy waves with no absolute solidity.

I've read reports saying that the appendix stores bacteria, but the BBC don't appear to agree. Like many issues in health, it's debatable whether it serves a purpose at all. Your comment about the role of the coccyx does appear to have some truth in it, but it is also painfully obvious that it is a remnant of a tail that we no longer possess- to ignore that is just absurd. You've still failed to explain why so many people are loosing the ability to grow wisdom teeth at all. Also, whilst parts of the cranium continue to grow, the jaw bone does not. So no, you've not really effectively addressed these issues.

 

I agree, I don't fully understand the point your making- but I don't think that's anything to do with my intelligence or analysis of it- more to do with how convoluted and nonsensical it is. Why must there be a creator for the "source code" of DNA? Have you not seen the vast swathes of examples I've given of natural complexity coming out of essential chaos without any interference or precursor rather than a specific set of circumstances. It is you who willingly chooses to ignore these examples and address the issue properly. You can bang on about how complexity must have a creator, but it simply isn't true and this is where your entire argument falls down.

 

Sound does exist, as does light. I really don't understand this whole Idealist point of view on the entire issue. Just because our understanding of our environment is derived from our senses, does not mean that these concepts do not exist outside of our consciousness. We can empirically measure the existence of sound- it's waves of certain audible frequencies. Similarly, light is a certain spectrum of waves which reflect of objects in varying ways. These concepts, these ideas still exist outside of those who experience them. Ask a blind man whether he can imagine seeing, and the answer will usually be no- but he can still understand it. The same with a deaf man. You still don't seem to quite grasp the idea of evolution- the entire issue is that it's incredibly difficult to directly identify when a species has changes, as it's entirely subjective to the individual viewing it, whereas you still seem to be treating it as it's some magical, on/off switch from one species to another. I agree, that is utterly absurd. The selective breeding comment is also rather misguided. By selectively breeding animals, you are doing the exact opposite of evolution- you are narrowing a gene-pool in order to produce something with a specific role or characteristic. Evolution seeks to widen the gene pool in order to present the largest possible array of traits and therefore increase the likelihoods of beneficial mutations being transferred and continued. Like I've said before, your inability to understand these concepts comes not from any convincing argument to support intelligent design, but from your own misunderstanding of the ideas of evolution.

 

Like I have said probably a dozen times not, there are areas of scientific study in which we do not currently have the answers to questions we are seeking to explore. Again, you seem to be treating science as if it has reached it's enlightened singularity and ignoring the fact that scientific understanding is still expanding at an enormous rate. To assume that science will be unable to answer your (some, I must confess, quite legitimate) questions seems absurd to me. There's further evidence of your lack of understanding- no, science cannot currently understand the mechanisms behind the "big bang" (which isn't as you try and indicate, something coming from nothing), but does that mean that something else has to exist externally to time and space? Not necessarily. Even if this was a given, what evidence is there that outside of the known realm exists a deity? None.

 

Imagine a man who wakes up in a cave, with no memory of any existence, before or since. He cannot exit the cave, as a huge cliff blocks his passage, and when he peers outside he can see nothing but rock. With no answers to his questions, it is rational that this man believe that his surroundings be created by something imagined in his likeness- all he has real experience of. Now, if that man were set free from the cave, and shown the dry lake bed and waterfall that formed his walled prison, would he still rationally believe that it was formed by a higher power? Some would, some wouldn't.

 

My point boils down to this- simply, there are two kinds of people. Those who believe that a divine creator is responsible for this world, and those who do not. The same way that few believers are swayed by the views of non-believers, the spiritual rationalisations for the ideas of creationism and intelligent design hold no water in the eyes of those who believe in evolution. Apart from in a few isolated cases, the evidence produced by one will never convince the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chestycougth

Richard Dawkins stated that "evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." He added that "it is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene... the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue ... Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English."

 

this cicumstantial evidence includes the fossil record, DNA, selective breeding and much more, just read the origin of species by means of natural selection.

also i dont think people should rule out both evolution or creationism until they fully understand both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilikensrs

What is to be fully understood about "god did it" exactly? Should we take a stand as to how, when, why and which god did it before we can dismiss the whole thing as stone age superstitious nonsense, most of which is directly contradicted by the evidence at hand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
But I still feel you don't fully understand my main point. I can see how evolution makes sense when working backwards, but when working from the ground up evolution is absolutely impossible. First of all, dna is exactly as to a binary code, it's in sequences of 1's, 2's, 3's and 4's. Out of these four different molecules, information is stored and used exactly as to how we use letters to communicate or computers use binary code. There Must be a source of information, a writer of this language. There is no way around it, something had to have been the source of information for the dna.

We see viruses and bacteria mutate all the time. Random changes in viral and bacterial DNA/RNA result in new resistances. There is no writer for these changes. We observe them happen, and know that they are due to random chance.

 

Random noise contains information in any encoding you chose. The trouble is that most of it is useless. The question is not where the information comes from, but how useless noise gets filtered out of noise that turned out to be useful, and therefore becomes information. The principle of natural selection answers that question. And again, as far as virus/bacteria mutations, we see it work. Once you accept that, the question of the writer goes away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chestycougth

have you read the bible?

have you read any part of the bible?

do you have a clear understanding of religious cultures?

probably not. my point is you can't talk about something you dont understand, i'm not necessarily talking about creationism, which you most people understand anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Doesn't really matter. The main problem with creationism/intelligent design is that even if it happens to be true, it's absolutely useless. Evolution makes predictions, and therefore, is useful as a scientific theory. Even if it's wrong and it makes correct predictions, that's what matters. Science doesn't care about why. That's for philosophers and theologists to figure out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kweckzilber

 

Doesn't really matter. The main problem with creationism/intelligent design is that even if it happens to be true, it's absolutely useless. Evolution makes predictions, and therefore, is useful as a scientific theory. Even if it's wrong and it makes correct predictions, that's what matters. Science doesn't care about why. That's for philosophers and theologists to figure out.

This.

 

It has been proven beyond argument that humans themselves have evolved from a series of primitive species. There is material proof. So the current Creationist theory doesn't make sense. Then, when we go way back to the Big Bang, where even the greatest minds on planet Earth don't have much to say about events prior to that, yes, I know time is believed to have started from the Big Bang, so, one can argue there was nothing as 'before the Big Bang'. You can believe the Big Bang is God's work. You can wait for (more) alternate theories to crop up. But starting from the Big Bang, evolution has always won and always helped, while Creationism has been some sort of shadow lurking in the dark, stumbling on encounters with logic and living through a group of people running away from Science and fact.

 

No offence.

Edited by Kweckzilber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
have you read the bible?

have you read any part of the bible?

do you have a clear understanding of religious cultures?

probably not. my point is you can't talk about something you dont understand, i'm not necessarily talking about creationism, which you most people understand anyway.

Thank you for this most lucid and enlightening contribution.

 

 

 

Of course, I'm being sarcastic. Why don't you toddle back off to a thread in which sensible discussion on complex issues is not being undertaken, and post there instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Rikowski

 

Creationism or Evolution?

Actually none of the above.

I'm not a religious person and I think that quite often Evolutionism is dogmatically defended just as Creationism.

Still a lot of flaws in both theories (I see them both as theories).

Yes, there are some clues that could lead you to think that Evolutionism is the right theory but in my opinion clues are not enough and the "evidence" is still very contradictory and not widely accepted even within the scientific community.

Just yesterday I read about the fact that 86% of insects and plants and 91% of marine life haven't been discovered yet.

Basically we don't know much (as usual).

Too soon in our "evolution" as a human society to say that we know how the world and all living beings were born.

We just don't know it yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chestycougth
have you read the bible?

have you read any part of the bible?

do you have a clear understanding of religious cultures?

probably not. my point is you can't talk about something you dont understand, i'm not necessarily talking about creationism, which you most people understand anyway.

Thank you for this most lucid and enlightening contribution.

 

 

 

Of course, I'm being sarcastic. Why don't you toddle back off to a thread in which sensible discussion on complex issues is not being undertaken, and post there instead?

What i said had nothing to do with this thread. Your acting like a jerk to people because because they believe in god and trying to make me look stupid for trying to defend their beliefs.

You need to learn some respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
have you read the bible?

have you read any part of the bible?

do you have a clear understanding of religious cultures?

probably not. my point is you can't talk about something you dont understand, i'm not necessarily talking about creationism, which you most people understand anyway.

Thank you for this most lucid and enlightening contribution.

 

 

 

Of course, I'm being sarcastic. Why don't you toddle back off to a thread in which sensible discussion on complex issues is not being undertaken, and post there instead?

What i said had nothing to do with this thread. Your acting like a jerk to people because because they believe in god and trying to make me look stupid for trying to defend their beliefs.

You need to learn some respect.

No, I'm questioning the value of your contribution to the thread. You yourself have said that it's got nothing to do with the thread, so why post it? This is a forum for debate and discussion on specific issues. If you aren't going to make even the vaguest attempt to contribute positively to these discussions, then what is the purpose in your posting here?

 

You need to learn to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chestycougth

you obviously haven't read my first post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
you obviously haven't read my first post.

Oh I did. In fact I responded to it and to the other Dawkins-related post you made, though I can't remember whether it was in this thread or the other one. Regardless, one on-topic post doesn't give you the right to one off-topic one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chestycougth

i posted one on topic post and just put a little extra underneath to make a point to some people who had been a little disrespectfull in earlier posts

and then someone else replied to that post with "what exactly is there to understand about 'god did it'." so i explained what i meant slightly more clearly and then we all went off topic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilikensrs
i posted one on topic post and just put a little extra underneath to make a point to some people who had been a little disrespectfull in earlier posts

and then someone else replied to that post with "what exactly is there to understand about 'god did it'." so i explained what i meant slightly more clearly and then we all went off topic.

You explained nothing. The slight level of surface detail contained in the bible is meaningless. There is no real difference between "god did it" to "god did it in the garden of eden" and "god did it in the garden of eden six thousand years ago" or even "god did it in the garden of eden six thousand years ago using f*cking magic".

I don't need to be an expert on ancient Sumerian civilisation to know that astrology is bunkum, and I don't need to have a clear understanding of the ways and means of Jeeeezus to say that creationism is garbage. I don't need to understand why some blind people may think the sky is green in order to be aware that it's blue, nor do I need to know your mass before I can dismiss your arguments as lacking weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck
Creationism or Evolution?

Actually none of the above.

I'm not a religious person and I think that quite often Evolutionism is dogmatically defended just as Creationism.

Still a lot of flaws in both theories (I see them both as theories).

Yes, there are some clues that could lead you to think that Evolutionism is the right theory but in my opinion clues are not enough and the "evidence" is still very contradictory and not widely accepted even within the scientific community.

Just yesterday I read about the fact that 86% of insects and plants and 91% of marine life haven't been discovered yet.

Basically we don't know much (as usual).

Too soon in our "evolution" as a human society to say that we know how the world and all living beings were born.

We just don't know it yet.

Care to display some of this "contraditory evidence" that disproves Evolutionism?

As well as a source for your figures.

 

We do not need to test everything in order to assume it is true. Ever heard of statistics? You can make a pretty correct judgement on the whole by taking a smaller sample. How do you think polls work and such?

In any case, if evolution works for hundreds of thousands species out of 8 million or so, and the conditions for the remaining millions are the same as for the studied species, it's pretty damn safe to say they go through the same process. Just because they're undiscovered does not mean they're so incredibly different from the other species so as to completely invalidate evolution. Maybe you can argue about species that live on ocean floors and such being different from the others, but you'll find they also evolved to be the way they are and survive on the enviroment they thrive in.

Still, sure, evolution could be disproved in the future when/if someone finds some solid evidence displaying so. But so far, the lack of evidences that disprove it work pretty much in it's favour, as well as all the hard evidence for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chestycougth
i posted one on topic post and just put a little extra underneath to make a point to some people who had been a little disrespectfull in earlier posts

and then someone else replied to that post with "what exactly is there to understand about 'god did it'." so i explained what i meant slightly more clearly and then we all went off topic.

You explained nothing. The slight level of surface detail contained in the bible is meaningless. There is no real difference between "god did it" to "god did it in the garden of eden" and "god did it in the garden of eden six thousand years ago" or even "god did it in the garden of eden six thousand years ago using f*cking magic".

I don't need to be an expert on ancient Sumerian civilisation to know that astrology is bunkum, and I don't need to have a clear understanding of the ways and means of Jeeeezus to say that creationism is garbage. I don't need to understand why some blind people may think the sky is green in order to be aware that it's blue, nor do I need to know your mass before I can dismiss your arguments as lacking weight.

As i said before, i wasn't talking about creationism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
i posted one on topic post and just put a little extra underneath to make a point to some people who had been a little disrespectfull in earlier posts

and then someone else replied to that post with "what exactly is there to understand about 'god did it'." so i explained what i meant slightly more clearly and then we all went off topic.

You explained nothing. The slight level of surface detail contained in the bible is meaningless. There is no real difference between "god did it" to "god did it in the garden of eden" and "god did it in the garden of eden six thousand years ago" or even "god did it in the garden of eden six thousand years ago using f*cking magic".

I don't need to be an expert on ancient Sumerian civilisation to know that astrology is bunkum, and I don't need to have a clear understanding of the ways and means of Jeeeezus to say that creationism is garbage. I don't need to understand why some blind people may think the sky is green in order to be aware that it's blue, nor do I need to know your mass before I can dismiss your arguments as lacking weight.

As i said before, i wasn't talking about creationism.

Hence why your post was off-topic, and hence why you were called out on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
Doesn't really matter. The main problem with creationism/intelligent design is that even if it happens to be true, it's absolutely useless. Evolution makes predictions, and therefore, is useful as a scientific theory. Even if it's wrong and it makes correct predictions, that's what matters. Science doesn't care about why. That's for philosophers and theologists to figure out.

This.

 

It has been proven beyond argument that humans themselves have evolved from a series of primitive species. There is material proof. So the current Creationist theory doesn't make sense.[/size]

Oh, it's a lot worse than this. Suppose, Earth and all of existence was created last year. But it was created exactly as we found it, with people having memories of life before of creation. These memories, of course, being a complete fabrication due to the infinite power and duchebaggery of the creator. There is absolutely nothing we can do to prove that this was not, in fact, the case.

 

But so what? Does that mean we should throw all the science out of the window? Not really. Nothing has been happening over the past year that completely contradicts the laws that we know. Just because Sun didn't form from a cloud of gasses, but rather was created instantly, doesn't mean other stars aren't being born as we speak. Just because all living things were created instantly, doesn't mean they aren't continuing evolving right now.

 

Where all of this came from ultimately does not matter. What matters is that all of our available evidence is consistent with certain laws of how things develop over time. And that's what matters. So long as these rules hold, who cares?

 

Creationists say that all life was created. Big woop. What does that tell me about life that's around now? Not a damn thing. Evolution, whether or not it is actually the origin of the species, predicts a whole lot of things, so we'll keep using it even if creator shows up and takes credit for the creation. Which, if I was creator, I'd be too ashamed to admit, so I wouldn't count on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chestycougth

then lets make this our last off topic post in this thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Rikowski
Creationism or Evolution?

Actually none of the above.

I'm not a religious person and I think that quite often Evolutionism is dogmatically defended just as Creationism.

Still a lot of flaws in both theories (I see them both as theories).

Yes, there are some clues that could lead you to think that Evolutionism is the right theory but in my opinion clues are not enough and the "evidence" is still very contradictory and not widely accepted even within the scientific community.

Just yesterday I read about the fact that 86% of insects and plants and 91% of marine life haven't been discovered yet.

Basically we don't know much (as usual).

Too soon in our "evolution" as a human society to say that we know how the world and all living beings were born.

We just don't know it yet.

Care to display some of this "contraditory evidence" that disproves Evolutionism?

As well as a source for your figures.

 

We do not need to test everything in order to assume it is true. Ever heard of statistics? You can make a pretty correct judgement on the whole by taking a smaller sample. How do you think polls work and such?

In any case, if evolution works for hundreds of thousands species out of 8 million or so, and the conditions for the remaining millions are the same as for the studied species, it's pretty damn safe to say they go through the same process. Just because they're undiscovered does not mean they're so incredibly different from the other species so as to completely invalidate evolution. Maybe you can argue about species that live on ocean floors and such being different from the others, but you'll find they also evolved to be the way they are and survive on the enviroment they thrive in.

Still, sure, evolution could be disproved in the future when/if someone finds some solid evidence displaying so. But so far, the lack of evidences that disprove it work pretty much in it's favour, as well as all the hard evidence for it.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642819-...es-undiscovered

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3A...al.pbio.1001127

 

That's where I got the figures. It's a recent study.

 

My perception is that there are contradictions in Evolutionism. It's my opinion of course (as I clearly stated in my post) but it's also true that Evolutionism is not widely accepted within the scientific community. Or at least some subjects and elements are not accepted unanimously. That makes me doubt. Doubt is the first step towards knowledge.

You said: "Still, sure, evolution could be disproved in the future when/if someone finds some solid evidence displaying so."

 

And that's exactly how I see it. So far it's the only theory we've got (most probable one?) but we're not sure if it's the right one. wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

 

My perception is that there are contradictions in Evolutionism.

My perception is that you are an idiot. See? Now you're getting offended. But it's just my perception! Not helping? Odd...

 

Look, if you think something is true, but you can't present any solid evidence of that, you're probably wrong. If it's "just your perception", you might want to keep that to yourself, because you're making people laugh. Try to get some information about the subject, and see if that changes your perception. If it does, then there is that. If not, you should be able to form an actual argument. If you still can't, rinse, repeat.

 

 

but it's also true that Evolutionism is not widely accepted within the scientific community.

There is scientific community, and there are people who think they are scientific community. I would ask you not to confuse the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skins

Evolution is most certainly accepted in the scientific community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Rikowski
My perception is that there are contradictions in Evolutionism.

My perception is that you are an idiot. See? Now you're getting offended. But it's just my perception! Not helping? Odd...

 

Look, if you think something is true, but you can't present any solid evidence of that, you're probably wrong. If it's "just your perception", you might want to keep that to yourself, because you're making people laugh. Try to get some information about the subject, and see if that changes your perception. If it does, then there is that. If not, you should be able to form an actual argument. If you still can't, rinse, repeat.

 

 

but it's also true that Evolutionism is not widely accepted within the scientific community.

There is scientific community, and there are people who think they are scientific community. I would ask you not to confuse the two.

Well, a true dogmatic I guess. If you can't attack the idea just attack the person that supports the idea. :applause:

Old trick but it works only when you are facing some poor ignorant. tounge.gif

You don't know me and you don't know the level of my knowledge about things so you are already missing a couple of points.

I might just find debating with you highly unexciting and boring.

Have you ever thought that could be the reason why I couldn't be bothered to present any "solid" evidence? colgate.gif

Think about it... for a while.

 

Funny though how you conveniently ignored the links...

 

Anyway if you are laughing then good for you. I'm totally feeling hilarious as well. wink.gif

 

I wish all debaters were sivispacem...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

You don't really leave me a choice. I'd love to attack your argument, but when it consists of, "My perception is," there is not much to do. I tried to make the best of it. Give me a better target, and I'll go after that instead.

 

Your links support the thesis that large fraction of certain phyla have a large number of members that are yet to be identified. Good job. So what? We have not studied any stars outside of our own galaxy. So we haven't studied even a fraction of a percent of all the stars out there. Yet, if somebody came in claiming that majority of the stars are made out of strawberry jelly, you'd laugh them right out.

 

When you use that kind of the argument against evolution, other than laughing you out, I have no response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.