Support NeoGAF

[wolfmat]

Just a simple question.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE EVOLUTIONISTS?

That term makes no sense at all. Just like the term evolutionism makes no sense. IT'S SCIENCE!

Am I a stringist for believing in the validity of String Theory? A chaotist for believing in the validity of Chaos Theory?

Are you guys mentally challenged?

 

[Karma Kramer]

:lol

lol I don't understand how people can be so hypocritical all the time

 

[gkryhewy]

:lol

I'm sorry once again that your sensitivities were inflamed, eeyore. I was not referring to you, if that helps.

lol I don't understand how people can be so hypocritical all the time

It's not hypocritical at all. I was referring to VanMardigan's "NO, YOU ARE" response re: junior high discourse, not the use of the pejorative "retard" (which I stand by).

... although, perhaps I should reconsider that. The ignorance of the mentally challenged is not willful ignorance, after all. Let me replace "retard" with "ignoramus."

 

[Bulla564]

You made a wrong assumption. I wasn't talking about fossils but about biologic evidence amongst other things as well. The complete picture isn't just fossiles, it isn't just bioligy, it isn't just astronomy, etc. It's all those things combined.

And we can address the fallacies and baseless assumptions in each one.

You do realize complex evolution happens over tens of thousands of years?

Yes... the deity of TIME. Anything is possible!!

My car is not like a living organism at all. Who put you on this earth? Was it an intelligent designer or your mom and dad? Or did your mom and dad actively design you? The difference is that a car can't reproduce itself. Organisms can. They are self sufficient. My car can't even drive by itself.

The beauty of living organisms is that you come designed with a full instructions set (DNA), and existing cells do the rest of the work. The only difference with a designed car's blueprint (it's DNA) is that you have to buy each part and then assemble it.

Can you show me a completely new species of organism being intelligently designed out of nothing right now?

Isn't science striving towards this? more-so this, than figuring out how humans evolved from apes. See the difference between useful scientific research and not so amusing stories?

But before that? And before that? Don't you agree that species became more and more varied as time went on? It wasn't this varied from the start was it? How does intelligent design explain that there used to be no land animals?

If I start with a wild dog, it will most likely become more varied with time. Your point?

Why then did it take billions of years for us to be designed and put on this earth?

That's YOUR assumption.

Can you explain how we were designed if we were designed? What was the process like, what are our building blocks, in what kind of environment were we created? Did this intelligent designer also create light and gravity?

It's amazing how life's building blocks (the instruction sets for all living organisms) can be reduced to 4 nucleotide bases arranged in different ways. It's an amazing language of life (a.k.a imagine the alphabet consisting of 4 letters, and volumes upon volumes of text being created from those. My marble at nature is part of the reason why I think evolution is rubbish.

Ugh intelligent design creates more questions than it answers. Seriously how can you believe in something that makes sense of so little in the world while it leaves all these other questions unanswered?

It's actually quite fascinating to an engineer and opens up endless discoveries on efficient designs.

 

[mrkgoo]

Just a simple question.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE EVOLUTIONISTS?

That term makes no sense at all. Just like the term evolutionism makes no sense. IT'S SCIENCE!

Am I a stringist for believing in the validity of String Theory? A chaotist for believing in the validity of Chaos Theory?

Are you guys mentally challenged?

You know, it's like 'Scientists' - people who 'believe' in science.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

So why is everyone so upset over a chemical reaction in an experiment?

 

[wolfmat]

You know, it's like 'Scientists' - people who 'believe' in science.

Pretty much. SMH

 

[Haly]

So why is everyone so upset over a chemical reaction in an experiment?

It's the little things in life that lead to world wars and natural disasters.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

It's the little things in life that lead to world wars and natural disasters.

Hyperbole? I still don't get why people are mad.

 

[VanMardigan]

OMG you totally PWNT me dood. I thought you were past the junior high level of discourse.

I'm sorry once again that your sensitivities were inflamed, eeyore.

Name calling and everything? You went past junior high all the way to elementary school. :lol

So why is everyone so upset over a chemical reaction in an experiment?

As I said before, it is because both sides believe that the chemical reaction accomplished more than it actually did.

 

[Verano]

So why is everyone so upset over a chemical reaction in an experiment?

Creationists find it appalling that humans can create life now. I just wish they mind their own goddamn business instead of being nosy and gossipy of everyone else's issues.

 

[Bulla564]

Do you have any concept of time, do you know how much time a BILLION years is? It is about 10.000.000 times more what it took for bacteria to evole into being able to eat nylon.

Sadly, this is what evolution is reduced to. With enough time, you can let your imagination run wild! (even beyond what nature is currently capable of).

 

[mrkgoo]

The beauty of living organisms is that you come designed with a full instructions set (DNA), and existing cells do the rest of the work. The only difference with a designed car's blueprint (it's DNA) is that you have to buy each part and then assemble it.

Technically speaking, not true. I assume since you lump viruses with bacteria, you subscribe to the idea that a virus is living. In which case, they DON'T come with a full set of instructions. They hijack other organisms' machinery. There is debate about whether viruses are 'living', but that's largely on the basis of what defines something as 'living'. Regardless, all side agree that viruses evolve, living or not.

It's amazing how life's building blocks (the instruction sets for all living organisms) can be reduced to 4 nucleotide bases arranged in different ways. It's an amazing language of life (a.k.a imagine the alphabet consisting of 4 letters, and volumes upon volumes of text being created from those. My marble at nature is part of the reason why I think evolution is rubbish.

Well, on the same panel, I know of another language that s written with only 2 characters - ones and zeros. And yes, I know you will grasp on to this as so-called 'evidence' of intelligent design, but really, binary is pure natural mathematics.

 

[gkryhewy]

Name calling and everything? You went past junior high all the way to elementary school. :lol

You really are a unique piece of work.

::slow clap::

I repeat:

No, there are not [ignoramuses] on both sides. There are delusional goofballs with medieval sensibilities on one side, and the entire developed world on the other side. Scoreboard.

 

[Walshicus]

You will find that it takes bacteria more generations to mutate and evolve than more complex organisms.

Indeed, sexual reproduction being essential.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

Creationists find it appalling that humans can create life now. I just wish they mind their own goddamn business instead of being nosy and gossipy of everyone else's issues.

We've always been able to create life. We procreate don't we? Why does it seem like God and science only co-exist in my head?

 

[Memphis Reigns]

Lately I have been very into this topic and i spend much time with nature thinking about this shit.

It's Evolution, baby

Not to say I completely disregard Creation though, because I like to think there is an ID. So i've kind of merged them, and though many questions remain unanswered obviously, my merging of the theories has been intriquing because I can actually make some sense of it.

Creator makes universe and all matter, and sits back and watches it unfold. He/she is watching all life in the Universe like an ant farm, seeing what we do next.

 

[fortified_concept]

That theory was not proven today son. Nor was it proven when Miller's experiment produced amino acids.

If you say so... son. I guess these dumb scientists are sprinkling the pixie dust for nothing. I guess they didn't know that they have to convince VanMardigan and other religious geniuses first for the theory of evolution to be approved.

 

[Bulla564]

Technically speaking, not true. I assume since you lump viruses with bacteria, you subscribe to the idea that a virus is living. In which case, they DON'T come with a full set of instructions. They hijack other organisms' machinery. There is debate about whether viruses are 'living', but that's largely on the basis of what defines something as 'living'. Regardless, all side agree that viruses evolve, living or not.

Nah, I don't subscribe to that idea. Even then, the instruction set in the viruses is what makes them hijack others.

Well, on the same panel, I know of another language that s written with only 2 characters - ones and zeros. And yes, I know you will grasp on to this as so-called 'evidence' of intelligent design, but really, binary is pure natural mathematics.

Actually, computer programming is the BEST analogy to explain why the mechanism of evolution (genetic changes) is INADEQUATE in explaining the diversity of life. Would you like to hear about it?

Indeed, sexual reproduction being essential.

Be careful... it's not fun for evolutionists when sexual reproduction is brought up in debates.

 

[fortified_concept]

Wait a minute. Bulla has as an avatar a picture of Jesus holding a dinosaur? :lol

I'm telling you, he's probably a mod fucking with you guys.

 

[Verano]

We've always been able to create life. We procreate don't we? Why does it seem like God and science only co-exist in my head?

Create life without humans I mean.

Now to answer the bolded, it's only for philosophical discourse other than that its useless with science. Science doesn't deal with the paranormal or the supernatural, only phenomenon that's real

 

[VanMardigan]

No, there are not [ignoramuses] on both sides. There are delusional goofballs with medieval sensibilities on one side, and the entire developed world on the other side. Scoreboard.

This is also false. You are oversimplifying it and inserting an appeal to authority. I know it makes you feel better to state something like that, but you haven't shown anything by suggesting that "the entire developed world" is behind you or that only "delusional goofballs with medieval sensibilities" are holding opposing views. But, this is gaf, so carry on.

 

[Walshicus]

Sadly, this is what evolution is reduced to. With enough time, you can let your imagination run wild! (even beyond what nature is currently capable of).

That's not a reduction, and with evolutionary theory imagination is not required - merely improved odds of reproduction in the environment of the time.

You know what genetics is right?

You know that creatures better suited to their environment are more likely to reproduce right?

You know that the environment changes as a result of organic chemistry, which in turn changes as a result of the environment in a nice circular system right?

You know that a BILLION is a big number right?

Are you a troll or just stupid?

 

[Bulla564]

Wait a minute. Bulla has as an avatar a picture of Jesus holding a dinosaur? :lol

I'm telling you, he's probably a mod fucking with you guys.

My previous tag was "thick-headed creationist". I ran with it.

 

[Walshicus]

Be careful... it's not fun for evolutionists when sexual reproduction is brought up in debates.

What the fuck are you talking about?

 

[fortified_concept]

My previous tag was "thick-headed creationist". I ran with it.

So why that avatar? Self parody or mod forced avatar?

Either way it's hilarious.

 

[Lesath]

Be careful... it's not fun for evolutionists when sexual reproduction is brought up in debates.

I'd love to hear this one.

 

[Bit-Bit]

Sadly, this is what evolution is reduced to. With enough time, you can let your imagination run wild! (even beyond what nature is currently capable of).

Dude, you keep referring to time as a "deity" and making it sound like time is some magical manifestation. It's just a human construct that represents change. The Universe is constantly moving and changing. Are you trying to discredit this?

Just like Micheal Behe's IC, just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean it's not possible. Behe can't imagine how the bacterial flagellum could still function if reduced of its parts. So he just throws up his hand and say "It's just not possible."(Scientists proved him otherwise) You can't wrap your mind around the fact that the universe is constantly in motion and thus anything is possible within the laws of the universe. You thus create an outside force in order to discredit just how amazing the universe truly is. People like you make me sick.

 

[fortified_concept]

What the fuck are you talking about?

Evolutionists can't explain the miracle of birth. That's where their whole theory crumbles.

Game set match. Argument over.

 

[mrkgoo]

Nah, I don't subscribe to that idea. Even then, the instruction set in the viruses is what makes them hijack others.

Of course, that's obvious. "The stuff in a a virus, makes it do what it does".

Actually, computer programming is the BEST analogy to explain why the mechanism of evolution (genetic changes) is INADEQUATE in explaining the diversity of life. Would you like to hear about it?

Sure, why not - this thread is running out of steam.

 

[Bulla564]

That's not a reduction, and with evolutionary theory imagination is not required - merely improved odds of reproduction in the environment of the time.

You know what genetics is right?

You know that creatures better suited to their environment are more likely to reproduce right?

You know that the environment changes as a result of organic chemistry, which in turn changes as a result of the environment in a nice circular system right?

You know that a BILLION is a big number right?

Are you a troll or just stupid?

CHANCE and TIME... PROBABILITIES and BILLIONS... leaps of faith, not empirical data. Is it science?

A world historian would be laughed out of the room if all he had was "Well.. this COULD have happened...followed by MAYBE this..."

 

[VanMardigan]

If you say so... son. I guess these dumb scientists are sprinkling the pixie dust for nothing. I guess they didn't know that they have to convince VanMardigan and other religious geniuses first for the theory of evolution to be approved.

You are assuming again, but even beyond that, you still are using the pixie dust argument out of context to what I originally used it as. You know, in the post where you called me a dumb fuck?

Well, if you go back and read the post I was replying to (you know, before you called me a dumb fucker), it inferred that this synthesizing happened without outside aid, and that the God believing folks would invent an explanation (in this case, magic pixie dust). My response was basically, "why would we need to say that God sprinkled pixie dust (in context, a help agent for synthesizing), when the scientists had already provided the help agent with the conditions they set up. So, their own "pixie dust". I quickly added that I did not feel that it invalidated the results in any way, because I most certainly do understand how scientific research is carried out. It was merely a rebuttal to what I felt was a really ignorant post taking shots at theists.

I don't know why I bothered to type that up, since you haven't followed any of what I said so far, but I'm prepared for another round of you calling me ignorant whilst misrepresenting my argument.

 

[mrkgoo]

CHANCE and TIME... PROBABILITIES and BILLIONS... leaps of faith, not empirical data. Is it science?

A world historian would be laughed out of the room if all he had was "Well.. this COULD have happened...followed by MAYBE this..."

All of science is based on statistics, probabilties, likelihoods etc. That is all underlying. It's not interepreted as 'could' or 'maybe', but 'most likely' or 'suggestive'.

You're arguing definitions and connotations. You're interpreting these terms as meaning 'vague' and 'unsure'. But that is added slant on your part. Science is about precision.

 

[Walshicus]

CHANCE and TIME... PROBABILITIES and BILLIONS... leaps of faith, not empirical data. Is it science?

A world historian would be laughed out of the room if all he had was "Well.. this COULD have happened...followed by MAYBE this..."

Yeah, if he didn't have written records, pottery, skeletal fragments, ruins and so forth to back up his claims. Which is exactly what biologists have for evolution.

Let's continue the analogy. I've presented a series of finds from digs sites across the Roman empire showing a trend from one type of defensive tower design to more advanced constructions. What you're saying is that the Romans didn't gradually improve their towers as a result of lessons learned from warfare and weather, but that they actually forgot how to make them and re-learned from scratch each time.

 

[Bit-Bit]

Actually, computer programming is the BEST analogy to explain why the mechanism of evolution (genetic changes) is INADEQUATE in explaining the diversity of life. Would you like to hear about it?

Oh yeah? This video says otherwise. The test starts at the 2:00 mark.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeTssvexa9s&feature=related

 

[SuperBonk]

Meh, creationists, IDers, anti-evolutionists, or whatever should really focus more displaying their arguments rather than trying to discredit evolution. Every scientific theory has holes in it if you look hard enough (though I'll say most of these so called "holes" are actually just ignorance). But that's the point of a theory. Evolution so far is the best model for how life works and is the current backbone of biology. In order for us to switch to another theory, we need to find one that explains everything evolution does and more. This won't be achieved if the MO is to disprove evolution.

And hey, I'm all for a competing theory to arise and overthrow evolution. It would be a scientific breakthrough. However, it has not happened yet.

 

[wolfmat]

Evolutionists can't explain the miracle of birth. That's where their whole theory crumbles.

Game set match. Argument over.

 

[fortified_concept]

You are assuming again, but even beyond that, you still are using the pixie dust argument out of context to what I originally used it as. You know, in the post where you called me a dumb fuck?

Well, if you go back and read the post I was replying to (you know, before you called me a dumb fucker), it inferred that this synthesizing happened without outside aid, and that the God believing folks would invent an explanation (in this case, magic pixie dust). My response was basically, "why would we need to say that God sprinkled pixie dust (in context, a help agent for synthesizing), when the scientists had already provided the help agent with the conditions they set up. So, their own "pixie dust". I quickly added that I did not feel that it invalidated the results in any way, because I most certainly do understand how scientific research is carried out. It was merely a rebuttal to what I felt was a really ignorant post taking shots at theists.

I don't know why I bothered to type that up, since you haven't followed any of what I said so far, but I'm prepared for another round of you calling me ignorant whilst misrepresenting my argument.

"the chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth."

Did you read that sentence? Do you understand it?

Of course an experiment is specifically created to prove what the scientists want, that how science and theory proving fucking works. The fact that the experiment was a success is what matters not that it was "forced" as you say to prove a theory. This force you refer to is just how science works. Someone has an idea and he's trying to prove it by creating specific experiments.

It's like I'm talking to a fifth grader.

 

[Nocebo]

Yes... the deity of TIME. Anything is possible!!

Isn't it? Prove me wrong. Prove that RNA can't progress over billions of years into a complex organism.

The beauty of living organisms is that you come designed with a full instructions set (DNA), and existing cells do the rest of the work. The only difference with a designed car's blueprint (it's DNA) is that you have to buy each part and then assemble it.

Why was DNA designed to look like we had a common ancestor with the apes?

Isn't science striving towards this? more-so this, than figuring out how humans evolved from apes. See the difference between useful scientific research and not so amusing stories?

Science is trying to find out many things, mostly how life originated and how and why it evolved into complex systems. By the way humans are classified as apes. You still haven't explained why the lab experiment couldn't happen by chance in a billion years?

If I start with a wild dog, it will most likely become more varied with time. Your point?

But you didn't start with a dog or anything resembling a dog. You started with things that were rather similar according to fossil records so how did they become varried? If the intelligent designer uses the same base for everything. Why does he need to be present at all to design things if the mechanisms for mutation and self replication were present to begin with?

That's YOUR assumption.

Well, the earth is billions of years old. Either you think the earth isn't that old or you think that we were not thought of untill a few thousand years ago and just designed to cope with the earth as it was then instead of the earth being designed for us. Meaning were were governed by the environment in some way.

There is a lot of evidence backing up the fact that we have lots of commonalities down to the dna level with other animals. If your intelligent design claim were true, we would have been designed from the ground up. Yet remnant/dormant genes are present in all animals and can even be switched on by accident. Which proves creatures were not designed from the ground up and seperate from each other.

If a design is based on another design but with altered features, isn't that really evolution?

 

[VanMardigan]

"the chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth."

Did you read that sentence? Do you understand it?

Of course an experiment is specifically created to prove what the scientists want, that how science and theory proving fucking works. The fact that the experiment was a success is what matters not that it was "forced" as you say to prove a theory. This force you refer to is just how science works. Someone has an idea and he's trying to prove it by creating specific experiments.

It's like I'm talking to a fifth grader.

oh boy.......

 

[Bit-Bit]

"the chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth."



It's like I'm talking to a fifth grader.

Actually, my brother is a fourth grader and I've been able to explain to him how science and experimenting works. He grasps the concept and asks questions where he doesn't fully comprehend.

Logic and reasoning is simple man.

 

[wayward archer]

Oh yeah? This video says otherwise. The test starts at the 2:00 mark.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeTssvexa9s&feature=related

But don't you see... every time that program is run God stops whatever he is doing and moves the bits around to their proper places in memory make sure that viable clocks are created.

If he didn't that program would just run forever and nothing would happen.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS OBVIOUSLY AT WORK MODIFYING THE RESULTS OF THAT PROGRAM. Those clocks are so complex that the code obviously couldn't do all that stuff by itself.

Duh.

 

[Bulla564]

So why that avatar? Self parody or mod forced avatar?

Either way it's hilarious.

Killzone'd self parody.

I'd love to hear this one.

To start, name the plausible evolutionary origins of sexual reproduction, considering it has immediate adverse effects on the capabilities of reproduction of an organism. Feel free to list the supposed advantages too.

It's always hilarious.

Sure, why not - this thread is running out of steam

I'll make it brief.

Ok, so we've established that the 4 DNA bases are like the 1s and 0s used to code computer programs. DNA is simply the code for the Operating System, and different programs, that runs our hardware.

Accidents while replicating the code, usually lead to program bugs and malfunctions. Maybe the damage is not apparent at first. The problem is that because the ORIGINAL code is the fully functioning one, the more accidents happen in the sequence of 1's and 0's the less the OS works. Maybe even an accident happens that turns the font red on screen, and it makes it easier for a specific user to read (apparently a beneficial accident).

The more changes are introduced to the original code, the less viable it is. This translates into breaded species becoming less viable than the original, mutants less viable than the original, and this is what we CONSTANTLY observe in nature.

Moreover, it takes a leap of faith to believe that the code for the calculator program, can be altered little by little and become the code for Excel.

Let's continue the analogy. I've presented a series of finds from digs sites across the Roman empire showing a trend from one type of defensive tower design to more advanced constructions. What you're saying is that the Romans didn't gradually improve their towers as a result of lessons learned from warfare and weather, but that they actually forgot how to make them and re-learned from scratch each time.

Gradually improving towers through technology is a mechanism that is testable and happens. Tying pieces together through the mechanism of evolution is untestable, and has been shown NOT to happen. There is a difference.

 

[TheExodu5]

It's like I'm talking to a fifth grader.

You almost had it! You almost held out, until that very last sentence. :lol

 

[fortified_concept]

You almost had it! You almost held out, until that very last sentence. :lol

You have to recognize my self-restraint until that last sentence though. It was really difficult and I have to be commended on it.

 

[Dragona Akehi]

Unsurprisingly, Bulla doesn't understand how archaeology or philology work either.

 

[VanMardigan]

You have to recognize my self-restraint until that last sentence though. It was really difficult and I have to be commended on it.

What exactly do you think I'm saying, though? There is a genuine misunderstanding. A breakdown of communication, but your response is to assume that I'm a dumb fuck 5th grader. Would you want to make a ban bet on which one of us has the most academic education? What is the point of all the berating?

 

[zoku88]

Moreover, it takes a leap of faith to believe that the code for the calculator program, can be altered little by little and become the code for Excel.

You have to agree that there is so sequence of code changes and operations that will turn a calculator program to Excel. Given an infinite amount of time, if you went through every possible sequence of operations, you would eventually get to Excel...

 

[TheExodu5]

Unsurprisingly, Bulla doesn't understand how archaeology or philology work either.

Okay I have to take issue with the criticisms. For us less informed, why don't you try actually, you know, listing what's wrong with their theories rather than just saying it's plain out wrong or they "don't understand science". What you said does not make you seem any smarter.

You have to agree that there is so sequence of code changes and operations that will turn a calculator program to Excel. Given an infinite amount of time, if you went through every possible sequence of operations, you would eventually get to Excel...

Well, it would be deemed statistically impossible, I would think. Not really representative of evolution anyways, since code does not alter itself (well, most doesn't).

 

[Bit-Bit]

I'll make it brief.

Ok, so we've established that the 4 DNA bases are like the 1s and 0s used to code computer programs. DNA is simply the code for the Operating System, and different programs, that runs our hardware.

Accidents while replicating the code, usually lead to program bugs and malfunctions. Maybe the damage is not apparent at first. The problem is that because the ORIGINAL code is the fully functioning one, the more accidents happen in the sequence of 1's and 0's the less the OS works. Maybe even an accident happens that turns the font red on screen, and it makes it easier for a specific user to read (apparently a beneficial accident).

The more changes are introduced to the original code, the less viable it is. This translates into breaded species becoming less viable than the original, mutants less viable than the original, and this is what we CONSTANTLY observe in nature.

Moreover, it takes a leap of faith to believe that the code for the calculator program, can be altered little by little and become the code for Excel.

What?!?! Organisms with bad mutations die. The ones with a useful mutation survives long enough to pass on this mutation.

What the hell are you talking about when you say "breaded species becoming less viable than the original, mutants less viable than the original, and this is what we CONSTANTLY observe in nature."? Nature breeds species based on whatever survives. Humans breeds species based on what we consider them useful for. We have a dog that can sniff out bombs for miles. This type of dog is useful to us so we keep them alive. Being domesticated by humans has it's disadvantages if the said animal is being domesticated not based on survival of the fittest but by what we use it for.

Life is harsh like that. The lion is constantly getting better at catching the wildebeast whereas the wildebeast is constantly getting better at running away from the lion.

Do you even know what evolution is?