Facebook Lesson: Religion Vs. Science [Pic]

Submitted by: JoseyPoo 6 years ago in Misc

We think this might be another W for science.
There are 307 comments:
Female 614
also, just putting this out there on a serious note, i wouldn`t take this as an affront against christianity itself necessarily, although it showcases the worst kind of them.

i would take it as an example of how certain *some, remember* people use their "faith" as a crutch to be stupid.

plus, we can all admit that stupid facebook statuses are lame.
0
Reply
Female 614
this lady on fb uses the patented christian `change the subject` technique. if they give the atheists the chance to get the truth out there, this tactic still manages to give them an illusion of martyrdom.

you don`t want them commenting on your status? don`t post a wrong status, dumbass.
0
Reply
Male 190
advantage SCIENCE
0
Reply
Male 2,220
Wow, just wow.

13 pages, most of them Crakrjack slinging sh*t and dodging the return.

Its an interesting example of the avoidance, lies and self delusion required to maintain (or at least imitate) a creationist viewpoint.

So god designed us with a fused chromosome 2 as a joke right?
0
Reply
Male 17
Meant to post this along with the link below. The link is to a video in which it talks about counter arguments for creationists. Very well put.
0
Reply
Male 17
www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU
0
Reply
Male 17
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color

Scroll down to when it talks about blue eyes. It talks about the mutated gene which causes blue eyes. If you don`t like the source feel free to look up the actual study in whatever source you feel like. Genes do in fact mutate.
0
Reply
Male 64
Alright CrakrJak, this may be a moment of revelation for you but go look for the definition of evolution anywhere. Anywhere you look I can almost guarantee you will not find: "...the creature must change species..." as part of the definition.

I`m not quite sure what you mean by "Note is said, "New Traits" not existing traits finally being freed by the absence of more dominant traits." If you could clarify a bit that would be great. However if your still caught up on species changing please refer back to davymid`s suggestion that you check out the Galapagos finches. You never responded to that point and I would like to hear our thoughts as to how that doesn`t meet your incorrect requirements for evolution.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
oops, that should say "it doesn`t rule out religion"
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Yeah, I know this thread is on the third page, and is old. But I can`t help noticing how Crakrjak`s gone kinda quiet. I`ve noticed this pattern before.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@megan
it doesn`t rule religion, it just rules out the religion that the status poster is following
0
Reply
Female 2
not directed at the actual post, but at the underlying argument:
i guess i`m having trouble understanding why the presence of science cancels out any possibility of creation?
i have never understood why some believe that there can not be both.
0
Reply
Male 12
Are you creationists just angry because your religion looks as stupid as scientology does? Grow up, people. If you need the bible (and all it`s bullpoo) to keep you from killing people, more power to ya. Just don`t try and debunk things that you know nothing about.
0
Reply
Male 749
Like Davy said, there aren`t many people reading this. Although I`m not part of the discussion, I`m reading all of the posts. I can`t make any points as I`m still in school and don`t know that much about biology, but I`ve got to say Crakr, what you`re saying sounds dumb. It doesn`t really make sense and I don`t think you`ve got any real evidence.

You`re not making a very good case and if you can`t sway me (when I don`t really understand evolution), you`ll never convince those you`re arguing against, who know what they`re talking about. I don`t know if you`re making any valid points, but it certainly doesn`t sound like it as you`re redefining stuff and seem to be changing your mind all the time.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion: First off I never said that animals `Spontaneously` change species, Again those were your screwed up assumptions of what I said.[/quote]

You wrote it several times, stated that the fact that no-one could provide an example of it happening proves that evolution doesn`t exist and stated that it was what is taught in schools.

Your first statement was:

[quote]Angilion: Name me one plant or animal that has changed been observed to change it`s species, Yeah that`s right, You can`t.[/quote]

Friday, December 24, 2010 5:36:06 PM

This illustrates a point:

I had to spend several minutes finding the evidence.

You don`t have to spend any time when you make things up, change definitions, state things that are untrue, etc.

It`s inherently more time-consuming to debunk creationists, which gives them an advantage.

And next time, you`ll just do the same things again.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
CrakrJak, you`re a theological creationist. You require absolute adherence to dogma and total denial of evidence. For you to portray yourself as a champion of open-mindedness on this issue is ridiculous. If you believe it, you`re delusional. If you don`t, you`re deceitful.

You make untrue statements about evolution and the theory of evolution. When people point this out, you either ignore it or use ad hoc redefinitions of words to evade it. That also enables you to claim that scientists have said things they haven`t said, because they`re using the actual definitions and you imply they`re using your redefinitions.

The *least* ridiculous argument you have is that disagreements about some details of how evolution works means that evolution doesn`t exist. That`s what your prattling about punctuated equilibrium is about - you don`t know what it is and your conclusion from it is ludicrous.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]One reason for such criticism was that Gould appeared to be presenting his ideas as a revolutionary way of understanding evolution... As a result, many non-specialists sometimes inferred from his early writings that Darwinian explanations had been proven to be unscientific (which Gould never tried to imply). Along with many other researchers in the field, Gould`s works were sometimes deliberately taken out of context by creationists as a "proof" that scientists no longer understood how organisms evolved. Gould himself corrected these misinterpretations and distortions of his writings in later works.[/quote]
Sorry Crakr. You don`t get to have the great scientist Stephen Jay Gould as an advocate of Creationism. He, like many others, saw through your bullsh*t many decades ago, and circled the wagons to prevent the dishonest raping of his scientific legacy by people like you.

Must try harder if you want to derail science in favour of religious faith, Crakrjak
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Crakrjak, seeing as you keep posting links to "Punctuated Equilibrium" from Wikipedia (apparently as evidence that evolution is a falsehood), let me in turn quote some Wikipedia links on Gould`s Wiki page:
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Stephen Jay Gould was the main proponent of Punctuated Equilibrium, publishing a seminal paper on the topic in the 70s. To this day, he`s one of the most respected men of science, and a proud advocate of evolutionary theory.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Damn. I said I was done, but I can`t help myself. And I know no-one is still reading this except for a few die-hards, like myself, Crakrjak, Angilion and others. Call me Autistic, but I can`t stand by and allow science to be raped in the bum by this kind of crap.

Crakrjak. Yes, you. How does the evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium versus the evolutionary theory of gradualism support your case that evolution is a lie and a scientific falsehood? You *DO* understand, don`t you, that Punctuated Equilibrium is just another way to explain evolution? It`s evolution, just juttery rather than gradual. That`s all it is. Species change over generations. Evolution.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
also, you still haven`t reasoned your way out of this one

You believe that everybody came from Adam and Eve, and she was just a clone with one X replaced with a Y, so without any method of our DNA modifying itself, without deadly side effects, we must all have the exact same set of DNA (except for that one X or Y) and any exception to that would mean you have a cancer or life threatening disease. All this is entirely based on what you have said.

Please account for current diversity in traits that are determined by the genetic code each person receives at conception.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
"A mutation occurs when a DNA gene is damaged in such a way as to alter the genetic message carried by that gene."

This just IS wrong, mutations of your DNA are not all just damage caused by free radicals or radiation, they`re also insertions, deletions, inversions. None of them are 100% "OMG 7 LIMBED FETUS! KILL IT WITH FIRE NOW!" scenarios. A better camouflaged insect is not a damaged one.
0
Reply
Male 3
Evolution shows up all over the place in systems other than biological inheritance. Take Christianity for example. What used to be one church has slowly branched off into a dozen or more churches. They are all worshiping Jesus, but besides that have become different institutions. Like in the animal kingdom, some churches are similar in rituals while others are barely recognizable as having the same origin. There`s language, too. What are dialects but small changes over time of the same mother language. Or how about continental drift? Has anyone SEEN North America move? But the continents clearly move around the surface over millions of years. I have yet to ever find an evolution denier who is also an athiest or agnostic. The denial of reason is always to protect a religious belief held since childhood. How can a "rational" person deny the hard won fruits of dedicated scientific work, yet believe Noah filled a boat with animals from all over the world because some old book say
0
Reply
Male 1,451
I love how I read the original picture/post and then scroll down and there`s an evolution flame war.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: First off I never said that animals `Spontaneously` change species, Again those were your screwed up assumptions of what I said.

Secondly, It does fundamentally change the theory of evolution, Evidently you still didn`t read it.

I`ve made no false statements about science, I`ve sourced what I`ve said. The only falsehood here are your repeated charges of `propaganda`.

Fine, Whatever, If that`s what it takes to keep your ethos intact and your mind closed to any new ideas. But Don`t ever try to claim to me or anyone else here that you are `enlightened` or have an `open mind`, That will be the biggest lie of all.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion: You obviously didn`t read my link to `Punctuated equilibrium`, I`m through with you.[/quote]

You didn`t read it:

i) It doesn`t claim that evolution doesn`t exist.
ii) It doesn`t support any of the silly propaganda you`ve made up, such as evolution not existing unless animals spontaneously change species.
iii) It doesn`t redefine evolution to match your ad hoc redefinitions of it.
iv) It doesn`t wave a magic wand and make all of the evidence and argument that you ignore completely vanish.

[quote]Go ahead and deny the science, Call it a lie, I don`t care anymore because you don`t believe a thing I say.[/quote]

There is no science in your position. It is a lie. Actually, a collection of lies. Propaganda.

I don`t believe a thing you say because of your track record. You make false statements about science in order to undermine it so that your faith can gain more power. It is prudent to assume that anything you s
0
Reply
Male 17,512
SmilinSam: It`s not my logic, I can`t take credit for another scientists ideas and research. I`ve sourced what I`ve said, I suggest you read it for yourself.

Don`t take my word for it, Look it up for yourself. If you choose not to then you choose to remain ignorant, And that`s called stupidity.
0
Reply
Female 136
wow what a b*tch if you were wrong and explained why then just admit you were wrong and move on, you dont have to be a as*
0
Reply
Female 3,598
Nobody believes you Crakr because we can all see right through your faulty logic.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: You obviously didn`t read my link to `Punctuated equilibrium`, I`m through with you.

Go ahead and deny the science, Call it a lie, I don`t care anymore because you don`t believe a thing I say.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HachiSanJu: As I said before the word `evolution` is being used very loosely now and it`s new usages do not fairly describe the theory.

Traits are not mutations, Period. It doesn`t matter when they seem to appear, Color changes and such are normal variations not mutations, Their technical name is polymorphisms. A mutation occurs when a DNA gene is damaged in such a way as to alter the genetic message carried by that gene.

Traits are not damaged genes, They can remain recessed by dominant genes (And not be visibly evident) yet still exist in the DNA itself.

You are confusing polymorphisms with mutations.
Geneticists only refer to a change as a mutation when it is not part of the normal variations within the genome.

I hope that clears things up.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I`ve provided facts, Facts you find disturbing and believe are false, Your statement of them being false doesn`t make them so.[/quote]

The fact that they are wrong makes them so. Evolution does not require animals to spontaneously change species. Animals of the same order are not necessarily of the same species. Evolution has been observed. Etc, etc.

[quote]You not shown any proof of falsehood, And evidently can`t, But you continue with that belief regardless. [/quote]

You are, as usual, lying.

Your false statements have been pointed out. Repeatedly. You simply ignore that and continue with your propaganda.

[quote]I didn`t `make it up`, So please apologize.[/quote]

You did, and continue to do so. I have no reason to apologise.
0
Reply
Male 315
I`m just gonna start posting that Ricky Gervais thingy about how Christians suck or something.
0
Reply
Male 42
CrakrJak, it seems as though your argument wishes to mask your disbelief in evolution yet your actual stance on what has been created how just isn`t apparent. Your `here` link doesn`t in anyway disprove anything about the theory of evolution. I don`t even think you understand the nature of spontaneity considering your link is far from promoting a completely spontaneous change in species, but rather, it is promoting your limited understanding of time and the age of the Earth. Anyway... I`m in no way a scientist but even I can see that you aren`t. Believe what you wish... no one can stop you, apparently, why not just let us sheep bask in our ignorance and continue playing with our little toys?
0
Reply
Female 91
ya`ll are silly :]
0
Reply
Male 64
Come on man! You dodged again. I`m going to have to hit the sack here because I`ve got a raging headache, but let me make this nice and clear for you. What Darwin was arguing about natural selection was all fine and dandy back in the day but his word does not reign supreme over what evolution is understood to be now. You can neatly sum up what evolution is actually. You can`t however explain it easily on the large scale. We can prove a quantum of evolution has occurred by the smallest margin anytime a new trait appears and maintains itself in a habitat of any living being. Since your prime source of information seems to be Wikipedia, read the first line on their page for evolution. It`s not pleasant to rub it in your face but your definition of evolution is flat out wrong, and on those grounds nothing you have said can be considered fairly because your premise is faulty.

I`m gonna have to swing by tomorrow to see how this unfolds, but for now I`m off to bed.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: More reading for you, Here
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HachiSanJu: The definition of evolution comes from Darwin`s book `Origin of species`. It`s not something that neatly and conveniently fits into the small amount of space provided in a dictionary.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: [quote]You`ve made numerous provably false statements..[/quote]

I`ve provided facts, Facts you find disturbing and believe are false, Your statement of them being false doesn`t make them so.

You not shown any proof of falsehood, And evidently can`t, But you continue with that belief regardless.

You claim that I`ve made up my own definitions. Sorry, But I`m trying to keep this conversation on a level that most people can understand (Without using scientific nomenclature found only in books most people can`t understand).

Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species (John Wiley & Sons, 2000).

I didn`t `make it up`, So please apologize.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I`m not anti-thought or anti-science, I`m for telling people and our children the truth.[/quote]

There`s very little of that in your posts. Almost every statement you`ve made about evolution is untrue.

[quote]The truth being that the theory of evolution is not certain and not fact.[/quote]

The existence of evolution, however, is.

Some of the strengths of science are that it doesn`t require belief without thought, it doesn`t claim absolute certainty when that doesn`t exist and it does accept the possibility of a more accurate explanation of something.

Unfortunately, those strengths allow people to attack it in the way you`ve just done, by arguing that a known lack of certainty in the explanation of something means that thing doesn`t exist. It doesn`t make much sense, but it can be an effective attack.
0
Reply
Male 64
Alright CrakrJak, this may be a moment of revelation for you but go look for the definition of evolution anywhere. Anywhere you look I can almost guarantee you will not find: "...the creature must change species..." as part of the definition.

I`m not quite sure what you mean by "Note is said, "New Traits" not existing traits finally being freed by the absence of more dominant traits." If you could clarify a bit that would be great. However if your still caught up on species changing please refer back to davymid`s suggestion that you check out the Galapagos finches. You never responded to that point and I would like to hear our thoughts as to how that doesn`t meet your incorrect requirements for evolution.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]That is what is being taught as `fact` though in our schools in universities.[/quote]

No, it isn`t.

[quote]I`m still not convinced you even know what `evolution` is.[/quote]

It isn`t the collection of falsehoods you make up and label "evolution" in your propaganda against evolution.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HachiSanJu: Note is said, "New Traits" not existing traits finally being freed by the absence of more dominant traits. Also, For something to `evolve` it must change species, If there is no species change there are no branches in the `tree of life`.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion: I`ve debated you with science[/quote]

No, you haven`t. You`ve made numerous provably false statements, made up your own definitions and claimed they`re evolution. You`ve rejected a key part of the scientific method (taking fact over theory) as being insane.

There is nothing of science in your argument. Nothing at all.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: [quote]You know that no-one is claiming that happens. That is not what evolution is.[/quote]

That is what is being taught as `fact` though in our schools in universities. I`m still not convinced you even know what `evolution` is.

I have not once said that research should be stopped or that science is evil, etc...

I`m not anti-thought or anti-science, I`m for telling people and our children the truth. The truth being that the theory of evolution is not certain and not fact. How can it be, When scientists with PHDs are still in hot debate over it ?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Scenario 1: A change makes an organism more likely to have more offspring. The change becomes more common over generations - the species has evolved.

Scenario 2: A change makes an organism more likely to have more offspring. The change becomes more common over generations - the species has evolved.

Yes, they are different scenarios. In scenario 1, the reason why the change resulted in more offspring was down to natural selection, e.g. a more efficient camouflage resulted in not being eaten by a predator. In scenario 2, the reason why the change resulted in more offspring was down to artificial selection, e.g. a farmer gave that organism more chances to breed.

You couldn`t tell from just the scenario descriptions *because they`re the same process*.
0
Reply
Male 64
Here`s an additional piece of information worth noting: Evolution is defined as the process by which creatures inherit new traits through different generations. So yes, "It is over used and misused word these days leading to a lot of confusion." CrakrJak, you are on the receiving end of this confusion.

Additionally CrakrJak you acknowledge the presence of mutations and refuse to acknowledge evolution. You can`t have one without the other. While you were arguing with Angilion`s semantics you failed to realize he pointed out the most fundamental problem with the debates about evolution. So many people try to say that evolution isn`t real because they have been conditioned to because that is the side of he argument they are lead to believe by perhaps their upbringing, however they fail to realize the debate is about how evolution panned out in the development of the species alive today.

Anyway, Merry Christmas!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Wrong, Selective breeding has never brought about species change or `evolution`. You are still confusing things in the attempt to patch the holes in the theory of evolution.[/quote]

You`re still making up definitions and claiming they`re evolution.

And you`re still wrong to do so.

Given that you`re arguing that change is impossible because evolution doesn`t exist, in order to be internally consistent you must argue that selective breeding doesn`t work. Which you can`t do.

In other words, your line of argument isn`t consistent with anything, not even itself.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: I`ve debated you with science, Without bringing the bible into it at all. You act like I`m trying to convert you or something, I assure you that is not he case.

I`m merely pointing out the myriad problems of the differing theories on evolution. I`m showing you that science is not the panacea you may believe it to be.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion: I`m not saying that some fish turned itself into reptile overnight.[/quote]

You didn`t specify fish and reptile, but you did specify an animal turning into a different species:

[quote]Name me one plant or animal that has changed been observed to change it`s species[/quote]

You know that no-one is claiming that happens. That is not what evolution is. It`s just anti-science propaganda. Anti-thought propaganda.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]ALSO the fossil record is choppy because it takes very specific conditions for a fossil to be formed. bones normally just decay.[/quote]

That warrants repeating. Although the fossil record isn`t as choppy as CrakrJak et alia would like it to be.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]To me it seems as insane as tap dancing in a minefield, A scientists whole life`s work can be `blown up` with just one new theory or missed detail. The history of science is littered with many examples of discouraged scientists whose work has been left in the dustbin.[/quote]

It`s obviously so much better to say "my god did it" is the only answer allowed and stop anyone thinking about anything.

If a scientists life work is "blown up" by a fact, it`s because their life work was wrong. It`s not as common as you claim, especially in modern times with peer review.

You`ve made it clear that you don`t care for the truth and you will keep your preferred dogma even when it`s proven untrue, but you`re not a scientist. You don`t understand the basic ideas of what science is, which is why it seems so insane to you.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: [quote]Selective breeding is evolution. Evolution by human selection. The processes are exactly the same as evolution by natural selection.[/quote]

Wrong, Selective breeding has never brought about species change or `evolution`. You are still confusing things in the attempt to patch the holes in the theory of evolution.

Perhaps you have too wide a personal definition of the term `evolution`, It is over used and misused word these days leading to a lot of confusion.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: I`m not saying that some fish turned itself into reptile overnight.

I`m saying that some organisms have been theorized to have changed extremely fast, geologically speaking, Like within a few thousand years.

If flora or fauna were changing that fast nowadays it would qualify as being `directly observable`, But that is not what is happening right now.

The work that man has done to modify the processes of natural selection and slow extinction is the only reason some species are still alive and why we still have the ability to grow enough food to feed the world.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion:: So no matter what theory you follow, there are pitfalls to both. Science zealots expect people to ignore these problems and take it on `faith` that evolution is what they say it is, Or at least what they believe it is, Until the next new conjecture comes along.[/quote]

You`re trying to confuse fact and theory.

Evolution is a fact. It has been observed. It has frequently been used by humans. It has numerous direct effects on humanity. It is as much a fact as, for example, gravity.

Theory explaining how evolution works is not entirely complete and may be wrong in some ways. That`s science - absolute certainty in all things isn`t part of the deal.

So you have made a post that isn`t entirely and provably false, but you`re still trying to deceive for the purposes of your propaganda.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion: You still assumed that is what I meant.[/quote]

Are you claiming that I am you? Because that`s the only way your increasingly bizarre claim makes any sense.

I`ll say it again - I WROTE IT. THEY ARE MY WORDS. THEY ARE NOT YOUR WORDS. I NEVER SAID THEY WERE YOUR WORDS.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Corn and Bananas have not evolved, They`ve been bred and crossbred not unlike mankind has done with cats, dogs, sheep, cattle, horses, etc...[/quote]

Selective breeding is evolution. Evolution by human selection. The processes are exactly the same as evolution by natural selection. All that varies is the source of the evolutionary pressure.

If you were right and evolution didn`t exist, selective breeding wouldn`t accomplish anything because change would be impossible. <--- THIS IS THE KEY POINT HERE.

The guts of the theory of evolution is basically that variations that make an organism more successful will tend to result in it having more offspring, which will tend to result in that variation becoming more common.

Which is exactly what happens with selective breeding.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: You still assumed that is what I meant.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion: I`m no liar, I read scientific journals and watch science programs on television on a regular basis. I`m pointing out the differences of opinion among very renowned scientists.[/quote]

No, you aren`t. You are making provably false statements that you know are false, such as claiming that evolution means animals spontaneously changing species. There are no reknowned scientists who hold the opinions you claim they hold.

I`m calling you a liar because I don`t think you could possibly believe the total rubbish you post, particularly given the number of times you`ve been told why they`re total rubbish.

But I could be wrong. You might be delusional.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
PsychGeek: [quote]just because something has not been "directly observed", that doesn`t necessarily mean its existence is debatable.[/quote]

Try telling that to an atheist when you tell them God exists, See how far that gets you.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion: *I* said that non-black hair in humans is a mutation. I did not say you said it.


No I did not say that, You assumed that was what I was saying. But those are your words, Not mine.[/quote]

This is very silly now. I have repeatedly said that I SAID IT. I did not say you said it. I never said that. I have repeatedly and explicitly stated that I said it, not you.

Yet you are still claiming that I said you said it.

Are you even reading posts before replying to them? I`ve had more relevant replies from a bot.
0
Reply
Male 174
10 feet? So basically if you`re 6 ft 2 and you jump 4 feet high, your head burst into flames.
0
Reply
Female 3,598
______ zealots expect people to ignore these problems and take it on `faith` that _______ is what they say it is, Or at least what they believe it is, Until the next new conjecture comes along.
FILL IN THE BLANKS KIDS!! SCIENCE VS RELIGION!!! CHOOSE YOUR POISON!!
0
Reply
Female 3,598
what i mean by that is, there very well may be animals that were the "missing links" but have either no observable differences from the other fossils (they are just bones by the way, how could we observe pattern variations and changing ear structure ETC from bones?) OR they simply extisted in a time and place where fossilization was not optimal.
0
Reply
Female 3,598
*Noah`s Two by Two fossil record
0
Reply
Female 3,598
[quote]what about height? looking at ruins from thousands of years ago, the human race was a lot shorter.[/quote] oh but i forgot that falls into your definition of "not usable" evidence right? oh and this statement just irked me: [quote] A scientists whole life`s work can be `blown up` with just one new theory or missed detail.[/quote] seriously man? a scientist that has spent his life furthering our knowledge of the world and maybe he was the one who paved the way for the new discovery and you`re saying that if someone modifies his works that it was "blown up"? any real scientist will be thrilled to know that advancement has taken place. not angry that he "wasted time". ALSO the fossil record is choppy because it takes very specific conditions for a fossil to be formed. bones normally just decay. we are LUCKY to have the fossils that we do have because they are so rare!! we learn what we can from them and we`re never going to have a perfect set of Noah`
0
Reply
Female 3,598
[quote]Adaptations within the same species do not count, Neither do traits brought about by selective breeding.-CrakrJak[/quote]
Says who? You? why are these things not allowed to count as observable evidence for natural selection/"evolution"? because you say so? just because humans have the knowledge to use natural selection to our advantage does not mean we created it, it simply exists.
[quote]*Physical traits are not mutations, acquisition of any beneficial mutation is so rare, and takes so long, That the rate of extinction exceeds it.[/quote]
yes, ever since we humans got our greasy hands on all the land and started ripping apart habitats and changing the waters and inhabiting EVERYWHERE the rate of extinction has increased. hmm and i wonder how these animals are not able to adapt quickly enough and die off? and if you are saying that new traits aren`t present in humans you are just silly. pontiac summed it up nicely when he said (con`t)
0
Reply
Male 64
continued: evolution.

(funny it only cut off that one word)
0
Reply
Male 64
CrackrJak, consider the following:
As this discussion increases in size and complexity, more and more of your claims are refuted, however you conveniently seem to be able to dodge the substantiation by your opponent. At this point in time from my perspective you`re either an intelligent scientist and a poor rhetorician, or a poor scientist and a great rhetorician. I know without a doubt you will ask me to give examples of when your claims are refuted, but simply go back to davy`s comments and you will see him making points that you refuse to acknowledge. I can`t fit it all into one post and hopefully I will only need this one to explain my opinion of the situation.

In short: realize you are seeking out your opponents weakest arguments and ignoring their strongest.

I will however agree that evolution is harder to substantiate than gravity, but also realize that those mutations that are inherited by different species that you claimed to be traits actually qualify as
0
Reply
Female 1,798
@ Crakrjak:

just because something has not been "directly observed", that doesn`t necessarily mean its existence is debatable. it`s true that evolution takes thousands, even millions of years to occur to the point of completely favoring one characteristic over another. however, there are enough examples throughout history to point to the assumption that it DOES exist. for instance: whales have fingers yet they live in the ocean. this indicates they used to live on land. there are many, many more examples of evolution, all pointing to its existence.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
almightybob1: Gravity is directly observed to be real, It`s theory is not so certain.

Evolution has NOT been directly observed, And it`s theory is still being argued amongst scholars.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion:: So no matter what theory you follow, there are pitfalls to both. Science zealots expect people to ignore these problems and take it on `faith` that evolution is what they say it is, Or at least what they believe it is, Until the next new conjecture comes along.

To me it seems as insane as tap dancing in a minefield, A scientists whole life`s work can be `blown up` with just one new theory or missed detail. The history of science is littered with many examples of discouraged scientists whose work has been left in the dustbin.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Evolution can not be a `fact` when learned scientific scholars still disagree as to it`s mechanisms.[/quote]
Ridiculous assertion. Gravity is a fact, but its mechanism is still unknown.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: Either way you slice it, Both `Slow change` and `Sudden change` theories each have their own problems.

Slow change does not fit the fossil record and does not keep up with the natural rate of extinction.

Sudden change fits the fossil record, But no triggers have yet been found that explain how or why that might occur and nothing has been found to show what slows it either.

If slow mutation caused evolution there should be many gradual changes. Instead, The fossil record is very choppy sometimes showing no change at all, Then all of a sudden something new appears a few millenia later. Or, In the case of the pre-cambrian explosion, Dozens of animals and plants appear as if nearly all at once.

Please do some more reading on it, Pre-Cambrian Explosion
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: [quote]*I* said that non-black hair in humans is a mutation. I did not say you said it.[/quote]

No I did not say that, You assumed that was what I was saying. But those are your words, Not mine.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
dburley: [quote]Corn and bananas are two plants that have evolved within the span of mankind.[/quote]

Corn and Bananas have not evolved, They`ve been bred and crossbred not unlike mankind has done with cats, dogs, sheep, cattle, horses, etc...
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: I`m no liar, I read scientific journals and watch science programs on television on a regular basis. I`m pointing out the differences of opinion among very renowned scientists.

Apparently you aren`t as well read and just take the theory of evolution as unchangeable dogma, Which it`s not.

And there lies the problem, Evolution can not be a `fact` when learned scientific scholars still disagree as to it`s mechanisms.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]well Angilion, at some point we might as well call the mutation a norm when they get so wide spread and usual, u know? =)[/quote]

How is that relevant?

I haven`t said that a mutation can`t become common. In fact, the examples I gave were hair colour other than black and skin colour other than black (actually black, not brown). Obviously, I can`t have been suggesting that either of those things are rare.
0
Reply
Male 3,619
well Angilion, at some point we might as well call the mutation a norm when they get so wide spread and usual, u know? =)
0
Reply
Male 115
Lol Dumbass christians, they`ll take anything shoved down their throat by a priest...
0
Reply
Male 1,021
A troll war is raging!

Anyway...I like how she says, yes that`s true and don`t ever tell me facts again.
0
Reply
Male 17
How about the vestigial limbs on a whale or a snake? Why would these animals have limbs if they don’t use them? All creatures including man have vestiges. There is evidence of evolution in the fossil record and in DNA. So if you want to see one species slowly changing from one animal into another simply look at the fossil record.

Corn and bananas are two plants that have evolved within the span of mankind. Both were completely different plants originally.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Cut off early...

*I* said that non-black hair in humans is a mutation.

I did not say you said it.

So I did not put those words into your mouth.

You are making untrue statements again, although in this case I won`t call it a lie because I can`t be sure that you know what you`re saying isn`t true.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]You call me silly after trying to put words in my mouth to the affect of "anyone that has non-black hair is a mutant", Which is utter garbage and not what I said.[/quote]

As usual, your statement is not the truth.

I called your claim that evolution is the belief that animals can spontaneously change species "silly".

You made that claim. You made it repeatedly. You still make it.

This is what I wrote:

[quote]You are making up silly things, falsely claiming that they are evolution and then pretending evolution must be false because other people won`t support the ridiculous lies that YOU MADE UP. [/quote]

It is still true.

Do you not realise that your posts still exist, my posts still exist and I can continue to point them out every time you make untrue statements about them? Or do you just know that if you lie enough you`ll fool some people?

*I* said that non-black hair in humans is a mu
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion: Again you call me a liar, Instead of looking for a rebuttal argument you go for the insult.[/quote]

It`s a statement of fact and it`s extremely relevant.

You are making untrue statements for the purposes of propaganda.

That makes you a liar and it makes it important for that fact to be pointed out publically. Otherwise, some people might be fooled by your lies.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: Again you call me a liar, Instead of looking for a rebuttal argument you go for the insult. Insults are the last recourse of the out argued.

You call me silly after trying to put words in my mouth to the affect of "anyone that has non-black hair is a mutant", Which is utter garbage and not what I said. So when I turn the same argument around on you with gray hair you call me "Silly".

Obviously you don`t know what sarcasm is and don`t know the difference between a trait and a mutation.

If mutations came from traits, Then there should be an ever expanding number of new traits in all animals and even humans, But there isn`t. Biodiversity is sliding down the rabbit hole and into extinction and most scientists agree on that.

pontiacfb78: Science will never answer the really interesting and meaningful questions about life, human relations, and emotions. Science can only lead you to an endless abyss of unanswered questions.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
davymid: I know your a geologist, Sorry if I stepped on your toe there, But both professions do a lot of digging things up.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion: When everyone has the same colour hair and then someone has different colour hair, it`s a mutation.


So when you eventually turn old and your hair turns gray, That`s a mutation ? I don`t think so.[/quote]

Is there anyone apart from CrakrJak who doesn`t understand the difference between hair colour and aging?

Actually, I`m sure he understands the difference and is just lying about that too.

Loss of hair colour due to aging is depigmentation. The hair turns grey or white because it loses its colour. Obviously, that`s not the same thing as hair being black, brown, blonde, auburn, etc, before aging leeches it of colour.

You can keep making ever sillier arguments all day, CrakrJak, and you can keep making false statements too. In fact, please do. The sillier your arguments, the most obviously dishonest your statements, the more ridiculous you make yourself look and the less chance you have of fooling anyone.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion: The only people who talk about evolution being animals changing species are people who are either lying about evolution or who have believed those lies from other people...


In other words, You don`t know of a single example and thus have to call me a liar to keep your ethos intact.[/quote]

You are making statements that you know to be false. That makes you a liar.

You are making up silly things, falsely claiming that they are evolution and then pretending evolution must be false because other people won`t support the ridiculous lies that YOU MADE UP.

You are an exceptionally dishonest person.

You *know* evolution exists. If you didn`t know that, you wouldn`t lie so much about it. You`re not stupid - if you had any kind of argument against evolution you would be able to express it. You lie because you don`t have any argument.
0
Reply
Male 8
Crakr - your arguing in symantics. Traits and adaptations are mutations. Or, at least they started out as mutations. What you beleive are mutations are things like an extra toe (I had one incidentally) or an extra bone. What about the human tail bone? why do we have that? maybe because we evolved from apes who evolved from monkeys, and monkeys have tails? need something more revent? what about height? looking at ruins from thousands of years ago, the human race was a lot shorter. once civilization sprang up, and trade started, humand had to walk greater distances. this, and many other factors led to humans average height going from 5`4" to 6`1". Ohh, and the ability we have to breed animals for a seleced trait (color, size, ability, temperment) is proof in its self of natural selection.
0
Reply
Male 8
You guys are awsome. OK, first off, science trumps religion every time. Evolution is fact, and depite the churches best efforts, there is always more and more information availible to prove this.

Crakr - your arguing in symantics. Traits and adaptations are mutations. Or, at least they started out as mutations. What you beleive are mutations are things like an extra toe (I had one incidentally) or an extra bone. What about the human tail bone? why do we have that? maybe because we evolved from apes who evolved from monkeys, and monkeys have tails? need something more revent? what about height? looking at ruins from thousands of years ago, the human race was a lot shorter. once civilization sprang up, and trade started, humand had to walk greater distances. this, and many other factors led to humans average height going from 5`4" to 6`1". Ohh, and the ability we have to breed animals for a seleced trait (color, size, ability, temperment) is proof in its self of natur
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Also the fossil record seems to indicate, and most archeologists now believe in the `sudden change` theory of evolution over the `slow mutation` over time theory[/quote]
Alright, I`m officially done Crakrjak. Archaeology is the study of the fossil record over geological time now is it? All I need to know about your level of understanding of science right there buddy.

I`m not into kicking puppies, especially on Christmas Day. Have a good one man, I`m out.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Davymid: [cont]...

the `sudden change` theory of evolution, Has it`s own problems though. Because something must be the `trigger` that enables the rapid change. Not unlike the environmental factors that change grasshoppers into locusts, Which science has yet to figure out.

There are gaps, massive gaps in the fossil record that will never be closed. Dinosaurs were dying out en masse before the KT boundary layer and none are found with it. Yet, After the KT layer life re-emerges again in great and varied abundance very rapidly.

These are mysteries science can`t explain, They can only guess, Then scientists with differing opinions argue over each others best guesses.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Davymid: [quote]*Microevolution is possible, Macroevolution is impossible.
*Artificial selection is possible, natural selection is impossible.
*Acquisition of physical traits over over generations if possible, acquisitions of (beneficial) mutations over generations is impossible.[/quote]

*Adaptation is possible, Evolution has not been observed directly.
*Laboratory Genetic Modification is possible, Extinction has been observed.
*Physical traits are not mutations, acquisition of any beneficial mutation is so rare, and takes so long, That the rate of extinction exceeds it.

Also the fossil record seems to indicate, and most archeologists now believe in the `sudden change` theory of evolution over the `slow mutation` over time theory, Starting with the pre-cambrian explosion.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: [quote]When everyone has the same colour hair and then someone has different colour hair, it`s a mutation.[/quote]

So when you eventually turn old and your hair turns gray, That`s a mutation ? I don`t think so.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: [quote]The only people who talk about evolution being animals changing species are people who are either lying about evolution or who have believed those lies from other people...[/quote]

In other words, You don`t know of a single example and thus have to call me a liar to keep your ethos intact.
0
Reply
Female 225
Long comments are long!
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Why do you think the two are mutually exclusive?[/quote]
Angilion, mate, you`re wasting your breath. You`re arguing with a person who`s capable of the kind of mental gymnastics to sincerely believe in the face of the crushing weight of man-millenia of scientific research that:

*Microevolution is possible, Macroevolution is impossible.
*Artificial selection is possible, natural selection is impossible.
*Acquisition of physical traits over over generations if possible, acquisitions of (beneficial) mutations over generations is impossible.

Having said that, it has to take some balls to have such a black-and-white view of the world, flying in the face of all observable scientifically proven evidence and logical reasoning. I respect that to a point... takes more courage than I have, that`s for sure.

Personally, I like Crakr. He helps me understand religion. And more specifically, what it can do to (apparently otherwise intelligent) people.
0
Reply
Male 17
CrakrJak: Honestly it sounds more like you are misquoting me in order to discredit me rather then trying to prove me wrong. Feel free to go after the mutated gene for blue eyes. You merely misquoted me in your response then drifted off target. There are studies that show this is a mutated gene. Of course I welcome you to correct me if you can without misquoting me.

You seem confused about what a trait is and what a mutation is. Again, I never said a trait was a mutation. I’m not debating that any further because it is such a small mundane part of the debate. I also never said just because a trait is recessive means it never existed at one time. You said that, not me. I simply said that particular gene was a mutated gene and that one gene happened to also be recessive as I explained how it made its way through the population.

If this debate is going to be about correcting you misquoting everyone then it’s not a debate at all. You’re just misleading pe
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion: Hair color is NOT a mutation, It`s a trait.[/quote]

When everyone has the same colour hair and then someone has different colour hair, it`s a mutation. A mutation in genes causing a mutation in the body.

When a mutation is inherited by following generations, it does indeed become a trait.

Why do you think the two are mutually exclusive?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion: Name me one plant or animal that has changed been observed to change it`s species[/quote]

Are you really so stupid that you cannot learn even the very basics of evolution after hundreds of people have explained them to you? Seriously? I find that hard to believe.

Which means I conclude that you are lying because you know evolution exists and so you know that the only thing you can do to counter it is to lie about what it is and hope to fool some people into believing you.

The only people who talk about evolution being animals changing species are people who are either lying about evolution or who have believed those lies from other people and have refused to learn anything about what evolution actually is.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
"Galapagos finches can be bred with European finches and have viable offspring"

Source please? You are aware that Galapagos finches are considered in fact Tanagers rather than "True Finches", right? In taxonomic ranking, that would put Galapagos finches and European true finches as belonging to the same Order (Passeriformes), but different Family, Genus and Species. That`s three entire taxonomic ranks, dude.

To put that into perspective, Galapagos finches and European true finches are as taxonomically related as cats are to dogs. Both Order Carnivora.

Please understand that stating Galapagos finches are the same species as European finches is deeply, deeply retarded. If you really believe that, and if that if the entirety of your understanding of biological science, then I think I`m done here.

Merry Christmas.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Crakrjak: "You mentioned the finches in the Galapagos islands, They are not a different species."

You`re right there, they`re not a different species. In fact, they`re 14-15 SEPARATE species. Of course, you`re quite welcome to disagree with peer-reviewed scientific publications from Harvard University, to pick just one very credible source. Though I have no doubt you`ll explain how Harvard Biology Profs are wrong and that you are right.
0
Reply
Male 3
Oh yayy another religion bashing thread. I`ve been on IAB for a year or two now and I`ve always been too lazy to make an account, but this continuous bashing of Christianity is really starting to piss me off. I go on this site every single day. And not ONE day goes by without telling me how stupid religion is and how stupid I am for believing in a God. Endless mockeries. Don`t you have something better to post other than constant lampooning of religion and God? Post something else. Just please stop with the anti-religion stuff. It`s really starting to bother me. Thank you for your consideration.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
"A species change means that the two organisms can not have viable offspring."

That`s actually a definition that fails in practical applications, lions and tigers can breed to create viable offspring and actually produce two completely different hybrids depending on which parent is which species.

And all those traits that you claim aren`t mutations were originally created BY mutations. The CHANGE in a trait is a mutation. ANY change in the genomic sequence is a mutation. By your ideology all people were originally created from a single set of DNA and were white, dark haired, and dark eyed. There wouldn`t be enough room in their DNA to accommodate enough recessive genes to have all the traits that exist today.

So even your idea of how life came to be would REQUIRE genetic mutation to create new, viable genetic information or we couldn`t have the variety that currently exists.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
dburley24: Also, Blue eyes have existed in other animals long before 12,000 years ago. Your claim that no one had blue eyes before then is spurious at best.

Plangkye: You mentioned the finches in the Galapagos islands, They are not a different species. Distance from others does not create a new species. Galapagos finches can be bred with European finches and have viable offspring. Yes, their beaks do look different, That`s an adaptation, a trait, Not a mutation.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
dburley24: Just because a gene is recessive, Doesn`t mean it never existed before or came into existence from a mutation. By the way many babies are born with blue eyes and that color changes with time. Again those are traits, NOT mutations.

The word `mutation` has been bandied about wrongly for many years now. Mutations are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis. They are not akin to curly vs. straight hair, skin color, eye color, hair color or other various traits.
0
Reply
Male 1,164
I think this is more science beating stupid people. Stupid religious people, but just plain stupid people nonetheless.
0
Reply
Male 17
Crakrjak, Traits come from random mutation. Look up how blue eyes evolved. Blue eyes are a trait, but roughly 12 thousand years ago no one had blue eyes. One gene mutated to cause blue eyes; the first people that carried this gene did not display it; they did not have blue eyes. It was only many generations later when enough of the population carried this gene did it begin to become displayed in the population being that the gene for blue eyes is recessive. This is one of the mechanisms of evolution.
0
Reply
Female 258
CrakrJak: Finches in the Galapagos Islands have been observed doing just that. Also, the scientific definition of "species" is somewhat nebulous when you define it in terms of reproduction alone; there are many plants that can produce fertile offspring when cross-pollinated, but due to differences in the shapes of the flowers that just doesn`t happen in the wild.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: Hair color is NOT a mutation, It`s a trait.

I-IS-BORED: I did not call all mutations cancers, I said they were detrimental and they are.

Again traits are not mutations, I don`t know who taught you science but they should be fired.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Angilion: Name me one plant or animal that has changed been observed to change it`s species, Yeah that`s right, You can`t. Adaptations within the same species do not count, Neither do traits brought about by selective breeding.

A species change means that the two organisms can not have viable offspring. Example: You can mate horse with a donkey to make a mule, but the mule is sterile and can not breed, Thus the donkey and horse are two separate species. The mule is a sterile hybrid.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@Crakr
You called all DNA mutations cancers or life threatening ailments. While using that we can`t imply what size of ear is the non-cancerous one, but we can imply that very obvious variations such as non-dark hair or eye color, white skin, brown skin, etc must be cancers or horrible diseases.

You believe that everybody came from Adam and Eve, and she was just a clone with one X replaced with a Y, so without any method of our DNA modifying itself, without deadly side effects, we must all have the exact same set of DNA (except for that one X or Y) and any exception to that would mean you have a cancer or life threatening disease. All this is entirely based on what you have said.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]What the hell ? [/quote]

You won`t be able to understand because you have chosen to make yourself incapable of understanding evolution.

But I have time to waste, so I`ll explain anyway.

You stated that mutations are harmful and mentioned cancer as either a result or the result.

Any hair colour other than black is a mutation in humans.

The same is true of skin colour, too. And I mean *black*, not the vast range of shades of brown that idiots obsessed with the fictional idea of race call "black".
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Nothing has been observed to change it`s species [/quote]

That right there is all that`s needed for anyone to reasonably evaluate CrakrJak`s position on evolution. It`s bullpoo. Utter, unmitigated bullpoo propaganda concocted from ignorance and lies.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]There is life in almost every planet, yes that`s right. Even a lot of our solar system`s
moons are places where life exist. Out impossibility to get there is in no way an
impossibility to know that.[/quote]

You`re wrong. Simple as that. There`s no known life anywhere else.

That doesn`t mean there isn`t any life anywhere else. It`s not like we can take a close enough look at a planet 6,000,000,000,000,000 miles away to see if there`s life on it.

Given the scale of just this galaxy, let alone the universe, it would be truly bizarre if there wasn`t life somewhere else, but right now it`s an unknown.
0
Reply
Male 39
@CrakrJak, some mutations are good. Most are bad, or neutral. However, mutation is ultimately the only sources of new genetic information out there. So, without it, we`d probably be little pieces of RNA in the primordial soup. Just be careful speaking in absolutes with biological stuff. There`s goddamn ALWAYS an exception.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
nobody404: Yes, I know cell mechanisms have ways of coping with missing parts of DNA (Otherwise we`d all be dead), But mutations aren`t beneficial and that`s my main point.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
[quote]then i guess all people who don`t have dark hair really have cancerous growths coming from their hair follicles[/quote]

What the hell ?

If that was troll attempt it`s the worst I`ve seen in quite awhile.
0
Reply
Male 245
"Ever heard of anti-oxidants ? They are a big thing right now because we found out that certain things oxidize and destroy parts of our DNA causing it to mutate into cancer and other diseases. "

By the way, oxidation occurs with most digestion. The problem is that it results in free radicals (A sole oxygen atom, which is highly unstable), which can cause cellular damage. Antioxidants are just molecules that inhibit oxidation in some form.

Also, DNA doesn`t become cancer. Cells become cancerous. And yes, cells can become cancerous when there are certain genetic mutations. But the vast majority of mutations do not cause this to happen. In fact, life is designed so that there can be mutations with literally no noticeable change at all in cell activity. Look at a codon chart and this should be easy to observe.
0
Reply
Male 1,371
DON`T TELL ME I`M WRONG. I HAVE FALSE FACTS AND GOD ON MY SIDE.
0
Reply
Male 245
"Yes they are, I`m not talking about hereditary traits here, I`m talking about mutations. "

Yes, most of those aren`t very threatening.
0
Reply
Female 2,120
Facebook is stupid anyways.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@CrakrJak
then i guess all people who don`t have dark hair really have cancerous growths coming from their hair follicles
0
Reply
Male 17,512
[quote]MOST mutations of DNA aren`t detrimental..[/quote]

Yes they are, I`m not talking about hereditary traits here, I`m talking about mutations.

Ever heard of anti-oxidants ? They are a big thing right now because we found out that certain things oxidize and destroy parts of our DNA causing it to mutate into cancer and other diseases.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
almightybob1: Viruses do not have a complete genome, They can not survive without using a host cells mechanisms to multiply. Viruses are very limited that way and that`s why we can manufacture vaccines to fight the flu relatively quickly.
0
Reply
Female 336
But Jesus says I am RIGHT! Hurr hurr derrrp...
0
Reply
Male 88
Hooray! Another pointless no-win religion vs science war. I haven`t see one of these on IAB in about 2 days.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@CJ
MOST mutations of DNA aren`t detrimental and don`t result in extra chromosomes. Just keep that foot in your mouth. Why do you think the common cold can`t be cured? Why do you think there`s a different vaccine for the same influenza virus every year? If all species remain the same constantly and only have one set of viable DNA why do I not look exactly like you? Perhaps some kind of genetic variation and recombination exists? :O BLASPHEMY

@ignotus
That`s not a theory. Where are your scientific laws to back it? How is that a logical explanation for a process which has been proven to occur via a repeatable experiment? -_-
0
Reply
Male 176
"That pretty much sums up the whole debate doesn`t it? "God did it."..."Nope, this is the real truth for anyone that cares."..."Don`t tell me I`m wrong!Shut up!"...jeez. All she had to do to finish the argument was threaten to kill him and all his following generations. Then you have the whole "religion" vs "science" debate covered. "

It angers me too
0
Reply
Male 2,855
God made that habitable zone
0
Reply
Male 2,579
lol
0
Reply
Female 185
That pretty much sums up the whole debate doesn`t it? "God did it."..."Nope, this is the real truth for anyone that cares."..."Don`t tell me I`m wrong!Shut up!"...jeez. All she had to do to finish the argument was threaten to kill him and all his following generations. Then you have the whole "religion" vs "science" debate covered.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones "should be barred from the IPCC process...They are not credible anymore." Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. "By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication," Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been "captured" and demanded that "the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed." Tol also publicly called for the "suspension" of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participa"

You conveniently left out this part of his declaration:
"These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of."
0
Reply
Male 39,531
Maybe "science" is just a way of figuring out how God did all that stuff.


I don`t believe that, but ya never know...
0
Reply
Male 143
when religious people are confronted with cold hard facts they resort to the childish tactic of "LALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU LALALALLAA"
0
Reply
Male 260
@johnkelley That might very well be, but it`s stupid ppl like here that are the problem with every religion :p
0
Reply
Male 59
This wouldn`t be a "win" for science, this is simply scientific facts about the Earth and its Orbit, nothing to do with disproving religion.
0
Reply
Male 769
i really want to know who that chick is who`s status this is. i want to bomb the hell out of her wall >:D
0
Reply
Male 130
C-c-c-c-c-combo breaker!
0
Reply
Male 18
_|_
she deserves it...
0
Reply
Male 141
K.O!
0
Reply
Male 1,153
Haha might have expected some massive comments at the bottom here. Same people with the same arguments and me with the same cynical comment. Booooring
0
Reply
Female 212
For all the geniuses on Facebook and I-A-B (the whole internets for that matter) . . . No one knows who the f*ck you are in real life. Kinda like a superhero, you can take down the bad guys and be totally awesome . . . until you log off. Then you are the same loser as before, extensive knowledge of cosmology or not.

Oh. And that guy is a prick.

"Don`t ever tell me I`m wrong ever again." That is such a Christian thing to say . . .
0
Reply
Male 2,220
..but hey, you don`t want to be corrected, right?
0
Reply
Male 2,220
@crakrjack "Nothing has been observed to change it`s species or give birth to a new species, And just because some group of animals is separated my distance does NOT make it a new `species`. Here is an example, African bees and European honey bees were classified as different species, But they actually weren`t. They were bred together, escaped, and now we have the problem of Africanized honey bees. "

OK I won`t bother going into some of the different species concepts - lets just stick with the one you`ve adopted - the biological, if it can breed and produce fertile offspring its a species.

Artificial speciation has been demonstrated in the laboratory with drosophila fruit flies in as few as
eight generations. The sheep is an example of a species we have created as it can no longer interbreed with its original wild ancestor.

Bu
0
Reply
Male 60
CrakrJak: "Nothing has been observed to change it`s species or give birth to a new species"
And how long have we been observing? Evolution takes millennia, last I checked. We`ve only really cared about it for a century or two. It is only natural that we don`t get to see it quite yet.

"Thousands of species are going extinct, They are not adapting."
Ever considered you were the problem? And by you, I mean humans. Have we always been kind enough to put endangered animals under protection? No. In fact, in the 1880s, human indiscriminately killed buffalo, with intention to eradicate them, just to get Indian tribes onto reservations. Did we give the buffalo ample time to adapt? No. We killed them. End of story.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]it`s like if I belived the unicorns secretly ran the world from theire invisible starships. it`s a theory..still doesn`t make it any more or less true than your Big Bang or that old guy in the sky. [/quote]
No, that would be a hypothesis, which actually DOES make it far less true than the Big Bang theory (but equal to the old guy in the sky).

Theory, in scientific terms, does not mean "guess" like it does in common use.
0
Reply
Male 58
@Samsquanch

actually it doesn`t prove or disprove anything seeing it is a Theory.

it`s like if I belived the unicorns secretly ran the world from theire invisible starships. it`s a theory..still doesn`t make it any more or less true than your Big Bang or that old guy in the sky.
Unless ofc you are under the illusion that if enough people belive something, it has to be true..which actually would lead us back to believing the lightning hurler, not big bang.
0
Reply
Male 2,388
I feel embarressed that I actually believed that guy
New years resolution
1. doubt more
0
Reply
Male 4,290
...while in the same breath maintaining that nothing is happening to the climate.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Samsquanch: As I said before, an oscillating universe requires a Big Bang at the start of every oscillation (and a Big Crunch at the end). The oscillating universe model does not disprove the Big Bang theory, it RELIES on it.

CJ, if what just said was true, then you should be quite happy to take the 1940s version of the flu vaccine, since "species are not adapting".

Also, I suggest you read this. And then consider the possibility of these mutations happening in order in the same area of the chromosome:
Duplication. AGA -> AGAAGA
Point mutation. AGAAGA -> AGAACA

Observe new information ACA. This is just one simple example of how new genetic information could be added through two common mutations.


Also, I like how you acknowledge that so many species are going extinct, w
0
Reply
Male 3,915
wow...talk about being totally decimated and still being a dick...lol
0
Reply
Male 792
5Cats, the Big Bang is so 20th century. Modern theory on astrophysics has disproven it, and speculates now that our universe is an oscillating one. That is, when this universe "ends" (which it never does), a new one "begins" (which, again, from our perspective, it never does). That is, the universe was always there, and will always be there.
Does that disprove God? Well, if by God, you mean some bearded old white haired dude sitting on a throne lobbing lightning bolts...um, yeah, pretty much does. But if you mean God as in a higher state of existence and awareness we can`t comprehend, then no it doesn`t.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Davymid: [quote]...from a guy who doesn`t even believe in evolution.[/quote]

Nothing has been observed to change it`s species or give birth to a new species, And just because some group of animals is separated my distance does NOT make it a new `species`. Here is an example, African bees and European honey bees were classified as different species, But they actually weren`t. They were bred together, escaped, and now we have the problem of Africanized honey bees.

Thousands of species are going extinct, They are not adapting. There is no natural process by which new information is added to a genome. Sure there are mutations were extra chromosomes are present, But those mutations are very detrimental to the organism.

There is no viable natural process by which new information is added to a genome. Mankind has been able to add information artificially, In laboratories, But that has only lead to a dead end with the `Franken-food` hysteria.
0
Reply
Male 275
correction Airclot0, let`s` disrespect each other`s baseless, incorrect beliefs in the event that the believer doesn`t accept they are wrong and continues to lie to himself.
0
Reply
Male 86
Ha ha ha pwned
0
Reply
Male 58
Hooray for hating on religion. ITS SO FUN! EVERYONE JUMP ON THE BANDWAGON.

Lets all disrespect other peoples beliefs!
0
Reply
Male 17,512
... IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
almightybob1: Global Warming is the biggest scientific scam ever perpetrated on mankind, And the so called `consensus` is dead. It was never about saving the environment, It was about enriching a bunch of scammers via `carbon credits`.

UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones "should be barred from the IPCC process...They are not credible anymore." Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. "By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication," Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been "captured" and demanded that "the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed." Tol also publicly called for the "suspension" of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participa
0
Reply
Male 2,748
@soapoperaguy29: oh, there was ALOT of luck involved
0
Reply
Male 2,748
ha, schooled with science... gotta love the mentality of: i know im wrong, but if i just ignore you then whatever you say doesn`t matter.
0
Reply
Male 2,372
Right on, buz!
0
Reply
Male 139
Stupidity is what makes you stupid no matter what you believe, but this site does a nice job of feeding the trolls.
0
Reply
Male 594
Mornaf: I thought it, you said it.
0
Reply
Male 263
these people need to be shot
0
Reply
Female 251
B***h got pwned!x
0
Reply
Male 820
[quote]Okay that`s cool and all but don`t comment on my status telling me I`m wrong everrr again![/quote]

Just as a statement. That ^^^ Is why I generally have issues with the religious.
"Hur dur i`m going to believe this and never consider the evidence to alternative views."
0
Reply
Male 99
She prefers to remain ignorant.
0
Reply
Male 9,305
"Okay that`s cool and all but don`t comment on my status telling me I`m wrong everrr again!"

This is all you really need to see.
0
Reply
Male 164
hahaha, no matter what the argument, thats always funny.
0
Reply
Male 40,277
AS only a few posters have mentioned: this is more about a vain b*tch than religion vs science, eh?

In the Big Bang debate there`s the problem of "first cause" (I forget the technical term) as to where the BB came from. It`s the EXACT same arguement used against "God".
There`s also the problem @Cheesecake117 mentioned: the End! With the BB things just... end! With God you get life everlasting :-)
I`m not saying that`s a convincing arguement at all! I am saying I know which one I prefer to believe in. I`m a Deist, so no Holy Scripture can tell me what to think, eh?
Finally: we`ll all know the truth about 10 minutes after we`re dead... please post that proof here at IAB, with photos! k-thx.
0
Reply
Male 551
@green_batman
That`s why I said "Our impossibility to get there is in no way an
impossibility to know that." (Corrected the Out for Our, was wrong
at first)

You`re right, we can`t be absolutely sure because we haven`t been
there. But we have a fair knowledge of the composition of those
moons and planets that let us think accurate things, such as a
very VERY high possibility to be life there
0
Reply
Female 322
Wow that girl got pissed when she was corrected what a bitch
0
Reply
Female 728
@iceblack: Actually, life as we define it, even bacterial life, has only been definitively found on Earth, with some signs that it might have existed on Mars. We theorize that it could exist on Europa or Titan or certain other planetary moons, but we don`t know. To the best of my knowledge, they haven`t even discovered prebiotic chemicals, such as amino acids, anywhere but on Earth.

I think that it is extremely likely that there is plenty of life out there in the universe, as I seriously doubt that the conditions on Earth are all that special in a universe with billions of trillions of suns. However, there is not yet any solid evidence of it existing elsewhere.
0
Reply
Male 625
@creamkreator - Last line made that the best religious post ever. Made me laugh. Kudos.
0
Reply
Male 99
the reason we exist as we do is not due to probability. there are forms of life on a lot of planets, and they all develop and evolve to best survive in their habitat. we exist as we do because we developed within our habitat, not because we got lucky.
0
Reply
Male 551
there could be a lot
of other forms of life that need completely different elements to exist
0
Reply
Male 551
@EVERYBODY
There is life in almost every planet, yes that`s right. Even a lot of our solar system`s
moons are places where life exist. Out impossibility to get there is in no way an
impossibility to know that.

What people have to understand is that life doesn`t mean like monsters with 10 legs that
eat other monsters, no. Doesn`t even mean intelligent life (What ever that means). It
only means that there`s life almost every where in the form of bacteria and other kind
of primitive life.

The earth hosts bigger forms of life because there`s more oxygen and water where this
creatures could evolve. Which other planets and moons don`t (On the same proportions).
BUT even if there isn`t water or oxygen in other planets or moons, it doesn`t mean that
there couldn`t be life. We as humans tend to think that life as we know it is the only
way possible for any system to host life, but we don`t know that, there could be a lot
of other for
0
Reply
Male 2,148
intrigid: Nobody said the planets have been identified, simply that they exist. Where did you get your facts for the chemical probability of life to be "1 : 10^100000"?
0
Reply
Male 155
ha bitch got proved wrong
0
Reply
Male 928
Yeah don`t everrrr say she is wrong when she posts something is a FACT and it turns out not to be. Because you know she would hate to have to admit she is wrong about something.
0
Reply
Male 31
@lionhart2
True the big bang theory is still a theory and is not proven. Where your wrong is the debate between the big bang theory and oscillating universe theory. We can practically discard the solid state theory as its been almost definitively disproved. Oscillating universe Theory is not a theory about the just the creation of the universe but also the expansion and the big crunch. The big bang theory is basically one component of the oscillating universe theory. However the Oscillating Universe theory is becoming less probable, recent measurements of CMBR suggest that there`ll be no big crunch and that the universe will instead continue to expand leading us to the possibility of the big freeze but thats just another theory which is yet to be completely proven.
0
Reply
Male 914
"Today we know that universe have bilions of planets with the same condition of earth"

No, we don`t. In fact, not one has been identified. Ever.

"so we can presume that life is evrywhere in the universe."

No, we can`t. There are many reasons why we can`t assume this, but the most important reason is that we still have no idea how the cycle of life was initiated. It could have required perfect chemistry with an probability in the order of 1 : 10^100000. If this was the case, and it very well could have been, then we are absolutely the only life in the known universe.
0
Reply
Female 1,203
I love science
0
Reply
Male 69
This is slipping in to that dark region where religious fiction thrives. Religious facts are very few and that is a shame.

We must not forget in this proces where humankind is getting rid of it`s diseases that those backward processes did something goo: uphold the morals which keep our society from falling apart. Even thou i believe that we will shed the rest of the guilt-sex ridden parts of our selves, somthings should not be forgotten: be good to others is one that should never be forgotten.
Religion or not, we need love first. I don`t care who loves me and who i love and for what reasons, those bonds keep us from falling in to chaos. And i`m really, REALLY high.
0
Reply
Male 93
The girl is right about the fact that the earth`s positioning is unique. She`s just wrong about the 10ft thing. As of right now we don`t know of another planet that could possibly host life. The recent one they `found` may not even be a planet at all. Not A goldilocks
0
Reply
Male 118
Round 2

@almightybob1
[quote]Sounds interesting, I`d like to hear about it.
What would those spiritual beliefs and philosophies be, and what is your evidence to support them?[/quote]
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Your (no doubt hilarious) image response failed hard Kozy. Try a source other than funnyjunk.com.
0
Reply
Male 302
More important than the science vs religion discussion is her response.... what a bitch.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]I am a spiritual man myself, and I can validate my beliefs with scientific evidence, and explain my philosophies with rational concepts.[/quote]
Sounds interesting, I`d like to hear about it.
What would those spiritual beliefs and philosophies be, and what is your evidence to support them?
0
Reply
Female 1,324
hah, well if you don`t want someone to comment on your status and prove you wrong, don`t be an idiot
0
Reply
Male 661
This argument is getting really stale. Sadly there is the potential for some great discussion and philosophical exchange, but it almost never does.
A scientist is expected to prove without the shadow of a doubt that a concept/theory/law is valid. Years of work, mathematical proofs, physical evidence, results which may be reproduced by another. All are required to validate scientific beliefs.

A theologian has only to use the word "faith" and we are expect us to kowtow to their beliefs. The "Burden of proof" is completely circumvented by irrational statements and baseless beliefs.

I am a spiritual man myself, and I can validate my beliefs with scientific evidence, and explain my philosophies with rational concepts. Is it so very wrong of me to expect that of the "God Fearing" types?

As far as I`m concerned, if you can`t give me some proof, your religious beliefs are every bit as "real" as Pastafarianism.
0
Reply
Male 5,141
Religion is a primitive forma mentis of human kind in wich man search abstracts answers due to the lak of knowledge. Religion is like an instinctive desire to be protected by an invisible and inexplicable umbrella that repair us from our ignorance and that lead us to a supposed way of truth. Religion is the primitive way to organize people in mass and a primitive way to obtain power on other mans. Science is a faculty of our brain that try to explain us what is the real.
0
Reply
Male 4,793
Hahaha! typical christian, proven completely wrong so they just pretend it didnt happen and hate the messenger instead. Silly christians :P

P.S. This girl right here, is why christians are retarded.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Lion:

In the Oscillating Universe model, every oscillation begins with a Big Bang. The Big Bang theory, and all the evidence that supports it, does not rule out an oscillating universe - quite the opposite, it is in fact a requirement of an oscillating universe. Without a Big Bang, there can be no oscillating universe.
So to say that scientists prefer the oscillating universe model over the Big Bang theory is nonsensical.

The COBE results that I was talking about earlier cannot be explained by the Steady State model, but ARE predicted by the Big Bang theory. As Stephen Hawking said, COBE was "the final nail in the coffin of the steady-state theory".
0
Reply
Male 5,141
In any case to stay on the faceboock page, the guys say thanks god as if the earth is the only planet on the wole universe that can have life. Today we know that universe have bilions of planets with the same condition of earth so we can presume that life is evrywhere in the universe. Religion usualy prefere uniqueness and fear multiplicity. With uniqueness religion can chain you to dogmas. Galileo the first great astronomist that have discovered how really our galaxy is was putted on trial by church for this. A scientist have done the most important revolution in history. Mankind was passed to earthcentic idea of universe to the real eliocentric. Church have accepted that only after centuries. Religion fear the truth cause want you belive only in her speech.
0
Reply
Male 1,587
Hey, its ok if she`s just a pretty face. :P
I can`t f*ck your mind, sweetie, or your personality.
0
Reply
Male 605
God I love science
0
Reply
Male 551
@Rick_S
You would be ignoring ALL the other planets that aren`t on the
place for life to be possible. The mere accidental situation of
this earth could be considered as planned, but that`s just because
you are alive on this planet

Think about a BIG labyrinth. Just because you make it to the end it
doesn`t mean you were "meant" to get out of it. If you (Or other
people who were with you at the entrance) happened to take the wrong path,
then you would come to a dead-end that would make it impossible to go
further, like it happened to all the species of animals and plants that
are now extinct
0
Reply
Male 3,477
See, women and christians are stupid but christian women take the cake by ten miles.
0
Reply
Male 3,327
If I were to make an argument for "Chad"`s fact, I would have said, "OK, you`re right, it`s more than 10 miles. God is still great because he made the Earth where it is." If I were to make an argument against "Chad"`s fact, I would have said, "The fact that life exists on a planet that is in the perfect place for life to exist on is not a miracle, or a sign of any God`s greatness. At the most, it would be a sign of God`s common sense."
0
Reply
Male 551
@Lionhart2
If you read a little about the Oscillating Universe theory you`ll
come across something important, that theory tries to explain
the OUTCOME of the big bang. The multiverse theory, oscillatin universe
theory, or any theory about how the universe works or if there`s only
this one don`t disprove the big bang, it just changes the way
we think things work either here or on other universes
0
Reply
Male 5,141
Guys there is a difference between Theory And Theorem.

Theory=The word theory, when used by scientists, refers to an explanation of reality that has been thoroughly tested so that most scientists agree on it. It can be changed if new information is found.

Theroem=In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that has been proven on the basis of previously established statements, such as other theorems, and previously accepted statements, such as axioms.
0
Reply
Male 8,302
@ iceblack
> Big bang is a fact, it happened and it has been proved,
> It`s a common misconception though, just because it says "theory" people think it hasn`t been proved

Just plain wrong dude. The Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory. It is accepted as `fact` by only a small proportion of scientists in the field, around 11%. There is also the Solid State Theory, and the Oscillating Universe theory (which is the most widely accepted, not the Big Bang), and a whole host of other, lesser-known ones.

But to say the Big Bang is accepted fact is incorrect.
0
Reply
Male 2,441
Yay science!
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@LTFurpie
Theories (by the scientific definition) don`t stop being theories ever. There is no level above `theory` for a theory to attain so stop trying to force the layman use of the word onto the field of science.
0
Reply
Male 1,523
Woo science.
0
Reply
Male 48
@Hightech90 - Science can be proven, even if only theoretically. Religion is based on stories. Even the smartest, most eloquent religious scholar cannot stand up to reason, fact and logic. The strongest argument they ever seem to make is "It`s all a matter of faith". I don`t care how much you want something to be true, faith will never beat fact.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
"## Corrected to put the grammer police at bay...

When your right, your right!"

Wow... just wow... that`s all.
0
Reply
Male 1,548
@hightech90
because things like the works of Aquinas and Augustine are only funny to uptight snobbish people who read sh*t like the New Yorker (as in: "haha, he has made a fallacious argument"). Things like this are things everyone can laugh at.
0
Reply
Male 1,793
As in most religious belief they don`t want to know the truth...
0
Reply
Male 72
I love how this site uses people with low IQ`s to show how dumb religion is. Why don`t websites start posting things of people who believe in God and know what they are talking about? Oh wait, then we would have something to challenge the "intelligent" atheists and we can`t have that. That would be a bad thing to do.
0
Reply
Male 848
Everything in science is a theory you dickheads.
Saying "It`s just a theory" like it means anything is stupid.
0
Reply
Male 757
owned
0
Reply
Male 179
this is only sort of related, but there is science and then there is pseudoscience. the theory of evolution is science. cigarette smoking studies are not science— if you go create a scientific study to prove something, it`s not a scientific study, it`s bullpoo. the scientific method involves actively trying to disprove your hypothesis to make it true. a bunch of scientists jumping on the bandwagon to create income for themselves isn`t science.
0
Reply
Male 551
@LtFurpie
Bing bang is a fact, it happened and it has been proved,
Hubble helped scientist to come to that conclusion

What is a theory is how it begun, or to be more accurate,
what was of the "universe" that made the big bang take place.

It`s a common misconception though, just because it says "theory"
people think it hasn`t been proved. But the only thing about
the big bang that hasn`t been proved is what caused it
0
Reply
Male 40,277
With a rack like that, she don`t need no brains...
0
Reply
Male 1,013
:-) didn`t mean to bust your chops... so long as we agree "Big Bang" is still a theory and not reputed science. (still a better working theory than an out of wedlock child son of a vengeful deity IMHO... but a theory none-the-less)
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Confirmed basically? haha, I liked everything else you had to say though![/quote]
Bleh, I should do a final proofread if I revise my sentences mid-flow :P you get what I`m saying though.
0
Reply
Male 1,623
"It`s more like science vs. dumbass."

That is a restatement of science vs. religion.
0
Reply
Male 1,067
I love it when people get shown up like that.
0
Reply
Male 551
@Hiromi


Fixed (It`s an image, IAB wouldn`t accept
that sign)
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Poppycock. Many, Now renowned, Scientists were met with vitriol and contempt for their scientific theories. Even now, Those that deny or seek to correct theories like `Global Warming` are met with outright hostility. Science is not the panacea of peace and acceptance you`ve tried to describe.[/quote]
Crakrjak, you`ll forgive us for not taking lessons on the Scientific Method from a guy who doesn`t even believe in evolution. Just sayin.
0
Reply
Male 2,841
It`s more like science vs. dumbass.
0
Reply
Female 1,148
Science=1
Religion=0 (as always)
0
Reply
Male 1,013
[quote]It(s) confirmed that the Big Bang happened, basically[/quote]

Confirmed basically? haha, I liked everything else you had to say though!
0
Reply
Male 128
Don`t let the facts interfere with the discussion hahahahaha
0
Reply
Male 551
@LuckyDave
I agree that we all have to respect each other, after all
we live on the same world and have to deal it that. BUT,
it`s important to have discussions that disprove the people
that are wrong, or that we think that are, and here`s why...

Many religious people think that "the rapture" will come
before we destroy this world, I don`t know if you`ve seen
the congressman who quoted the bible on a "global warming forum"
and said that "We cannot destroy this earth, only god will"
or something like that, which is not only stupid to base
your opinion on a 2,000 year old book, is also irresponsible
and dangerous

Even if you don`t think like that or don`t share his opinion,
you have a faith and probably go to a church that supports
the same method of "reasoning" he practiced there. Is all a
circle that validates every religious related claim
0
Reply
Male 490
Err, I don`t think this is necessarily religion vs science.

This is science vs a non-scientific thinker. There is nothing about the person`s theology that made them say what they did. Many individuals both are religious and practice science.
There seems to be a profound misunderstanding between the two camps about the other camp.
0
Reply
Male 1,598
Lol... She got told and then got mad. People hate being told they are wrong.
0
Reply
Male 87
@bunny_knight all I know is it works, b!tches
0
Reply
Male 4,290
bunny_knight: It`s the data plot from the COBE mission, during which the background microwave radiation of the universe was measured. The data fit so perfectly to the predicted values of the Big Bang model that the error bars were too tiny to see on any reasonably scaled graph.

It confirmed that the Big Bang happened, basically. It`s an outstanding example of science using current understanding of data to accurately predict future discoveries and data, which is the acid test of all good science.
0
Reply
Male 551
@ForAllThSin
Yeah... Is not the same, CAP9993 is right, science is based on
evidence, but more important than that, science proves itself
over and over and over again, those examples I mentioned are
only some of them. If science says something is only because
it`s been tested and works

Religion, on the other hand, is based on faith. Which is in
no way a trusty method to do... Well, anything. Gravity or any
other science law you could think of, is the same here, in Africa
or Asia, but faith varies all over the world. That`s because no
faith has been proved to be right

That might not be the correct comparison, but it could apply
to think about the subject from a more "open-minded" situation
0
Reply
Male 353
@JayElDoubleU something i don`t actually understand, mind explaining?
0
Reply
Male 1,013
God truly is amazing!!!

The fact that he is the Earth`s worst self purported murderer and that so many people still believe in him and that he is good. Truly Amazing!
0
Reply
Male 2,422
God exists. And it is a seriously deranged being.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]almightybob1, I want to marry you[/quote]
Haha let`s not even get onto the topic of gay marriage :P
0
Reply
Male 1,341
@twenty5

I believe in your lockness pocket monster. In fact, I would like to write a book about his stories and exploits and spread his word to millions of people worldwide. All worship the lockness pocket monster!
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Many, Now renowned, Scientists were met with vitriol and contempt for their scientific theories.[/quote]
You mean like Galileo? Or Darwin?
[quote]Even now, Those that deny or seek to correct theories like `Global Warming` are met with outright hostility.[/quote]
No, you only get criticised if you continually deny the prevailing concensus without any evidence to back up your position. Or if the evidence you provide does not stand up to proper scientific scrutiny.
If you manage to provide evidence which actually DOES invalidate a theory, you would become an instant overnight scientific superstar.

If you just continually say "nah that`s a load of crap" without being able to show why, then you are worthy of ridicule by the scientific community, because what you are doing is not science.
0
Reply
Male 87


that is all
0
Reply
Male 535
almightybob1, I want to marry you
0
Reply
Male 272
faith=delusion. period.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
CJ:
There is a 5-legged, 17-armed creature called Anajahrat. He is invisible and undetectable by any scientific equipment. He created everything that ever existed, exactly as it is, 10 minutes ago. He is telekinetic, telepathic, can travel time and space instantly, and if you`re not on his list, after you die you will have to eat your least favourite food, forever.

Fortunately, all you need to do to get on his list is believe that he exists, and say "Love of Anajahrat be with me always" once a day. Then you`ll get to eat your favourite food. Forever.


Do you believe in Anajahrat? Do you understand how he can see, hear and control everything?

Remember, it`s just as likely as what you described.
0
Reply
Male 32
God dammit, doesn`t that guy know the rules of the internet. Facebook is only for praising, no one is allowed to disagree with the originating post, even if it`s factually ludicrous.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
almightybob1: [quote]..if someone corrects science, it accepts the correction and incorporates it in order to have a better understanding. If someone corrects religion, they are met with vitriol.[/quote]

Poppycock. Many, Now renowned, Scientists were met with vitriol and contempt for their scientific theories. Even now, Those that deny or seek to correct theories like `Global Warming` are met with outright hostility. Science is not the panacea of peace and acceptance you`ve tried to describe.
0
Reply
Male 84


K but in what way is it "likely"? Isn`t equally as unlikely? Possessing no actual proof of a god`s existence outside "the realm" of time, is it safe to say it`s likely? And why can one not exist within the realm of time?

I guess what I`m saying is: I think "likely" was really poor word choice. Perhaps a better one would be "possible".
0
Reply
Male 17,512
LuckyDave: Why even put any restrictions on God`s power ? Miracles happen everyday, Most people are just too jaded to see them.

It`s entirely likely that God exists outside of time, Beyond the dimensions we can sense. Once you realize that as a matter of faith, That he exists outside the rules of science that we perceive, You can understand how he can see, hear, and control everything.

0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]Do you want to see, what I believe (believe, as in faith) are God`s wonders? Look a bit closer. The grass beneath your feet, a flower that blossoms during the day and closes at night, the human mind, a child`s first steps.[/quote]
Is it the fact that these things occur that you believe is God`s wonder, or do you mean the feeling you get when observing them?
I don`t see any of those things as inherently godlike. I see the products of the interactions of biology and chemistry and physics. Amazing, yes, but not miraculous.
I don`t need belief in a god to see beauty in the world we inhabit, and I don`t see how the ability to find beauty in things demonstrates the existence of higher power.
0
Reply
Male 167
I would also like to add, I live 10 ft off the ground. I hope I don`t burn :( and hopefully when I walk into my basement.. I really hope I don`t freeze!
0
Reply
Male 167
I guess my lockness monster in my pocket is also real :( you can`t prove he`s not real because he`s invisible!!! leave him alone!
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]It`s no different than someone adding `Science is amazing` to a sentence. If I added that to a quote of "You only use 10% of your brain", Would that make science wrong ?[/quote]
It would show that you know very little about science.

Cue inevitable "shows you know very little about God" response.

They are not analogous. As epitomised by his reply: if someone corrects science, it accepts the correction and incorporates it in order to have a better understanding. If someone corrects religion, they are met with vitriol.
0
Reply
Male 740
stupid mean person
0
Reply
Male 51
@EntrE
Really? Looks more like "wrong information vs. right information" to me.
And, because I know it`s coming, "wrong information vs. right information" is not the same thing as "religion vs. science"
0
Reply
Male 39,531
[quote]I don`t understand why religion and science have to be at war.[/quote]

`cause religion wants to be the only thing taught in schools as if it were fact. can`t let that happen now can we.
0
Reply
Male 675
As a Catholic, I believe that creationism is bunk. Yes, bunk.

Faith is just that, faith. You can`t really physically prove it, and you can`t really physically disprove it either.

Do you want to see, what I believe (believe, as in faith) are God`s wonders? Look a bit closer. The grass beneath your feet, a flower that blossoms during the day and closes at night, the human mind, a child`s first steps. Quit trying to prove something to someone who won`t listen.

Creationists, think about this one for a second. Would it not be a larger attest to God`s power anyway if all he had to do was set everything up when the universe began, and it did the rest for Him?

Really I-A-B, I`m not trolling, flaming, or trying to upset anyone, but I do want to point out that while many people here are not religious, there are many who also are. Atheist, agnostic, religious, we all make up the I-A-B community; so is it possible we can drop pissing on each other over it?
0
Reply
Male 535
and actually this is religion vs. science. it`s a completely made up statement that is sold as a fact, although it is based on nothing. that is the SAME THING as religion. and also she makes en explicit connection there by adding "God is awmazing". This is science vs. religion and nothing else
0
Reply
Male 39,531
I guess she told him!

Do NOT confuse the issue with facts!
0
Reply
Male 535
@unmercyfuldu
couldn`t have said it better. People like her always react like bitches once you point out they`re talking nonsense
0
Reply
Male 456
Why can`t I see anything like this on my facebook?
0
Reply
Male 273
@ CAP

i know you didn`t, the poster of this topic said it. see, it`s in the title
0
Reply
Male 167
I never once said that it has to be Religion vs. Science. And I agree, a Supreme Being had a lot to do with how we got to this point in history.
0
Reply
Male 273
* omnipotent

before people start saying religious people can`t spell either.

even though i do suck at spelling
0
Reply
Male 1,360
17 people liked science guys, reply, and only 2 like god-crazed guys retort. lol.
0
Reply
Male 273
@ cap

i`m not personally attacking you or your faith. i just think that it`s not religion vs science.

if you truly believe God is omipotent then you believe God created science.
0
Reply
Male 312
@Kozy - Good job soldier, as you were
0
Reply
Male 167
@ForAllThSin
Yes but he had evidence, Religion is a bit shaky on those grounds. Now like I said earlier I believe in a Supreme Being. So yes I have faith in a lot of diffrent things.
0
Reply
Male 25,417
@ Lionhart2

Didnt even start with your post, even tho it was short, it still had errors, english is lacking in your world, When you can paragraph correctly then you can speak about gramatical errors, whilst trying to be smart, you made note of "dumb people will always think they are smart" that is so proven by your little post. It took you to not understand the rant, rather than simply emphasizing its gramatical errors, thus it shows the ignorance and thus refer back to the what you have quoted as "dumb people will always think they are smart" then take a good look at yourself. btw it was a general observation and not necessarily in relation to religion. On that note, have a great christmas and i hope santa gives you everything you want! Cheers
0
Reply
Male 118
@SlothOfDoom
It was a question that required a yes/no/maybe answer, but yes/no/maybe are all wrong answers.

YOU are the idiot.
0
Reply
Male 273
you all just prove my point over and over. "
ha ha ha lets laugh at people who have faith in a religion, they aren`t nearly as cool or smart as us who bash them"
0
Reply
Male 273
@iceblack

i`m religious and i love science. it`s not us that see things only one way. it the atheist who say only science and no religion. but what do i know i`m close minded right??
0
Reply
Male 10,855
What a moron
0
Reply
Male 146
@CAP9993 Penguins have not evolved. God created them that way six THOUSAND years ago so that they could serve his greater glory as birds of the sea.
0
Reply
Male 11,739
Great. Another idiot who would rather be stupid and believe a lie. That person probably watches Fox News too.
0
Reply
Male 551
Ahh, Science... The Elephant in the religious room

Who cares what scientists say? Right? The only thing they
can do right is to cure diseases, prevent some others, invent
stuff, predict a lot of natural event such as hurricanes so
people can do something before it strikes them...

At least some religious people are open to what
scientist have to say, we could be much worse if
it weren`t like that, which is scary though
0
Reply
Male 273
@ lelio

yeah but then all the atheists wouldn`t have an excuse to bash religion.
0
Reply
Male 51
...How is this a religion vs. science thing?

One person just happened to be provided with wrong information, and somebody else corrected them.
Sure, the first person mentioned God in their post, but the second person said nothing about the first person`s religious beliefs.

:/
0
Reply
Male 273
@ CAP

so then since you don`t know personally you might say that you have FAITH that the "expert" was telling you a fact. hmmmmmm, remind me again how this is different than someone`s faith in religion?
0
Reply
Male 2,033
@ Kozy.

An exam is not the time to question the relevance of a question. You sir, are an idiot.

0
Reply
Male 678
I agree with citizen_kane.
0
Reply
Male 25,417
## Corrected to put the grammer police at bay...

When your right, your right! but this is just another example of science overruling creationism and the facts being discarded by people who don`t see or understand them, or possibly refuse to believe them. Those people are stupid and they will walk around the rest of there lives thinking they are smart and would not believe anything less. IF these people do something that shows a petty amount of intelligence they will absorb the aura that follows but if they do something dumb, they simply forget it straight away, dumb people will always think they are smart and nothing except destroying the confidence can ever change that, all in all, imagining what you are when reading this and you might be able to make a judgement!
0
Reply
Male 272
@kozy: no one cares.
0
Reply
Male 167
I`vw seen penguins swim underwater several times at SeaWorld. And I agree that is truly awesome how they swim. ForAllThSin I don`t personally know that they flew or not, but I listen to the experts at SeaWorld, some of them studying penguins longer than I have been born, and I took their comments about the evolution of penguins as fact.
0
Reply
Male 118
@Kozy
[quote]anger letter[/quote]
angry letter
0
Reply
Male 762
In other words:

"Don`t correct me, my stupid and demonstrably wrong ideas comfort me."
0
Reply
Male 118
People don`t like to be told they are wrong. I had a question for one of my exams and I answered that the question is irrelevant and I gave my reasons. I got an F, so I gave my instructor`s grading an F with an anger letter. She gave my exam to the Chair of Geography and she agreed with my instructor and wrote many comments on my exam. I later replied to all her comments explaining to her why she was wrong.

My final reply was my favorite.
See image below. It`s her actual comment with my actual reply.

0
Reply
Male 273
@ CAPP

how do you know penguins flew in the first place?
0
Reply