I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Dick Dawkins Celebrates Victory Over Creationists

Hits: 6368 | Rating: (2.9) | Category: Science | Added by: davymid
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
funnehkitteh
Male, 18-29, Europe
 522 Posts
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 4:10:57 PM
brilliant, no god, better country for me

LillianDulci
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
 2696 Posts
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 3:38:17 PM
Just to note, I agree with everything Mr_Pedo_Bear said. I just wanted to explain how it's not like intelligent design whereas Mr_Pedo_Bear explained how it is like evolution. ^^

LillianDulci
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
 2696 Posts
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 3:36:53 PM
@CrakrJak - The process of Windows OS changing to its current state is much more like evolution than like intelligent design, even though it was clearly developed by humans. If it was more like intelligent design/creationism then the very first Windows OS would be exactly the same as Windows 7. Also, Windows would not change past being Windows 7. Therefore, it would have been very impressive for Windows 7 to have been the original, but as technology progresses, Windows wouldn't progress, it'd remain unchanging, and we'd be stuck with old technology.

Mr_Pedo_Bear
Male, 70 & Over, Southern US
 589 Posts
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 3:12:32 PM
Evolution is where organisms with more positive traits are more likely to survive and procreate meaning more members of the species gain those traits over time evolving. If something fit's it doesn't evolve quickly.

Look at sharks http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/evolution/evol_s_predator.htmBecause the rate of evolutionary change in sharks is very slow and gradual, it can be frustratingly difficult to determine where one species stops and another begins. There is no evidence of punctuated equilibrium (sudden 'jumps' in form) in the shark fossil record. Without sharp discontinuities, boundaries between named species are often made rather arbitrarily along a continuum of variation.

Mr_Pedo_Bear
Male, 70 & Over, Southern US
 589 Posts
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 3:00:40 PM
@Crackrjak you ignore Reboot's reply and focus on distorting what I said. I was giving an example of a chain where you'd be able to tell the entire chain even if you removed a link and some of the evidence of transformation using an example of something very simple you would be able to understand.
I will also disagree at what you claim that it would be intelligent design. There is a force driving the evolution of windows os. Customer feedback. Features which work better, get praise and carried onto the next system. Features which don't die out are removed. very very crude very very basic but I was trying for a very very simplistic thing for you to understand.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16687 Posts
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:20:30 PM
Mr_Pedo_Bear: You are honestly going to try and equate computer software, made and directed by human intelligence, not natural selection, as a proof of biological evolution ?

That would be an example of intelligent design, not evolution.

ReBoot
Male, 18-29, Canada
 229 Posts
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 9:32:04 AM
@CrakrJak

So you distrust the fossil record as a means of determining evolution. What about the DNA evidence that i outlined? The fusion of ape and human chromosomes.
Do you have anything at all to challenge that?
I'm gonna go ahead and say you don't which is why you didn't respond to it because even you have to admit that it's hard science.
It's pretty damn solid evidence of evolution.
Dispute it if you can or admit that you can but don't ignore it

ReBoot
Male, 18-29, Canada
 229 Posts
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 9:30:16 AM
@CrakrJak

Actually there is no continuous strand in the fossil record. What is seen in the fossil record is a lot of leaves and very very few actual branches.



I never said there was a continuous strand of fossils so don't put words in my mouth.
What there is, is a wealth of fossils that show transition to people who are actually educated in the relevant fields. What you're missing is an education crakr. You claim to see only "leaves" because you have little to no understanding of what you're actually looking at.
And again, you're just pointing to the gaps as if they somehow discredit the fossils we've found. Unless we find fossil evidence of every single animal in the chain, it will never be enough for christians like you. I don't need to say much more on this subject because the posts following yours do a good job of explaining how you're wrong and/or misinformed about the subject

Mr_Pedo_Bear
Male, 70 & Over, Southern US
 589 Posts
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 8:37:44 AM
cont- heres the Evolutionary tree of Windows OS remove a link or two from it you can still work out the chain and connections of the operating system. Yet creationists say oh you've not got that link because fossilisation is rare, but you have everything else connecting A to C oh well no B yet it doesn't happen god did it.....

Mr_Pedo_Bear
Male, 70 & Over, Southern US
 589 Posts
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 8:29:12 AM
@CrakrJak He does not believe that life came to earth by aliens. What he was saying was if you take the creationists example that a form of life started something on earth aliens,god or what not. It itself is soo complex that it must have evolved to that point it doesn't mean it was god. That film edited him out into rubbish and mis-information was not a true representation of what he said. You complain when people bring up parts of the old testament out of context to discredit religion don't do the same, if you're going to express his view point find out what he thinks not what some religious nut jobs made it look like.. It's hypocritical!
As for the continual fossil record as Reboot explained fossilisation is rare look how many becomes oil. We have loads of minor chains of loads of different species, and we constantly connect new missing links. It's like saying we're missing all windows 98 therefore there is no proof showing windows 95 evolving multiple times to windows 7

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5683 Posts
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 7:01:14 AM
Macro is the change of one entirely different species into another. I cannot concede, nor can anyone definitively prove that any one species and changed into another.


The current theory of evolution is based on the belief of long periods of stasis and brief periods of rapid change.


You're describing punctuated equilibrium, but many scientists also believe in gradualism.

What is seen in the fossil record is a lot of leaves and very very few actual branches.


This gap theory crap is really annoying. It's unreasonable to expect a perfect chain of fossils from A to B.
Well you already did with micro. The reason micro happens so fast and macro so slow is differences in reproduction rates. Viruses and bacteria reproduce magnitudes faster than humans.


LillianDulci
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
 2696 Posts
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 6:47:53 AM
"Dawkins himself believes life on Earth was seeded by aliens, because he knows abiogenesis is impossible to prove. "

Why does it matter what Dawkins thinks (if that's even true, I've never heard it before now)? Science isn't a religion, Dawkins isn't a religious leader. He could be a scientologist for all I care, it doesn't discredit anything he says in relation to evolution. Dawkins getting something wrong doesn't mean someone else can't prove him wrong. That's how science works...

LillianDulci
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
 2696 Posts
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 6:42:16 AM
@Chaosmaster - If someone believes in a god and in evolution, then I really don't care. If they think their god got everything rolling, that's their business (as long as they aren't trying to teach it as fact). They don't believe in creation in that case though. How the earth came to be and evolution are separate things.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11015 Posts
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 6:07:16 AM
As for the macro vs micro, they are not the same thing, and one does not prove the other. You may say we use it lamely, but the fact is you act like nuts about it and refuse to admit that as of yet, there has been no actual proof of macro, only for micro.


There is no distinction. It's something your side made up in response to the overwhelming evidence showing evolution. Faced with looking increasingly insane by denying reality or admitting they were wrong, your side had to come up with some way out. They chose "micro vs macro", also known as "the fact that it happens over days, months, years, decades...err...doesn't mean it happens over centuries, millenia. If you can't watch it happening over millenia, it doesn't exist at all!"

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11015 Posts
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 6:02:04 AM
We can't all be right, but we can all be wrong. Why is it so f'ing hard to agree to disagree? Why does someone always have to win out over another group?


Because you're trying to destroy us.

You want to infect and corrupt science, using it as a host to indoctrinate children into your religion. You're doing so because science has earned a reputation for a high level of dependability whereas religion has none at all.

Of course, doing so will break a key part of science - being based on evidence, with testing. By turning science into a zombie of its former self, cold selling your religion, you damage it badly. Which must be what you're trying to do, unless you're stupid.

We're not trying to force your religious places to teach what the evidence indicates is true.

You're trying to force our educational places to teach your religion instead of what evidence indicates to be true.

You are the aggressors. Just stop it.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11015 Posts
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 5:53:43 AM
Also, everything should be evolving, according to Darwin, but there are examples of creatures that haven't changed since the Cambrian explosion


Like every single creationist, you are ignorant of what the theory of evolution actually is. That shows in everything you write about it.

The theory of evolution is not Darwin's work. He played a very important part, but he's not the sole author of the current theory.

If a lifeform is already well enough suited to its environmental niche, there is no evolutionary pressure on it. Evolution works by selection - no selection, no evolution.

I'd like to see your examples. I expect there have been minor changes as a result of minimal selection.

Dawkins himself believes life on Earth was seeded by aliens, because he knows abiogenesis is impossible to prove.


That makes no sense. It would just move the start point from humans to aliens. I don't believe you.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16687 Posts
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 3:26:06 AM
ReBoot: Actually there is no continuous strand in the fossil record. What is seen in the fossil record is a lot of leaves and very very few actual branches.

The current theory of evolution is based on the belief of long periods of stasis and brief periods of rapid change. Also, everything should be evolving, according to Darwin, but there are examples of creatures that haven't changed since the Cambrian explosion (which in and of itself is a great scientific mystery).

Dawkins himself believes life on Earth was seeded by aliens, because he knows abiogenesis is impossible to prove.

Chaosmaster
Male, 30-39, Western US
 234 Posts
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 12:23:13 AM
So what happens when someone comes along and says, "I believe in God and Evolution."? It just makes sense that someone who can organize an entire world, an entire universe would plan ahead knowing things will change and the creatures will have to change too. But, you know, I'm just going to get classified as one of those "stupid christians".

Otto67
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 438 Posts
Monday, January 16, 2012 10:56:23 PM
"I absolutely despise seeing the theory of evolution taught as a irrefutable fact"

There is no such thing as an 'irrefutable fact' in science, you can refute anything as long as you do the work by collecting evidence, anyalizing it, allowing for peer review, ect. Creationists want to refute evolution without doing any of the work, it is a lazy way to come to a conclusion and it is ignorantly dishonest.

EgalM
Male, 30-39, Canada
 1710 Posts
Monday, January 16, 2012 10:51:50 PM
I don't think certain topics should should be taught in grade schools, stick to the stuff they need to know to get a better education.

As for the macro vs micro, they are not the same thing, and one does not prove the other. You may say we use it lamely, but the fact is you act like nuts about it and refuse to admit that as of yet, there has been no actual proof of macro, only for micro. They have speculation and educated guesses on macro, but that's it so far.

We can't all be right, but we can all be wrong. Why is it so f'ing hard to agree to disagree? Why does someone always have to win out over another group?

Otto67
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 438 Posts
Monday, January 16, 2012 10:44:50 PM
@Stand4christ,

If there are so many holes in evolution why do all the scientists in other related fields (geology, biology, geneology, ect., ect., ect.,) agree that evolution is a reality. Don't you think there would be at least one field that would disagree with evolution if it was even half as flawed as you claim? For your opinion to be taken seriously one would have to believe a grand conspiracy throughout the science community worldwide. And even if evolution was proven false, it would still not prove creationism true without evidence to back it up. Creationism is NOT a theory, it is not even a hypothesis, it is an assertion.

Name ONE thing that was asserted by any religion that was then proven true without the use of science....you can't.


thesandwich
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 151 Posts
Monday, January 16, 2012 9:38:40 PM
Stand4Christ
"Macro-evolution" is nothing more than the micro-evolution over time. You clearly state that micro-evolution is "simply adaptingto a changing or entirely new environment".
Now this occurs when two groups of one species becomes separated due to environment conditions. Over time adaptions favor different environments that eventually the original one species can no longer reproduce, making two separate species. Look to the mule or human chromosome 2 for one of the many examples.
But I suppose that all of this falls on deaf ears as I could sit here and explain every last aspect that I have studied in great detail would be ignored by, "it's only a 'theory'" argument.
Honestly, I've talked to plenty of creationists on not a single one has been close to what the actual theory says, and you are just another one. So first get some education, and then come back and make an argument, cause it's annoying as hell to first explain it before

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12009 Posts
Monday, January 16, 2012 9:03:34 PM
To say that you believe in micro-evolution, but deny macro-evolution is as fundamentally dishonest as saying that you agree that a man can walk to Jerusalem from Belgium but can't possibly reach the moon. It sickens me.

This "Micro-Evolution" vs "Macro-Evolution" is a deliberately dishonest attempt from the fundamental Christians to claim that there's different *TYPES* of evolution. Not the case, unfortunately.

There's no distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. It's simply f*cking evolution, and it observably happens. Please understand why some of us scientists see this as a threat from the religious right. The sooner Christianity gets back on board with intelligence, the better we'll all be.

davymid
Male, 30-39, Europe
 12009 Posts
Monday, January 16, 2012 9:03:13 PM
Lying? Who's lying? I will concede that micro-evolution is provable and true. I will not concede that macro-evolution is true. One does not beget the other.

You're either being deliberatly wilfully ignorant, or you're a just being a dick. And your chosen username of "Stand4Christ" betrays you as religious fanatic (of course, your particular flavour of religious fanatic).

ReBoot
Male, 18-29, Canada
 229 Posts
Monday, January 16, 2012 8:41:04 PM
@Stand4Christ

As for DNA evidence just look at human chromosome 2

As you know humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes for a total of 46
All the other great apes have 48. Since scientists operate using the theory of evolution this means that those two missing chromosomes must be found in the human genome because an organism could not survive the total loss of two chromosomes.
If you look at human chromosome 2 you find exactly what you'd expect: a fused chromosome with telomeres where they don't belong(the middle) and two centromeres. It is in fact a fusion with ape chromosome 13
This proves that we have a common ancestor with apes >> we came from an ancestor which is not as we are today >> evolution

Page: 1 2 3 4 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.