Evolution happening before our very eyes? Awesome.

[Gibsons]

Actually, the correct quote is, "The greatest lie the devil ever told was convincing the world he doesn't exist."

Call it Jeff7's derivative of Verbal Kint's postulate.


Anyway...
As some comedian once said, I'd really like to hear Satan's version of events. Maybe he was just a teenage angel and dad didn't understand him and had all these stupid rules, so he just booked out, got his own place. It's a little small and messy compared to dad's but he can just hang out and be himself, y'know?

 

[Nik]

Actually, the correct quote is, "The greatest lie the devil ever told was convincing the world he doesn't exist."

"POOF. God disappeared in a puff of logic."

 

[Jeff7]

Actually, the correct quote is, "The greatest lie the devil ever told was convincing the world he doesn't exist."

I know, but I like mine better. It's more philosophically troubling, and the consequences would potentially be of a much greater magnitude.

Not only would the devil try to convince people he didn't exist, but he'd also be responsible for the fabrication of an entire false awe religion.

The Heaven is a lie.
Devil says: This was a triumph.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

This is precisely why nobody believes you are genuine. The information is there if you want it. The fact that you do not go to gather the information tells us that you are not interested in the truth. Why should any of us re-invent the wheel? You know where your answers are. If you want them, go get them.

But you don't get them, so you obviously don't want them.

This is precisely why anyone can confidently state that evolution-deniers are wantonly ignorant, and moreover precisely why everyone has such a low opinion of your type of religionist.

You think you know where the answers are.

Summarize your argument in bullet points and I'll repsond. If you understand your position you should be able to succinctly explain it.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

He is definitely a bible thumper. It is nearly all he has done since opening this account.

Accusations were made about being upset and insulting . Yet, the worst insult hurled in this thread, was the Nazi card, and who played that one?

When you start referring to groups of individuals as "those people" you are showing your true colors. I suspect that Nazis said that about the Jews, the Christians, the handicaped, and anyone else that they deemed undesireable.

 

[zinfamous]

When you start referring to groups of individuals as "those people" you are showing your true colors. I suspect that Nazis said that about the Jews, the Christians, the handicaped, and anyone else that they deemed undesireable.

...as did the Pharasees, the Christians, the mullahs, etc etc.

Besides your arguments being cliche'd and hackneyed, that they are always open to interpretation from either angle.

This happens because you have tunnel vision. You have not walked an inch in the shoes of someone with a different belief system, different core values, a different philosophy.

Your faith has blinded you and crippled your ability to make rational arguments.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

...as did the Pharasees, the Christians, the mullahs, etc etc.

Besides your arguments being cliche'd and hackneyed, that they are always open to interpretation from either angle.

This happens because you have tunnel vision. You have not walked an inch in the shoes of someone with a different belief system, different core values, a different philosophy.

Your faith has blinded you and crippled your ability to make rational arguments.

So you think it's okay to refer to groups of individuals as "those people"?

 

[zinfamous]

So you think it's okay to refer to groups of individuals as "those people"?

/facepalm

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

/facepalm

I asked if you think it's okay to refer to groups of indiviudals with the pejorative term "those people".

Is the "facepalm" a yes or a no?

 

[Jeff7]

so you think it's okay to refer to groups of individuals as "those people"?

??? ?????? ?? ???? "????" ????? ????????? ??? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????


Too much Jeopardy as a child?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

??? ?????? ?? ???? "????" ????? ????????? ??? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????

Too much Jeopardy as a child?

What's so difficult about the question? It requires a simple yes or no.

 

[zinfamous]

I asked if you think it's okay to refer to groups of indiviudals with the pejorative term "those people".

Is the "facepalm" a yes or a no?

/facepalm

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

I'll ask it again just to refresh your memory, do you think it's okay to refer to groups of indiviudals with the pejorative term "those people".

Your friend Nik appearently thinks it's okay since he used the term.

How about you?

 

[zinfamous]

I'll ask it again just to refresh your memory, do you think it's okay to refer to groups of indiviudals with the pejorative term "those people".

Your friend Nik appearently thinks it's okay since he used the term.

How about you?

/facepalm

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

/facepalm

I'l just have to infer the answer I guess.

 

[FeuerFrei]

here we go, ill quote one:


rough cliffs
the same genetic material is found in several organisms... implies common ancestor

Does it? Maybe it implies a common designer. An open-minded, objective person would concede that possibility. Especially programmers who know all about code reuse.

See how it all depends on the starting assumptions of the scientist.

It's way more rational to note intricate design and assume a designer than it is to assume design spontaneously arose out of chaos.

 

[zinfamous]

Does it? Maybe it implies a common designer. An open-minded, objective person would concede that possibility. Especially programmers who know all about code reuse.

See how it all depends on the starting assumptions of the scientist.

It's way more rational to note intricate design and assume a designer than it is to assume design spontaneously arose out of chaos.

that is not the basis of the assumption. the basis of the assumption lies in the inter-relatedness of all species--an essential fragment of the theory that existed long before modern genetics. The homology that see among species now simply confirms that.

sure, you can see that such things are related, and then say that a clever designer simply saved time by building off of other similar structures. that doesn't, however address the issue of all of the mess that is out there.

failed species, uncoded DNA that remains, tons and tons of ...."mess."
an efficient, omnipotent designer, rationally speaking, would not have bothered will off this mess, no?


for some reason, creationists approach the volumes of evidence that show homology and interrelatedness, and attack the notion that this is the basis for arguing that species evolved from common ancestors. Again, that part of the theory existed long before we even knew the structure of DNA, let alone how to isolate and read it. The rather fundamental genetic evidence for evolution is a new piece of that puzzle.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Does it? Maybe it implies a common designer. An open-minded, objective person would concede that possibility. Especially programmers who know all about code reuse.

See how it all depends on the starting assumptions of the scientist.

It's way more rational to note intricate design and assume a designer than it is to assume design spontaneously arose out of chaos.

What is this I don't even

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You think you know where the answers are.

What kind of silly nonsense is this? I know where the answers are and you do too.

Summarize your argument in bullet points and I'll repsond.

Go fuck yourself. I'm not here to do your work for you. The answers are there; you have them if you want them. If you do not have them, it can only be because you do not want them.

If you understand your position you should be able to succinctly explain it.

I can, but I don't need to when there are already other places where it is spelled out with greater detail and thoroughness. Why don't you go read it and then come back and ask questions about particular points you don't understand?

 

[Jeff7]

Does it? Maybe it implies a common designer. An open-minded, objective person would concede that possibility. Especially programmers who know all about code reuse.

See how it all depends on the starting assumptions of the scientist.

It's way more rational to note intricate design and assume a designer than it is to assume design spontaneously arose out of chaos.

And of course we're back to the issue of saying that it's "more rational" to assume that this even more intricate designer spontaneously arose out of chaos - or else grant it the get-out-of-jail-free card of "Well this designer doesn't need an origin."

 

[DanDaManJC]

Does it? Maybe it implies a common designer. An open-minded, objective person would concede that possibility. Especially programmers who know all about code reuse.

See how it all depends on the starting assumptions of the scientist.

oyeah I totally agree. This one piece of evidence alone doesn't at all justify the entire theory of evolution... just as with my previous example about the fossils. So ok -- you don't see prehistoric bunnies and modern bunny fossils together. Obviously there are countless other possible explanations for this phenomenon.

just as zinfamous stated though, it's when you take everything else into account that the idea of intelligent design makes less sense than the idea of evolution. in the end you're free to evaluate the evidence as you see fit, but I feel like most creationists don't have any grasp at how truly objective and impartial to worldview the basis for evolution is.

my point isnt to berate you... and itd be silly of me to say that personal worldview holds no bearing on interpretation of results, but that does nothing at all for all the independent facts that seem to point to evolution over intelligent design. As noted in that talk origins link, there are plenty of independent evidences for evolution. Taken independently -- you're right, it's open to interpretation. But when you take them all into consideration, you have to choose the theory that best fits. At this point you may be thinking... "yeah that's right, so you have atheists choosing one way and theologians choosing another" -- but the difference here is that the theory should also be testable and falsifiable. And that's where evolution ends up coming out on top in many areas.

It's way more rational to note intricate design and assume a designer than it is to assume design spontaneously arose out of chaos.

well when we look at the world on a microscopic level nothing's rational. stuff pops in and out of existence all the time. point being, i wouldnt toss out evolution on that one point alone since quantum mechanics has definitely proven this worlds a lot stranger than we originally thought.

 

[Gibsons]

Does it? Maybe it implies a common designer. An open-minded, objective person would concede that possibility. Especially programmers who know all about code reuse.

It's way beyond code reuse. Even the comments or remarks are the same, the oddball variable names can be traced from one species to the next. Your designer can't be disproved, but assuming it exists, it wanted us to think common descent was correct. Or maybe he was just fucking with us.

See how it all depends on the starting assumptions of the scientist.

What happens if you start with no assumptions? Working only from the genetic code, and not multiplying entities unnecessarily?

It's way more rational to note intricate design and assume a designer than it is to assume design spontaneously arose out of chaos.

You're just replacing a variable with a variable. Where did this designer come from? If it exists, it's certainly more complex than anything we see now, right? So according to your logic, something must have designed it. And therefore something must have designed the something that designed the designer. I guess it's turtles all the way down?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Does it? Maybe it implies a common designer. An open-minded, objective person would concede that possibility. Especially programmers who know all about code reuse.

Lots of things are possible which could explain the observable data. The problem is that a common designer wouldn't have necessarily designed things similarly. A designer also could have designed things dissimilarly.

However, if evolution were true, similarities like we observe must necessarily occur.

That's what all you ID morons don't understand about science. "Intelligent design" is unfalsifiable. It is consistent with literally any observable data. Evolution is only consistent with very specific data, and guess what data we observe?

See how it all depends on the starting assumptions of the scientist.

No, it really only depends on if your IQ is greater than your shoe size or not.

My condolences for your condition.

It's way more rational to note intricate design and assume a designer than it is to assume design spontaneously arose out of chaos.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

What kind of silly nonsense is this? I know where the answers are and you do too.


Go fuck yourself. I'm not here to do your work for you. The answers are there; you have them if you want them. If you do not have them, it can only be because you do not want them.



I can, but I don't need to when there are already other places where it is spelled out with greater detail and thoroughness. Why don't you go read it and then come back and ask questions about particular points you don't understand?

Prove it.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

that is not the basis of the assumption. the basis of the assumption lies in the inter-relatedness of all species--an essential fragment of the theory that existed long before modern genetics. The homology that see among species now simply confirms that.

sure, you can see that such things are related, and then say that a clever designer simply saved time by building off of other similar structures. that doesn't, however address the issue of all of the mess that is out there.

failed species, uncoded DNA that remains, tons and tons of ...."mess."
an efficient, omnipotent designer, rationally speaking, would not have bothered will off this mess, no?


for some reason, creationists approach the volumes of evidence that show homology and interrelatedness, and attack the notion that this is the basis for arguing that species evolved from common ancestors. Again, that part of the theory existed long before we even knew the structure of DNA, let alone how to isolate and read it. The rather fundamental genetic evidence for evolution is a new piece of that puzzle.

How does homology proves that all living creatures developed from a common ancestor? I view "homologous" structures as proof that that they were designed by the same creator.