• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Kirk Cameron has a TV show

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Well, sue me, but I find the argument for evolution equally ludicrous.

Most every force listed as a part of evolution is pure science--genetic drift (observable), natural selection (observable), etc--and I have no problem with it as no intelligent person would. But when it comes to an individual changing species, it leaves it all up to faith in a series of random mutations.....i.e. a fish being born as a different species.....may as well be a duck. Statistically impossible not to mention unscientific as mutations are not directed.

We can all agree on everything having to do with science except the origin of the world and the universe, so we're 99.99999999999% in agreement. It's just that I find the idea of a divine being creating this harmonic world and universe FAR more logical than a big bang followed by infinite impossible genetic mutations that worked to create diversity.

Feel free, however, to keep calling me names if it makes you feel more secure in your beliefs.
Click to expand...

You are so oppressed!
 
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Well, sue me, but I find the argument for evolution equally ludicrous.

Most every force listed as a part of evolution is pure science--genetic drift (observable), natural selection (observable), etc--and I have no problem with it as no intelligent person would. But when it comes to an individual changing species, it leaves it all up to faith in a series of random mutations.....i.e. a fish being born as a different species.....may as well be a duck. Statistically impossible not to mention unscientific as mutations are not directed.

We can all agree on everything having to do with science except the origin of the world and the universe, so we're 99.99999999999% in agreement. It's just that I find the idea of a divine being creating this harmonic world and universe FAR more logical than a big bang followed by infinite impossible genetic mutations that worked to create diversity.

Feel free, however, to keep calling me names if it makes you feel more secure in your beliefs.
Click to expand...

Statistically improbable does not mean impossible. The odds of winning the jackpot in the megamillions lottery is 1:175 millions, yet that happens practically every other week. Why is it so far fetched that genetic mutations may lead to an organism changing, over the course of millions of years?

Additionally, the mutations are not directed, but ones that grant some sort of survivability advantage are selected for. And how are undirected mutations unscientific?

To be honest I don't think you fully understand evolution. If you have doubts about aspects of evolution, I would encourage you to find out the answers to your doubts. Do you think no scientist has had the same questions you have? If you're secure in your beliefs, then you should have no fear of reading up on it, and at least trying to understand why so many people accept evolution. A good place to start would be http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
 
Originally posted by: DigDug
Except there's no fossil of Adam or anything else remotely as concrete to support hist statement, douchebag. Don't go to the doctor next time you are sick. Pray for healing.
Click to expand...

Don't go to a doctor next time your sick; evolve a cure. The Hippocratic oath was sworn to Greek gods. You don't want anything to do with the cult of doctors.
 
Originally posted by: flashbacck
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Well, sue me, but I find the argument for evolution equally ludicrous.

Most every force listed as a part of evolution is pure science--genetic drift (observable), natural selection (observable), etc--and I have no problem with it as no intelligent person would. But when it comes to an individual changing species, it leaves it all up to faith in a series of random mutations.....i.e. a fish being born as a different species.....may as well be a duck. Statistically impossible not to mention unscientific as mutations are not directed.

We can all agree on everything having to do with science except the origin of the world and the universe, so we're 99.99999999999% in agreement. It's just that I find the idea of a divine being creating this harmonic world and universe FAR more logical than a big bang followed by infinite impossible genetic mutations that worked to create diversity.

Feel free, however, to keep calling me names if it makes you feel more secure in your beliefs.
Click to expand...

Statistically improbable does not mean impossible. The odds of winning the jackpot in the megamillions lottery is 1:175 millions, yet that happens practically every other week. Why is it so far fetched that genetic mutations may lead to an organism changing, over the course of millions of years?

Additionally, the mutations are not directed, but ones that grant some sort of survivability advantage are selected for. And how are undirected mutations unscientific?

To be honest I don't think you fully understand evolution. If you have doubts about aspects of evolution, I would encourage you to find out the answers to your doubts. Do you think no scientist has had the same questions you have? If you're secure in your beliefs, then you should have no fear of reading up on it, and at least trying to understand why so many people accept evolution. A good place to start would be http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Click to expand...

You just repeated what I said. The link is one of the first to turn up on google, which is I guess why you turned to it.

How can you think it certain that never observed random genetic mutations that were 100% beneficial (meaning there was no down side that would cause them to be weeded out through natural selection) and inherent where the individual survived and bred and then an offspring later had another random 100% beneficial genetic mutation that built upon the first to lead to a fish becoming duck and yet the idea of a divine being snapping his fingers seems unrealistic? And not only did this happen once in hundreds of millions of years......it happened at least 1.5 MILLION times and would have ALMOST happened (i.e. we'd see thousands of generations of randomly mutanted species with no further random genetic mutations) millions more times.....not counting the likely 2 MILLION or more species we haven't uncovered yet.

Seriously, THAT seems reasonable to you? Not only reasonable, but you are 100% certain of it?
 
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Crazee
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
LOL. OMG he sounds like an evolutionist. We have a duck......and a fossil of a fish......therefore the duck decended from the fish because you can't decend from nothing.
Click to expand...

Please point out where any scientist has ducks evolving directly from fish. Please show us a link, otherwise spew your garbage elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Sure, right after you explain to DigDug that people can doubt evolution and still see the validity and power of science.
Click to expand...

Just stop talking about things that you are completely ignorant about. There is no scientific record of there being an actual human named Adam. There are plenty of fossil records demonstrating an evolutionary expansion of species. Religion |= Science. Only idiots try to combine the two.
 
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: flashbacck
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Well, sue me, but I find the argument for evolution equally ludicrous.

Most every force listed as a part of evolution is pure science--genetic drift (observable), natural selection (observable), etc--and I have no problem with it as no intelligent person would. But when it comes to an individual changing species, it leaves it all up to faith in a series of random mutations.....i.e. a fish being born as a different species.....may as well be a duck. Statistically impossible not to mention unscientific as mutations are not directed.

We can all agree on everything having to do with science except the origin of the world and the universe, so we're 99.99999999999% in agreement. It's just that I find the idea of a divine being creating this harmonic world and universe FAR more logical than a big bang followed by infinite impossible genetic mutations that worked to create diversity.

Feel free, however, to keep calling me names if it makes you feel more secure in your beliefs.
Click to expand...

Statistically improbable does not mean impossible. The odds of winning the jackpot in the megamillions lottery is 1:175 millions, yet that happens practically every other week. Why is it so far fetched that genetic mutations may lead to an organism changing, over the course of millions of years?

Additionally, the mutations are not directed, but ones that grant some sort of survivability advantage are selected for. And how are undirected mutations unscientific?

To be honest I don't think you fully understand evolution. If you have doubts about aspects of evolution, I would encourage you to find out the answers to your doubts. Do you think no scientist has had the same questions you have? If you're secure in your beliefs, then you should have no fear of reading up on it, and at least trying to understand why so many people accept evolution. A good place to start would be http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Click to expand...

You just repeated what I said. The link is one of the first to turn up on google, which is I guess why you turned to it.

How can you think it certain that never observed random genetic mutations that were 100% beneficial (meaning there was no down side that would cause them to be weeded out through natural selection) and inherent where the individual survived and bred and then an offspring later had another random 100% beneficial genetic mutation that built upon the first to lead to a fish becoming duck and yet the idea of a divine being snapping his fingers seems unrealistic? And not only did this happen once in hundreds of millions of years......it happened at least 1.5 MILLION times and would have ALMOST happened (i.e. we'd see thousands of generations of randomly mutanted species with no further random genetic mutations) millions more times.....not counting the likely 2 MILLION or more species we haven't uncovered yet.

Seriously, THAT seems reasonable to you? Not only reasonable, but you are 100% certain of it?
Click to expand...

Did you even read what he said? He was trying to explain to you that beneficial mutations are selected for and over a long time a species changes. I have no idea where you got this idea that 100% of mutations have to be beneficial and that a fish turns into a duck. Mutations are not even necessary for evolution,. Existing traits in a population can be selected for. For example, if climate changes and your forest turns to a plain, individuals who can run faster will be better off and have more children.

Do you even realize that ALL birds evolved from ONE reptile species? ALL reptile species evolved from ONE amphibian species. ALL amphibian species evolved from ONE fish species.
 
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Well, sue me, but I find the argument for evolution equally ludicrous.

Most every force listed as a part of evolution is pure science--genetic drift (observable), natural selection (observable), etc--and I have no problem with it as no intelligent person would. But when it comes to an individual changing species, it leaves it all up to faith in a series of random mutations.....i.e. a fish being born as a different species.....may as well be a duck. Statistically impossible not to mention unscientific as mutations are not directed.

We can all agree on everything having to do with science except the origin of the world and the universe, so we're 99.99999999999% in agreement. It's just that I find the idea of a divine being creating this harmonic world and universe FAR more logical than a big bang followed by infinite impossible genetic mutations that worked to create diversity.

Feel free, however, to keep calling me names if it makes you feel more secure in your beliefs.
Click to expand...

you've obviously never looked beyond the cartoon portrayal of evolution put out by creationists.
 
*sigh*

Here we go with the gross categorization of Christians because of one man who doesn't understand the big picture. Nothing more I hate, along with Atheists who think science is on their side, are Christians who think they can debate evolution without the slightest clue of what's going on. 🙁
 
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Well, sue me, but I find the argument for evolution equally ludicrous.

Most every force listed as a part of evolution is pure science--genetic drift (observable), natural selection (observable), etc--and I have no problem with it as no intelligent person would. But when it comes to an individual changing species, it leaves it all up to faith in a series of random mutations.....i.e. a fish being born as a different species.....may as well be a duck. Statistically impossible not to mention unscientific as mutations are not directed.
Click to expand...

POPULATIONS EVOLVE, individuals do not.

POPULATIONS EVOLVE, individuals do not.

It is obvious that your only objections to evolution are premised upon things you do not understand. A responsible person would work to understand the basis of evolutionary theory before deciding whether or not to accept it.

Also obvious is the fact that you are not one of those responsible people.

We can all agree on everything having to do with science except the origin of the world and the universe, so we're 99.99999999999% in agreement. It's just that I find the idea of a divine being creating this harmonic world and universe FAR more logical than a big bang followed by infinite impossible genetic mutations that worked to create diversity.
Click to expand...
I think you mean to say "reasonable," but the fact remains that it is nonsensical to claim a supernatural force is scientifically preferable to a naturalistic one. No wonder you are ridiculed -- your arguments are ridiculous.


 
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Kirk Cameron and Tom Cruise is a Texas Cage match FTW
Click to expand...

No thanks, we don't want those f@gs in Texas.
Click to expand...

This post does not appear to be in compliance with the forum guidelines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top