Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history

[Premium Parrots]

crap........and all this time I thought we came from storks.

nevermind

[Thunder_Snus]

There should be tons of intermediate fossils, though, if that slight transition is true. You can't really partially change most of the animals (lizard to bird or whatever), and have an animal with a competitive advantage over it's peers. that could be an oversimplification of it, though. However, if you go back far enough, even with evolution, you end up with an unanswerable question: where did the original stuff come from? So, despite all the so-called "evidence," even evolutionists have to rely on faith.

LOL wut? There are several fossils during transition times. The problem with non scientists identifying these though is that say a changed offspring of a fish between when a new species was formed would be called an early version of that animal. And where did everything come from may be an "unanswerable question" but that doesnt give any nod to a god or superior being. And i love how all you silly creationists put the word "evidence" in quotes as if its something that you can disprove, and by disprove i mean actually showing me something that disproves evolution rather than a pretty picture saying 'atheists think this just happened' or a quote from the bible. On one side we have years of research, testing, retesting, re theorizing and many other studies. On the other side we have........a book that says thats not true yet people believe it because of fear of punishment from a nonexistant being.

Resnor I'm really not trying to start an arguement with you but if i said i was the son of god would you believe me? If you walked in on me porking your wife and i said god told me to do it so its cool would you be ok and accepting? If i was a woman and had your child and killed it because I claimed god told me to would you accept my actions? People are willing to believe things because thats how they were brought up but eventually you have to sit and say..wait a minute this doesnt make sense. God has about as much evidence supporting him as santa clause. Enough to keep you going til you're about 5-8 and then sudden realization that thats not possible at all. People keep god in their life because of the threat of eternal suffering while not believing in santa gets you coal in you stocking.

I'm going to make my own religion and my bible will say it is offensive to say anything is offensive to your religion. So all the gay bashers and everything else that has to be a problem in this world because of religion will be set to rest when i protest across from the other ones with my idiotic signs and messages about why someone should be treated one way because a book with no evidence says so.

[KCOLLINS18]

One word: Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard was a f'in genius!!

[devilock76]

crap........and all this time I thought we came from storks.

nevermind

All this time I figured if anyone could end this debate it would be you. I mean as it says in the Bible... God said let there be light... and you hit the switch...

Ken

[sgreger1]

There should be tons of intermediate fossils, though, if that slight transition is true. You can't really partially change most of the animals (lizard to bird or whatever), and have an animal with a competitive advantage over it's peers. that could be an oversimplification of it, though. However, if you go back far enough, even with evolution, you end up with an unanswerable question: where did the original stuff come from? So, despite all the so-called "evidence," even evolutionists have to rely on faith.

All fossils are intermediate fossils actually. Here is a simple way of looking at evolution: The change isn't super suden, it's a gradual change over time. There is no one point where a species stops being x and becomes y, it is a very slow transition and in fact all species and fossils are "intermediate fossils" since everything is constantly changing from one form to another based on selection. It's like blending these two colors below, can you tell me the point where it stops being red and is begins turning blue? Red is species 1, blue is species 2. As you notice, there is no hard point wherethey transition, it slowly blends colors each iteration until eventually it is seen as another species relative to it's distant ancestors, or a different color relative to the beginning of the paragraph.

[truthwolf1]

I like the perspective of this article but still am entertained by the Alien DNA manipulation theory also.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/elle...b_1475385.html

The problem with the Darwinian vs Creationist altercation is because it's so polarised. Atheists feel obliged to cling onto the Darwinian model because until now the only answer was a religious, faith-based one which they negate. Trouble is, in our logical, left-brain thinking society we view religious and ancient texts as literal rather than metaphorically encoded, hence their denunciation. For the sake of its remembrance, truth was often encrypted in fables, myths and legends. The highly-charged, energised space between things Haramein speaks of is what the ancients - and religious - call

spirit

.

[sgreger1]

I like the perspective of this article but still am entertained by the Alien DNA manipulation theory also.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/elle...b_1475385.html

The problem with the Darwinian vs Creationist altercation is because it's so polarised. Atheists feel obliged to cling onto the Darwinian model because until now the only answer was a religious, faith-based one which they negate. Trouble is, in our logical, left-brain thinking society we view religious and ancient texts as literal rather than metaphorically encoded, hence their denunciation. For the sake of its remembrance, truth was often encrypted in fables, myths and legends. The highly-charged, energised space between things Haramein speaks of is what the ancients - and religious - call

spirit

.

And yet it doesn't really matter what hidden messages or secret meaning they encoded into any documents back then, because they still could only write about things of which they knew. Nowhere in the bible or in the dead sea scrolls, nor anywhere scribbled onto the walls of the Giza pyramid will you find information on how to build computers, on how quantum theory works, on evolution, or any number of other modern subjects.

That is because, as should be plainly obvious, they could only write about things which they knew (or philosophized about) at the time. The internet, cancer, carbon nanotubes, warp drives etc were all outside of their realm of understanding, so instead they spoke about things which they felt they knew about.

The only exception is that the Indian texts (the Vida's I believe) that date back thousands of years do make detailed explanations of flying machines (aka. Vimana's), which quite amazingly resemble our modern day "saucer" ufo's that are seen in contemporary times. They also describe accurately a nuclear bomb going off in one of their cities, it reads like a depiction of hiroshima, down to the water boiling, the shadows being burned to the ground, the land becoming uninhabitable, burns all over the bodies of the victims etc. And I don't mean that briefly made a passing mention about flying machines, I mean they have detailed diagrams and went so far as to include safety manuals, flight plans, instructions for take-off and landing etc into these ancient texts (even articles on how to navigate around large flocks of birds so as not to mess up the engines etc). Either this was the first case of star trek fan fiction from several thousand years ago, or I am impressed.

Asside from that, we don't see ancients writing about anything they didn't know about, and that should come at no surprise to anyone, since they don't have some divine insight into the future or into anything outside of their readily observable and immediate surroundings.

Humans are tribal and have always grown up in small villages for the most part. The elderly were seen as wise, and functioned in a very important role in society: disseminating information they had learned from their long years down to the younger generation. In this fashion, information made it's way through the ages and this whole process of relying on elders for necessary information is engrained into us deeply. This is the reason why we place more emphasis on a 1,000 year old religious text than we do on modern science articles, because it was written by elders from long ago and we therefore assume they know something we do not. In the context of science, this is not a good way to go about getting information, since we've learned a lot since then. It would be better to listen to our current elders than those from 5k years ago.

If people spent half as much time reading the latest books from Stephen Hawkins, Brian Greene, and other scientists as they do the bible, they would have a much better understanding of this beautifull universe we have found ourselves dwelling it than one could ascertain by reading the bible or old sanskrit writings.

[texastorm]

I do not believe the creation vs evolution argument can ever be "won" one way or the other.

I grew up in a household were it was common knowledge that God created the earth 10,000 years or so ago, and all else was put here as a distraction to lead the unworthy away from the pearly gates. That is over simplified but the point of the argument is valid.

However my brain cannot accept that. I believe the universe is continually reincarnating itself. No I do not believe I was an Egyptian ruler, but parts of me certainly were a head of cabbage, and maybe even a cockroach or two, and after I die, I am sure parts of me will become parts of a fly somewhere, maybe even some dirt. But one day my consciousness will simply be nothing. (Also oversimplified)

I believe that the fear of our own "consciousness" ceasing to exist, or if not that, of our loved ones consciousness ceasing to exist is the driving force behind religion. We do not want to lose consciousness when we die, or think of our loved ones as "gone". So over time we have created many different ways to address that to quell fear and also to provide fear when needed to control the masses.


So if you fear yourself or your loved ones dying you will probably lean toward organized religion, where the lack of all evidence (the bible excluded as evidence unless you can prove God wrote it personally) can help you with your fear of death. I notice that the older people get the more likely they go to church in some fashion, and my personal theory is that as death looms ever nearer we desire more time, and religion promises us that extra time. Of course you have to die to get it, but that's a small price don't you think?. But if like me you believe death is like a light switch you will likely end up not fully believing in a conscious entity pulling the strings of life. Alien meddling excluded of course! Although we have as much evidence of aliens as we do of any form of a god, we cling to god, because with god we are promised that we will never fully die, and our relatives are comforted knowing we only went away and did not simply cease to exist. Ceasing to exist is fine with me because most of my relatives aren't worth hanging out with for eternity. So with that mindset I simply cannot theorize there is an all knowing God. But I dont mind that it comforts people to believe in an imaginary friend.

Ah crap I am going to hell for saying this huh?

[sgreger1]

I do not believe the creation vs evolution argument can ever be "won" one way or the other.

I grew up in a household were it was common knowledge that God created the earth 10,000 years or so ago, and all else was put here as a distraction to lead the unworthy away from the pearly gates. That is over simplified but the point of the argument is valid.

However my brain cannot accept that. I believe the universe is continually reincarnating itself. No I do not believe I was an Egyptian ruler, but parts of me certainly were a head of cabbage, and maybe even a cockroach or two, and after I die, I am sure parts of me will become parts of a fly somewhere, maybe even some dirt. But one day my consciousness will simply be nothing. (Also oversimplified)

I believe that the fear of our own "consciousness" ceasing to exist, or if not that, of our loved ones consciousness ceasing to exist is the driving force behind religion. We do not want to lose consciousness when we die, or think of our loved ones as "gone". So over time we have created many different ways to address that to quell fear and also to provide fear when needed to control the masses.


So if you fear yourself or your loved ones dying you will probably lean toward organized religion, where the lack of all evidence (the bible excluded as evidence unless you can prove God wrote it personally) can help you with your fear of death. I notice that the older people get the more likely they go to church in some fashion, and my personal theory is that as death looms ever nearer we desire more time, and religion promises us that extra time. Of course you have to die to get it, but that's a small price don't you think?. But if like me you believe death is like a light switch you will likely end up not fully believing in a conscious entity pulling the strings of life. Alien meddling excluded of course! Although we have as much evidence of aliens as we do of any form of a god, we cling to god, because with god we are promised that we will never fully die, and our relatives are comforted knowing we only went away and did not simply cease to exist. Ceasing to exist is fine with me because most of my relatives aren't worth hanging out with for eternity. So with that mindset I simply cannot theorize there is an all knowing God. But I dont mind that it comforts people to believe in an imaginary friend.

Ah crap I am going to hell for saying this huh?

Nailed it right on the head Tex. Religion appears to me to be a coping mechanism, to make sense of the chaos that has surrounded human life since day 1. I don't mind if people believe what they want either, as long as they keep it to themselves (not as in they shouldn't discuss or voice their opinions, I mean they shouldn't lobby the government to enforce their particular idea).

[Roo]

Excellent post texastorm. I was waiting for a post like yours to come along. It's purely pointless to call one another silly for their beliefs on something as pervasive, as encompassing, as religion. As a full-blown athiest, I really appreciate your sentiment. People of one persuasion or another can't be dismissed. Our persuasion is our birthright. Don't **** with it. Question it? You better. But never fault a man for his persuasion. This is something I am slowly, but surely, learning. Like Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction, I'm tryin', Ringo, tryin' real hard.

[Thunder_Snus]

Excellent post texastorm. I was waiting for a post like yours to come along. It's purely pointless to call one another silly for their beliefs on something as pervasive, as encompassing, as religion. As a full-blown athiest, I really appreciate your sentiment. People of one persuasion or another can't be dismissed. Our persuasion is our birthright. Don't **** with it. Question it? You better. But never fault a man for his persuasion. This is something I am slowly, but surely, learning. Like Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction, I'm tryin', Ringo, tryin' real hard.

I have had it with these motha ****in creationists in this motha ****in thread

[CoderGuy]

I have had it with these motha ****in creationists in this motha ****in thread

Snakes on a plane reference... nice

[Thunder_Snus]

Snakes on a plane reference... nice

I try my best