And it's even funnier when you hear "Ms." Garrison say it out loud. :P
I found it on youtube (was easy). It is even funnier. Time to email it to everyone I know
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Originally posted by albinofreak The problem with people who dont believe in evolution really comes from the fact that they dont really understand it. I think the South Park episode where Ms Garrison teaches evolution sums it up pretty well: Ms. Garrison: All right, kids, it is now my job to teach you the theory of evolution.
Ms. Garrison: Now I, for one, think evolution is a bunch of *bullcrap*! But I've been told I have to teach it to you anyway. It was thought up by Charles Darwin and it goes something like this...
[she goes up to a large poster of evolution and begins pointing things out with her pointer]
Ms. Garrison: In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its...
[she waves her left hand limply]
Ms. Garrison: ...mutant fish hands... and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this.
[she points to a prehistoric mammal rodent]
Ms. Garrison: Retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a... monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you!
[she faces the class, with the new girl among them looking around]
Ms. Garrison: So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!
Cartman: [impatient for a Nintendo Wii, hops out of his chair and leaves the room, shouting] Haahhh! I can't take it anymore! Haaaaah!
Ms. Garrison: [thinking Cartman understands evolution] Yeah? You see? I *knew* that would happen.
ROFLMAO!!!!!! Gawd, I haven't laughed so hard in awhile. I hope this is on Youtube or something.
I don't believe in evolution, but I think creationism is absolutely wrong.
They can never answer this question: What created god? If there is a god, then he must consist of particles (or waves) like anything else in the universe, or else he wouldn't be able to influence anything.
I don't believe in evolution 100%, because it suggests one algorithm instead of providing a rigorous proof that isn't solely based on empirical observations.
I don't understand why people care about this subject at all, since that we don't even have a handle yet on what the universe really is: It's like trying to understand a computer without understanding electricity and magnetism.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
I don't believe in evolution, but I think creationism is absolutely wrong. They can never answer this question: What created god? If there is a god, then he must consist of particles (or waves) like anything else in the universe, or else he wouldn't be able to influence anything.
Actually they do have an answer (whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant for my post) for that and i'll tell you.
God is outside of time. God created time.
As far as what God is made up of is extremely subjective. One person's God may be entirely different from another so which God do we try to figure out it's material?
Who says God needs to influence anything within his own creation? Did his creation get some kinks in it or something?
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Actually they do have an answer (whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant for my post) for that and i'll tell you.
God is outside of time. God created time.
As far as what God is made up of is extremely subjective. One person's God may be entirely different from another so which God do we try to figure out it's material?
Who says God needs to influence anything within his own creation? Did his creation get some kinks in it or something?
You're missing the entire point of creationism there: God DID have to influence his creation, since the basis of their argument is that god must have influenced life due to it's complexity; evolution could not explain how something so complex could be formed out of organic soup.
Creationism doesn't explain god at all, but merely states that there must have been a god.
So they're saying that god created time? What created god? Did god create god? Is it mere coincidence that in axiomatic set theory that there DOES NOT exist a set that contains itself? Hmmmm Oh.. that's right: God is outside of logic too. Silly me.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
The alternative to God existing is that all that exists around us came about by natural cause and random chance. If someone is rolling dice, the odds of rolling a pair of sixes is one thing. But the odds of spots appearing on blank dice is something else. What Pasteur attempted to prove centuries ago, science confirms, that life cannot arise from non-life. Where did human, animal, plant life come from?
Also, natural causes are an inadequate explanation for the amount of precise information contained in human DNA. A person who discounts God is left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause, without design, and is merely good fortune. It is intellectually wanting to observe intricate design and attribute it to luck.
Actually they do have an answer (whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant for my post) for that and i'll tell you.
God is outside of time. God created time.
As far as what God is made up of is extremely subjective. One person's God may be entirely different from another so which God do we try to figure out it's material?
Who says God needs to influence anything within his own creation? Did his creation get some kinks in it or something?
You're missing the entire point of creationism there: God DID have to influence his creation, since the basis of their argument is that god must have influenced life due to it's complexity; evolution could not explain how something so complex could be formed out of organic soup.
Creationism doesn't explain god at all, but merely states that there must have been a god.
So they're saying that god created time? What created god? Did god create god? Is it mere coincidence that in axiomatic set theory that there DOES NOT exist a set that contains itself? Hmmmm Oh.. that's right: God is outside of logic too. Silly me.
Infinite must exist in one circumstance or another. Religious folk just put their infinite in God.
Infinite is truly outside of logic, but all logic is, is what our limited minds have comprised as making sense, hardly a basis for universal wisdom.
I find evolution to be great folly for the fact being that those who believe in it take it as substantial scientific fact that should be obvious as truth to the world, when it is in fact based upon insubstantial evidence and far reaches of logic, such as that if micro-evolution is in fact real as proven by observation in our modern world, then with enough time, surely macro-evolution would be as well!
I'm not going out and claiming that I can scientifically prove that there is a God, I just got my faith, and that's enough for me.
I wish people would do the same courtesy with their beliefs.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
Infinite must exist in one circumstance or another. Religious folk just put their infinite in God.
Infinite is truly outside of logic, but all logic is, is what our limited minds have comprised as making sense, hardly a basis for universal wisdom.
No, infinity is not outside of logic. There is an axiom in set theory necessitating the existence of an infinite set, so the existence of infinite sets is not illogical, because set theory is consistent and one can derive the natural numbers from it.
As for the existence of infinity in the universe: Nobody knows. Nobody even knows what the real structure of space and time is yet.. (continuous, discrete, both, neither, etc.)
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Creationism is just a buzz word thats become popular and the circus media has been throwing it around to get the sheeples attention. Other buzz words are acid rain, global warming, bird flu, etc....In my opinion is mainly a distraction. Its like American Idol, its just there to get sheeple attention away from real life.
Its main objective is to discredit evolution with the use of bible scripture to match up verses with a scientific idea. Anything that needs to be proven is answered with "God did it" or "It was magic" or "just because."
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
Originally posted by //\//\oo You're missing the entire point of creationism there: God DID have to influence his creation, since the basis of their argument is that god must have influenced life due to it's complexity; evolution could not explain how something so complex could be formed out of organic soup.
Creationism doesn't explain god at all, but merely states that there must have been a god.
I think that is more of an Intelligent Design argument. I think Creationism explains how God built the earth, they often point you to Genesis, so in a sense they are explaining God. So they're saying that god created time? What created god? Did god create god? Is it mere coincidence that in axiomatic set theory that there DOES NOT exist a set that contains itself? Hmmmm Oh.. that's right: God is outside of logic too. Silly me.
God created logic, silly. God also created sarcasm.
I'll let the creationists answer your questions.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
I think that is more of an Intelligent Design argument. I think Creationism explains how God built the earth, they often point you to Genesis, so in a sense they are explaining God.
God created logic, silly. God also created sarcasm.
I'll let the creationists answer your questions.
Ah.. my bad.. I forgot. That was the intelligent design argument, which was the formalized version of the creationist argument.
Genesis just deals with how god created the earth (or the world). God is never really explained or justified, which is probably why the bible works so well, eh?
Maybe there really is something beyond god, since god only created the earth: Supergod is the real one pulling the strings!
I'm sure that Supergod told god to make intelligent life on earth and god just made something cooler instead (dinosaurs), which is why Supergod got pissed and hurled a few asteroids at earth.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
I think ilean more towards intelegent design myself. Evolution was started By God to create varied life on earth and it took more than 7 days BTW. Unlike some i dont blindly belive in a Storybook.
I really don't care if evolution becomes a fact or law or if it remains a theory or slinks back to the primordial goo from whence it has come. The question I ask myself is not a matter of, "Evolution or creationism?" It is more a matter of, "How did God do it?" Did he do it by evolution or did he do it by building a human-shaped sand castle and breathing into it? That's what interests me. Were the days in Genesis 24-hour days or simply periods of time used to designate groups or series of events? What was the light in the beginning? Was it the light of the Spirit of God or was it some form of natural light? Is the light from the Spirit of God natural light? So if evolution turns out to be true, then great. If it turns out to be a fairy-tale, then great. Who cares. Time to move on to more controversial questions like trying to prove that Jesus was not a historical figure, that he did not rise from the dead, that there was no triumphant exodus of Hebrew slaves from Egypt, etc.
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather "Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain
Avian bones: Avian bones and late whateverage dinosaur bones are similar in the sense that they have pneumatic cavities. They can make themselves lighter by allowing air inside. The "hollow" bits in most other animals are filled with bone marrow, red or yellow.
Crocodile: Everyone agrees the crocodile is a highly succesful species. What happens to highly succesful species? They thrive. Why could the crocodile thrive even through a theoretical catastrophe that may have wiped a lot of other reptiles? I'll tell you a few great features the croc's got:
1. Able to conserve energy extremely well in a hibernatory fashion.
2. Able to survive under water for prolonged periods of time. The 3-chambered heart that has been brough up is just an example of why the crocodile is a succesful species.
3. Their diet consists of any meat they can get their mouths on. From fish to birds to mammals to reptiles. Also they do not have a need to actively hunt due to their ability to conserve energy.
The crocodile does have other species in it's family(caimans/alligators, and some asian alternatives as well), and in a variety of different members in it's genus. Crocodiles used to be significantly bigger, according to fossil records. But a huge crocodile needs a larger amount of food, thus they may not have been able to survive at a time where food was scarce.
The platypus: You can take it as an example of a transitionary animal, with defining features from two different phylum. On the other hand you could treat it as an example of uniqueness and wonders of a creator.
Similarities between fauna: There are similarities with all fauna, and the similarities aren't just macro, either. This could be a theme choice from the creator. Or it could be the fact that there are traceable steps and deductions to be made about similarities between more and more simple organisms(a.k.a. taxonomy). It's of course easy to say taxonomy is just what the creator used to make animals easy to categorize. And it made them all similar so that they could all live symbiotically with each other, consuming and giving nutrients to each other. You can say anything is the work of a creator, and there is no way to disprove you since there is no creator to study. Simply saying that doesn't mean there is no creator, but it does mean that, to make it part of the field of study, there would have to be some evidence from any empirical field. The only creator that you can study, is a creator defined by man. It's artificial evidence, in a field of natural science.
I see this being brought up still, so I guess I'll adress it again:
Evolution is fact. The term scientific theory means that it has gone through the entire process of being proven. The only "theory" as a layman would call it, would be Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Was Darwin right about his form of evolution? Probably, but its still up for discussion, much like Einstein's theory of relativity. Gravity and heliocentrism are still considered "theories", but I'll bet you not one creationist would deny either of those.
_____________________________________ "Io rido, e rider mio non passa dentro; Io ardo, e l'arsion mia non par di fore." -Machiavelli
The problem is, Short-term evolution (which I will henceforth refer to as micro evolution) is a misnomer...micro-evolution refers to speciation and adaptation, something that creationists do not contest. We KNOW that these things exist in nature...Darwin's finches were an example of such "micro evolution" The mutations that result in micro evolution do not add new information to the DNA of an organism, it simply gets switched around. Latent strands of DNA become active, active strands become latent, etc. But something like a reptile growing feathers, does not happen because a reptile does not have the information in its DNA to grow feathers. A reptile can adapt to its environment according to the information in its DNA, it cannot add information into its DNA to "evolve" Does not "add new information to the DNA of an organism, it simply gets switched around"? And what if it switches a trillion times? Then you'll have the SAME DNA you started with, it'll just be switched around. If you switch around a large multitude of numbers so much, you'll eventually get something that's so completely different that it won't look anything like the same number. Just look at the number 123... If you switch it around to say 321, you've drastically changed the value of the number. No...you're wrong. I've already explained why you are wrong, and I'm not going to do it again. For someone who gets on a high horse and tells others that they need to learn more about a subject, your knowledge of it is pretty basic. Do you know how amino acids work when deciphering all those G's, T's, C's, and A's? If it gets switched around, you'll get completely different codons resulting in radically different amino acids that together can make a shaggy dog give birth to a hairless pup--or if it was done a trillian times, you could eventually get amino acids that could give a dog a scale-type of coating. Do dogs have the DNA coding for scales? No, of course not. But small changes can happen on such a large scale that it eventually gets to that point. Think of a graph that's exponentially increasing at .000000000001. Obviously, it's not going to change much when living at a short point in time, but if you can look at the entire enormous graph, you'll see drastic change--something as drastic as maybe birds coming from dinosaurs. Look bud...if you can find a dog that has a mutation that has allowed it to grow scales, you'll be a rich man...but since it has never happened, and will never happen, you get to be poor for the rest of your life like the rest of us
First off, it was just hypothetical. Secondly, you can't say it never happened... nothing has been proven otherwise, and I'm sure a dog with scales would have been very poorly adept at surviving, therefore the handful of them that have existed died out.
If man has never observed it, and man claims that science is based on observable or even empirical evidence, I can say that it has never happened. Why? Because there aren't enough supposed "transition fossils" to prove anything, and because there has never been an instance of information being added via mutation.
The problem with a reptile being incapable of growing feathers is slightly unfair. Much like your belief of creation happening all at once, you think that evolutionists think that changes happened all at once. No, a reptile cannot grow feathers, but small changes, such as a reptile slowly starting to gain small hair-like things on their scales, helping them keep warmer in an ice age, could get more and more hair-like folicles, eventually becoming today's feathers on birds. Larger dinosaurs also became smaller birds because, during these ice ages, the larger dinosaurs died out, because it takes a lot more to heat a large dinosaur than a small little bird. No, I don't think that the changes happened all at once...I don't think that they happened at all...it's you that believes that the changes occured at all..and until you can find some piece of real evidence that such a change CAN occur, other than fossils of extinct species' of birds..I'm not buying it. Like I said before, you go out and find a case in which information is added to DNA, and every female evolution scientists will want to sleep with you and give you money. Good luck finding it. I didn't say you think the changes happened all at once, but you act like we're trying to say that they did. Obviously a reptile can't just one day grow feathers... it happens over thousands of millions of years. No, stop putting words in my mouth...I didn't say that they did. I said that according to the transition fossils that are put forth (mostly just archaeopteryx in that website you linked, archaeopteryx was literally the ONLY fossil that they showed, and I happen to believe that arch is just an extinct species of bird) that it MUST have happened all at once because the transition fossils simply aren't there. Some piece of real evidence that such a change can occur? We've found plenty of fragments of evidence and fossils that support it. Find a case in which information is added to DNA? It's called a frameshift mutation, or an insertion. I guess you should call those female "evolution scientists" for me, tell them I'll be waiting. No...you really havn't found plenty of fragments of evidence and fossils to support it. You don't seem to understand that even evolutionists know that there is this problem with their beliefs, and they are not able to solve it. I really doubt that some random person on the internet knows better than them, and has it all figured out.
Evolution contends that many of these micro evolution mutations over long periods of time cause what is called macro evolution. The problem with this belief is that no matter how many micro evolution mutations occur, no new information is ever added to the DNA. THIS is where creationists and evolutionists don't see eye to eye. Think of it this way, no matter how many times you multiply 0, it's still going to be 0. A reptile can have a billion mutations, none of them will cause it to grow feathers because none of those mutations can add information to its DNA. Once again, I think you should do some more research on how DNA replication works. It would prove what you're saying about DNA just simply isn't happening.
Once again, I am aware of how DNA works, and I am aware that no matter how many mutations an organism undergoes, it never EVER EVER EVER EVER adds information to the animal's DNA...like I said, I don't care if you have one mutation or trillions, if none of them add information to the DNA, then evolution does NOT occur...you want to go out and prove me wrong, instead of telling me to learn more about it, you go out and find me a case where information was added into DNA during a mutation, and I'll shut up. Just to preempt you: Bacteria immunities are not new information, if they were, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because I would probably be on board with evolutionists. "never EVER EVER EVER EVER adds information"? Like I said... frameshift mutation and insertion.
Seriously, I don't have time to lecture to you an entire 10th grade biology class to you. If you want to learn what it is you're talking about, go read up on it. I've taken biology, thanks...my knowledge comes from something outside of rudimentry schooling. I know what is taught in biology, and it's bullshit.
Specifically, " once again...you lose...You don't even seem to know the difference between evolution and genetic variability. I've never denied speciation or genetic variability. Also, creationists don't believe that the Earth is millions upon millions of years old. While you're doing that research on DNA, try to read up some about carbon dating, argon dating, and etc. and see how scientists know how old some fossils are, and that the Earth simply cannot be around 6,000 years old. Already done that...maybe you should do some research on accuracy scales, carbon 14 dating, and the consistency with which rocks are dated using radiometrics. Here's a fun one: Why can rocks at the bottom of the grand canyon be dated as younger than the ones at the top when using your precious dating methods? Think it hasn't happened? it has.
Why can rocks at the bottom of the grand canyon be dated as younger than the ones at the top? Because rocks fall down... younger rocks are formed at the top, and fall to the bottom. Also, the grand canyon was formed by a river cutting through it, and water flowing can drastically shift sediments. Once again... please read up on the subject matter before you whip out a few token points that, frankly, have no real grounds. That's cute...you tell me to just go out and do research. Why am I even trying to debate you? You're so smart that you don't even need to bring actual facts, you can just tell everybody "no you're wrong, go do research because I don't want to be proven wrong with my own pseudo facts"
That's weird, my response to that got deleted...anyway, this link shows me that you don't understand the difference between evolution and genetic variability, that's all it shows me. Until you understand the difference, don't bother trying to discuss this with me. you want to go out and prove me wrong, instead of telling me to learn more about it, you go out and find me a case where information was added into DNA during a mutation, and I'll shut up."
I see this being brought up still, so I guess I'll adress it again:
Evolution is fact. The term scientific theory means that it has gone through the entire process of being proven. The only "theory" as a layman would call it, would be Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Was Darwin right about his form of evolution? Probably, but its still up for discussion, much like Einstein's theory of relativity. Gravity and heliocentrism are still considered "theories", but I'll bet you not one creationist would deny either of those.
After reading that, i'm done bothering with you. For someone to even try to say that evolution is fact, is ridiculous. You've shown a sophomoric understanding of genetics while simultaneously failing to be cute and insulting towards me in your posts. I suggest in the future if you want to debate someone, and actually learn from the debate, you attempt to do your own research and do the research of the opposing side before you just sit and talk about things that you obviously know very little about. You might know a lot about evolutionary theory, but you've been so completely blinded in the mess of theories known as evolution that you've forgotten that it's all based upon supposition, rather than any real hard evidence. See, I happen to know a great deal about what both sides believe, unfortunately your condescending posts have made me realize that you're not interesting in discussion, you're only interested in tooting your own evolution horn.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
God created everything using the laws of physics and evolution. The bible says otherwise because the truth takes a whole lot of scientific development to understand it. To achieve that state God has blessed us with intelligence.
Science can't prove God exists nor can it prove God doesn't exist.
I think that is more of an Intelligent Design argument. I think Creationism explains how God built the earth, they often point you to Genesis, so in a sense they are explaining God.
God created logic, silly. God also created sarcasm.
I'll let the creationists answer your questions.
Ah.. my bad.. I forgot. That was the intelligent design argument, which was the formalized version of the creationist argument.
Good point. I guess it really doesn't matter (it's all the same agenda, pretty much). I wasn't trying to play semantics.
Genesis just deals with how god created the earth (or the world). God is never really explained or justified, which is probably why the bible works so well, eh?
I suppose so.
Maybe there really is something beyond god, since god only created the earth: Supergod is the real one pulling the strings!
I'm sure that Supergod told god to make intelligent life on earth and god just made something cooler instead (dinosaurs), which is why Supergod got pissed and hurled a few asteroids at earth.
That must be why God is so mean in the Bible! He's under intense pressure from supergod!
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
I see this being brought up still, so I guess I'll adress it again:
Evolution is fact. The term scientific theory means that it has gone through the entire process of being proven. The only "theory" as a layman would call it, would be Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Was Darwin right about his form of evolution? Probably, but its still up for discussion, much like Einstein's theory of relativity. Gravity and heliocentrism are still considered "theories", but I'll bet you not one creationist would deny either of those.
Until there is a mathematical model to prove it, it's not really proven.
You can use all of the hypothesis testing you'd like, but it's still not a proof: It's a hypothesis test.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Maybe Supergod is Chugs from Family Guy?Family Guy on evolution. I'm sure that Supergod told god to make intelligent life on earth and god just made something cooler instead (dinosaurs), which is why Supergod got pissed and hurled a few asteroids at earth.
That must be why God is so mean in the Bible! He's under intense pressure from supergod!
Ah.. I get it now: The earth was formed with Chugs' bong water.
ROFLMAO @ that clip.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
I see this being brought up still, so I guess I'll adress it again:
Evolution is fact. The term scientific theory means that it has gone through the entire process of being proven. The only "theory" as a layman would call it, would be Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Was Darwin right about his form of evolution? Probably, but its still up for discussion, much like Einstein's theory of relativity. Gravity and heliocentrism are still considered "theories", but I'll bet you not one creationist would deny either of those.
I wouldn't deny gravity or confirm it because it really can't be denied or confirmed just yet. Well, people have their beliefs. Some believe that there is no such thing as gravity - some all-encompassing mystical force that we do not know how it works - and other people believe it as a scientific fact even though they cannot explain it. Fact of the matter is that if we knew enough about gravity to make it into a scientific law instead of a theory, then we'd probably have those fancy anti-gravity boots you see in science fiction novels. Evolution may be a good theory just like gravity may be a good theory, but it's all still unproven.
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather "Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain
i believe in creation. was raised baptist. and i somewhat believe in evolution. i do think animals evolve (sp) to better survive in the world. but i dont believe it goes so far as for us to come from apes.
I never understood how you can believe in short-term evolution, but not long-term evolution. If you believe that animals evolve to survive better due to the evidence of the past century or so, imagine the changes that could have occured millions upon millions of years ago. I mean, if you can believe that an animal can loose its hair, gain brain matter, and walk upright to better survive in the world, isn't is more than plausible that we came from apes?
thats just it i dont thnk that evolution goes so far as an ape loose hiar waling upright and gaining brain matter. i think it goes as far as camels gaining the abitiy to go long periods without water. there is a shrimp in the desert that lays dormant in the sand for years untill there is rain that brings enough water for them to wake up and brren then go back into the sand. Stuff like that.
If apes evolved into us then why didnt they all evolve? are the onles left the retarded ones? I guess you could say i believe in limited evolution. basicly i think life evolves to better survive, but not to gain greater intelligence otherwise things would be poping up and learing to talk all the time
Comments
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
Ask and ye shall receive.
www.youtube.com/watch
Wasn't hard to find.
I don't believe in evolution, but I think creationism is absolutely wrong.
They can never answer this question: What created god? If there is a god, then he must consist of particles (or waves) like anything else in the universe, or else he wouldn't be able to influence anything.
I don't believe in evolution 100%, because it suggests one algorithm instead of providing a rigorous proof that isn't solely based on empirical observations.
I don't understand why people care about this subject at all, since that we don't even have a handle yet on what the universe really is: It's like trying to understand a computer without understanding electricity and magnetism.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Actually they do have an answer (whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant for my post) for that and i'll tell you.
God is outside of time. God created time.
As far as what God is made up of is extremely subjective. One person's God may be entirely different from another so which God do we try to figure out it's material?
Who says God needs to influence anything within his own creation? Did his creation get some kinks in it or something?
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
Actually they do have an answer (whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant for my post) for that and i'll tell you.
God is outside of time. God created time.
As far as what God is made up of is extremely subjective. One person's God may be entirely different from another so which God do we try to figure out it's material?
Who says God needs to influence anything within his own creation? Did his creation get some kinks in it or something?
You're missing the entire point of creationism there: God DID have to influence his creation, since the basis of their argument is that god must have influenced life due to it's complexity; evolution could not explain how something so complex could be formed out of organic soup.
Creationism doesn't explain god at all, but merely states that there must have been a god.
So they're saying that god created time? What created god? Did god create god? Is it mere coincidence that in axiomatic set theory that there DOES NOT exist a set that contains itself? Hmmmm Oh.. that's right: God is outside of logic too. Silly me.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
The alternative to God existing is that all that exists around us came about by natural cause and random chance. If someone is rolling dice, the odds of rolling a pair of sixes is one thing. But the odds of spots appearing on blank dice is something else. What Pasteur attempted to prove centuries ago, science confirms, that life cannot arise from non-life. Where did human, animal, plant life come from?
Also, natural causes are an inadequate explanation for the amount of precise information contained in human DNA. A person who discounts God is left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause, without design, and is merely good fortune. It is intellectually wanting to observe intricate design and attribute it to luck.
Actually they do have an answer (whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant for my post) for that and i'll tell you.
God is outside of time. God created time.
As far as what God is made up of is extremely subjective. One person's God may be entirely different from another so which God do we try to figure out it's material?
Who says God needs to influence anything within his own creation? Did his creation get some kinks in it or something?
You're missing the entire point of creationism there: God DID have to influence his creation, since the basis of their argument is that god must have influenced life due to it's complexity; evolution could not explain how something so complex could be formed out of organic soup.
Creationism doesn't explain god at all, but merely states that there must have been a god.
So they're saying that god created time? What created god? Did god create god? Is it mere coincidence that in axiomatic set theory that there DOES NOT exist a set that contains itself? Hmmmm Oh.. that's right: God is outside of logic too. Silly me.
Infinite must exist in one circumstance or another. Religious folk just put their infinite in God.
Infinite is truly outside of logic, but all logic is, is what our limited minds have comprised as making sense, hardly a basis for universal wisdom.
I find evolution to be great folly for the fact being that those who believe in it take it as substantial scientific fact that should be obvious as truth to the world, when it is in fact based upon insubstantial evidence and far reaches of logic, such as that if micro-evolution is in fact real as proven by observation in our modern world, then with enough time, surely macro-evolution would be as well!
I'm not going out and claiming that I can scientifically prove that there is a God, I just got my faith, and that's enough for me.
I wish people would do the same courtesy with their beliefs.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
Infinite must exist in one circumstance or another. Religious folk just put their infinite in God.
Infinite is truly outside of logic, but all logic is, is what our limited minds have comprised as making sense, hardly a basis for universal wisdom.
No, infinity is not outside of logic. There is an axiom in set theory necessitating the existence of an infinite set, so the existence of infinite sets is not illogical, because set theory is consistent and one can derive the natural numbers from it.
As for the existence of infinity in the universe: Nobody knows. Nobody even knows what the real structure of space and time is yet.. (continuous, discrete, both, neither, etc.)
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Its main objective is to discredit evolution with the use of bible scripture to match up verses with a scientific idea. Anything that needs to be proven is answered with "God did it" or "It was magic" or "just because."
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
I'll let the creationists answer your questions.Ah.. my bad.. I forgot. That was the intelligent design argument, which was the formalized version of the creationist argument.
Genesis just deals with how god created the earth (or the world). God is never really explained or justified, which is probably why the bible works so well, eh?
Maybe there really is something beyond god, since god only created the earth: Supergod is the real one pulling the strings!
I'm sure that Supergod told god to make intelligent life on earth and god just made something cooler instead (dinosaurs), which is why Supergod got pissed and hurled a few asteroids at earth.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather
"Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek
AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain
Avian bones: Avian bones and late whateverage dinosaur bones are similar in the sense that they have pneumatic cavities. They can make themselves lighter by allowing air inside. The "hollow" bits in most other animals are filled with bone marrow, red or yellow.
Crocodile: Everyone agrees the crocodile is a highly succesful species. What happens to highly succesful species? They thrive. Why could the crocodile thrive even through a theoretical catastrophe that may have wiped a lot of other reptiles? I'll tell you a few great features the croc's got:
1. Able to conserve energy extremely well in a hibernatory fashion.
2. Able to survive under water for prolonged periods of time. The 3-chambered heart that has been brough up is just an example of why the crocodile is a succesful species.
3. Their diet consists of any meat they can get their mouths on. From fish to birds to mammals to reptiles. Also they do not have a need to actively hunt due to their ability to conserve energy.
The crocodile does have other species in it's family(caimans/alligators, and some asian alternatives as well), and in a variety of different members in it's genus. Crocodiles used to be significantly bigger, according to fossil records. But a huge crocodile needs a larger amount of food, thus they may not have been able to survive at a time where food was scarce.
The platypus: You can take it as an example of a transitionary animal, with defining features from two different phylum. On the other hand you could treat it as an example of uniqueness and wonders of a creator.
Similarities between fauna: There are similarities with all fauna, and the similarities aren't just macro, either. This could be a theme choice from the creator. Or it could be the fact that there are traceable steps and deductions to be made about similarities between more and more simple organisms(a.k.a. taxonomy). It's of course easy to say taxonomy is just what the creator used to make animals easy to categorize. And it made them all similar so that they could all live symbiotically with each other, consuming and giving nutrients to each other. You can say anything is the work of a creator, and there is no way to disprove you since there is no creator to study. Simply saying that doesn't mean there is no creator, but it does mean that, to make it part of the field of study, there would have to be some evidence from any empirical field. The only creator that you can study, is a creator defined by man. It's artificial evidence, in a field of natural science.
Evolution is fact. The term scientific theory means that it has gone through the entire process of being proven. The only "theory" as a layman would call it, would be Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Was Darwin right about his form of evolution? Probably, but its still up for discussion, much like Einstein's theory of relativity. Gravity and heliocentrism are still considered "theories", but I'll bet you not one creationist would deny either of those.
_____________________________________
"Io rido, e rider mio non passa dentro;
Io ardo, e l'arsion mia non par di fore."
-Machiavelli
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Science can't prove God exists nor can it prove God doesn't exist.
Problem solved. Now, was that so hard?
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Ah.. my bad.. I forgot. That was the intelligent design argument, which was the formalized version of the creationist argument.
Good point. I guess it really doesn't matter (it's all the same agenda, pretty much). I wasn't trying to play semantics.
Genesis just deals with how god created the earth (or the world). God is never really explained or justified, which is probably why the bible works so well, eh?
I suppose so.
Maybe there really is something beyond god, since god only created the earth: Supergod is the real one pulling the strings!
Maybe Supergod is Chugs from Family Guy? Family Guy on evolution.
I'm sure that Supergod told god to make intelligent life on earth and god just made something cooler instead (dinosaurs), which is why Supergod got pissed and hurled a few asteroids at earth.
That must be why God is so mean in the Bible! He's under intense pressure from supergod!
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
Until there is a mathematical model to prove it, it's not really proven.
You can use all of the hypothesis testing you'd like, but it's still not a proof: It's a hypothesis test.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Ah.. I get it now: The earth was formed with Chugs' bong water.
ROFLMAO @ that clip.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather
"Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek
AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain
thats just it i dont thnk that evolution goes so far as an ape loose hiar waling upright and gaining brain matter. i think it goes as far as camels gaining the abitiy to go long periods without water. there is a shrimp in the desert that lays dormant in the sand for years untill there is rain that brings enough water for them to wake up and brren then go back into the sand. Stuff like that.
If apes evolved into us then why didnt they all evolve? are the onles left the retarded ones?
I guess you could say i believe in limited evolution. basicly i think life evolves to better survive, but not to gain greater intelligence otherwise things would be poping up and learing to talk all the time 