Evolution

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

I have a question, and I'm hopping for answers from both the evolutionists and the idiots who still believe in god.


WHY THE FLYING FUCK DOES IT MATTER WHAT CREATED THE EARTH?

Give me one example of something it will help us create to survive and adapt in life. One thing it will help us do, one aspect of life it will improve. The only good thing about it will be that it ends people from fighting over it. It's just a bunch of intellectual masturbation to think about it for more than a minute.

Discovering how life is created and evolves gives us a better understanding of it and is important for medical research.
The same goes with the earth as a whole but to different area's of society.
Its also the desire of knowledge which has made humans so successful.

Personally I chase knowledge for the sake of knowledge itself.

This reminds me of corporations or government who only see science as something to get them products in some short term period.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Slap Your Love

It's room for creationism rather than evidence for.

again fine tuning leaving room for creationism to be a valid theory. Not evidence for but evidence for the ability for the theory to be plausible.
Sorry if the I came on too strong at first.

Ah right. Then yeah, there is room for it, but not evidence, just as you said.

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

WHY THE FLYING FUCK DOES IT MATTER WHAT CREATED THE EARTH?

Give me one example of something it will help us create to survive and adapt in life. One thing it will help us do, one aspect of life it will improve. The only good thing about it will be that it ends people from fighting over it. It's just a bunch of intellectual masturbation to think about it for more than a minute.

I like physics. I thought Slap was claiming proof of creationism using it, tried to correct him but I had misunderstood his point.

Originally Posted by Wednesday Friday Addams

Personally I chase knowledge for the sake of knowledge itself.

Mainly this.

[Sir Canvas Corpsey]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

I have a question, and I'm hopping for answers from both the evolutionists and the idiots who still believe in god.


WHY THE FLYING FUCK DOES IT MATTER WHAT CREATED THE EARTH?

Give me one example of something it will help us create to survive and adapt in life. One thing it will help us do, one aspect of life it will improve. The only good thing about it will be that it ends people from fighting over it. It's just a bunch of intellectual masturbation to think about it for more than a minute.

Pursuing thoughts on creation with myself or others will only ever lead to disagreement and an intense feeling of insignificance on my part. All the time I spend on wondering why the universe and everything in it exists is time wasted and better spent on living the life I have ended up through some means I don't care to know.

Those who seek knowledge and thus the answers to the question of creation, there's plenty of knowledge in the world, why would you waste time on something as trivial as this? If you're at the point of seeking it for knowledge purpose alone then you're far beyond the point where it will have a real impact on you because it is just knowledge to you now.

When the "big questions" are answered humanity will stop moving in any direction, when we know "why?" then there is nothing left to do except to fulfill that reason and then die, as long as the answer to "why?" remains unknown we can continue to have many possibilities as a species and as individuals.

[Drake Dun]

For myself it all comes down to a need to know, I think. Pretty much what Wednesday said. There's more to know than one can ever put a real dent in, but I enjoy adding to my horde, even if it will always be small in the big picture.

If you don't share that feeling, that's fine. You can be as comfortable in your ignorance of planetary formation theories as I am in my own ignorance of, say, this or that genre of music, about which you might care very much. That's a question of personality.

There's an added dimension when religion gets into the picture, of course. It takes rather less natural love of truth for a person to be offended by the active spreading of patent falsehoods than it does for a person to care about learning the truth personally. Some of us are perhaps comfortable with ignorance, but I hope we can all agree that error is not a good place to wind up.

Add to that the fact that religion's intrusions into honest thinking about empirical questions are intrinsically tied up with its often vicious social agenda and basal will to power, and you've got a picture ripe for excited disagreements.

[Slap Your Love]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Good point. That's the main reason I don't believe Jesus was the son of a god. Right there at the end of the Book of Mathew, where he admits to his flock that he's actually a spy from the planet Zimboo intent on conquering the earth so that his people can eat human skin deep fried and everything. It just seems to contradict his other claims.


Again, look these things up for yourselves, people. You could at least get the names right when you're spreading misinformation. Please, we deserve classy lies! Ones that are hard to detect and stuff.

The fine tuning argument is the kind of thing even an honest and intelligent person could take seriously, but I've tackled it before, so I think I'll just link to myself:

https://www.gothic.net/boards/showth...206#post503206

Whichever hominids. Not a lie. Look at the mtDNA Sequence Variation Among Modern and Ancient Hominids.

You call that link an overcoming to fine tuning? lol. Do more research. Really.

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

Originally Posted by Slap Your Love

Whichever hominids. Not a lie. Look at the mtDNA Sequence Variation Among Modern and Ancient Hominids.

You call that link an overcoming to fine tuning? lol. Do more research. Really.

Could you please link a peer reviewed source?

[Cicero]

If I understood Slap Your Love correctly, he's saying that DNA studies have shown that we're not evolved from Homo erectus. Not exactly news, since the common view of human evolution nowadays is not a linear evolution through the fossil record. More of a highly branched tree based on what little we have to go by, and Homo erectus (along with many others, including most other 'well-knowns' such as Neanderthals and Australopithecenes such as Lucy) tentatively sit along one of those branches. Our direct ancestors aren't well agreed upon at all, most probably haven't yet been discovered.

That being said though, I would very much like to see where he got that information from, since I've never heard of mtDNA studies on Homo erectus before.

[Wednesday Friday Addams]

Originally Posted by Cicero

If I understood Slap Your Love correctly, he's saying that DNA studies have shown that we're not evolved from Homo erectus. Not exactly news, since the common view of human evolution nowadays is not a linear evolution through the fossil record. More of a highly branched tree based on what little we have to go by, and Homo erectus (along with many others, including most other 'well-knowns' such as Neanderthals and Australopithecenes such as Lucy) tentatively sit along one of those branches. Our direct ancestors aren't well agreed upon at all, most probably haven't yet been discovered.

That being said though, I would very much like to see where he got that information from, since I've never heard of mtDNA studies on Homo erectus before.

Very much this.

Originally Posted by Slap Your Love

This is called fine tuning.


It's room for creationism rather than evidence for.

again fine tuning leaving room for creationism to be a valid theory. Not evidence for but evidence for the ability for the theory to be plausible.
Sorry if the I came on too strong at first.

It is interesting that what you claim still doesn't prove evolution incorrect especially with the more accepted theory of human evolution being the out of Africa model (humans evolving in Africa and then going out) and as we know homo erectus is seen as the first hominid to leave Africa.

You can't prove a theory buy showing an area of another theory where the experts disagree over specific details. Its like saying if people debate if the car is light blue or dark blue it must be a space station.
I know you said that you say its not evidence for creationism but this discrepancy in ideas does not allow other unproved theories to be plausible.

The process of evolution in changing species(short and long term) has been proven so many times to not just be a massive coincidence.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Slap Your Love

Whichever hominids. Not a lie. Look at the mtDNA Sequence Variation Among Modern and Ancient Hominids.

I think you should read your own apologetics before trying to ape them. Reading things has the most magical effect upon your understanding of them. Try it some time!

The argument you're talking about doesn't assert what you say it does nor set out to prove anything like what you're trying to say it does. In case anyone is wondering, this is what he's on about:

http://www.godandscience.org/evoluti...iregional.html

Unlike SYL, the author of the article is perfectly honest about what he intends to prove - specifically, that the multiregional hypothesis of human evolution (which is already disfavored by the scientific community) is incorrect. I understand that, see, because I used a super secret special technique: I read the article.

You call that link an overcoming to fine tuning? lol. Do more research. Really.

Go fuck yourself. You didn't understand or, in all probability, even read my argument any more than you did your mtDNA apologetic. That's obvious, because you tell me to "do more research". If you had read my argument, you would have seen that at the very beginning I cheerfully admit that there are any number of characteristics of our universe which, if different, would render life impossible. I'm attacking the fine tuning argument on its logic, not its facts, and your demand for "more research" would therefore be totally irrelevant even if it weren't a transparent evasion.

So what we're getting from you yet again is that you read almost nothing, think almost nothing, and argue almost nothing, substituting instead arrogant posturing and a horribly bungled smoke and mirrors routine. Anyone can see straight through it, and I'll continue gleefully exposing it. So really you have three options, in order of ascending worth:

1) Continue getting your bullshit exposed by me.
2) Fall silent.
3) Raise the level of your discourse.

That said, I do want to give you credit for (1) at least attempting to paraphrase someone else's argument, instead of offering literally nothing whatsoever and (2) toning down the grossly exaggerated confidence compared to last time.

[Necrophagist]

Rustig, Drake.

[Mir]

Your petty arguments put food on no ones table, nor a roof over their heads.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Neither do your comments, so what's your point?

[Slap Your Love]

Originally Posted by Wednesday Friday Addams

Very much this.




It is interesting that what you claim still doesn't prove evolution incorrect especially with the more accepted theory of human evolution being the out of Africa model (humans evolving in Africa and then going out) and as we know homo erectus is seen as the first hominid to leave Africa.

You can't prove a theory buy showing an area of another theory where the experts disagree over specific details. Its like saying if people debate if the car is light blue or dark blue it must be a space station.
I know you said that you say its not evidence for creationism but this discrepancy in ideas does not allow other unproved theories to be plausible.

The process of evolution in changing species(short and long term) has been proven so many times to not just be a massive coincidence.

I wasn't trying to disprove evolution. I was specifying young earth creationism
from progressive creationism.

Originally Posted by Wednesday Friday Addams

Could you please link a peer reviewed source?

http://www.pnas.org/content/100/11/6593

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

I think you should read your own apologetics before trying to ape them. Reading things has the most magical effect upon your understanding of them. Try it some time!

The argument you're talking about doesn't assert what you say it does nor set out to prove anything like what you're trying to say it does. In case anyone is wondering, this is what he's on about:

http://www.godandscience.org/evoluti...iregional.html

Unlike SYL, the author of the article is perfectly honest about what he intends to prove - specifically, that the multiregional hypothesis of human evolution (which is already disfavored by the scientific community) is incorrect. I understand that, see, because I used a super secret special technique: I read the article.


Go fuck yourself. You didn't understand or, in all probability, even read my argument any more than you did your mtDNA apologetic. That's obvious, because you tell me to "do more research". If you had read my argument, you would have seen that at the very beginning I cheerfully admit that there are any number of characteristics of our universe which, if different, would render life impossible. I'm attacking the fine tuning argument on its logic, not its facts, and your demand for "more research" would therefore be totally irrelevant even if it weren't a transparent evasion.

So what we're getting from you yet again is that you read almost nothing, think almost nothing, and argue almost nothing, substituting instead arrogant posturing and a horribly bungled smoke and mirrors routine. Anyone can see straight through it, and I'll continue gleefully exposing it. So really you have three options, in order of ascending worth:

1) Continue getting your bullshit exposed by me.
2) Fall silent.
3) Raise the level of your discourse.

That said, I do want to give you credit for (1) at least attempting to paraphrase someone else's argument, instead of offering literally nothing whatsoever and (2) toning down the grossly exaggerated confidence compared to last time.

Wrong article.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I don't get it. You think the hypothesis that neanderthals and cro magnons were genetically incompatible somehow proves cro magnons couldn't have come from homo erectus?

[Slap Your Love]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I don't get it. You think the hypothesis that neanderthals and cro magnons were genetically incompatible somehow proves cro magnons couldn't have come from homo erectus?

Neanderthals->Homo sapiens is all it's saying.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Exactly. And you seem to infer much more than that.

[Slap Your Love]

It's not intended. I was partially saying what Drake said I didn't specify on that molecular biology abolishes the multiregional model. Which
was what I meant. As well as there is no established form for which
homo sapiens evolved from. Especially not Neanderthals like many
evolutionists believed for a long time until disproved of by molecular
biology.

I could go on to disprove homo erectus to homo sapiens if you'd like though?

[Godslayer Jillian]

No one believes we come from neanderthals. Tell me you're not doing the same thing creationists do with the Nebraska man.

[Slap Your Love]

Hey, exactly where do homo sapiens come from?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Our whole genus descends from the australopithecines.

[Slap Your Love]

You didn't answer the question. Homo sapiens. Which organism did homo sapiens evolve from? The genus merely classifies by characteristics.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I did answer your question. The genus Homo includes all GENETIC relatives of us.
Where do we come from? Australopithecines.

Very simple.

[Slap Your Love]

Australopithecines died out way before when homo sapiens fossils
are first dated.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Rome was destroyed way before France existed. Therefore it's impossible that French is a Romance language.


What

the

fuck

[Slap Your Love]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Rome was destroyed way before France existed. Therefore it's impossible that French is a Romance language.


What

the

fuck

Almost completely unrelatable.
There is a gap present. Therefore homo sapiens can't evolve
from them if they're dead way before homo sapiens even emurged.

I'm off to work. I'll continue this later after everyone else jumps in
while I'm gone.