# The origin of species today. (From another Chris thread)



## Pikonic (Oct 8, 2013)

Vote, discuss


----------



## The Hunter (Oct 8, 2013)

Strongly believe in evolution. Won't scream my head off over people personally rejecting it, though, just as long as nobody gets too preachy.

I believe evolution is fact, but people are still entitled to maintain their faith in God. Even then, who gives a shit if he didn't create the world. He's still a pretty great guy.


----------



## Pikonic (Oct 8, 2013)

The Hunter said:
			
		

> Strongly believe in evolution. Won't scream my head off over people personally rejecting it, though, just as long as nobody gets too preachy.
> 
> I believe evolution is fact, but people are still entitled to maintain their faith in God. Even then, who gives a shit if he didn't create the world. He's still a pretty great guy.


Yeah I'm with you.
In science classes in college, we were taught nothing is proven, in philosophy I was taught you can't prove the world is older than 6 minutes.
Everyone has their own opinions, I for one chose the Theroy of genetic drift.

Also sorry for blowing up your section of the forum, the Chris threads are going way off topic .


----------



## The Hunter (Oct 8, 2013)

Pikonic said:
			
		

> Also sorry for blowing up your section of the forum, the Chris threads are going way off topic .


Actually, I'm fine with it. I wish more people would use this section.

However, Deep Thoughts is Nia's forum, and she is in FUCKING DISBELIEF that someone would DARE post RELEVANT BULLSHIT in HER FORUM!!1!
No, I'm sure she's fine with it too.


----------



## LM 697 (Oct 8, 2013)

Aliens seeded us here to explore and colonize new worlds (ie. Earth).


----------



## QI 541 (Oct 8, 2013)

From the other thread:



			
				MetroidJunkie said:
			
		

> That's quite an assumption you've made there, who said I got them from Creationist sources?



Misconceptions about evolution are generally caused by those.  For example, "If it was a matter of evolution, humans wouldn't be the only animals that happened to obtain it to maximize survival."

Where did you get the idea that evolution was supposed to maximize survival?  If it did, we'd be able to breathe underwater and grow wings to fly to maximize our chances of survival.



> Even Charles Darwin said his theory would break down if it could be proven that we had complex organs that couldn't have resulted from small changes.



Charles Darwin doesn't even know about the existence of genetics.  What he believes isn't relevant.



> Thanks to advances in science, we now know that even a single cell is extremely complex.



You must realize that everything complex was made from smaller and simpler parts.


----------



## Grand Number of Pounds (Oct 8, 2013)

I was raised in a Christian household and believed in creationism until I was about 22 or 23, then I started studying the issue for myself and now accept evolution, although I'm still a Christian.

I suggest these guys for people in a situation like I was. It was started by Dr. Francis Collins, MD, PhD, who is a medical doctor, one of the world's first geneticists, mapped the human genome and is the current director of the NIH.


----------



## SlowInTheMinds (Oct 8, 2013)

Creationism combined with evolution. God created the universe and the laws of physics and is now watching us with a never-ending supply of popcorn and coke.


----------



## The Hunter (Oct 8, 2013)

SlowInTheMinds said:
			
		

> Creationism combined with evolution. God created the universe and the laws of physics and is now watching us with a never-ending supply of popcorn and coke.


I used to believe that when I was younger, but now completely reject any idea of God playing a role in the creation of the universe. Someone suggested something interesting, that the universe never was created and has always been here, and that's an idea that has always been to complex for my mind to understand. Logic, for me, dictates that everything, no matter how grand, has to have had a creation. The guy later proved to be an insane German religion hating autist who just sort of tries to spew out what other scientists say (often incorrectly), but still, that idea made me think for quite a while.


----------



## c-no (Oct 8, 2013)

I'm a Christian who believes in creationism, specifically the intelligent design. Used to rage against evolution until I grew up. Today, I respect evolution and I do consider that maybe we did evolve but really, I don't bother with creationism or evolution since I honestly have other things to do with my life.such as playing vidya


----------



## Globe (Oct 8, 2013)

Eh, I accept that evolution and abiogenesis are the most logical and reasonable explanations running, considering that every "alternative" I've ever heard failed to provide any competing explanation and pretty much existed soley on the basis of "disproving" evolution/abiogenesis/the Big Bang.


----------



## Surtur (Oct 8, 2013)

I'm not sure why people find evolution so hard to accept. It does not conflict with my own religion.


----------



## Picklepower (Oct 8, 2013)

When I was a kid my school taught that The Bible is 100% accurate in every detail, and that Evil-lution is a lie from Satan. I have been an atheist since high school, and yes I know that some Christians accept evolution apparently, but I don't take spiritual things seriously.


----------



## The Hunter (Oct 8, 2013)

Picklepower said:
			
		

> When I was a kid my school taught that The Bible is 100% accurate in every detail, and that Evil-lution is a lie from Satan.


The hell kinda school did you go to?

Oh wait, Catholic schools are still a thing...


----------



## exball (Oct 8, 2013)

The Hunter said:
			
		

> Strongly believe in evolution. Won't scream my head off over people personally rejecting it, though, just as long as nobody gets too preachy.
> 
> I believe evolution is fact, but people are still entitled to maintain their faith in God. Even then, who gives a shit if he didn't create the world. He's still a pretty great guy.


Not quite as great as that Satan chap though.


----------



## CatParty (Oct 8, 2013)

i really enjoy that people on either side of the argument think the other is stupid for their beliefs


----------



## Pikonic (Oct 8, 2013)

CatParty said:
			
		

> i really enjoy that people on either side of the argument think the other is stupid for their beliefs


Kinda the reason I started this (though I was trying to save a doomed thread   ). In order to understand why it's such a strong topic, you need to look at both sides (Evolution v Creationism, Intelligent Design is a cross between the two and Genetic Drift isn't popular enough to start up trouble)

Some people consider Science a religion. In the terms of this is what you believe in, what you practice, preach, and live by, this is true. Many scientists argue this is objective and religion is subjective, science uses theorys demonstrated time and time again via the scientific method, and religion just goes by what they feel. 
However, religion has their own objectives as well. History records show a Jesus, parts of Noah's ark were discovered, and the Koran was written by a real prophet (no name out of respect) Wether or not you believe these events prove a religion is up to you. 

I'm a scientist, but I'm also a Catholic. I believe in a heaven and a hell, but I also believe what I've studied and what I've found on my scientific endeavors.


----------



## Watcher (Oct 8, 2013)

Pikonic said:
			
		

> However, religion has their own objectives as well. History records show a Jesus, parts of Noah's ark were discovered, and the Koran was written by a real prophet (no name out of respect) Wether or not you believe these events prove a religion is up to you.



Jesus is not historic, there is no evidence that Jesus existed and the New Testimate was written hundreds of years after the fact. This debate has been going on for hundreds of years and the general consensus was even if he did, he was likely a completely different person than the one described in the Bible. With hundreds of years of embellishment and ideas absorbed from other religions at the time (like how Jesus wasn't actually born on Christmas. They adopted that holiday from the Pagans.) Parts of Noah's Ark were not discovered, people claim that they went to mount Sinai and found wood there, it's all ludicrous. Regardless of whether the Koran was written by a real "prophet" it doesn't make what it said true.

The problem I have with things like believing Noah's Ark actually happened was also believing that other things in that story also occurred. Things like Noah living to be 600 years old and being a guy who lived in the Middle East and taking 2 of every species from all over the world, and putting it on a boat. Then there's the issue of how do you get the Australian animals back to Australia if you are a man that didn't even know such a place existed.


----------



## Pikonic (Oct 8, 2013)

Dr. Cuddlebug said:
			
		

> Pikonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh don't get me wrong, I'm with you on the Noah's ark thing, I was trying to display both sides of the argument. Apologies if I came off as a fundie. If I found some driftwood and claimed it was a chunk of the ark, some people would believe me.


----------



## exball (Oct 8, 2013)




----------



## Pikonic (Oct 8, 2013)

exball said:
			
		

>


Nice shopping there, note how Chris is grabbing Sonichus balls. OT but is this a Chris quote?


----------



## exball (Oct 8, 2013)

Pikonic said:
			
		

> exball said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't make this. I wish I could photoshop this well. And yes it's a quote from one of the mailbags.


----------



## Watcher (Oct 8, 2013)

Surtur said:
			
		

> I'm not sure why people find evolution so hard to accept. It does not conflict with my own religion.



Most people don't understand Evolution, it doesn't help it isn't always properly taught in American schools.

Even religious pundits that go on talkshows very often are pointed out that they don't understand evolution and believe that "a monkey turned into a man one day"



			
				CatParty said:
			
		

> i really enjoy that people on either side of the argument think the other is stupid for their beliefs



Generally speaking most people that actually make money off religion. Like the Catholic Church in Vatican city are extremely intelligent people. Extremely manipulative as well, but bare in mind once upon a time you had to pay taxes to the Church or risk getting excommunicated.


----------



## Pikonic (Oct 8, 2013)

In college I wrote my thesis on Christine O'Donnel's "Teach the Controversy", where she wanted schools to teach the flaws of evolution along with evolution, so children could make better informed decisions. It'd be ok if she wasn't pushing Intelligent Design as the flawless truth. (which should be considered philosophy over science, but I won't tl:dr you to death)
She also made anti-masturbation videos for teens. Just saying


----------



## LordCustos3 (Oct 8, 2013)

Dr. Cuddlebug said:
			
		

> Pikonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Re: the "historicity" of Jesus.
Actually, if you corner a believer, the only (non-biblical) " "historical" "evidence" " (note the extra-sarcastic double quotations) they can point two boils down to two quotes:

1 quote from the _*Annals*_ of Tacitus.
1 quote from the _*The Antiquities of the Jews *_by Flavius Josephus.​
The problems with both are as follows.
The quote from Tacitus merely _*acknowledges*_ that Christians existed (a point not in dispute) and that they apparently followed someone called The Chrestus. It doesn't explain who the Chrestus was, not does it corroborate that this Chrestus person/thing was real. The godbotherers also neglect to mention all the times that Tacitus mentioned other non-Christian deities. Using their logic, one could "prove" Mithras was real, because Tacitus mentioned that deity and his cult.

The quote from Flavius Josephus is even more fraudulent.
But to save myself the trouble of retyping the rebuttal .....here is some delicious copypasta.



Okay...be honest now...have you ever read the Antiquities? I don't mean read just those paragraphs the pastor snipped out, but the entire book itself?

I hate to break this to you, but the Testimonium Flavianum is actually way worse than the Tacitus quote, evidence wise.
In fact, it's a proven sham, and anyone who has ever read the Antiquities can spot that.
Here's why:

Here's the Antiquities...
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2848

Go ahead an read 3 or 4 pages of the Antiquities for yourself. Doesn't matter which pages. Any 3 or 4 pages will do. Soak in Josephus's writing style.
I think, if you read enough of it, you'll notice...

*Flavius is a historian, not an theologian.
*Flavius is (shock!) totally old-skool Jewish and couldn't care less about all those kooky Christians and their silly schismatic heresies.
*There were oodles of different people named Jesus mentioned in the Antiquities; 'coz, as a name, "Jesus" was as common as crabgrass back then, and 6 or 7 Jesii are mentioned in the Antiquities. (My fave was the priest who got ganked by his own brother.)

Go ahead, read a few more pages. I'll wait.

Okay, are you sure you get his writing style yet?
Good. Now, go to the page (in my copy its on page 620) where the Testimonum is and read the entire page it is on.

_*(*record scratch noise*)
(*car crash noise*)
(*broken pottery noise*)*_
Good lord, the redactional seams are visible from the surface of the moon!
Yep. That weird pro-Christian tonguebath sounds suddenly unprofessional, out of character and out of context; and the sudden alien-ness of it well understood by any Hebrew scholars, textual criticism boffins and anyone who is paying attention.
It doesn't sound like same writer at all*...because it isn't*. Scholars suspect that this was a pseudepigraphic interpolation placed there by the church father Eusebius. The passage is long enough to run word entropy analysis on it, and it matches Eusebius's smarmy style.
Oh, that and old copies of the Antiquities, that were published before AD 200, _*don't have the Testimonium in it.*_

Also, Do you find it kinda fishy how this interpolation is shoved where it is? It's like you can almost hear Eusebius wetting himelf and squealing..."Oooh, oooh, oooh, I found a paragraph then mentions Pontius Pilate! Let's shove in this bit of propaganda here! Let's ignore that the paragraph after is about the temple of Isis and the one before is about Pilate farting around with aqueducts! Pilate! Pilate! Pilate! It's kinda sorta maybe the right timeframe! Stick it in! Stick it in! Stick it in!"

Feel free to use that the next time some William Lane Craig wannabe foists The Testimonium Flavianum as if it were a smoking gun and not the naked and obvious fraud it is.


----------



## Watcher (Oct 8, 2013)

Pikonic said:
			
		

> In college I wrote my thesis on Christine O'Donnel's "Teach the Controversy", where she wanted schools to teach the flaws of evolution along with evolution, so children could make better informed decisions. It'd be ok if she wasn't pushing Intelligent Design as the flawless truth. (which should be considered philosophy over science, but I won't tl:dr you to death)
> She also made anti-masturbation videos for teens. Just saying



The problem I have with teaching the controversy implies that learning Intelligent Design is going to help you if you plan to get a science degree.

I remember Aron Ra did this really good video called "Flintstones Archaeology" where he discussed how Creationists believe dinosaurs walked with man, and that the Loch-Ness Monster actually exists. When I first watched this I didn't know that the Bible described dragons and unicorns existing.

[youtube]f5kckGxwJr4[/youtube]


----------



## Picklepower (Oct 8, 2013)

The Hunter said:
			
		

> Picklepower said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Baptist private school.



			
				exball said:
			
		

> Pikonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Really??? WOW he is something special.


----------



## Watcher (Oct 8, 2013)

Picklepower said:
			
		

> Really??? WOW he is something special.





> But... I would certainly not want to be an atheist, 'cause if I don't have God or Jesus at my- by my side, I would be more lost than I was considerably beforehand! Atheists are the Devil's spawning, as it would seem! ...And I would certainly would not want to be amrong- amongst them when they are run out of town with the pitchforks and the hace and the fire! As a believer... I would either be a peacem- I would more likely be a peacemaker, but I certainly wouldn't mind being one with the pitchfork, following the crowd and pushing the atheist out of town!





> I believe in God and Jesus too, but God must hate me to put me in the lifestyle I am forced to be cooped up and bored with.



From the Thorg calling out video and Facebook respectively.


----------



## Picklepower (Oct 8, 2013)

Even if Jesus was a historical figure, that does not prove Christianity is true, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Siddhartha, and tons of Indian gurus, have also existed. I never really thought the argument of his historicity was important.


----------



## Watcher (Oct 8, 2013)

Picklepower said:
			
		

> Even if Jesus was historical figure, that does not prove Christianity is true, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Siddhartha, and tons of Indian gurus, have also existed. I never really thought the argument of his historicity was important.



It's also funny since a lot of people think Jesus looked like this






These guys did this computer mockup of what a historical Jesus would have actually looked like. Which is this






He would have also been just over 5 foot tall.


----------



## exball (Oct 8, 2013)

White Jesus is technically the first fan fiction.


----------



## Watcher (Oct 8, 2013)

exball said:
			
		

> White Jesus is technically the first fan fiction.



[youtube]ORIICgi-0GI[/youtube]


----------



## exball (Oct 8, 2013)




----------



## LordCustos3 (Oct 8, 2013)

Dr. Cuddlebug said:
			
		

> The problem I have with teaching the controversy implies that learning Intelligent Design is going to help you if you plan to get a science degree.



The problem I have with "teaching the controversy" is the provably false assertion that there *IS* a controversy.
If 1,000 respected scientists show proof that the world is spherical, and one denialist flat-earth loonbat disagrees, that DOES NOT constitute a "controversy."

Evolution was deduced as an explanation of why speciation happens; and does so quite elegantly.
Some versions of Creationism don't even acknowledge that speciation happens at all; and thus fails at the starting gate.
(Hence the equivocation about micro- and macro-evolution, as if they weren't just the same thing on two different timescales.)

Also, here's a way to flummox an Intelligent Design advocate. Ask them the following question:
"Can you show me a new technological advance that rises directly from Intelligent Design?"


----------



## John Titor (Oct 9, 2013)

The Hunter said:
			
		

> Picklepower said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hm? I'm Catholic and in my experience, Catholics are a little more relaxed around evolution. I'm not sure if that's universal though, because my dad hated the idea that we "descended from monkeys". (I'm aware of what's wrong with that line, bare with me).

Nowadays, I see Creationism as something that's symbolic than something literal.


----------



## The Hunter (Oct 9, 2013)

John Titor said:
			
		

> The Hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I grew up Catholic as well, and we were very liberal about it. Just that a whole school devoted to a single religion doesn't sound like too great of an idea to me. I went to public school and all...

That's really the reason I don't mind it. Because I acknowledge it as something symbolic, not direct fact. I mean, you're talking to someone who for years would mostly just read Native American creation stories. It's a fun read, and it makes you think. Helps a lot of people realize their place in the universe and what not.


----------



## Grand Number of Pounds (Oct 9, 2013)

exball said:
			
		

>



Sadly, this explanation is probably a lot more articulate than some people's explanation of origins.


----------



## champthom (Oct 9, 2013)

If you don't believe in evolution or you're just curious about evolution, I strongly recommend reading "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins. He manages to prove evolution is real from like, every possible angle. It's also well written and I'm not a big hard science fan but it managed to keep me interested.


----------



## Watcher (Oct 9, 2013)

champthom said:
			
		

> If you don't believe in evolution or you're just curious about evolution, I strongly recommend reading "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins. He manages to prove evolution is real from like, every possible angle. It's also well written and I'm not a big hard science fan but it managed to keep me interested.



Champthom doesn't bullshit



			
				John Titor said:
			
		

> Nowadays, I see Creationism as something that's symbolic than something literal.



I remember I took a literature class once upon a time that had us study Genesis as a piece of literature. Like analyse it like we would Beowulf or Gilgamesh. We found that the story was largely allegory and for the most part shared a lot of similarities to other creation myths at the time.

Of course then we learned about things that were cut out of the bible... like Adam's other wives


----------



## Surtur (Oct 9, 2013)

Or the part where Yahweh has a wife.


----------



## Niachu (Oct 9, 2013)

Evolution: _it works._


----------



## Holdek (Oct 10, 2013)

The Theory of Evolution includes both natural selection and genetic drift.

Intelligent design is creationism repackaged with implicit, rather than explicit, sourcing to God.  

I don't even know what I'm supposed to vote for here.



			
				John Titor said:
			
		

> The Hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Catholic Church officially supports evolution.


----------



## Watcher (Oct 11, 2013)

Holdek said:
			
		

> The Catholic Church officially supports evolution.



Historically they've had to update their ideals just so they don't seem retarded. Like they previously thought the world was flat too (and it's stated in the bible)


----------



## Holdek (Oct 11, 2013)

Dr. Cuddlebug said:
			
		

> Holdek said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Better than fundamentalist Protestants.


----------



## Hasharin (Oct 12, 2013)

Holdek said:
			
		

> Dr. Cuddlebug said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For me, it seems that there are more Protestants nutjobs than Catholic ones. And majority of the latter are in Poland.


----------



## Holdek (Jan 2, 2014)

LordCustos3 said:
			
		

> Dr. Cuddlebug said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are aware that this view is in the minority among historians though, right?  It's generally agreed that there was a man named Jesus, called "Christ" by his followers, who was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by Pontius Pilate.  That's it.  

First, Josephus makes _two_, not one, references to Jesus.  The first, the _Testimonium_, is considered partially authentic, but dressed up by Christians later on.  The second is by way of describing the death of Jesus' brother James.  

Second, Tacitus definitely _does_ state that that Chrestus, whoever he was, was real, because he says that he was crucified by Pilate and was the leader of some sort of superstitious belief.  

Third, Roman historian Suetonius makes reference to Chrestus stirring up trouble among the Jews.


----------



## Picklepower (Jan 2, 2014)

Schools should be required to teach both sides of the Astrology/Astronomy controversy, Astrologists are being left out of the "academic" community, because they don't fall in line with big science!!!. You know Americas ancestors in Europe, believed in astrology quote abit, but now with people in office like Obama, our kids will be taught that stars are just big balls of hot gass, is that what you want your children being taught? If stars have no play in our destiny, than what's to stop a child from becoming another Columbine shooter, if our events are just random, then why not?


----------



## Holdek (Jan 2, 2014)

Picklepower said:
			
		

> Schools should be required to teach both sides of the Astrology/Astronomy controversy, Astrologists are being left out of the "academic" community, because they don't fall in line with big science!!!. You know Americas ancestors in Europe, believed in astrology quote abit, but now with people in office like Obama, our kids will be taught that stars are just big balls of hot gass, is that what you want your children being taught? If stars have no play in our destiny, than what's to stop a child from becoming another Columbine shooter, if our events are just random, then why not?



Or at least "teach the controversy."


----------



## Arkangel (Jan 3, 2014)

Holdek said:
			
		

> Or at least "teach the controversy."



The whole "Teach the Controversy" mantra is really a made up concept. In reality, there isn't any real controversy within science concerning the validity of evolution. Evolution already has so much evidence in it's favor that at this point, it would take something completely monumental to completely overturn our understanding of biology; something that would win someone a Nobel Prize if discovered. So far, nothing of the sort has come along, and contenders of the throne like Intelligent Design have been discredited and proven false in both the science lab and in court (Kitzmiller vs. Dover).

If you're gonna "Teach the Controversy", you may as well also teach about the stork in Sex-Ed class or Alchemy in the Chemistry class.


----------



## Holdek (Jan 3, 2014)

Ziltoid said:
			
		

> Holdek said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## hellbound (Jan 3, 2014)

Wait, what I know as genetic drift isn't a separate theory but one of the more minor mechanisms of evolution (change in frequency of an allele too neutral to be selected for by random sampling). What is the theory of genetic drift?


----------



## Watcher (Jan 4, 2014)

Ziltoid said:
			
		

> Holdek said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's only a controversy in American politics when dealing with the religious American base.

In the rest of the world Evolution is taught in schools and has been for years.

It generally reminds me of things like how the rest of the world uses the Metric system wheras America uses Imperial. It's this very outdated sensibility that the rest of the world has long since moved past.

It's also amusing to me how badly people want to try and disprove evolution, when it's one of the theories in science that has the most evidence. To put it into perspective, gravity is a theory as well and it doesn't have nearly the same amount of evidence of it's existence. And it's entirely due to people putting their fingers in their ears and saying it's not enough. So they continually find more and more. Cell biology is also a theory and it is the very backbone of modern medicine, and it relies on evolution in it's entirety.


----------



## Holdek (Jan 4, 2014)

Dr. Cuddlebug said:
			
		

> Ziltoid said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, rest of the developed world, anyway.


----------



## exball (Jan 6, 2014)

Ziltoid said:
			
		

> Holdek said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hold up, my dad didn't win baby me from a stork in a game of poker?


----------



## Surtur (Jan 6, 2014)

For the record they only teach Evolution in American schools.


----------



## Arkangel (Jan 6, 2014)

exball said:
			
		

> Hold up, my dad didn't win baby me from a stork in a game of poker?



Actually, he lost that poker game.


----------



## Holdek (Jan 6, 2014)

Surtur said:
			
		

> For the record they only teach Evolution in American schools.



Perhaps at this moment, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Science_Education_Act


----------



## Surtur (Jan 7, 2014)

Holdek said:
			
		

> Surtur said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



One state passes a controversial law that has heavy opposition. Not likely to become a trend.


----------



## teheviltwin (Jan 8, 2014)

Surtur said:
			
		

> One state passes a controversial law that has heavy opposition. Not likely to become a trend.



I think the thing I find most worrying about the US at the moment is that belief in evolution has declined in republicans by about 11% in the last four years. I always take these political polls with a grain of salt because it does depend on how the question is worded but apparently the public trust in scientists is at a record low.

I've watched and read quite a bit of creationist material and a lot of it seems to be just a lack of understanding but some of it is deliberately fraudulent. In particular, the levels that the Intelligent Design crowd are happy to stoop to. Even when it comes to the very basics like the difference between the general use of the word 'theory' and 'scientific theory'.

Our kids are going to grow up in a world where the economy is most likely going to be based on knowledge and invention. I can't, for the life of me, understand why people are happy to even try to adulterate science with the supernatural when it comes to their children's education.


----------



## Holdek (Jan 8, 2014)

Surtur said:
			
		

> Holdek said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It passed the state senate 35-0 and the house 94-3.  

And you can bet these will come up for votes again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_freedom_bills


----------



## Watcher (Jan 8, 2014)

teheviltwin said:
			
		

> I've watched and read quite a bit of creationist material and a lot of it seems to be just a lack of understanding but some of it is deliberately fraudulent. In particular, the levels that the Intelligent Design crowd are happy to stoop to. Even when it comes to the very basics like the difference between the general use of the word 'theory' and 'scientific theory'.
> 
> Our kids are going to grow up in a world where the economy is most likely going to be based on knowledge and invention. I can't, for the life of me, understand why people are happy to even try to adulterate science with the supernatural when it comes to their children's education.


Someone I know who is in an American Highschool mentioned in his biology class the teacher stood up and said he did not personally believe in evolution but was "forced" into teaching it.

Many of these bills are put out by representatives on the "Science" board in those states. In a lot of cases they'll lie and try their hardest to discredit evolution. 

[youtube]eMzW813WJ1c[/youtube]
These are nominees on the board of science in education in Texas. These people try to discredit things that are central to modern medicine such as cell theory and explanations of Bio-Diversity.


----------



## teheviltwin (Jan 9, 2014)

EDIT: Thanks for that video it was really interesting. Am I the only one who has the overwhelming urge to braid AronRa's hair?

It honestly irks me that they care so little for the children that they'd push their superstitions on them and try to ruin their education.

Irreducible Complexity is such a bunch of bollocks. It's been debunked so many times by so many different scientists. Behe can go eat a bag of dicks.


----------



## Watcher (Jan 9, 2014)

teheviltwin said:
			
		

> It's been debunked so many times by so many different scientists.


[youtube]pzrUt9CHtpY[/youtube]

"Someone has to stand up to experts"


----------



## teheviltwin (Jan 9, 2014)

Dr. Cuddlebug said:
			
		

> "Someone has to stand up to experts"



*Vive la révolution!*

I hate quote mining like that. I don't know if that guy is deliberately being misleading about what Gould said about stasis or if he has only read the 'edited' version but either way he should not be allowed anywhere near science textbooks.


----------



## Holdek (Jan 10, 2014)

teheviltwin said:
			
		

> Dr. Cuddlebug said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, it doesn't really matter.  Even if he did read the unedited version, he is so invested in creationism that he would honestly misinterpret it .


----------



## Pikimon (Jan 13, 2014)

I can't really discredit evolution since a large part of it is involved in my studies (medicine, psychiatry, pharmacology,genetics etc.) and I get a chance to firsthand see how evolution works and how it applies to our lives. So chalk me up to being convinced that evolution is real.

My issue with creationism and intelligent design being in taught in public schools, is that kids who learn it are at a significant disadvantage if they ever enter college and decide to enter a field of study that has to do with biology, medicine, psychology, or anthropology. A lot of our understanding on diseases and ailments com from evolution and when you teach a kid that evolution is tantamount to a deity just plopping down the world and all its living forms in a few days I can't help but pity them (in a non-condescending way of course).

I see those kids every once in a while, they are genuinely either frustrated and frequently say "But I was taught..." or just sit there, dumbfounded as they hear how genetics work. A lot of them drop out right there and then but a select few stay behind with genuine curiosity and later on change their views.


----------



## Watcher (Jan 13, 2014)

Pikimon said:
			
		

> or just sit there, dumbfounded as they hear how genetics work.


I always find that aspect amusing as genetics was first discovered by a German monk. Nevermind things like Animal Husbandry has been done for thousands of years and it is entirely genetics at work.

I remember my Biology teacher mentioned his sister owned a cattle farm and she got a degree in genetics that directly aided her in raising and breeding superior cattle.


----------



## exball (Jan 13, 2014)

Proof evolution is fraudulent.


----------



## KatsuKitty (Jan 13, 2014)

Evolution is not a "belief". It is a nearly indisputable fact. That we even have this debate seriously in 2014 is shocking.


----------



## OtterParty (Jan 13, 2014)

Isn't genetic drift a component of evolution? How'd it get its own separate theory?

(I believe our distant ancestors were the executives, bureaucracy, middle management and other unnecessary components of society who were tricked off another planet by prophecies of doom concocted by the more productive citizens of that planet. Joke's on the guys who stayed, though. The entire civilization was wiped out by a contagious disease that was transmitted by telephone.)


----------



## Watcher (Jan 13, 2014)

KatsuKitty said:
			
		

> Evolution is not a "belief". It is a nearly indisputable fact. That we even have this debate seriously in 2014 is shocking.


There's more evidence for evolution than gravity.


----------



## Pikonic (Jan 16, 2014)

Unbovvered said:
			
		

> Isn't genetic drift a component of evolution? How'd it get its own separate theory?
> 
> (I believe our distant ancestors were the executives, bureaucracy, middle management and other unnecessary components of society who were tricked off another planet by prophecies of doom concocted by the more productive citizens of that planet. Joke's on the guys who stayed, though. The entire civilization was wiped out by a contagious disease that was transmitted by telephone.)



You're right about genetic drift, when I made this thread I probably should have put natural selection instead of evolution. Unfortunately I was rushing a little because I was trying to save a Chris thread from being derailed


----------



## Surtur (Jan 17, 2014)

KatsuKitty said:
			
		

> Evolution is not a "belief". It is a nearly indisputable fact. That we even have this debate seriously in 2014 is shocking.



Its more about politics than anything else.


----------



## Watcher (Feb 5, 2014)

> The Reddit who posted this image claims that the quiz was given to his friend’s daughter in a private religious school near Greer, South Carolina. He hesitated to specify the school in order to protect the identity of his friend’s child. “I don’t want the kid to get in trouble, so I am keeping that under my hat until June when school is over,” he claimed. The user also stated that his friend wasn’t happy about the test, which is why it was posted online. “Friend’s kid took it. Friend was livid, showed it to me…” He claims to have taken a photo of the quiz with his iPhone.



My favorite part of this is that the correct answer for Behemoth is a Brontosaurus. When the Behemoth as it is described in the Bible closely resembles an Elephant. Indeed contemporary artwork of the Behemoth closely resembles either a cow or an elephant.


----------



## Smokedaddy (Feb 5, 2014)

According to the current vote tally, we have 7 people that are one or more of the following:
1) trolls
2) too stupid to stand on their hind legs


----------



## Null (Feb 5, 2014)

Smokedaddy said:
			
		

> According to the current vote tally, we have 7 people that are one or more of the following:
> 1) trolls
> 2) too stupid to stand on their hind legs


Or just people that don't take random polls seriously and pick whatever sounds the funniest to them.

I know we have at least one person who is likely to be a creationist, though.


----------



## Bgheff (Feb 5, 2014)

Null said:
			
		

> Smokedaddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, I am a troll.


----------



## Holdek (Feb 5, 2014)

"Map: Publicly Funded Schools That Are Allowed to Teach Creationism:"
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ed_where_tax_money_supports_alternatives.html


----------



## c-no (Feb 5, 2014)

Null said:
			
		

> Smokedaddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure that one person is myself if intelligent design can count. Now if any of you don't mind, you may throw rocks at me for I'am too stupid. Seriously I don't mind.


----------



## Holdek (Feb 6, 2014)

c-no said:
			
		

> Null said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## c-no (Feb 6, 2014)

Holdek said:
			
		

> c-no said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Does that mean I get rocks thrown at me? Does it mean A-Log will say that what Kent Hovind has done is potatoes to what I have done?


----------



## Picklepower (Feb 8, 2014)

But you probably are not a Young Earth, "Evolution is a Satanic Lie!" style creationist though right? if you are, that would actually be interesting. There is a huge difference between that type of creationist, and someone who accepts evolution, but says God had a hand in it. Whenever I hear the term, "intelligent design" it is used to describe the movement of "teach the controversy" people, trying to get creationism in schools, or at least cast doubt on the process of evolution. I think the phrase you guys mean to use is "Theistic Evolution"?


----------



## Holdek (Feb 9, 2014)

Picklepower said:
			
		

> But you probably are not a Young Earth, "Evolution is a Satanic Lie!" style creationist though right? if you are, that would actually be interesting. There is a huge difference between that type of creationist, and someone who accepts evolution, but says God had a hand in it. Whenever I hear the term, "intelligent design" it is used to describe the movement of "teach the controversy" people, trying to get creationism in schools, or at least cast doubt on the process of evolution. I think the phrase you guys mean to use is "Theistic Evolution"?



That version is just slightly less stupid.


----------



## c-no (Feb 9, 2014)

Picklepower said:
			
		

> But you probably are not a Young Earth, "Evolution is a Satanic Lie!" style creationist though right? if you are, that would actually be interesting. There is a huge difference between that type of creationist, and someone who accepts evolution, but says God had a hand in it. Whenever I hear the term, "intelligent design" it is used to describe the movement of "teach the controversy" people, trying to get creationism in schools, or at least cast doubt on the process of evolution. I think the phrase you guys mean to use is "Theistic Evolution"?


I used to believe in Young Earth until a Bible teacher of mine did mention that there were other types of creationism such as Old Earth. With that said I believe in Old Earth. Still, I don't find evolution to be a satanic lie, I just feel that creationism and evolution are the same thing: a debate that has spergs in it. I'll just leave it at that because I wouldn't want to be caught up in the raging sperging anger of crazed Creationist and crazed evolutionist. (I'm pretty sure that both sides have spergs, spergs are always in something.)


----------



## Watcher (Feb 9, 2014)

I'm just going to leave this here



			
				c-no said:
			
		

> I just feel that creationism and evolution are the same thing: a debate that has spergs in it.



I generally dislike this line of thinking. That "both sides are equally at fault". It reminds me of when I've heard Creationists state that atheism is another religion.

People who are on the side of evolution (unless you're on the internet) don't usually care about a person's beliefs. They largely care about science and what is taught to people as science.


----------



## exball (Feb 9, 2014)

Thank god for Turkey.


----------



## c-no (Feb 10, 2014)

Cuddlebug said:
			
		

> c-no said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well in regards to spergs being in both sides, I just feel they might be out there to rage when someone states  their beliefs. Still I feel what I said would apply on the internet since that is where the spergs lurk.


----------



## Surtur (Feb 11, 2014)

It seems Louisiana has gone full re-tard:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/01/28 ... uit-filed/


----------



## c-no (Feb 11, 2014)

Surtur said:
			
		

> It seems Louisiana has gone full re-tard:
> 
> http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/01/28 ... uit-filed/


As a Christian who believes in Intelligent Design, is it okay for me to bash my head against the wall due to this bullying of a buddhist student? Even if it is from the Bible Belt.


----------



## Holdek (Feb 14, 2014)

Cuddlebug said:
			
		

> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Views_on_Evolution.svg
> 
> I'm just going to leave this here
> 
> ...





			
				c-no said:
			
		

> I'll just leave it at that because I wouldn't want to be caught up in the raging sperging anger of crazed Creationist and crazed evolutionist....



Also, there's no such thing as an "evolutionist."  Just someone who accepts science.


----------



## Surtur (Feb 20, 2014)

I was always amused by the term "evilutionist". Really shows how these people view the world.


----------



## Arkangel (Feb 27, 2014)

Surtur said:
			
		

> I was always amused by the term "evilutionist". Really shows how these people view the world.



If you have to use child-like portmanteaus to "demonize" your opposition, it really doesn't speak to the strength of your arguments.


----------



## Holdek (Jun 19, 2014)

*Wyoming Says Teaching Climate Change Would Wreck The State's Economy*



			
				i09 said:
			
		

> Earlier this year, the Wyoming legislature became the first in the U.S. to reject new science standards for schools....
> 
> *Evolving Perspectives*
> 
> ...





Ziltoid said:


> If you have to use child-like portmanteaus to "demonize" your opposition, it really doesn't speak to the strength of your arguments.


It speaks to their arguments being child-like in nature.



exball said:


> Thank god for Turkey.


Yes, praise be to Allah.


----------



## Watcher (Jun 19, 2014)

Holdek said:


> The standards address ultimate religious questions and then use a doctrine or "Rule" that permits only materialistic or functionally atheistic answers.


That "rule" is called the scientific method. Which "everything poofed into existence 6000 years ago" has yet to meet it's burden of proof.

And yes in science you need "materialistic" answers. That's why you go to science class, not religious study.


> The standards are neither educationally objective nor religiously neutral, because an atheistic or materialistic worldview is consistently affirmed throughout.


When the evidence heavily contradicts the "poof out of existence" theory, then yes it's not religiously neutral. In science you need actual evidence to support a hypothesis. Lying about it and saying "no you don't require evidence" in science class ill prepares students that want to become doctors or researchers. Where in the real world you actually need to publish papers and prove something is real instead of just telling people it is on face value.


> The Standards fail to present legitimate scientific critiques of materialistic theories regarding the origins of the universe, of life and its diversity.


Yes because those are "theories" not "absolute truth" like is taught in seminary. Nobody knows conclusively how the universe came about, it's life or it's diversity. Until we do, we have numerous theories that suggest things. It is dishonest to claim you have an answer and then refuse to try and explain why, other than "read a book that came out 2000 years ago that claims the Sun revolves around the Earth."

There is more evidence to support evolution than there is to support gravity. Evolution is one of the most supported theories in science, partly because creationists plug their ears and yell "lalalalala" every time some is presented.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Jun 26, 2014)

Ziltoid said:


> If you have to use child-like portmanteaus to "demonize" your opposition, it really doesn't speak to the strength of your arguments.


A lot of the Young Earth Creationists tend to favour this kind of showboating over actual debate. The number of times I've seen a YEC say, "Well, maybe _you're_ descrnded from a monkey..." or some equally hilarious variant. Usually it's an indication that they actually know sod-all about evolution.

For me, what bugs me about the supposed debate is the suggestion that creationism is some sort of default position - "You can't account for this particular gap in the fossil record, therefore WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS IS TRUE!"  This is despite the fact that we have vast amounts of evidence for evolution and nothing for creationism beyond a few tortuous interpretations of Bible passages. If the YECs arrived at their conclusion as a result of seriously considering the evidence for and against, then I'd respect their views a bit more. As it stands, I have seen no argument in favour of creationism that doesn't ultimately boil down to just trying to disprove evolution, "because the Bible says so" or "because I really want it to be so."


----------



## Uzumaki (Jun 26, 2014)

c-no said:


> Does that mean I get rocks thrown at me? Does it mean A-Log will say that what Kent Hovind has done is potatoes to what I have done?



It's fine to be a Christian, but you might want to climb down off that cross.


----------



## c-no (Jun 26, 2014)

Uzumaki said:


> It's fine to be a Christian, but you might want to climb down off that cross.


Honestly, I wouldn't mind my views being mocked since I do feel that in some way, it can help toughen me in knowing what I follow is wrong. Even then, outside it all I feel no one would really care until it is brought up in some way, especially in how one acts.


----------



## ASoulMan (Jul 2, 2014)

Despite the controversy it faced since Darwin published The Origin of Species, the theory of evolution has been backed up by mountains of evidence, and is thus considered factual by the scientific community. It's about as factual as gravity and the theory of relativity. While belief in evolution is optional, participation is not. Every creature living on Earth today is the result of millions of years of evolutionary progress.

I myself have nothing against religion. I've been attending a church for almost a year and half now, and I get along with a group of people who attend there who I know have expressed creationist views. It only becomes an issue when somebody decides it's okay to come crashing into a school demanding that creationism/intelligent design should be taught. Creationism is merely a personal belief, not a true science, and therefore has no reason to be taught in school. You don't see science being taught in church, so why should creationism/intelligent design be taught in science classes? It only serves to confuse people in which subject is actually more legitimate.


----------



## The Knife's Husbando (Jul 2, 2014)

People who believe in Creationism instead of evolution are _actively participating_ in the process, like it or not. As they yank out their kids from schools to home-teach them, they insure that they're not going to have the advantage of a proper scientifically-based education, and thus they will not be able to succeed as well in life. 

It's impossible to claim to have a scientific mind, and to be a devout Christian creationist as well. They are diametrically opposed concepts. It's like saying you work as a welder, but don't believe in Ferrothermic chemistry. Simply put, you're paying lip service to one or the other, an I personally hope it's to the religious end. While being a hypocrite is a personal problem, we all know _bad science kills people_.


----------



## Thelostcup (Jul 3, 2014)

You don't "believe" in evolutionary theory.  It is simply a process that occurs whether or not you want to admit it.  

Interestingly enough, the creation myth does somewhat line up with the scientific history of the earth if you interpret it liberally enough.


----------



## Uzumaki (Jul 3, 2014)

Thelostcup said:


> You don't "believe" in evolutionary theory.  It is simply a process that occurs whether or not you want to admit it.
> 
> Interestingly enough, the creation myth does somewhat line up with the scientific history of the earth if you interpret it liberally enough.



And Nostradamus gots his predictions right all the time if you're willing to interpret them liberally enough. If what you write is vague and allegorical enough you can make it mean anything.


----------



## Surtur (Jul 4, 2014)

I predict a horrible tragedy will befall someone tomorrow. If it comes true I officially have psycho powers.


----------



## Watcher (Jul 5, 2014)

Thelostcup said:


> Interestingly enough, the creation myth does somewhat line up with the scientific history of the earth if you interpret it liberally enough.



Oh boy here we go.

No.

From Skeptics Annotated Bible: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html


> The Genesis 1 account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science.
> 
> In Genesis 1:1, the earth and "heaven" are created together "in the beginning," whereas according to current estimates, the earth and universe are about 4.6 and 13.7 billion years old, respectively.
> 
> ...



Genesis is a product of the "science" of the day, in that primitive man had no idea about things like atomic theory and taxonomy.


----------



## StallChaser (Jul 6, 2014)

It boggles my mind how anyone can fight against evolution.  Not even just being ignorant of it -- you can be ignorant of a lot of things, like how exactly a computer works, or the manufacturing process of a car, and still function in daily life.  Evolution is sort of like that, where you can function without knowing its details if you're not doing anything related to biology/medicine.  But some people go so far as to try to prevent people from learning an established scientific theory because it doesn't agree 100% with their religion, and that's insane.


----------



## The Knife's Husbando (Jul 6, 2014)

StallChaser said:


> It boggles my mind how anyone can fight against evolution.  Not even just being ignorant of it -- you can be ignorant of a lot of things, like how exactly a computer works, or the manufacturing process of a car, and still function in daily life.  Evolution is sort of like that, where you can function without knowing its details if you're not doing anything related to biology/medicine.  But some people go so far as to try to prevent people from learning an established scientific theory because it doesn't agree 100% with their religion, and that's insane.



My eighth-grade math teacher one told me something that has stayed with me to this day: "Their is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance is simply the sate of _not knowing_, and while unfortunate is easily curable. Stupidity, on the other hand- _is the state of not wanting to know_- and that's despicable." 

The very fact that you are reading this means you have access to the internet. The largest collection of scientific information that the human race has ever put together.  In the age of information, willful ignorance of scientific fact is a clear choice.


----------



## Surtur (Jul 6, 2014)

Cuddlebug said:


> Oh boy here we go.
> 
> No.
> 
> ...



It's almost as if primitive men were trying to explain the world the best they could...


----------



## exball (Jul 8, 2014)




----------



## exball (Jul 27, 2014)




----------



## ToroidalBoat (Jul 30, 2014)

Evolution happens every time a new creature is born - there's a "microevolution" from parent to child. "Microevolution" over a long time becomes "macroevolution", just as steps become a journey.

Now, I believe this doesn't automatically rule out theism. The creation story in Genesis can be an allegory for spiritual development (like it's claimed to be in "Arcana Cœlestia"), for example.


----------



## Watcher (Jul 31, 2014)

Micro and Macro are just statements of time. Like a minute or an hour. Both are evolution, and can be considered largely superfluous. A big reason why Micro and Macro are even mentioned in creation debates is because Creationists attempt to state that Macro evolution doesn't exist because you don't have "Fish changing into birds" and other such nonsense like that, while being incapable of defending simple examples of micro evolution like dog breeds. And how almost 90% of dog breeds today came about over the last 100 years through selective breeding.


----------



## StallChaser (Aug 1, 2014)

Cuddlebug said:


> Micro and Macro are just statements of time. Like a minute or an hour. Both are evolution, and can be considered largely superfluous. A big reason why Micro and Macro are even mentioned in creation debates is because Creationists attempt to state that Macro evolution doesn't exist because you don't have "Fish changing into birds" and other such nonsense like that, while being incapable of defending simple examples of micro evolution like dog breeds. And how almost 90% of dog breeds today came about over the last 100 years through selective breeding.


Creationist - there's no such thing as evolution.
Scientist - Here's an example of evolution.
Creationist - Yeah, but there's a magical stopping point and it can't go any further *runs off with goalposts*
Scientist - We can trace it further back, all the way to microorganisms.  We can tell by genetic similarities where exactly the different species branched off and when, corroborated by fossil evidence and radioiso-  oh, he's gone.  Where'd the goalposts go?


----------



## Surtur (Aug 3, 2014)

StallChaser said:


> Creationist - there's no such thing as evolution.
> Scientist - Here's an example of evolution.
> Creationist - Yeah, but there's a magical stopping point and it can't go any further *runs off with goalposts*
> Scientist - We can trace it further back, all the way to microorganisms.  We can tell by genetic similarities where exactly the different species branched off and when, corroborated by fossil evidence and radioiso-  oh, he's gone.  Where'd the goalposts go?



The sad part is, no amount of proof can convince these assholes the truth.


----------

