Evolution/Creationism Thread - If Humans evolved from Monkeys, Why are there still Monkeys?

[NewRetroVagina23]

The universe is a Boltzmann brain and you are currently being thought of.

 

[Penis Drager]

I'm gonna be a massive nigger and @Iron Jaguar

Edit:

I like throwing down the 10 dimensions when athiests get too euphoric for my tastes. Considering it leaves most scratching their head it works well. It's the kind of thing I like to watch when I'm smoking and orb pondering:

I take issue with this:
The concepts in this video aren't all that complicated. They're just poorly represented.
Extradimensionality can much more simply be described by imagining "trapping" something.
1D: 2 points does the job.
2D: a circle works.
3D: a sphere works.
4D is where we have to distinguish between spatial and temporal dimensions. Time is typically thought of as a dimension, but it is a different "kind" of one. Temporal dimensions only move one way under standard physical interpretations, hence why time travel and, by extension, superluminal speed is impossible.
With spatial dimensions, you add more "directions" which can be moved: you add another axis to the "hypersphere," as I'll call it here, required to trap the thing.
Temporal dimensions just keep on going. Everything from the universe's genesis to its demise are just a constant forward momentum. If you want to get more technical: these are the dimensions in which entropy is always increasing in the absence of an outside energy source.

None of this has anything to do with the video. That is intentional. The video is mostly sophistry which tries, at the end, to loop itself into String Theory.
Protip: if anyone describes "String Theory" as if it's a single thing, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. There are several "String Theories" all of which have a different number of both spatial and temporal dimensions.

Conclusion: NIGGER!

 

[Iron Jaguar]

I'm gonna be a massive nigger and @Iron Jaguar

Edit:

I take issue with this:
The concepts in this video aren't all that complicated. They're just poorly represented.
Extradimensionality can much more simply be described by imagining "trapping" something.
1D: 2 points does the job.
2D: a circle works.
3D: a sphere works.
4D is where we have to distinguish between spatial and temporal dimensions. Time is typically thought of as a dimension, but it is a different "kind" of one. Temporal dimensions only move one way under standard physical interpretations, hence why time travel and, by extension, superluminal speed is impossible.
With spatial dimensions, you add more "directions" which can be moved: you add another axis to the "hypersphere," as I'll call it here, required to trap the thing.
Temporal dimensions just keep on going. Everything from the universe's genesis to its demise are just a constant forward momentum. If you want to get more technical: these are the dimensions in which entropy is always increasing in the absence of an outside energy source.

None of this has anything to do with the video. That is intentional. The video is mostly sophistry which tries, at the end, to loop itself into String Theory.
Protip: if anyone describes "String Theory" as if it's a single thing, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. There are several "String Theories" all of which have a different number of both spatial and temporal dimensions.

Conclusion: NIGGER!

But in a friendly way.

 

[Penis Drager]

But in a friendly way.

You and I both know it had to be done.
I would have brought @Exhalate Carcinomas in too but he's an obvious troll and he changes his name too much.

...oops.

 

[Zarael]

I like throwing down the 10 dimensions when athiests get too euphoric for my tastes. Considering it leaves most scratching their head it works well. It's the kind of thing I like to watch when I'm smoking and orb pondering:

Man that's a blast from the past. Complete bullshit but entertaining bullshit.

If everything was created by God, then who or what created God? Are we to believe that God had always been? If so, where has God always been? Something can't be nowhere. So if God has assuredly been somewhere this entire time, who made the somewhere and put God there? God couldn't have made the somewhere from nowhere and put himself there. If it is insisted that God is not any one place but everywhere at once, we are to understand that the universe itself is God, but then we are left with the same questions. If we are made in God's image, who determined God's image? If God created humanity and everything, then why? To have a plaything? To teach something he created a lesson?

1. God is what you call an "unconditioned reality", nothing created God.
2. Yes God is eternal in the sense that God transcends time so "had always been" is correct if you think about God always having been and simultaneously never having been due to transcending time entirely. There is no point in time where God "is".
3. The same place the number 1 has been. Where is the number 1 located? Not a specific instance of a single thing but the concept of the number 1. Keep in mind there that numbers themselves cannot be a mental construct they are an objective extramental reality.
4. There is no "where" God is. Much like there is no "where is the number 1?". Talking about non-material realities as if they inhabit spacetime like material things is silly.
5. God determined Gods image. God wills Himself and is traditionally defined as a self existent being. God wills Himself to be, Gods essence and existence are the same thing. The ontological argument is predicated on this since the argument relies on understanding that "God" contains the concept of "being" like "bachelor" contains the concept of "being unmarried". So if you can determine that "Bachelors are unmarried" is true simply by knowing that the category of bachelor necessitates being unmarried then you can know God exists by understanding that God necessarily includes the concept of being.
6. God is love and God creates because of the fecundity of Love and its nature to be shared. This isn't something unique to Christian philosophy, it's an argument Plotinus makes in why "The One" would create anything at all, being entirely perfect and self sufficient in itself. To be perfect love needs to be expressed.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Creationism is a religious belief; evolution is an indisputable fact. In practice, people can organize their beliefs to fit with the evidence to whatever degree they wish, but at the end of the day, the fact will always remain that beliefs like young-Earth creationism are completely at odds with reality.

Speaking as a non-religious person, I actually find the embrace of pseudoscience by some fundamentalists to be rather sad, because in some ways, it serves as a tacit admission that they don't really believe in the power of faith, and must instead force themselves to compete in an empirical arena where science has already won. It's a futile position for them to cling to, and I can't imagine it's a very fulfilling one.

 

[gang weeder]

If everything was created by God, then who or what created God? Are we to believe that God had always been? If so, where has God always been? Something can't be nowhere. So if God has assuredly been somewhere this entire time, who made the somewhere and put God there? God couldn't have made the somewhere from nowhere and put himself there. If it is insisted that God is not any one place but everywhere at once, we are to understand that the universe itself is God, but then we are left with the same questions. If we are made in God's image, who determined God's image? If God created humanity and everything, then why? To have a plaything? To teach something he created a lesson?

Hence the conclusion that God's full nature is unfathomable and can't fully make sense to mortal minds.

Faith is great and all but let's not pretend it does any better at giving fulfilling answers than science does when you really get into the meat of it. Science obviously can't prove something that may have happened 14 billion years ago but only give very educated guesses.

Faith is the only option when it comes to the question of why anything exists. Science has nothing to say about it. You may not find the Christian tradition in particular to be a "fulfilling answer," but you must have faith that there is *something* out there giving some kind of higher purpose. It's either that or nihilism.

Anyways, two things are abundantly clear: evolution is how we got here, not creation and we've lost many thousands of years of human history to time. There are many gaps in the history of the ancestors of homo sapiens that would do well to explain how we ended up this way.

I can't remember the last time I saw a Christian actually try to do the whole denial of evolution meme. I'm not sure if I've ever seen it. I'm sure you could find a few people out there like that if you tried, but I'd equate them to flat earthers. If anything, they're less than flat earthers--I've seen and interacted with plenty of flat earthers, but not any evolution-deniers.

 

[Agent Abe Caprine]

I can't remember the last time I saw a Christian actually try to do the whole denial of evolution meme. I'm not sure if I've ever seen it. I'm sure you could find a few people out there like that if you tried, but I'd equate them to flat earthers. If anything, they're less than flat earthers--I've seen and interacted with plenty of flat earthers, but not any evolution-deniers.

I know plenty of people that will reeeee the second you call humans apes. They're fine with humoring the idea of birds coming from dinosaurs. You're probably not in a very religious area.

 

[SouthernBitchBob]

That with a starting point stuck between "impossible" and "if it happened disproves the methods by which we measure it" does not impress me, no matter how many scientists agree.

By what method can matter form itself? And how could you have observations with meaning if matter could create itself at will? No, whatever the answer is the Big Bang is right out -- except perhaps as the explanation of creationism that it started as, amusingly.

Where in the sentence "living things change over time" does it state "this explains how all of it began"? It's a process that is clearly happening, *right now*. Religious nuts just got assmad because the process implies our ancestors weren't always human, and it throws a wrench in the "magic plopped us down fully formed" story. THAT is where religious spergs cross the wires between the observable process of evolution and their creation fairy tales.

I find it entertaining when the religious try passing off incredulity as "science". "It couldn't possibly have come from nowhere" isn't a statement of fact. It's not knowing how things came to be, plus a coloring that comes from your religion. Deism? Fine, something snapped its fingers and made everything from the darkness. Can't prove it, can't say it didn't happen. But religious people aren't interested in that explanation; they think that because the universe *might* have appeared from nowhere, therefore Christianity and all of its claims about healing spells, parthenogenesis, resurrection, demons, spirits, transmutation between bread and skin wafers, pillars of salt, dietary restrictions, hysterical control freakishness about sex, all of that clearly follows from "a god may have begun everything". It's pretending that scientific discovery proves conclusions you've already determined that the outcome would prove, and it's gibberish every time the sleight of hand is tried.

 

[gang weeder]

I know plenty of people that will reeeee the second you call humans apes. They're fine with humoring the idea of birds coming from dinosaurs. You're probably not in a very religious area.

I spent the first 25 years of my life in Mississippi and today attend an Orthodox congregation. I assure you I have plenty of experience being in a religious area. Again, I am sure there are some religious spaces where this is more common, but disproving evolution is not a serious concern of Christians more broadly. Anyone claiming it is has an agenda, in the same way that conservatives like to typecast every liberal as a blue haired landwhale.

 

[Gimmick Account]

I don't know if I've ever heard anyone say that humans were created "scientifically." Unless you count the black hebrew israelite yakub tier shit I guess.

Dinosaur scientists, man. We'll do the same thing to meercats or something before we all leave Earth to go live on Uranus or whatever. Cute little golden cities and shit

 

[Blasterisk]

Where in the sentence "living things change over time" does it state "this explains how all of it began"? It's a process that is clearly happening, *right now*. Religious nuts just got assmad because the process implies our ancestors weren't always human, and it throws a wrench in the "magic plopped us down fully formed" story. THAT is where religious spergs cross the wires between the observable process of evolution and their creation fairy tales.

I find it entertaining when the religious try passing off incredulity as "science". "It couldn't possibly have come from nowhere" isn't a statement of fact. It's not knowing how things came to be, plus a coloring that comes from your religion. Deism? Fine, something snapped its fingers and made everything from the darkness. Can't prove it, can't say it didn't happen. But religious people aren't interested in that explanation; they think that because the universe *might* have appeared from nowhere, therefore Christianity and all of its claims about healing spells, parthenogenesis, resurrection, demons, spirits, transmutation between bread and skin wafers, pillars of salt, dietary restrictions, hysterical control freakishness about sex, all of that clearly follows from "a god may have begun everything". It's pretending that scientific discovery proves conclusions you've already determined that the outcome would prove, and it's gibberish every time the sleight of hand is tried.

Observing dog breeds and working this backwards to claim as "observable fact" that life can spontaneously create itself from primordial soup has no basis in fact that I know of, no basis in observed life that I've ever read, and to my knowledge no basis in any signal any human optic nerve has ever received. So to say that it is 'scientific' is either a joke, or a fraud.

"It couldn't possibly have come from nowhere" is merely part one of my objection, the full stating "It couldn't possibly have come from nowhere, because if it did we couldn't be sure other things we observe didn't create themselves during the time in which we observed them."

So it isn't just that I believe something, it's that if you want logic, real logic, and not just the order in life from scientists telling you what to think, "macro" evolution is out.

 

[Penis Drager]

Observing dog breeds and working this backwards to claim as "observable fact" that life can spontaneously create itself from primordial soup has no basis in fact that I know of, no basis in observed life that I've ever read, and to my knowledge no basis in any signal any human optic nerve has ever received. So to say that it is 'scientific' is either a joke, or a fraud.

"It couldn't possibly have come from nowhere" is merely part one of my objection, the full stating "It couldn't possibly have come from nowhere, because if it did we couldn't be sure other things we observe didn't create themselves during the time in which we observed them."

So it isn't just that I believe something, it's that if you want logic, real logic, and not just the order in life from scientists telling you what to think, "macro" evolution is out.

Way to miss the goddamn point.
1. Evolution (even macro-evolution as typically understood by creationists) has literally fuckall to do with the big bang or even abiogenesis.
2. Assuming the beliefs you're attacking are actually inherently flawed, that does not make any other alternative explanation any more credible.

Aside from that: The Big Bang is not "everything coming out of nowhere." It's more complicated that that. And, more relevantly, it is NOT evolution (in the ToE context at least).

 

[Blasterisk]

Way to miss the goddamn point.
1. Evolution (even macro-evolution as typically understood by creationists) has literally fuckall to do with the big bang or even abiogenesis.
2. Assuming the beliefs you're attacking are actually inherently flawed, that does not make any other alternative explanation any more credible.

Aside from that: The Big Bang is not "everything coming out of nowhere." It's more complicated that that. And, more relevantly, it is NOT evolution (in the ToE context at least).

The Big Bang doesn't "just happen" and then God makes things out of the resultant random bits (for He would then not be the Creator, but merely the Organizer), and likewise the "scientific" view is that macro evolution renders God unnecessary (because Darwin was mad that his niece died)

And if "it's more complicated than that" had any merit, it could be discussed, but it doesn't. Because there's no scientific way to do anything but guess about what happened before matter.
So, then, it's faith either way, if you believe anything at all.

I suppose you could argue for Steady State, of course, but we all know that's been debunked. After all, a man of science knows full well the force of entropy.

 

[Penis Drager]

The Big Bang doesn't "just happen"

Agreed.
It's more complicated than that.

the "scientific" view is that macro evolution renders God unnecessary

No. The scientific view is that macro evolution happens.

because Darwin

Who gives a fuck about Darwin? He was a bright guy who helped kickstart a new field of study which continues to be expanded to this day. He was also very speculative and even wrong at times (also fucked his cousin, lol!). He's not a prophet though and all of his work is relegated to the history books.

if "it's more complicated than that" had any merit, it could be discussed, but it doesn't. Because there's no scientific way to do anything but guess about what happened before matter.

We extrapolate what we know about how things work today and apply it to the past.
You don't need video feed of something happening to know it happened. Nobody even needed to be there. You take a look at the aftermath and apply what you know.

faith

Faith is believing in something because you want it to be true. I'm sure a lot of Reddit atheists are like that but the alternative is choosing the option that is best supported by data and avoiding unfalsifiable claims.

 

[Kiwi & Cow]

Creationism is aids. There's also more evidence to evolution than creationism.

 

[Getting tard comed]

Regardless of the merits of creationism, Evolution or TENS or The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is bullshit. It's literally impossible. The math doesn't add up. If you take the fastest average rate of mutation(bacteria) and apply it to human beings and our supposed closest species, the chimpanzee, the earth hasn't been around long enough for enough time to pass to allow the amount of fixed mutations necessary for the difference between the species. That is allowing for the rate of mutation to always lead to a fixed one(which it doesn't always) and that is allowing for every hypothetical fixed mutation to be a positive(which in reality most mutations an organism has end up a negative). Now apply that to every species and every organism. The earth hasn't been around long enough for humans and chimps to have the amount of separate fixed mutations that exist in both. Now imagine the thousands of species and organisms necessary just to get to that deviation. The theory is actually laughable once genetics come into play.

The theory is bullshit. I may have my own beliefs as to what actually did happen but I know TENS did not happen.

All that said, this debate topic is meaningless as *if* Evolution was the process in which speciation occured, it wasn't but this is a hypothetical, it would not remove the possibility of any religious or supernatural elements involved. If a programmer creates a program to have something done the programmer doesn't magically disappear after his program does what he intended.

Edit: I forgot to emphasize that the human chimpanzee thing doesn't work out using the fastest rate of mutation observed which is in bacteria. Human rate of mutation is slower, observable so since human generations take way lore time than bacteria do, and if humans rate of mutation was as fast as bacteria we should see observable mutations in human beings by now considering how long we've been on the planet. The easiest way to "prove" of (more likely) falsify the theory for everyone(or really those not ready to accept the math or capable of doing it themselves) would be to unearth a mummy, look at its genome, take any modern day human being, look at its genome and compare and contrast. We should see at minimum a few hundred different fixed mutations in modern humans that aren't in the Egyptian. I wonder why this hasn't been done yet.

 

[Isaac]

Like I've stated before: this animal refutes Atheism.

The fox couldn't have originated out of a primordial vacuum. I don't believe in Evolution because I do not care much about how foxes came to be. I just know that they are real, and that they are good. And that goodness is proof of a divine power. For an ambivalent universe could never begat, only create. And creations are only statues.

The thousands of (false) religions serves to substantiates this truth. We are religious creatures, and we instinctively seek our Lord. We share common morality, and
our divine intuition has caused philosophical and moral convergence between all cultures.


I know that this animal is good, and that is why I remain faithful.

 

[ln18]

Just a plank of the Pagan Invasion

 

[Penis Drager]

If you take the fastest average rate of mutation(bacteria) and apply it to human beings and our supposed closest species, the chimpanzee, the earth hasn't been around long enough for enough time to pass to allow the amount of fixed mutations necessary for the difference between the species.

Are you some kind of stupid person?
Molecular clock dating is literally the study where you estimate the time two species diverged based on their respective mutation rates. Humans split from other apes between 8 and 12 million years ago, btw.

Literally where did you get this idea from?