Expelled Movie

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

hahaha yeah, i know this, but im talking about evolution as disputed in this conversation.
 
well shit look around you. Something doesnt come from nothing, this is a fact.

You should re-read some of the conversation me and Sabz have already had in this thread. Evolution doesn't explain the origin of things, instead it explains how life on Planet Earth has changed over time. Pitting Intelligent Design against the theory of evolution is like apples and oranges...
 
well shit look around you. Something doesnt come from nothing, this is a fact.

Show me:

EXACTLY where evolution says 'something comes from nothing'

EXACTLY how evolution deals with anything except life

Like the Virtual Boy, you're failing right out the door!
 
You should re-read some of the conversation me and Sabz have already had in this thread. Evolution doesn't explain the origin of things, instead it explains how life on Planet Earth has changed over time. Pitting Intelligent Design against the theory of evolution is like apples and oranges...


hahaha i was just thinking that.

maybe its the scientists that are dumbasses
 
some one explain to me what the whole argument between the two is because im obviously lost

If God didn't do it, Christians are pissed.

That's it in a nutshell.

If you want to know what evolution is... ask.
 
hmm im a christian i guess you could say,

but im trying to figure out why God couldnt have made evolution in the first place :shrug2:
 
hmm im a christian i guess you could say,

but im trying to figure out why God couldnt have made evolution in the first place :shrug2:

That's easy. He's God. Why would he need to create a natural (and slow!) process when he could simply snap his fingers, say a few words and BAM... just like he did with the universe and everything else within it.
 
That's easy. He's God. Why would he need to create a natural (and slow!) process when he could simply snap his fingers, say a few words and BAM... just like he did with the universe and everything else within it.

Because God lives out side of time, so whether it takes .5 miliseconds or 500 million years, Is irrelevant to him.
 
A lot of skepticism concerning evolution comes from good old fashioned 'you do not know the subject matter'. Excellent examples are the "something from nothing" and the "man from monkeys" claims. Nowhere does evolutionary theory say either of these things... in fact, if it were true that man descended from modern monkeys, evolutionary theory would be immediately invalidated.

Evolution is the filtering of random mutations through non-random modifiers. It's Nature's Yahtzee. This process is fact. It has been observed and measured several times. Speciation, the process by which one species gives rise to another, has also been observed.(1) The evolutionary relation between man and the great apes has been verified through genetics.(2) We even found the Darwin Fish(TM), and it was exactly where evolutionary theory predicted.(3)

Nothing in modern biology makes any sense without evolutionary theory. It is a cornerstone of science, much as gravitation and relativity are. Do you trust paternity tests? Guess what, that's evolutionary theory in practical application. Evolutionary theory plays a large role in the engineering of influenza vaccines and other medicines. It also has a neat "wow" factor, as with a mutation called CCR5delta32. It's a simple mutation... a hunk of the gene CCR5 is missing (delta in bio = deletion), which alters T-cell function. Certain receptors are non-functioning due to this, sort of like pulling a spark plug wire... piston's moving but not making any power.

Whereas this raises your risk of West Nile, if you receive this from both parents you're basically immune to HIV/AIDS. Wow, one little microscopic snip and you're 98% immune to one of the deadliest viruses on this planet... one for which there is no current cure.

The real neat part is how it might have come about. But I'll leave that reading to you (insert Reading Rainbow ditty)

(1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
(2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
(3)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
 
Last edited:
The Unicorn has as much evidence as God.
I never disputed this. In fact, I think we're both going the same direction.

This is not mathematics. Confusing the two is a quick way to misunderstand the subject.
Mathematics is purely the most simple form of showing how you prove something wrong. You plug in a counter-example and pow! - something is proven wrong.

If you are going to say that "this isn't math" - shove it. This applies to all rigorous thought. And please don't bullshit me to win an argument.


Now. Am I saying that any "counter-example" proposed by ID proponents negates evolution? No. They have to be valid examples and questions that fall within the rules and guidelines set. So I dont believe origin questions should be asked of evolution because it doesn't lie within the boundries of evolution. Nor do I believe that any example such as "irreducible complexity" has won the argument, because it is not a valid example.

I agree that most of the debate comes from not understanding the obvious about evolution - but most of it comes from repeated use of false counter-examples such as "irreducible complexity", "man from monkeys", etc. Even after years of these things being well know to be false, people keep preaching this shit and people keep listening.
 
Mathematics is purely the most simple form of showing how you prove something wrong. You plug in a counter-example and pow! - something is proven wrong.

If you are going to say that "this isn't math" - shove it. This applies to all rigorous thought. And please don't bullshit me to win an argument.

Science and mathematics are definitely two distinct beasts. VERY distinct beasts. If you really want to get nit-picky, it's incorrect to use prove and disprove when speaking of theories. They are not proven or disproven, they are validated and invalidated. No one piece of scientific data single handedly "proves" or "disproves" a theory. When something comes along that invalidates a part of the theory, the theory is changed to reflect the new facts. The theory is not thrown away.

You are attempting to apply a mathematical constant to a scientific variable. Your thinking is joe average compatible, but it is not how science works. Look up the scientific definition of the words theory and fact. Those two, when put together, will show you why you are applying the words and methods incorrectly.

Sorry, I am gonna argue the point because it's one of the biggest things that people misunderstand when it comes to science. So no, this is not math, stop thinking like a mathematician.

Now. Am I saying that any "counter-example" proposed by ID proponents negates evolution? No. They have to be valid examples and questions that fall within the rules and guidelines set. So I dont believe origin questions should be asked of evolution because it doesn't lie within the boundries of evolution. Nor do I believe that any example such as "irreducible complexity" has won the argument, because it is not a valid example.

No, it doesn't. Origins of life need not apply here.

I agree that most of the debate comes from not understanding the obvious about evolution - but most of it comes from repeated use of false counter-examples such as "irreducible complexity", "man from monkeys", etc. Even after years of these things being well know to be false, people keep preaching this shit and people keep listening.


Education, it's a big ol problem in this country.
 
That is why theories are theories and facts are facts.
 
Look up the definition of the word "theory".

A theory would not be a theory if it were a fact.
 
Back
Top