The Meaning Of Evolution

[hblask 1]

Sure. I believe the bible to be full of facts as well. I trust those who wrote it, were not lying. Just as you trust... wait, unless you actually do this research your self, brush off the bones, locate the bones, piece them together, test them the amount of time that it takes to get an accurate read as to when those bones came from, run your data past others and have them run the same tests... do you do all that? No. Why, then, you have faith.

I know you are a smart person, so I assume you are being facetious here. Each person does not need to recreate the entire study of hundreds of years worth of data. Any individual piece of it can, and has, be easily verified. It's all been looked at thousands of times by independent researchers, and is available to anyone who cares to do the same investigation.Compare this to a story in the bible. How much independent investigation can be done of that.Trust based on the idea that the evidence is available for anyone to see, compared to trust based on the notion that the original author was infallible, is in no way the same thing.

Like I said, I could start digging right now and find a Unichaun. It's unicorn, with a wee bit of leprechaun thrown in. It's out there, and the kicker is I wont even have to find the whole thing. I can find a fraction, and then build it.

OK, then do this. Explain why this is the simplest, most straightforward explanation of what you find, and how it fits into the hierarchy of known history.The truth is, no such thing will every be found, because you are being silly to try to make a point. Fortunately, science isn't susceptible to silliness, it's only susceptible to observations and analysis.

. So, my attitude towards science is basically this- blow me. You, Mr. Science, are arrogant as ****.

Did you know that the Earth is more-or-less spherical? I, personally, have not verified this fact, but the tests to prove it are available to anyone who cares enough to verify it.

[Loismustdie 0]

I know you are a smart person, so I assume you are being facetious here. Each person does not need to recreate the entire study of hundreds of years worth of data. Any individual piece of it can, and has, be easily verified. It's all been looked at thousands of times by independent researchers, and is available to anyone who cares to do the same investigation.Compare this to a story in the bible. How much independent investigation can be done of that.Trust based on the idea that the evidence is available for anyone to see, compared to trust based on the notion that the original author was infallible, is in no way the same thing.OK, then do this. Explain why this is the simplest, most straightforward explanation of what you find, and how it fits into the hierarchy of known history.The truth is, no such thing will every be found, because you are being silly to try to make a point. Fortunately, science isn't susceptible to silliness, it's only susceptible to observations and analysis. Did you know that the Earth is more-or-less spherical? I, personally, have not verified this fact, but the tests to prove it are available to anyone who cares enough to verify it.

Of course I am being silly. I don't really care about the fossil record. I do know this- as much as religion has been guilty of perpetuating lies as fact, so has science. As much as religion has been guilty of only showing part of there hand- so has science. Science isn't susceptible to silliness? CFC's much? Al Gore ring a bell? Lightbulbs that are "better" for the environment but just may kill you if it breaks? Wasn't the world going to freeze in the 70's? Science has been wrong left and right since time began, and the latest silliness just might increase world hunger to levels never seen. Good ****ing job, science. You rock. Look, I get it. It's easier to think that we have some sort of control over all of this chaos that is earth, but time and time again, we don't. We are along for the ride. It gets colder, can't do dick. Hotter, can't do dick. Floods, famine, we can't do dick. Now, we can do stupid shit, like, I don't know, take a staple of human consumption and throw it into a ****ing car. For all of our brilliance we are barely idiot level as a whole. If there are aliens,and I believe that there are just not how you think of them- they spend there days pointing and laughing at what dolts we are. You know what I would do if I was President? Ignore scientist who weren't trying to cure disease, or coming up with new ways to feed people, etc. How much to go to the moon? **** you. How much to dig for fossils? **** you. How much to mine babies from women? **** you. Find another way, you ****ing psychopath. Science, as a whole, is more ruthless than the Vatican and Terrorists combined.

[timwakefield 68]

I'll suck a **** on the golden gate bridge before I believe clouds are made from marshmallows. Silly.

Coincidentally, sucking a dick on the golden gate bridge is called 'eating a marshmallow cloud.'

[Loismustdie 0]

Coincidentally, sucking a dick on the golden gate bridge is called 'eating a marshmallow cloud.'

That made me chuckle a bit. Good one.

[ShakeZuma 585]

oh man, I really gotta stop reading these threads. this really hurts me. I mean I'm seriously sitting here, furrowing my brow so hard that the pain is going into my stomach. you guys have fun, I'm outta here.

[hblask 1]

I don't really care about the fossil record. I

LOL.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Of course I am being silly. I don't really care about the fossil record. I do know this- as much as religion has been guilty of perpetuating lies as fact, so has science. As much as religion has been guilty of only showing part of there hand- so has science. Science isn't susceptible to silliness? CFC's much? Al Gore ring a bell? Lightbulbs that are "better" for the environment but just may kill you if it breaks? Wasn't the world going to freeze in the 70's? Science has been wrong left and right since time began, and the latest silliness just might increase world hunger to levels never seen. Good ****ing job, science. You rock. Look, I get it. It's easier to think that we have some sort of control over all of this chaos that is earth, but time and time again, we don't. We are along for the ride. It gets colder, can't do dick. Hotter, can't do dick. Floods, famine, we can't do dick. Now, we can do stupid shit, like, I don't know, take a staple of human consumption and throw it into a ****ing car. For all of our brilliance we are barely idiot level as a whole. If there are aliens,and I believe that there are just not how you think of them- they spend there days pointing and laughing at what dolts we are. You know what I would do if I was President? Ignore scientist who weren't trying to cure disease, or coming up with new ways to feed people, etc. How much to go to the moon? **** you. How much to dig for fossils? **** you. How much to mine babies from women? **** you. Find another way, you ****ing psychopath. Science, as a whole, is more ruthless than the Vatican and Terrorists combined.

Nope you missed again.Science seeks out and provides information. Nothing more, nothing less. What we do with that information is another matter.The silliness you have alluded to is due to politics, media and capitalisation.Nice rant though

[speedz99 145]

I personally think that if I dug long enough with enough manpower looking for a specific thing I would find that thing, doesn't really matter what it is, especially when I have the luxury of not actually finding the thing, but just a percentage of the thing, and people will still regard it as having found that thing. When you think about it given the written record it's much easier to just believe in christianity, Christ death, burial, resurrection, etc. Either one requires a certain amount of faith, only one is preposterous enough to offer percentages of evidence and wish to be taken as fact. At least christianity is honest about it.

Sigh. The "written record" here can't be taken as fact. By now you should know why.

It was some creationist muppets who put together drawings of the half-way transition between a cow-like creature and a whale ridiculing it and asking why it hadn't been found. It was a little bit embarrassing for them when it was found a few years later and looked coincidently similar to there pictures.

Good times.

Your faith is quite admirable. I applaud you.

Nope.

yeah I can get behind this. it is kinda silly to believe something when you can only prove within a shadow of a doubt large percentages of it when you can just wholly buy into something with absolutely no proof at all. makes sense.soooo... you're saying that, let me get this straight, forming a theory based off of facts, then researching that theory, then finding the evidence to back up that theory is true, is.... silly? I mean... really?

:schrutebuck:

You know what I would do if I was President? Ignore scientist who weren't trying to cure disease, or coming up with new ways to feed people, etc. How much to go to the moon? **** you. How much to dig for fossils? **** you. How much to mine babies from women? **** you. Find another way, you ****ing psychopath. Science, as a whole, is more ruthless than the Vatican and Terrorists combined.

Oh dear. Thank Spaghetti Monster people like you are considered raving loonies by enough of the population to make statements like this completely irrelavent. Ignoring everything else for a second (there's just too much ammo)...I'm not sure that devoting every resource science has to keeping people alive indefinitely without also upping space exploration is a good idea. It doesn't take a scientist to figure out why.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

What I find amusing is the lack of logic in most of what is being said here."You can't prove anything that was written in the bible so it's not true.....neeener neeener."I wonder how much time Christians would spend in a thread called "Lack of Religion" or "Non-Believers"I know how much time I would spend there..... zero. By the way... I've never seen a million dollars so Donald Trump is a fake.

[speedz99 145]

What I find amusing is the lack of logic in most of what is being said here."You can't prove anything that was written in the bible so it's not true.....neeener neeener."

Um...right. It's not definitely true. It's also not definitely false. It's unprovable.Just like every other religion, the pink unicorn, and the spaghetti monster. We only believe in one less leap of faith than you. So what's your point?

I wonder how much time Christians would spend in a thread called "Lack of Religion" or "Non-Believers"I know how much time I would spend there..... zero.

Lol. Right. Christians definitely haven't tried to convince non-believers over the past 2,000 years. You're all happy just enjoying your own beliefs and not trying to push it on others.The non-christians are here for a number of reasons, I'd assume. Mine is that I like arguing when I know I'm right. This is also a good place to learn from people smarter than I am...LLY, crow, etc. Unlike you, bg, lois, etc, I actually look closely at what they write about scientific principles and try to take something from it. I even take something interesting about religion from here on occasion.

[timwakefield 68]

I wonder how much time Christians would spend in a thread called "Lack of Religion" or "Non-Believers"I know how much time I would spend there..... zero.

Either this is a level, or you just owned yourself pretty hard. I mean, YOU started a thread called "Why are non-believers so angry?" and it got 153 replies.

I seriously would LOVE to hear non-believers thoughts on life and after life.

wtf/you lose

[BuffDan 0]

I like arguing when I know I'm right.

QFTTo expand upon the rest of your answer, I also like to see what the "other side" is saying (on religion as well as other issues; its the same reason I watch fox news from time to time) and see if I really do believe what I think I believe, and whether my beliefs can stand up to scrutiny.

[Loismustdie 0]

Um...right. It's not definitely true. It's also not definitely false. It's unprovable.Just like every other religion, the pink unicorn, and the spaghetti monster. We only believe in one less leap of faith than you. So what's your point?Lol. Right. Christians definitely haven't tried to convince non-believers over the past 2,000 years. You're all happy just enjoying your own beliefs and not trying to push it on others.The non-christians are here for a number of reasons, I'd assume. Mine is that I like arguing when I know I'm right. This is also a good place to learn from people smarter than I am...LLY, crow, etc. Unlike you, bg, lois, etc, I actually look closely at what they write about scientific principles and try to take something from it. I even take something interesting about religion from here on occasion.

Oh, I pay attention to scientific principal. I just reject it, it has no heart, it has no soul. It can only measure what is measureable, it contains no life, it has no meaning past it's goals of providing an answer, and then it's on to the next answer. Science can never be still, it can never be happy, it will never achieve any amount of solace. Those who use it as there 1 compass end up being worse robots than those they accuse of being robots. It's really quite sad. Let me give you an example: I have a daughter. With that comes great responsibility, one of those being I have to teach her what is right, so one day she will do what it takes to go to heaven, that is the way I would like her path to go. So, I must be a good example, show her in word and deed what it means to be a follower of christ. This will bring us closer, in spirit and in mind, as we travel down lifes paths. What a beautiful thing. Or, I could go another way, and teach her science. This is science, baby, this is what it teaches us. These are the facts. Some of them were not facts twenty years ago, so don't really count on this- it could change. In science, you cannot hold to be true anything you cannot prove, not even love. It's just a physical reaction to a mental state, etc. There is no god, at least not one that can be proven, well, we can't really say there is no God we will anyway... let's just say there is no God. It's much easier than having to explain to people why you believe, in a scientific way, because, remember, this is science. "But, I love you daddy." Prove it. I don't buy it, don't believe in it. Excuse me if I decide to not be a sick twisted **** and go with option number one, the option with heart, character, soul, LIFE.. the only option that makes sense to one who is in touch with his or her own spirit. No, don't excuse me, I need no excuse and I make no apologies, apologies be damned.

[crowTrobot 2]

By the way... I've never seen a million dollars so Donald Trump is a fake.

it's pretty easy to find evidence donald trump exists. there is no evidence of any kind any metaphysical claim ever imade in human history is true. slight difference.

[crowTrobot 2]

Oh, I pay attention to scientific principal. I just reject it, it has no heart, it has no soul. It can only measure what is measureable, it contains no life, it has no meaning past it's goals of providing an answer, and then it's on to the next answer. Science can never be still, it can never be happy, it will never achieve any amount of solace. Those who use it as there 1 compass end up being worse robots than those they accuse of being robots. It's really quite sad. Let me give you an example: I have a daughter. With that comes great responsibility, one of those being I have to teach her what is right, so one day she will do what it takes to go to heaven, that is the way I would like her path to go. So, I must be a good example, show her in word and deed what it means to be a follower of christ. This will bring us closer, in spirit and in mind, as we travel down lifes paths. What a beautiful thing. Or, I could go another way, and teach her science. This is science, baby, this is what it teaches us. These are the facts. Some of them were not facts twenty years ago, so don't really count on this- it could change. In science, you cannot hold to be true anything you cannot prove, not even love. It's just a physical reaction to a mental state, etc. There is no god, at least not one that can be proven, well, we can't really say there is no God we will anyway... let's just say there is no God. It's much easier than having to explain to people why you believe, in a scientific way, because, remember, this is science. "But, I love you daddy." Prove it. I don't buy it, don't believe in it. Excuse me if I decide to not be a sick twisted **** and go with option number one, the option with heart, character, soul, LIFE.. the only option that makes sense to one who is in touch with his or her own spirit. No, don't excuse me, I need no excuse and I make no apologies, apologies be damned.

hypocrite. you use and take advantage of science every day of your life. it's just a method - there is no emotional dichotomy, except in your insane dream world. why don't you let your daughter decide for herself?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Oh, I pay attention to scientific principal. I just reject it, it has no heart, it has no soul. It can only measure what is measureable, it contains no life, it has no meaning past it's goals of providing an answer, and then it's on to the next answer. Science can never be still, it can never be happy, it will never achieve any amount of solace. Those who use it as there 1 compass end up being worse robots than those they accuse of being robots. It's really quite sad. Let me give you an example: I have a daughter. With that comes great responsibility, one of those being I have to teach her what is right, so one day she will do what it takes to go to heaven, that is the way I would like her path to go. So, I must be a good example, show her in word and deed what it means to be a follower of christ. This will bring us closer, in spirit and in mind, as we travel down lifes paths. What a beautiful thing. Or, I could go another way, and teach her science. This is science, baby, this is what it teaches us. These are the facts. Some of them were not facts twenty years ago, so don't really count on this- it could change. In science, you cannot hold to be true anything you cannot prove, not even love. It's just a physical reaction to a mental state, etc. There is no god, at least not one that can be proven, well, we can't really say there is no God we will anyway... let's just say there is no God. It's much easier than having to explain to people why you believe, in a scientific way, because, remember, this is science. "But, I love you daddy." Prove it. I don't buy it, don't believe in it. Excuse me if I decide to not be a sick twisted **** and go with option number one, the option with heart, character, soul, LIFE.. the only option that makes sense to one who is in touch with his or her own spirit. No, don't excuse me, I need no excuse and I make no apologies, apologies be damned.

This is such nonsense it's really not worth responding to, unless the response is going to say that it's not worth responding to, so I haven't contradicted myself.

[SlapStick 0]

I was about to post a bill hicks clip about christians views on Dinosaur fossils, then I realised people were actually debating whether Dinosaurs actually existed.

[Loismustdie 0]

hypocrite. you use and take advantage of science every day of your life. it's just a method - there is no emotional dichotomy, except in your insane dream world. why don't you let your daughter decide for herself?

How did I know you would ask that question? What are you afraid of, she goes to school and all of the sudden has no ears? She obviously will see both pictures- how would she not decide for herself? Science is just a method, agreed... whens the last time you made a decision to believe in something that didn't use it as the starting point? Yorke, please respond. Tell me why it's nonsense, you have my full attention. Also, I do take advantage of science everyday in my life. Absolutely. I just don't worship it, like you do. "Oh, science this, and science that, Stephen Hawkings this, Newton that, this guys and this guy." It's just as much a form of worship as christianity is. It's what you are INTO, it's what you BELIEVE in.

[speedz99 145]

Oh, I pay attention to scientific principal. I just reject it, it has no heart, it has no soul. It can only measure what is measureable, it contains no life, it has no meaning past it's goals of providing an answer, and then it's on to the next answer. Science can never be still, it can never be happy, it will never achieve any amount of solace. Those who use it as there 1 compass end up being worse robots than those they accuse of being robots. It's really quite sad.

Dude, this is such horseshit. I challenge you to find one way in which you are a better person than LLY, the person here who is most involved in science. Do you think you're happier? Do you think you have more appropriate morals and values? Are you better to your fellow man? Does he lack "solace"?Other than believing in God, which as we all know does NOT in any way make someone a good person (suicide bombing, anyone?), how do you have more "life" than LLY? What a ridiculous and insulting comment. Just because you're obviously dying for it to be true doesn't make it so.

Excuse me if I decide to not be a sick twisted **** and go with option number one, the option with heart, character, soul, LIFE.. the only option that makes sense to one who is in touch with his or her own spirit. No, don't excuse me, I need no excuse and I make no apologies, apologies be damned.

Overdramatic much?

Also, I do take advantage of science everyday in my life. Absolutely. I just don't worship it, like you do. "Oh, science this, and science that, Stephen Hawkings this, Newton that, this guys and this guy." It's just as much a form of worship as christianity is. It's what you are INTO, it's what you BELIEVE in.

You just can't get past the fact that science isn't a religion. That's ok, you obviously just don't have the capacity to see the difference...not because you're too stupid, because you obviously don't care to.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Or, I could go another way, and teach her science. This is science, baby, this is what it teaches us. These are the facts. Some of them were not facts twenty years ago, so don't really count on this- it could change. In science, you cannot hold to be true anything you cannot prove, not even love.It's just a physical reaction to a mental state, etc. There is no god, at least not one that can be proven, well, we can't really say there is no God we will anyway... let's just say there is no God. It's much easier than having to explain to people why you believe, in a scientific way, because, remember, this is science. "But, I love you daddy." Prove it. I don't buy it, don't believe in it. Excuse me if I decide to not be a sick twisted **** and go with option number one, the option with heart, character, soul, LIFE.. the only option that makes sense to one who is in touch with his or her own spirit. No, don't excuse me, I need no excuse and I make no apologies, apologies be damned.

The idea that teaching your daughter about science will somehow prevent her from feeling love or somehow make her heartless or somehow won't allow you two to bond is ridiculous. Just because we realize that love his biological and evolutionary origions doesn't mean that we don't feel love.I'm going to let Richard Feynman speak for me since he says thing better than I can:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZNsIFID28I have a friend who's an artist and he's some times taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say, "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree, I think. And he says, "you see, I as an artist can see how beautiful this is, but you as a scientist, oh, take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing." And I think he's kind of nutty.First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me, too, I believe, although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is. But I can appreciate the beauty of a flower.At the same time, I see much more about the flower that he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside which also have a beauty. I mean, it's not just beauty at this dimension of one centimeter: there is also beauty at a smaller dimension, the inner structure... also the processes.The fact that the colors in the flower are evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting - it means that insects can see the color.It adds a question - does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms that are... why is it aesthetic, all kinds of interesting questions which a science knowledge only adds to the excitement and mystery and the awe of a flower.It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.If you think that science can't add beauty and mystery and you can't bond with your daughter over it, then you simply don't know enough about science.Here's another beautiful mini lecture.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

it's pretty easy to find evidence donald trump exists. there is no evidence of any kind any metaphysical claim ever imade in human history is true. slight difference.

No...it's exactly the same. I have not seen a million dollars ...therefore Donald Trumps claim of being a millionaire is false.I haven't seen it... ergo..it doesn't exist.People have written about it... but those people could have lied. Therefore.... those who believe in it ...are sheep.Stings...doesn't it.

[Loismustdie 0]

Dude, this is such horseshit. I challenge you to find one way in which you are a better person than LLY, the person here who is most involved in science. Do you think you're happier? Do you think you have more appropriate morals and values? Are you better to your fellow man? Does he lack "solace"?Other than believing in God, which as we all know does NOT in any way make someone a good person (suicide bombing, anyone?), how do you have more "life" than LLY? What a ridiculous and insulting comment. Just because you're obviously dying for it to be true doesn't make it so.Overdramatic much?You just can't get past the fact that science isn't a religion. That's ok, you obviously just don't have the capacity to see the difference...not because you're too stupid, because you obviously don't care to.

Because belief in God equals suicide bomber? Thanks for illustrating the problem. As far as proving that I am a better person than LLY, who said that? I have more potential, because I recognize that there is life outside of what I can see. I am not limited by the box that he lives in- can learn science, he cannot learn what I know because he doesn't believe it's real. In that way, I am more capable. As far as more life, that's fairly simple to see. I believe that this is not it, there is more, furthermore it impacts(or it should) my decisions in such a way that I (should be) working to be more perfect so I can spend eternity in that perfection with God. LLY, while he is more tame than say, Crow, at this point is bound by this life and this life alone. Therefore, I have more life. (Scripture tells me this as well. Of course, I can reason that out myself,but God was nice enough to just silver platter it if I didn't take the time to figure it out.) I recognize that science isn't a religion. I am saying that the way some of these guys revere it it takes on the same qualities.

[timwakefield 68]

No...it's exactly the same. I have not seen a million dollars ...therefore Donald Trumps claim of being a millionaire is false.I haven't seen it... ergo..it doesn't exist.People have written about it... but those people could have lied. Therefore.... those who believe in it ...are sheep.Stings...doesn't it.

Do you understand the difference between a thing and evidence of that thing? Do you believe Donald Trump exists??? Why, you've never met him have you?Stings.......doesn't it.

[Loismustdie 0]

The idea that teaching your daughter about science will somehow prevent her from feeling love or somehow make her heartless or somehow won't allow you two to bond is ridiculous. Just because we realize that love his biological and evolutionary origions doesn't mean that we don't feel love.I'm going to let Richard Feynman speak for me since he says thing better than I can:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZNsIFID28I have a friend who's an artist and he's some times taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say, "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree, I think. And he says, "you see, I as an artist can see how beautiful this is, but you as a scientist, oh, take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing." And I think he's kind of nutty.First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me, too, I believe, although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is. But I can appreciate the beauty of a flower.At the same time, I see much more about the flower that he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside which also have a beauty. I mean, it's not just beauty at this dimension of one centimeter: there is also beauty at a smaller dimension, the inner structure... also the processes.The fact that the colors in the flower are evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting - it means that insects can see the color.It adds a question - does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms that are... why is it aesthetic, all kinds of interesting questions which a science knowledge only adds to the excitement and mystery and the awe of a flower.It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.If you think that science can't add beauty and mystery and you can't bond with your daughter over it, then you simply don't know enough about science.Here's another beautiful mini lecture.

And because he doesn't understand than his friend must be wrong, because he is smarter because he is a scientist. That actually illustrated my point very well. Just enjoy the ****ing flower. As far as not teaching my daughter science, who said that? I choose to not teach it as the ONLY option. There is more to life than the scientific method. Much, much more. While science would attempt to corral her mind what I plan to do is show her how it can be freed. Sure, I could bond with my daughter while we skin rabbits with homeade knives but it's not exactly adviseable. In short, God is better. He offers more.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Just enjoy the ****ing flower.

Then this is simply the difference between you and me, and I can't possibly say any more than that.