Your thoughts on Evolution?

That was the most nonsensical post I've seen in a while.
Your argument against people saying life "popping out" is statistically impossible is that, if we weren't alive, we wouldn't be able to talk about it? Hurrwhat?

Seriously people, I'm all for clarifying that evolution is an inarguable fact, but some of you have the most ridiculous justifications for believing it.

Just saying that if we are here, talking about it, it's because we did pop out of something. Do you know what is it? I don't either. But here we are. We don't need to be special to be here, a God could have chosen to make this moment happen... Or not. THAT is my point.

I'd appreciate if you insulted less and tried to understand more.

YOU GUYS ARE ON THE SAME DAMM SIDE STOP ARGUING.

Sheesh.

I stand somewhere in the middle..if thats possible.
I am a creationist, however, I don't deny evolution, adaptation, or speciation.

I don't know the answer to everything, I don't care to start a flame war; just stating what I believe.

Potentially compatible if you don't take a literal interpretation of the Bible which states that man was created from the breath of God.

Potentially compatible if you don't take a literal interpretation of the Bible which states that man was created from the breath of God.

Including that whole line that says he made man from the 'dust' of the earth as well.

YOU GUYS ARE ON THE SAME DAMM SIDE STOP ARGUING.

Sheesh.

Is being on the same side grounds for not arguing?

Playing devil's advocate can lead to greater understanding and truth and refines one's beliefs and knowledge. Why are you discouraging this? I have no idea. Arguments are fundamentally good. Society should have more of them.

Just saying that if we are here, talking about it, it's because we did pop out of something. Do you know what is it? I don't either. But here we are. We don't need to be special to be here, a God could have chosen to make this moment happen... Or not. THAT is my point.

I'd appreciate if you insulted less and tried to understand more.

The reason why Viaje thinks your argument is retarded is well... look at your argument:

PREMISE: We exist.
THEREFORE: Evolution is statistically possible.

There is no premise that supports the conclusion. The argument is invalid. It's pointless to argue because there's no premise to argue against.

Is being on the same side grounds for not arguing?

Playing devil's advocate can lead to greater understanding and truth and refines one's beliefs and knowledge. Why are you discouraging this? I have no idea. Arguments are fundamentally good. Society should have more of them.

If only people didn't get butthurt from just talking.

Is being on the same side grounds for not arguing?

Playing devil's advocate can lead to greater understanding and truth and refines one's beliefs and knowledge. Why are you discouraging this? I have no idea. Arguments are fundamentally good. Society should have more of them.



The reason why Viaje thinks your argument is retarded is well... look at your argument:

PREMISE: We exist.
THEREFORE: Evolution is statistically possible.

There is no premise that supports the conclusion. The argument is invalid. It's pointless to argue because there's no premise to argue against.

Didn't seem Vjaje or Alloy was playing Devil's Advocate. It seemed to me they thought each other were on different sides of the argument =/.

Didn't seem Vjaje or Alloy was playing Devil's Advocate. It seemed to me they thought each other were on different sides of the argument =/.

There's your problem corn you assumed, you thought. STOP THINKING. GOD.

teehee

There's your problem corn you assumed, you thought. STOP THINKING. GOD.

teehee

Aw man, now I have to go to Church and ask for forgiveness.

I believe in evolution and the fact that life on Earth did not come from a divine entity.


Sure, the likely hood of life being sprung is incredibly low, but look how many galaxies there are out there. There are billions of them. Maybe hundreds of billions. We've barely explored a small part of the universe with our telescopes. What we've found is that there are hundreds of millions, perhaps even billions of stars inside each of these galaxies. Usually, more than half of the stars in each galaxy have planets orbiting around them. That means there are perhaps trillions of stars with trillions of planets circling them.

Even with that 'Goldylocks' zone as a speculated requirement for life to be possible, it is not that mind boggling that life can be sprung. We've had how many years of this planet with life on it? It is almost 5 billion years old. That's a very long time and Human life has only existed for what? 64,000 years or so? That's a very small fraction of Earth's lifespan versus the other 4.5 billion years Earth was around. It is not that unlikely for an intellectual creature to come into existence with these variables. Life adapts and evolves to continue living for ages. They grow smarter and learn how to survive. We're just a result of that.

With the amount of possible planets there are out there, I don't see it as too unlikely that there's another planet just like ours, with life. Must they be as intelligent or more intelligent than us? No. Even if there is life out there smarter than us, I do not see it likely that we would ever meet with them. The universe is rapidly expanding, growing faster and faster, thus galaxies are moving further and further away from each other. With how much space there is between celestial bodies in the universe and the fact that we haven't been able to find life on planets we've discovered within the small (yet very large) amount of the universe we've been able to explore, I don't ever see it happening that we'll run into another species like us.


I probably went off-topic a bit in there. I lost my thought train due to something else, so I'll just cut it off here. xd

Is being on the same side grounds for not arguing?

Playing devil's advocate can lead to greater understanding and truth and refines one's beliefs and knowledge. Why are you discouraging this? I have no idea. Arguments are fundamentally good. Society should have more of them.

Hell, sometimes you are on the same side of a situation (assuming there's only 2 sides), but the other person has the worst reasons to be on the same side as you. You are totally in the right to argue against their reasons, specially since people tend to group whoever supports the same idea together.
I've had this situation at least two times quite recently.

Hell, sometimes you are on the same side of a situation (assuming there's only 2 sides), but the other person has the worst reasons to be on the same side as you. You are totally in the right to argue against their reasons, specially since people tend to group whoever supports the same idea together.
I've had this situation at least two times quite recently.

Recently? Hell it happens every Nexon sucks thread. "Lol Nexon sucks cus they can't stop ddos and lyke scamming us! All they want is my money! QQ".

I hate idiots like that, mainly because when I'm trying to explain to them their argument is retarded I look like a Nexon ass kisser.

As a very amusing follow-up to this thread, this might be interesting to read.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/christi...aw-of,281/

"Why can't disorder decrease over time instead of everything decaying?" asked Jim Muldoon of Emporia, KS. "Is that too much to ask? This is our children's future we're talking about."

Sigh...

Hadriel

As a very amusing follow-up to this thread, this might be interesting to read.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/christi...aw-of,281/



Sigh...

Hadriel

The Onion is a satirical site. This article is made up.

Gosh? is it? I've never known... oh well... I thought my lecturer was serious when he showed us this post -.-""

but then again... knowing people...

Hadriel

Sure, the likely hood of life being sprung is incredibly low, but look how many galaxies there are out there.

I don't think life just suddenly "sprang" up. I believe the prevalent theory goes that life came about as a result of basic lipid bilayers encasing molecules that were fundamental to living. Eventually, due to random chance, the right combination of molecules within a lipid bilayer allowed the primitive "cell" to perform the basic functions of life: growing and reproducing. Molecules necessary for that would probably include things that store large amounts of energy such as ATP, information-storing molecules such as RNA, and proteins that would duplicate the information-storing molecules.

Gosh? is it? I've never known... oh well... I thought my lecturer was serious when he showed us this post -.-""

but then again... knowing people...

Hadriel

I really hope it is, since otherwise what those people are fighting against is wrong to begin with, rather, the IDEA that they are fighting against is wrong. I'm sure most of the people here know about those telomerase experiments on mice; MATTER may decay over time, but cells have their own ecosystems that can, under the correct circumstances, fight against decay and even reverse it entirely.

Nay... I have a feeling that a good fraction of the people don't know that. Without getting too philosophical, we study and teach science to learn and get people to learn how things work - finding a theory and an explanation that 1) explains what has been observed, and 2) can predict future outcomes. But whether people accept science, it's a choice, isn't it?

I quote Michael Dewar, the famous organic chemist who worked on aromaticity:

The question, "Is it true?" is meaningless in science. The correct question to ask is "Does it work?"

i.e. There is no right or wrong. Then, whether people choose to accept it or not, and why they do or do not, is a whole different ball game.
[SIZE=2]
Hadriel[/SIZE]

Nay... I have a feeling that a good fraction of the people don't know that. Without getting too philosophical, we study and teach science to learn and get people to learn how things work - finding a theory and an explanation that 1) explains what has been observed, and 2) can predict future outcomes. But whether people accept science, it's a choice, isn't it?

I quote Michael Dewar, the famous organic chemist who worked on aromaticity:



i.e. There is no right or wrong. Then, whether people choose to accept it or not, and why they do or do not, is a whole different ball game.
[SIZE=2]
Hadriel[/SIZE]

That could be true for people who work on practical science. Theoretical scientists are all about finding what is true.
Accepting the truth or not doesn't matter, it's still true.