dawkins ftw

People still dispute Evolution?! Jesus, I fucking despair with the state of the education system. At least now children in my country won't be forced to believe in "Intelligent" Design while they're still stupid enough to know no better.

Thank fuck religion is dying in my country so I don't ever come across someone who believes in I.D. or thinks evolution shouldn't be taught as fact. I'm very pleased Dawkins et al have managed to help the government see that this bullshit shouldn't be taught as science - I don't think it should be taught at all. Hopefully next we can stop Blair's idiotic funding of religious schools.
 


Once again, using data dumps I am swamped with psuedo knowledge. Just as with arguments against Christianity I never get a clear argument, no doubt because most do not know specifics, they only know a general overview of a topic.

I took a look at several of the resources quoted above and decided to take a random look at the argument underneath a single argument. Once again, the source document was not convincing.

Take for example the pelycosauria, cited in Emp's reference. This is a transitional form? Because we find one skull that is similar to another 25 million years later and that new skull is assumed to have a different body structure? First, if it is even the same animal how do we know it is not a micro-evolutionary change within a species? There was no large jump in characteristics to assume a macro-jump.

As for the similarity of original DNA. I know the evolutionists need to prove this to substantiate their theory but it has no bearing on the truth or falsity of Intelligent Design.

And to Moxie - your examples of micro differences hardly show a macro potential - a leap from species to species. You could argue that the DNA of such differences, if survivable, would be passed down into multiple species..........

But this leads to my question. If evolution is true, where are all of the similar transitional forms? We must, and I see no way for the evolutionist to get around this, we must have current humans that have different origins and therefore are not equal. If we disregard all of the other arguments, please tell me how this would not be true. I would expect there to be many different lines of humans, Brave New World style, but many more all with their own DNA profile thus proving that each race of humans are not equal. How can this not be so?
 
Andrey said:
Ever thought your life is just a dream? Everything is just an illusion.
In a dream you experience time, world, other people. Only upon awakening can you realize that everything in a dream was created by you. What if our life was the same and that we can only realize that it is all just a dream from a higher perspective, once we awaken out of it?

Everything just appears in front of you: world, people, your body, your mental activity, a sense of making decisions and choices. Who is the one observing all that? Who is the observer? Who are you? Can that die? Do you have a life or are you a life?

Investigating things like this makes evolution/creationism irrelevant. Go deeper...

Born and raised atheist here btw. In soviet russia, everyone is an atheist LOL.
Click to expand...

Please provide scientific evidence. If you can't, it's just faith.
 
Nice links on the macroevolution.

Religion needs to be practiced at home (if at all) and kept out of any educational system, for the simple reason that religion had had it wrong so many times and over so many things, from our place in the universe to HIV, and from basic human relations, how can anyone who was wrong so many times say they are capable of teaching anyone anything?
 
mattseh said:
We can hope! I think it's going to take at least another generation though.
Click to expand...

Luckily the Muslim birth rate has supposedly decreased otherwise you may have found yourselves facing the political will of Islam on this issue. Has the future demographic outlook changed?

if you thought Christians were stubborn and unreasonable....good luck with the Muslims.
 
REIMktg said:
But this leads to my question. If evolution is true, where are all of the similar transitional forms? We must, and I see no way for the evolutionist to get around this, we must have current humans that have different origins and therefore are not equal. If we disregard all of the other arguments, please tell me how this would not be true. I would expect there to be many different lines of humans, Brave New World style, but many more all with their own DNA profile thus proving that each race of humans are not equal. How can this not be so?
Click to expand...

Have you never heard of Neanderthal, or homo erectus?

Jump to 1:10

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRJ8DMyBLTc"]Farnsworth vs Dr Banjo - YouTube[/ame]
 
REIMktg said:
But this leads to my question. If evolution is true, where are all of the similar transitional forms? We must, and I see no way for the evolutionist to get around this, we must have current humans that have different origins and therefore are not equal. If we disregard all of the other arguments, please tell me how this would not be true. I would expect there to be many different lines of humans, Brave New World style, but many more all with their own DNA profile thus proving that each race of humans are not equal. How can this not be so?
Click to expand...

I normally like resorting to low level insults, and remarks that make me feel clever or allow me to believe I'm funny - it's good for my small ego.

In this case, however, I am so absolutely flabbergasted, that replying with a post to answer you (or make me laugh at me) would be pointless, because you choose to avoid facts and allow ignorance to reign over your world.

As BluuueJammm shows in his video, no reply will suffice for you. A new reply only serves as a base to provoke further inept replies devoid of any rationale or knowledge on the subject of evolution. If you're going to spend so much time fighting evolution, then may I suggest you take the time to actually learn about the subject you're trying (badly) to discredit first.
 
REIMktg said:
The statement was ridiculous because I am thinking this is what people want me to believe. Yes it was overstated, but oftentimes I feel this is what the evolutionists want me to believe, that yes, if the Earth's environment warranted it, these changes are plausible given enough time.

The questions I have about macro evolution are not from a specific source, rather they are from 20 year old arguments I brought up in another thread that were never answered. I am honestly open to answers. Is there proof of macro evolution other than what I have said earlier, it is a presumptive end of observable micro-evolution?
Click to expand...

Natural selection (responding to the environment) no longer applies to our species as it once did.

Also, evolutionists (or "biologists") have no reason to try to convince you of anything other than the truth. There is no ulterior motive. Biology is not some anti-religion conspiracy theory, it is the result of hundreds of years of countless individuals debating over testable evidence.

This is why it can be particularly frustrating when people come along quoting religious propaganda (not saying you were, but I've only ever heard the macroevolution argument arise from those wishing to discredit the theory because it doesn't fit with their view of the world). The argument then filters down to those that happen to be religious because it is easy for them to believe, and then accept that evolution is "just a theory".

And then we end up with:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X2G2W43l44"]Bill Maher's Religulous - Visiting the Creationist Museum [CC] - YouTube[/ame]


If you were interested in the finer points of the theory, you should approach it in the same way you would any other scientific data and look for non-biased information from experts in the field.
 
Oh fuck.

Data dumps? Seriously?

Of course we are linking you to data. Whatcha think? That I was going to sit here and type it up all neat again for you?

Linking is what we do, this is the fucking internet.

As to the ("OH MY FUCKING SHIT!") "no transitional forms" argument, this again is a strawman.

Simply because there will never be enough transitional forms for creationists and their ilk.

We have found so many fucking transitional forms by now, and still creationists want more. It has become a moving target and nothing will satisfy you.

here is a fucking data dump for you.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please, do yourself a favour and educate yourself.
Also, there is no "evolutionists" around. There are biologists and archeologists, and molecular scientists and a plethora of other scientists looking at all the evidence and coming to the same conclusion.

And you know what?
If there was compelling evidence for a "benign creator" or an "intelligent designer", all of science would turn around on a fucking dime, but there is NONE.

If you can stomach a giraffe being dissected, here is a video showing the path of the laryngeal nerve, which I really like as evidence for evolution and evidence for a real stupid designer, if there was one.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0]Richard Dawkins demonstrates laryngeal nerve of the giraffe - YouTube[/ame]

And I am out of here.

::emp::
 
The responses here are presumptive. By the way the images may go dark with Wikipedia as they are all sourced from there.

BluuueJammm - Homo Erectus pictured here on an evolution site....
homo-erectus-100px.jpg
I can find people that look like this today. So what are you telling me? How about Australopithecus afarensis - 4 finds, this is the best
220px-Australopithecus_africanus.jpg

From this I am basing my faith in evolution? That takes faith, why could this not be a microevolution deviation of an ape or other animal?

Here's the famous Lucy
220px-Lucy_blackbg.jpg

Wow, now I'm convinced.

@-God- I see what you are trying to say here, but yet you fail to make a point. I can understand your not wanting to believe in a blue fairy in the sky, fine, but why so much faith in evolution which is sketchy at best? You are willing to throw anyone else under the bus because you simply have an explanation that fits your theory with so few facts.Woudl you bet your business, livliehood, or well being on such flimsy evidence? You would convict with this standard of proof?

Wattsy - I understand natural selection may not apply at our current level of knowledge. But explain the lack of deviation leading up to anything over 10 thousand years? Thank you for not accusing me of spouting religious theory - I appreciate that. At the same time my point is that schools should be honest and show the base evidence and the extrapolations from that point - not simply teach it as accepted fact.

For the record, most evolution is not contrary to a full understanding of Christianity like most would believe. Yet evolution is hardly proven fact in spite of all of you that find it difficult to believe that I am legitimately challenging your accepted beliefs.
 
emp said:
Oh fuck.
Data dumps? Seriously? Of course we are linking you to data. Whatcha think? That I was going to sit here and type it up all neat again for you? Linking is what we do, this is the fucking internet.
Click to expand...

Yes, a link makes a great appeal to authority with too much information to enter into a casual discussion. So pick one point in the data and discuss, but none of you ever does. When I do we find a lot of speculation - every time.

emp said:
As to the ("OH MY FUCKING SHIT!") "no transitional forms" argument, this again is a strawman.
Click to expand...

If I said this, then let me clarify, no compelling evidence of these transitional forms. Of course you are correct, you probably can never prove such a thing given the 200MM+ year the evolutionist gets to play with. Must be nice, all problems solved with an appeal to unlimited time.

emp said:
We have found so many fucking transitional forms by now, and still creationists want more. It has become a moving target and nothing will satisfy you.. here is a fucking data dump for you. List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .
Click to expand...

Once again, a list of pictures and fossils with no connections between each. As said, it is not likely this can be proven because you get to appeal to time and my idiocy and I get to say that there is no proof that what you are showing is not simply a micro-evolutionary change of an existing species. Round and round. Fair enough. Hence why evolution is a theory and should be taught as such, leave ID out, fine, but be honest about evolution and start showing the true fossil evidence and how full blown models are made from sketchy fossil finds. At least let the student understand the base of knowledge. Let's trust in the intellect of the individual, tell them the percentages of those that accept the theory- fine. But stop thinking I am an idiot because I question your reality - that's a defense mechanism that oftentimes is a result of a lack of understanding and true knowledge and the ability to defend your position.


emp said:
And you know what?
If there was compelling evidence for a "benign creator" or an "intelligent designer", all of science would turn around on a fucking dime, but there is NONE.
Click to expand...

Fine. I will not claim the above. Your theory remains speculative and few would bet their lives on these facts they believe with all of their hearts, minds, and souls.

emp said:
If you can stomach a giraffe being dissected, here is a video showing the path of the laryngeal nerve, which I really like as evidence for evolution and evidence for a real stupid designer, if there was one.
Richard Dawkins demonstrates laryngeal nerve of the giraffe - YouTube
And I am out of here. ::emp::
Click to expand...

Yes, because you think something is wrong, it must be wrong. THat's arrogance. Why could this not be a mirco-evolutionary issue that we all agree upon, why is it macro? What then is the point of the video, more fluff to ignore the true issues - talk about a straw man.
 
Alright.

No arguing with you anymore. You simply do not wish to discuss or learn.
You have not even watched the friggin video, because the move from fish (where the path of that nerve makes sense) to an animal like a giraffe (or a human, where it does not make sense) is not micro-evolution.

I said before I am out and I should have stayed out.

::emp::
 
Although I think it necessary to leave personal attacks out of conversations like this, you seem to lack any form of rationality in your arguments against evolution. You ask for evidence of transitional fossils and when provided with quite a comprehensive list ask for transitions between the transitions? All the while using pictures and sarcasm to try and get your point across.

You say evolution is "sketchy at best". This is just simply untrue and seems to highlight your animosity towards the idea itself. It is one of the best supported scientific theories we have, certainly in biology.
 
Wattsy said:
Although I think it necessary to leave personal attacks out of conversations like this, you seem to lack any form of rationality in your arguments against evolution. You ask for evidence of transitional fossils and when provided with quite a comprehensive list ask for transitions between the transitions? All the while using pictures and sarcasm to try and get your point across.

You say evolution is "sketchy at best". This is just simply untrue and seems to highlight your animosity towards the idea itself. It is one of the best supported scientific theories we have, certainly in biology.
Click to expand...

Once again I appreciate your attitude.

1. Evolution does occur. Yes, we all agree.
2. There is no real proof that one species came from another. There is speculation based on #1 but no real proof. We can agree that there cannot ever be proof (that will satisfy the macro skeptic) because of the nature of the gradual change and the ways in which we gather data.
3. Evolution is the best scientific theory we have to date that excludes the even more speculative theory of there being an intelligent designer.

Fine. We all agree. Now if they would only teach it honestly rather than implying that more is known than is. Students see drawings and skeletal models which themselves are built form a single femur, or skull, or finger and do not realize the skeletal model itself is speculative. This leads them to make conclusions based on scientific speculation, not evidence. Show them the true unadulterated evidence, then describe the theory and then let them know the 100% truth, not a truth guided by scientific speculation.

Teachers promoting evolution are just like religious parents - only giving part of the story and indoctrinating those that have not developed logical analysis.

By the way, I am not hostile to evolution nor atheists. If I can prove any of this to myself I can shed all accountability in this world and live for myself without moral boundaries indulging as I see fit with only myself as the measure.
 
REIMktg said:
Luckily the Muslim birth rate has supposedly decreased otherwise you may have found yourselves facing the political will of Islam on this issue. Has the future demographic outlook changed?

if you thought Christians were stubborn and unreasonable....good luck with the Muslims.
Click to expand...

Anyone who wants to tell me what to do because a sky fairy said so can fuck off.
 
d_diggler said:
It's amazing what get's through and what doesn't.

What is Dawkins fighting against / for exactly. Surly if a person has any rights at all it's to choose the values which they give to their children. This isn't even a property right so the state surly isn't that interested in taking it?

It's not right that a small group of people decide for the rest, if people don't want their children being taught creationism they simply don't send them to that school. If things must be state funded then at least it should be done based on an imaginary market place and if the service a school provides is unwanted it'll fail. The fact these schools exist suggests it's not the case.

I love how all the haughty anti religious types shout so loud against people who are doing nothing more than following their beliefs - because these beliefs contradict with their oh so superior views - there must be a picture of Dick Dawkins next to irony in the dictionary.

Even if your views are proven to be 100% right by science that doesn't give you the right to enforce them on someone else. Being a stupid idiot doesn't bar you from having your own beliefs.

God, (pun intended) it's hilarious to see LukeP posting 300 times a day about the virtues of libertarianism and anti statism and then completely miss the point.

Freedom for all - as long as it's the freedom I believe in!

inb4 I get accused of being an offended Christian - this isn't the case.
Click to expand...

i certainly see your side of the argument. the trouble is that the children have rights too. if parents believe that prayer is the only and best means of addressing a potentially fatal medical condition and refuse medical treatment (it's happened before), there is a strong argument for the community to be able to compel medical treatment on behalf of the child concerned, essentially assuming temporary guardianship; since in our non-voluntarist society the community=the state, it would fall to the state to do this. similarly, children have a right to a good education so you can make a similar argument for compelling it, although obviously the case for it is less clear.

in a voluntarist society, this would not be a problem. parents could voluntarily associate with a community that does not compel a sound education. when their children would then grow up ignorant and consequently unproductive and unable to support themselves, only that community would bear responsibility for supporting their material needs indefinitely and i would happily watch as they starve to death waiting for their bread, fish and wine dinner ;) if they didn't, then more power to them. unfortunately, the current status quo says i have to subsidise every illiterate, ignorant fuck in whatever country i live in *indefinitely* (i personally do not object to a social safety net, provided it is voluntary rather than imposed, but as a safety net rather than a permanent support).

-p
 
@ REIMktg
Let me preface this by acknowledging how futile debating this is but can you honestly tell yourself that you are taking an objective look at it?

I'm going to bow out, just because you aren't offering anything interesting to the conversation and you don't seem to have the ability to take on information without immediately dismissing it in favor of disregarding logic only to acquire religion.

Nothing personal, I have close friends who share your position. I just hope to god you're not a science teacher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom