The TRshady Forum became read-only in December 2014. The 10 year history will live on, in this archive.
Continue the discussion with the new home for the Eminem and Hip Hop discussion: HipHopShelter.com.

Your Theories On Evolution?

Fellow ladies and fella Master-Debaters, discuss serious topics.

Re: Your Theories On Evolution?

Postby EminemBase » Sep 17th, '11, 08:46

mdemaz wrote:Well, because DNA is soo incredible, it may be the only thing worth looking into, haha.


Not at all. DNA is probably the most interesting...

But certainly not the only evidence for Evolution worth looking in to.

The distribution and perfect adaptation of all living things is interesting and again proves Evolution through natural selection.

If just one species was where it shouldn't be, it could collapse or seriously put into question the idea. But out of the millions of species we've discovered, none are. Do you know how MUCH that proves Evolution through natural selection.

That's like millions of attempts or possibilities to prove it wrong, failing.

Everything is where it should be, if things adapted to their surroundings overtime, and were shape-shifted by natural selection. Which they were.
User avatar
EminemBase
Addict
Addict
 
Posts: 10007
Joined: Dec 10th, '09, 06:37
Location: Inside your mind famalamalamalam.
Gender: Male

Re: Your Theories On Evolution?

Postby mdemaz » Sep 17th, '11, 08:58

EminemBase wrote:
mdemaz wrote:Well, because DNA is soo incredible, it may be the only thing worth looking into, haha.


Not at all. DNA is probably the most interesting...

But certainly not the only evidence for Evolution worth looking in to.

The distribution and perfect adaptation of all living things is interesting and again proves Evolution through natural selection.

If just one species was where it shouldn't be, it could collapse or seriously put into question the idea. But out of the millions of species we've discovered, none are. Do you know how MUCH that proves Evolution through natural selection.

That's like millions of attempts or possibilities to prove it wrong, failing.

Everything is where it should be, if things adapted to their surroundings overtime, and were shape-shifted by natural selection. Which they were.

At the end of the day, we got life..I'm just glad it took place, however it took place.

Well, I guess DNA isn't the only thing, but it's worth it, maybe even if we study fossils more closely & find more clues from sediments in rocks showing millions of years of land movement..

It reminds me of Gondwanaland and all that..

But yeah, I agree with you totally, my opinions are always a bit scratchy because all this stuff I've learned over the years gets mixed up as my brain is a blender.
Haha...
One interesting thing is that me worrying about getting my facts right on theory is a contradiction.

There's like 5 or more really good theories..The one I think is the most possible is meteors or comets colliding carrying stardust or life..Because those meteors are basically like mini-planets, got their own gravity etc., atmosphere....Magnetic field..
But DNA is indeed one thing we should look into the most, because DNA was formed in the most crucial stage of the cells lives..
ImageImageImage
s/o to Eedee Python CP Horse Snake Pain SaJn Silver Cement Excitaz PK Rolly GW EG Charlotte Kasia Mel Wiz Solace TRex SliK Aone Atone Trimss Menzo Geno Fish Jaba Detroit Blogs Based lil_b IBR DA! Mono ROM NRG Bigray Hesky Francesco Yoda Noddy Raul
Just Silver wrote:I think every guy should massage their prostate at least once

Image
User avatar
mdemaz
Addict
Addict
 
Posts: 10208
Joined: Dec 6th, '10, 12:09
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Gender: Male

Re: Your Theories On Evolution?

Postby Fa-Q » Sep 17th, '11, 11:30

Firstly, different organisms and lifeforms reproduce in different ways. Not everything reproduces like we do. The chain of life is incredibly complex and diverse.

But Evolutionists boast the "factual" evidence of the tree of life. That would mean what I said, we all came from one-celled organisms. Of course now we all reproduce sexually and asexually, but back when amino acids and slowly evolved into one-celled organisms, we produced asexually. This speaking from an Evolutionist's standpoint.

Secondly, you say 'a one in million shot' like that's a proven fact, you just pull that out of the air and then use that as the basis for your entire idea. You're throwing around totally hair-brain stats as if they are the exact truths about how Evolution happened. Try learning about it properly before attempting to debunk it lmao. You also confuse how the process works, as you don't know how it works. Stop guessing, and actually find out.

I love how you immediately come in with such condescension. "One and a million is a hyperbole that means "its a long shot," which also a hyperbole. I used it to make my point. Did you really want me to pull out a fuckin' scientific calculator and say, "actually its more of an One and 156,891 chance?" In a true argument, they would deduct points for a diversion argument. That's minus ten for Team EminemBase.

Learn how natural selection works. Things that don't work just don't get selected. We would only see the things which do work, by definition, after billions of years. Billions of years of selection, the only things that work survive. So we only see things that sexually reproduce, successfully, and survive.

That's perfect logic.

First off, let me start by pointing out the ignorance in believing they are smarter than 91% of the world. By saying perfect logic, you are saying in a very passive yet condescending way, that anyone that does not agree with you is lower than you. I do know how natural selection works. I also know that if there were "billions of years" there would be one of two things. Either we would have a massive amount of intermediate, middle-staged evolutionary animals/species; or we would have very little amounts of species and have more intelligent creatures inhabiting this planet. As far as the scientific community is concerned, we have ONE truly "intelligent" creature that can make 100% of his choices, and that is homo sapiens. The next smartest animal, according to scientists, is the dolphin. But from sunrise to sunset, they follow a strict pattern of instincts, not choices. We are the only creature on Earth that has been "selected" to make 100% of their decisions. How did other animals not get "selected."


And that's just through intercourse. For Evolution, we have BILLIONS of years of selection. And by definition, SOMETHING must be selected, as whatever doesn't work... simply won't be. It's not complicated, and it did happen. Just like you won the race, unfortunately.

Oh and the fact Evolution was proposed over a hundred years ago and has been successfully proven and accepted as fact by Science, and has yet to be disproven or thrown into serious questioning... the fact you think you've had this thought or can disprove all of that with a few paragraphs is hilarious. And a real sign of incredible arrogance and ignorance. Think about that for a second, very hard. You think thousands upon thousands of great minds, and geniuses within biology and science could do nothing but prove this idea right... you think you're more astute, informed and able than all of those combined, with this idea you've had? wow. Go learn.

Have you ever noticed that most Evolutionists are just about the same character type. Very arrogant and boastful and make you feel stupid for believing in something as ridiculous as a god. The fact is, Evolutionists don't want to believe Evolution. No, they want to not NOT believe in a god. Triple negative to prove a point. They are arrogant people, thus wanting to believe that they created themselves, indirectly of course. Instead of approaching my idea with open-mindedness and eagerness to engage in an argument in a civilized and equal manner, you choose to demean me. If Evolution was true, it wouldnt have selected assholes like you. :wave:
User avatar
Fa-Q
Pill Popper
Pill Popper
 
Posts: 8404
Joined: Dec 20th, '08, 21:15

Re: Your Theories On Evolution?

Postby DanWS » Sep 17th, '11, 15:46

Fa-Q wrote:
First off, let me start by pointing out the ignorance in believing they are smarter than 91% of the world. By saying perfect logic, you are saying in a very passive yet condescending way, that anyone that does not agree with you is lower than you. I do know how natural selection works. I also know that if there were "billions of years" there would be one of two things. Either we would have a massive amount of intermediate, middle-staged evolutionary animals/species; or we would have very little amounts of species and have more intelligent creatures inhabiting this planet. As far as the scientific community is concerned, we have ONE truly "intelligent" creature that can make 100% of his choices, and that is homo sapiens. The next smartest animal, according to scientists, is the dolphin. But from sunrise to sunset, they follow a strict pattern of instincts, not choices. We are the only creature on Earth that has been "selected" to make 100% of their decisions. How did other animals not get "selected."


When you say "we would have a massive amount of intermediate species" do you mean ones that would currently be inhabiting the earth or do you mean we'd have uncovered more fossils which point to links in the chain? Because there are numerous ancestors of homosapiens in the evolutionary timeline that have now been uncovered in fossil remains and are viewable in national museums, and as time goes on more and more are being found. And that's not even going into DNA which uncovers a whole new world of evidence that we are all related, be it distant or closely, and shows that the building blocks of all lliving creatures form a hierarchical pattern much like a family tree.

What makes you sure we'd have more intelligent creatures inhabiting the planet? Sounds more like a guess to me; there's very little evidence you could point to that would substantiate that. Evolution is based on adaptation to our natural surroundings. Some creatures developed a voice box to communicate, some didn't. This enabled humans, with our significantly larger brains, the ability to develop language. Why must there be other creatures who would have developed in the same way? There is huge variation depending on the ways we have adapted to survive and us humans are surpassed in a vast amount of abilities by other animals... many creatures have far better eyesight, sense of smell and hearing than humans - the one thing that has made us more intelligent however, is that we capacitate large brains. To say that because we have larger brains a higher power must be working in our favour, is the easy way out and completely unsubstantiated.

An intricate look at the evolution of the whale: http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
TRshady wrote:The server is indeed unaware of the greatness that is DanWS.
User avatar
DanWS
Role Model
Role Model
 
Posts: 3083
Joined: Mar 12th, '10, 21:59
Location: UK
Gender: Male

Re: Your Theories On Evolution?

Postby AbramIsaac » Sep 18th, '11, 00:07

Fa-Q wrote:
AbramIsaac wrote:Well the idea is that a single celled organism wouldn't have to sprout a penis. It couldn't do it, because when you're talking about sex organs, you're getting into the realm of multiple-celled organisms. That's why they don't have birth canals and all that, as Fa-Q was seeming to get at.

But there is a precedent in bacteria for something similar to sexual reproduction. That's all that I was saying. It's not a stretch to see how that could be the precursor to sexual reproductive organs. Meaning that the mechanisms for such a thing is present in a similar form in even the simplest of life forms.

As I said, it isn't so much about something sprouting a vagina here, and then another sprouting a penis. Hermaphrodites are more likely to have preceded male and female pairs. Eventually, the predisposed differences in the pairs began to manifest itself physically.

That's one theory, anyway.

Yeah, but you realize, the lifespan of one of these one-celled could not be long enough to evolve, then find a mate and reproduce. If they die, they can not pass on the genetic material that had become evolved. The theory is collapsed in and of itself.

It's like if the man who invented the game of basketball had put the peach basket up, but never told anybody about it. Then went to his grave without showing anybody his game, thus, no NBA....No LeBron James, no biddy ball or little Timmy giving it his all out there.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that the organisms that transmitted DNA between each other die almost immediately after? Because many one-celled organisms have life spans that I'm quite sure are long enough to be bumped into by another organism, and then divide and reproduce asexually.

And how long would it take to find a mate? There aren't often lone single celled organisms, wandering the planet looking for one another. The fact that they reproduce asexually sort of makes that situation unrealistic. The modified DNA is constantly being passed between one another, each changing the coming generation in ways so small it's almost immeasurable. Lay that over the course of millions, or billions of years? I don't see the problem here.

So as the changes continue, and multi-celled organisms begin to appear, the method of exchanging DNA becomes more complex, just as every other part of these organisms do. Over the course of another billion years or so, you have organisms with testes and ovaries. They can still reproduce asexually, most likely, because their systems are simple enough that they only need to impregnate themselves. But the point is that they now have the ability to reproduce sexually.

So no single organism needs to just suddenly evolve and find some other random organism to mate with. The entire landscape of these organisms is changing with every generation in the various geographical areas in which they inhabit. The mutations aren't localized to a single creature, because it's an environmental factor that most likely caused the mutation, meaning there are others. They don't have to find another with the exact same makeup, because they can pass it on with a non-mutated mate, and some of the offspring will have similar characteristics. Over several generations, the makeup of the species changes completely.

Things don't generally just "up and evolve". It's in increments so small that they keep whatever mechanism their predecessors used before them, most usually. If they don't, then they probably die, or are unable to pass on genetic material. The smaller changes, however, are what make a difference in the grand scheme of things.
"America...just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable" — Hunter S. Thompson

"Poison the well, your enemies are thirsty!" — Modest Mouse
Jesus Christ wrote:Fuck all South Pacific island and island-continents.
User avatar
AbramIsaac
Under The Influence
Under The Influence
 
Posts: 4112
Joined: Mar 19th, '09, 16:49

Re: Your Theories On Evolution?

Postby EminemBase » Sep 18th, '11, 05:45

Fa-Q wrote:But Evolutionists boast the "factual" evidence of the tree of life. That would mean what I said, we all came from one-celled organisms. Of course now we all reproduce sexually and asexually, but back when amino acids and slowly evolved into one-celled organisms, we produced asexually. This speaking from an Evolutionist's standpoint.


Who the fuck 'boasts' about it :confusion:

You're generalizing and making up this character-type to make your arguments / side look more fair and reasonable. Or attempting to. Shitty tactic, try another.

Science is the OPPOSITE of fucking arrogant. People like you think that if you assert anything with confidence... when you have VERY good reason to, such as with Evolution, that you are 'arrogant'. Evolution is as accepted a fact as any in science, and you thinking you've personally spotted holes in it, implying thousands upon thousands of minds have missed is arrogant as fuck. And the fact you don't realize that shows how ignorant you are.

Science embraces information, science embraces new information. Science embraces challenges, that's how it keeps progressing. If it wasn't for the constant humility in science, in admitting it's wrong and updating its information, we wouldn't have all this wonderful, mind-blowing technology and luxury we use around us. If we relied on the stale, stagnant, never-moving, never-evolving, always-arrogant attitude of religion say, we'd still be stuck in the fucking dark ages.

So maybe you should go live in a fucking cave with a candle you arrogant cunt.

Fa-Q wrote:I love how you immediately come in with such condescension. "One and a million is a hyperbole that means "its a long shot," which also a hyperbole. I used it to make my point. Did you really want me to pull out a fuckin' scientific calculator and say, "actually its more of an One and 156,891 chance?" In a true argument, they would deduct points for a diversion argument. That's minus ten for Team EminemBase.


But with such an important point, ie. the point which is the basis for your entire argument, you can't afford to just hang it on a vague and meaningless hyperbole. If you can't be specific or speak in factual terms, and need to use a broad analogy, then you don't have a great point as you think you have. We all use analogies and hyperboles, but you were emphasizing a very specific thing within Evolution. What you said was wrong and it just proves you haven't read into Evolution enough.

Once again, it's so unbelievably arrogant of you to think thousands of geniuses within science have missed what you've suddenly thought of. Hilariously ignorant too.

And you have the fucking CHEEK to call ME arrogant? how dare you, you little cocksucker. You open your paragraph by saying "I can disprove Evolution very easily." and IIIIII am arrogant? :laughing: fucking hell, that is ridiculous. You can 'disprove' one of the most solid theories ever presented in science, the explanation for life and something which has only strengthened in validity in the 100+ years it's been poured over and debated - but YOU, Mr. Astute, can disprove this, all of this... as you have spotted something noooobody else has?... and, I'M arrogant? :facepalm

Permanent minus status for team Fa-Q.

Fa-Q wrote:First off, let me start by pointing out the ignorance in believing they are smarter than 91% of the world. By saying perfect logic, you are saying in a very passive yet condescending way, that anyone that does not agree with you is lower than you. I do know how natural selection works. I also know that if there were "billions of years" there would be one of two things. Either we would have a massive amount of intermediate, middle-staged evolutionary animals/species; or we would have very little amounts of species and have more intelligent creatures inhabiting this planet. As far as the scientific community is concerned, we have ONE truly "intelligent" creature that can make 100% of his choices, and that is homo sapiens. The next smartest animal, according to scientists, is the dolphin. But from sunrise to sunset, they follow a strict pattern of instincts, not choices. We are the only creature on Earth that has been "selected" to make 100% of their decisions. How did other animals not get "selected."


First off, let me start by pointing out the ignorance in you thinking that me calling Evolution by natural selection 'perfect logic' is ignorant.

A basic definition of ignorance:
Lack of knowledge or information

So, for my statement, which was that Evolution by natural selection is 'perfect logic' to be 'ignorant' - I would have to be speaking with a lack of knowledge, or that statement would have to be informed or backed up by a slither of information...

Evolution by natural selection being a scientific fact as we know it isn't my opinion. I didn't come up with it, and I've contributed nothing to its acceptance. It has however been poured over and studied since Darwin first introduced it well over 100 years ago.

Since then, science has proven its validity and reality way beyond a reasonable doubt. It is proven by multiple angles and there is no longer a debate within science that evolution is true. Only a debate on how certain specifics of it happened. But absolutely no debate on the basic logic on which it is founded. That's just the reality of it, deal with it.

So me saying that Evolution by natural selection is 'perfect logic' is not actually ignorant of anything. As I'm taking into account the wealth of knowledge and confirmation science has accumulated over the years. The statement is said BECAUSE of knowledge and information, not because of a lack of.

If you choose to disregard all of that, and the mountains of evidence which prove it beyond a sensible consideration and which supersedes any individual or personal input, that's up to you. But it is in fact THAT standpoint, which is ignorant. And you are also ignorant for thinking it's not.

Why is that so? because you're placing your own personal opinion and distaste for Evolution (or whatever other reasons, religious I suspect from your later comments) above facts and repeatable theories of logic and... reality. You're placing yourself above all of that, your own personal feelings, above all of that. Which again, is not only ignorant, but incredibly arrogant.

Therefore you have absolutely zero right to call me arrogant. You're the most arrogant by default. And the most ignorant, offensively and stupidly ignorant in fact.

As for humans being the only species able to make a choice...

Well actually, let's start with what you said about only having one 'intelligent' creature. We actually have plenty of intelligent creatures. I realize by intelligence, and by emphasizing it like that you're probably implying intelligence to be defined by the ability to reason and make choice, and consciousness, but that's not a very good definition.

It's actually been shown that Elephants for example have empathy. I think empathy and self-awareness go hand in hand which would appear so as... there was a 'mirror test' done whereby, a mark would be placed on an animal, and then the animal shown a mirror. The mark was only visible in the mirror. And they concluded that if the animal looked in the mirror and did nothing but try to touch the mark ON the mirror, that the animal thought it was seeing another... dog, cat, X...

Where as if the animal looked in the mirror, saw the mark and then touched it on themselves, they knew that the mirror was showing a reflection of them and therefore they had self-awareness. Most animals such as dogs and cats did the expected and touched the mirror.

Which although not totally definitive makes it unlikely these animals are aware of themselves.

Elephants however touched the mark on themselves. Showing they are actually aware of their own existence. How much more they know we don't know, we don't even understand our own brains that well let alone the brains of other species.

Elephants have also been seen to morn over the death of family, showing that they feel some kind of emotional hurt and awareness of life and death. Beyond that, they have also helped out humans and other species, which shows they can extend their empathy outside of their direct family, and even outside of their own species. Which is fairly incredible.

This shows they are not only aware of themselves, but that they can reason to a degree which allows them to extend their emotional kindness to other living things, as humans can. As it's the ability to see yourself as something else, feel their struggle or pain, and try to rectify it.

You also mentioned Dolphins. Dolphins actually engage in play, they'll play with humans for example... you say they can't make choices? but isn't it a choice to play? as I doubt it's an instinct. It's an indulgence and a way of producing internal pleasure, indulging in fun is a very conscious attribute. That's just to name but two species which have at least some attributes of consciousness.

Most other animals cannot or appear not to be able to act outside of instinct, likely because they are not aware of themselves and are therefore more like machines. Machines of DNA doing nothing but repeating behaviour and instinct programmed into them to survive.

You say why would nature select just one species to be as intelligent as we are... ? I don't know what that means, why you're asking that or how you think that disproves or questions anything. For all we know we could be the only life in the Universe, that doesn't mean that we don't exist, or that we're silly, or that we can disprove our own existence.

How is something being rare disproving it? evolution shape-shifts and improves over time by only selecting, by definition, things that work. Therefore after billions of years of evolution of intelligence, it would make sense to see a very intelligent species such as ourselves. And since positively affecting mutations would be rare, and only good changes would take effect, it would make sense for there to be only one or a handful of truly intelligent species.

As it would follow a line of improvement...

We didn't get 'selected to make choices' - our brains expanded over time which eventually gave birth to self-awareness and consciousness. And empathy. It's through these things we're able to reason our own existence, reason with others, choose between options. But I think even the appearance of choice in humans is amplified, by us, and I think we think we have more control than we do.

If you go into the fridge because you feel thirsty, and you see milk and orange juice. And you're trying to decide which to drink, and let's say you eventually settle on milk... you may feel as if you made a totally free and conscious and random decision there but what if your subconscious and your body had already decided right when you had the choice. And you just had the illusion of a privilege due to the fact you're aware of your process.

Maybe you were always going to choose milk as your body wanted certain things contained in milk and your brain craved that exact taste etc.

Also, a lot of the time we react on instinct too. Like, if we wish to kill ourselves, anybody who has ever killed themselves - a normally functioning, emotional, aware, human being - would of felt a mental resistance to doing so as they were about to do it. Which is why it can be so hard to kill yourself. As it's your natural instinct not to.

I think it's more-so we can choose our choices. Rather than do exactly what we like. We have that illusion but in reality, we're still bound by our genes and limitation. What doesn't appear to be limited is our thought, and imagination. As trillions of new connections can be made in the brain and we can think and invent things which the prior generation couldn't conceive of.

However, even our innovation evolves in an incremental fashion. We didn't just come up with the computer as we see it now, out of the blue for example. Technology is a perfect replication of evolution in fact, and shows that we repeat nature, we emulate it. Because we were built by nature.

It started with a computer chip, something to hold information. Then as we understand that, we expand the amount of information, then we think of different kinds of data a computer chip can hold, then we build multiple chips, then we realize we can use a computer to perform tasks... and so on. But it's a huge incremental process over time.

But if you were to show an iPod to somebody in the stone age, it would look like actual magic. As they would have absolutely no idea what the fuck it is, how it works, how it can function the way they see it functions. It would be the illusion of instant design.

Which is what we see with species. If you think of a human as nature's iPod, to ourselves, we look incredible. And we haven't seen the huge incremental process which led up to us, so we can be overwhelmed with this idea of instant design, which is why some choose to think it was god. But the difference is, we have now uncovered the path which led to us.

Just like if a cave man was to dismantle an iPod, figure out how it works and eventually figure out the incremental thought processes which led to its eventual design and function. We've done that with life, we've reverse-engineered it and there is no need to induce a creator. It's not needed.

Other animals didn't get 'selected' as that wasn't their strength or line of evolution. I don't get your point here. Other animals can't think like us just like we weren't 'selected' to fly or run 70mph, because our strong attribute is our brains. So once we started to stand out in that region, that's where we kept excelling and expanding through selection, rapidly.

Other animals excelled in other areas, that's what makes them different species. They didn't need massive brains or consciousness as other species survive in other ways and do just fine without the kind of brains we have. We don't have other incredible attributes such as speed, flight, incredible strength etc. though. So actually, it would be more weird and more of a point if other animals did have the brains we have.

If a cheetah could reason and choose and had the power of speech, that would be more a point in your court. As it wouldn't necessarily need that to survive and already has these other incredible attributes which make it what it is. The fact we are defined by our brains is a point in evolution's court, everything is how it should be if what we think happened happened. Which it did.

Fa-Q wrote:Have you ever noticed that most Evolutionists are just about the same character type. Very arrogant and boastful and make you feel stupid for believing in something as ridiculous as a god. The fact is, Evolutionists don't want to believe Evolution. No, they want to not NOT believe in a god. Triple negative to prove a point. They are arrogant people, thus wanting to believe that they created themselves, indirectly of course. Instead of approaching my idea with open-mindedness and eagerness to engage in an argument in a civilized and equal manner, you choose to demean me. If Evolution was true, it wouldnt have selected assholes like you. :wave:


No, I think the only people who have 'noticed' that are people like you who think that people who base their opinions on sense, and fact, and knowledge are arrogant.

All I've done is pointed out what is accepted by science. All you've done is think you're smarter than all of that and have seen holes nobody else has ever seen. Which is about as arrogant as it can get. I don't believe in god because it's illogical, unnecessary and unproven. That's not arrogant, no more than it'd be arrogant for you to deny me the right to say I can fly.

'They' - so you're essentially generalizing and summarizing ANYBODY who disagrees with you or ANYBODY who accepts Evolution as fact, which it has been proven and accepted as... as arrogant? the irony of that is hilarious. That is childish, ignorant and arrogant, as fuck.

Approaching what idea with open-mindedness? nothing you have said is new or throws evolution into question. The fact you think it does shows you're ignorant of the information available. But what, you want me to do your fucking homework for you now? you'll find hostility from people like myself because you're being totally arrogant and pug-faced.

Open, fucking, mindnedness? are you kidding me. You plea this kind of stance after you've been shot down. You opened your argument by saying you could 'disprove evolution very easily', that's about as closed-minded and stupid as it gets. You think you can disprove over a hundred years of incredible evidence, proven from so many angles it's not funny, you think you can disprove that with some basic ideas you've had sat in your bedroom, based on a very limied knowledge of everything...

If you had said "okay, I realize Evolution is accepted as fact, but this is what I don't get about it..." that would be totally different. You however open by saying you can DISPROVE it, very easily, then get annoyed when you're faced with logical opposition to such stupidity?

And, that closing statement, you may think it's a clever little sound bite but it not only makes no sense, it adds nothing to your argument. Firstly, you're the asshole you smug, arrogant, deluded little prick. Secondly, evolution is a process, not a conscious mind or 'thing' which 'chooses things'. That's just what nature has done as we can define it...

And there's no morality or opinion in that. So assholes very much still would be produced through this process, that's not a factor which enters into it. It's something we later define, and you were created through evolution, or are here because of that process.

I don't think, and people who understand and accept Evolution do not think that we created ourselves either. What does that even mean. How could I have created myself? that makes absolutely no sense. I didn't create myself, I was created by my mother and father, and they were created by their mother and father, and so on and so on. We were all created in this same repeatable way because we're programmed by nature to reproduce in this way.

Nobody created themselves. Humanity is one species of millions, that was not created, but which just happened, a life form that was shape-shifted, by nature. We've explained it perfectly and adding a creator is not needed, doesn't explain anything and then you need to explain the creator. We know how life came to be, and it involved no creator. If you wish to believe it did and have been brought up to believe that and can't out think it, bad luck. But don't expect me to take it seriously.

It's also pretty sad that you can't see beyond that and are so indoctrinated in your line of thinking that you go as far as to deny actual fact because it contradicts your personal belief. It's not just sad, it's fucking scary. Believe what you want, but don't come in here mouthing off, saying you can 'easily' disprove something that is bigger than you, and which is a scientific fact. You idiot.
User avatar
EminemBase
Addict
Addict
 
Posts: 10007
Joined: Dec 10th, '09, 06:37
Location: Inside your mind famalamalamalam.
Gender: Male

Re: Your Theories On Evolution?

Postby Fa-Q » Sep 18th, '11, 07:37

Well since I can't win with you, EminemBase, I'll forfeit. Not because I HAVEN'T won or because I cannot win, its because Evolutionists have Darwin's cock clear down their throat so far that the only thing that comes out is the circling and repetitive nature of their argument. Key words such as: Natural Selection, Over Time, Billions and Billions of years are all examples of this. You complain when I use a hyperbole such as One and a Million, yet if you ask any Evolutionist how old the Earth is or how it all began they'll revert to the Scooby Doo scripts, I ron't ro?

Speaking of, your argument has been compromised because of your condescending way of speaking. You sprinkle words like cocksucker in your argument, and in your attempt to make less of me you are in fact letting me know I am smarter than you. I am merely asking a question. By saying "I can disprove evolution..." its not cockiness, its a challenge to anyone that can disprove it. AbramIsaac saw that and responded in a very civilized and respectful manner. I respect him, on the other hand, I do not respect you. Evolution is FULL of holes, but so is Creation. The difference is, one is accepted as universal fact, when it is clearly not; and the other is disregarded by truly ignorant and blind Evolutionists.

So I'm done arguing with a very stereotypical Evolutionist who has the argument expertise of a 4th grader.
User avatar
Fa-Q
Pill Popper
Pill Popper
 
Posts: 8404
Joined: Dec 20th, '08, 21:15

Re: Your Theories On Evolution?

Postby EminemBase » Sep 18th, '11, 09:34

Fa-Q wrote:Well since I can't win with you, EminemBase, I'll forfeit. Not because I HAVEN'T won or because I cannot win, its because Evolutionists have Darwin's cock clear down their throat so far that the only thing that comes out is the circling and repetitive nature of their argument. Key words such as: Natural Selection, Over Time, Billions and Billions of years are all examples of this. You complain when I use a hyperbole such as One and a Million, yet if you ask any Evolutionist how old the Earth is or how it all began they'll revert to the Scooby Doo scripts, I ron't ro?


The classic 'oh I'm too good for this' exit.

You do yet more absurd generalizations, totally unfounded and show how childish and stupid you are. You yet again characterize 'evolutionists' with some vague idiotic statement... have you once seen me do this about 'religious people'... no you have not. Grow the fuck up and get better arguments.

The Earth is actually around 4.5 billion years old. We know this from dating of the oldest meteorite material found in the Earth and also from lunar samples. So what's your answer to that? we've known for a long time how old the Earth is.

So what the hell are you talking about you ignorant fool. Also, what the hell does the age of Earth have to do with evolution, focus on the point at hand. Stop trying to divert.

Fa-Q wrote:Speaking of, your argument has been compromised because of your condescending way of speaking. You sprinkle words like cocksucker in your argument, and in your attempt to make less of me you are in fact letting me know I am smarter than you. I am merely asking a question. By saying "I can disprove evolution..." its not cockiness, its a challenge to anyone that can disprove it.


No no no. My argument is not 'compromised' by insults. I insulted you because you're insulting me, don't bite and then cry if you get bit back.

Insults have nothing to do with the information or arguments I am presenting. They are personal jabs in response to yours.

But, if somebody said "gravity is true, you cunt" and then proved it was true, would it actually be false due to the insult? stop being ridiculous. Facts are facts, if you can't hack the insults don't insult me or be so rude or arrogant. Push me, you'll get pushed twice as hard back.

Saying you can 'easily disprove' Evolution ISSS cockiness. It's arrogance beyond belief. You're saying you can not just disprove over 100 years of intensely documented and poured over scientific evidence that has been peer-reviewed and debated, and just... ripped apart and put back together by minds greater than you can imagine... you're saying you can do it, easily. How you can say that's not cocky or arrogant is ridiculous.

Once again, you have not presented any information or ideas that are new or which disprove any element of evolution. You've said ignorant things, with arrogance. Arrogant confidence, when you know not of what you speak. There's no humility in what you're saying, you're challenging things you're uninformed about with boastful cockiness.

Stop using cop-outs in relation to personal insults, I wrote a 2,000 + word response and I challenge YOU to challenge any part of it. Forget insults completely, go ahead and disprove or challenge the things I said, I'm waiting. I dare you, go for it. I don't need insults to make you look foolish, you do that to yourself. I choose to add them, as you're irritating.

Fa-Q wrote:AbramIsaac saw that and responded in a very civilized and respectful manner. I respect him, on the other hand, I do not respect you. Evolution is FULL of holes, but so is Creation. The difference is, one is accepted as universal fact, when it is clearly not; and the other is disregarded by truly ignorant and blind Evolutionists.


No, the basic theory of Evolution by natural selection is NOT full of holes. There are questions within evolution, debated amongst evolutionary scientists and biologists on matters you haven't even brought up and which you or I probably do not know about or understand.

But there is no debate that evolution, is true. It is a fact.

Creationism, is irrational and unproven. If you think that statement is wrong - PROVE, ME, WRONG. Go ahead. Show me a single piece of evidence to support creationism, demonstrate a single piece of logical thought to make it plausible. I'll wait... :flower:

It's also not just disregarded by 'blind evolutionists' - it's actually disregarded by anybody with common sense. You do realize that atheism and belief in evolution do not go hand in hand. It just so happens a lot of atheists accept evolution, along with even sensible religious people. As it's a clear, common, proven fact.

Could you also justify how people who accept this common fact are 'blind'. How do you justify the use of that term in this context. When you believe in creationism which has absolutely no proof what so ever... you have the cheek to say people who believe in a proven fact are 'blind' and that you are not, when your belief is based, quite literally, on blind faith? :facepalm

You are ignorant. You are ignorant. Yooouuu, are, ignorant. People who understand, and accept, evolution are not ignorant. They are the opposite, they have taken into account the available information and accept a clear fact. Just like people who 'believe' in gravity. You are ignorant as you don't know much about evolution yet refute it anyway.

You think all of science is wrong and you are right. You're foolish.

Fa-Q wrote:So I'm done arguing with a very stereotypical Evolutionist who has the argument expertise of a 4th grader.


Yawn, yawn fucking yawn. Is that seriously the best you have?

'Expertise of a 4th grader' - you're so childish and boring.

Yes, I'm sure '4th grader' could contemplate conciousness and morality and empathy in other species, validate their opinions with informed reasoning etc.... you're ridiculous. Go ahead and challenge anything I said, which you probably haven't even read.

I even read all of yours but you can't stand to read mine, as you know you're beat.
User avatar
EminemBase
Addict
Addict
 
Posts: 10007
Joined: Dec 10th, '09, 06:37
Location: Inside your mind famalamalamalam.
Gender: Male

Re: Your Theories On Evolution?

Postby mdemaz » Sep 19th, '11, 07:51

Holy shit EmBase, lmfao.
Last edited by mdemaz on Sep 19th, '11, 13:53, edited 1 time in total.
ImageImageImage
s/o to Eedee Python CP Horse Snake Pain SaJn Silver Cement Excitaz PK Rolly GW EG Charlotte Kasia Mel Wiz Solace TRex SliK Aone Atone Trimss Menzo Geno Fish Jaba Detroit Blogs Based lil_b IBR DA! Mono ROM NRG Bigray Hesky Francesco Yoda Noddy Raul
Just Silver wrote:I think every guy should massage their prostate at least once

Image
User avatar
mdemaz
Addict
Addict
 
Posts: 10208
Joined: Dec 6th, '10, 12:09
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Gender: Male

Re: Your Theories On Evolution?

Postby Fa-Q » Sep 19th, '11, 12:19

Okay, here's your shred of evidence. The closest thing we have that's man-made to the most complicated two things on your body, the eye and the brain, is a computer and a camera. Now, forgetting the fact that all the parts would have to slowly evolve after billions of years into a perfect shape and size fit for the last piece, let's put all the parts necessary for a "camera" into a shoe box. If you shake the shoe box, for billions and billions and trillions and trillions of years, you WON'T get a camera. EVERY single component in a camera is designed to fit the last perfectly. Same with a computer, or brain. Same with the human body.

This is my FINAL response just because you act as if I never offered a viable argument for Creation.
User avatar
Fa-Q
Pill Popper
Pill Popper
 
Posts: 8404
Joined: Dec 20th, '08, 21:15

Re: Your Theories On Evolution?

Postby EminemBase » Sep 19th, '11, 13:43

Fa-Q wrote:Okay, here's your shred of evidence. The closest thing we have that's man-made to the most complicated two things on your body, the eye and the brain, is a computer and a camera. Now, forgetting the fact that all the parts would have to slowly evolve after billions of years into a perfect shape and size fit for the last piece, let's put all the parts necessary for a "camera" into a shoe box. If you shake the shoe box, for billions and billions and trillions and trillions of years, you WON'T get a camera. EVERY single component in a camera is designed to fit the last perfectly. Same with a computer, or brain. Same with the human body.

This is my FINAL response just because you act as if I never offered a viable argument for Creation.


Oh my goodness. Are you serious?

Okay, FIRSTLY - you posing a question is NOT evidence of your theory. If you have theory X and theory Y, and you can't understand or don't believe theory X... that doesn't therefore prove theory Y. So even if your question here could not be answered, that doesn't prove anything.

Now, as for the question or idea itself, this just proves you know absolutely jack shit about Evolution yet you say you can easily disprove it. You're speaking out of total ignorance.

This idea of the eye forming 'randomly' is the oldest in the book, this is what basically every clueless creationists asks. The classic one is actually usually to say a 747 Jet Engine would not get 'randomly' thrown together in a hurricane. Which is just the grossest misunderstanding of Evolution possible.

Evolution by natural selection, is not random. If you put all the parts of a camera into a shoe box and shook them up, that would be completely random. There's no control of the outcome there and there's no reason of path for a camera as we know it to form.

This is not what happens through natural selection. Natural selection is the opposite of random. It couldn't be less random. As by definition, the only things that are 'selected' (nothing is actually consciously selecting anything) are things which work. Everything that doesn't work, dies out, fails to get passed on. This is not the equivalent of shaking up a shoe box.

This is the equivalent of trial and error. Much like we started with a single computer chip and now look at the machines we have. The scientists behind these technologies did not shake up the parts and come up with computers either. They tried new things and only kept things which were improvements - THAT is what Evolution by natural selection is.

It couldn't be less random in development and your analogy makes no sense. And is not what it is. And just shows you don't understand Evolution, haven't or couldn't of read into it properly and are just speaking from an emotional standpoint, and a standpoint of ignorance.

So yes, you're right, I do act like you've never offered a viable argument for creationism. You still haven't. You've just offered a very cliché and very already disproved and thrown out analogy used by every creationist under the sun. There is no evidence or good arguments for creationism as it's illogical and a fantasy. Evolution by natural selection however, is a fact.
User avatar
EminemBase
Addict
Addict
 
Posts: 10007
Joined: Dec 10th, '09, 06:37
Location: Inside your mind famalamalamalam.
Gender: Male

Re: Your Theories On Evolution?

Postby mdemaz » Sep 19th, '11, 15:58

What we have done in 30 years in terms of technology adds up to what we did in the last 120 before the 30..
Seriously, computers are gonna end up taking over and when we finally create AI, that'll be the real test.
ImageImageImage
s/o to Eedee Python CP Horse Snake Pain SaJn Silver Cement Excitaz PK Rolly GW EG Charlotte Kasia Mel Wiz Solace TRex SliK Aone Atone Trimss Menzo Geno Fish Jaba Detroit Blogs Based lil_b IBR DA! Mono ROM NRG Bigray Hesky Francesco Yoda Noddy Raul
Just Silver wrote:I think every guy should massage their prostate at least once

Image
User avatar
mdemaz
Addict
Addict
 
Posts: 10208
Joined: Dec 6th, '10, 12:09
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Gender: Male

Re: Your Theories On Evolution?

Postby DanWS » Sep 19th, '11, 17:17

TRshady wrote:The server is indeed unaware of the greatness that is DanWS.
User avatar
DanWS
Role Model
Role Model
 
Posts: 3083
Joined: Mar 12th, '10, 21:59
Location: UK
Gender: Male

Re: Your Theories On Evolution?

Postby mdemaz » Sep 28th, '11, 05:52

Well...There has to be some explanation to how we came to be...Biting at each other's heads over theory is dumb..

Then again, attempting to comprehend what we think happened is dumb..It's waay too complex.
I still can't believe half of the shit..Even though I'm told it's the most likely theory..
ImageImageImage
s/o to Eedee Python CP Horse Snake Pain SaJn Silver Cement Excitaz PK Rolly GW EG Charlotte Kasia Mel Wiz Solace TRex SliK Aone Atone Trimss Menzo Geno Fish Jaba Detroit Blogs Based lil_b IBR DA! Mono ROM NRG Bigray Hesky Francesco Yoda Noddy Raul
Just Silver wrote:I think every guy should massage their prostate at least once

Image
User avatar
mdemaz
Addict
Addict
 
Posts: 10208
Joined: Dec 6th, '10, 12:09
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Gender: Male

Re: Your Theories On Evolution?

Postby Words » Dec 6th, '11, 16:45

I believe in evolution. Creationist theories seem too far fetched, and I actually just don't understand why any functioning human being, an adult anyway, could believe it. It astounds me. There's so much empirical evidence backing evolution (carbon dating, fossil records, other various observations etc.) and almost none backing creationist theories about how we came to be. It's a one-sided debate as far as I see it when it comes to actual evidence supporting one theory or the other.
One of the arguments I've heard from those who support creationist theories is something like: "Well my grandpa wasn't a monkey! Are you saying my grandpa was a monkey???"
No, the theory of evolution does not say that your grandpa is a monkey. Over many, many generations micro evolution, small changes, can result in macro evolution large changes where it seems as though they have changed into a completely different species. This being said, we could not have come from anything you see around you today. We may share the same ancestor, but we adapted and evolved differently resulting in 2 different (but similar) species. The common ancestor we once shared with apes, is extinct. Some people fail to grasp this concept however, and that's why I feel that the theory of evolution is still rejected by some.

May go a little off-topic here, I'm sorry if I do. I just wanted to share an interesting theory I heard that pertains to human evolution:

I heard an interesting theory from my little brother the other day about the next stage in human evolution. He thinks autism may be something similar to what human will be evolving into, we will have the full capacity to use our brain and what not. As of now, it is an imperfect system...after the bugs are worked out soon the human race will all be "Autistic" in a way.
Autistic people are sometimes able to perform complex math problems, or think very deeply about a subject....using their entire brain to focus on that one thing. This has social/functioning ramifications however, often times they cannot conduct themselves well in a social setting with lots of people or communicate very well. But, in future generation what if that is no longer an issue? We would be able to do these sort of brain functions without the social ramifications. It could open up a whole new level of human mental capacity.
Image
Blu wrote:I think Words is my new favorite member.. haha Thanks man! :y:
User avatar
Words
Trailer Trash
Trailer Trash
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Sep 12th, '11, 15:23
Location: Michigan
Gender: Male

PreviousNext

Return to Serious Debate



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users