Interview with an evolutionist

[The Spith]

Do you believe in the theory of evolution?

 

--Yes.

 

Do you think man evolved from apes?

 

--Yes.

 

 

You see right there, we already know this is bullshit. We share a common ancestor, we didn’t evolve from them. That’s what accounts for the differences.

 

Have you ever seen the old fighter planes flown in WWII ?

 

--Yes.

 

Have you ever seen the fighter planes of today?

 

--Yes.

 

Are they similar?

 

--Yes, they are.

 

Does this prove F-15's came from the old WWII planes.

 

--No.

 

Then why are they so similar? They both have wings and a tail. Right?

 

--That's correct.

 

Could it be that the designer used the same law of aerodynamics to build the similar planes?

 

--Yes.

 

So the similarities could just be that they just have a similar blue print?

 

--That's true, but it's not just similarites that show man came from apes. There's evidence showing this is true.

 

You think engineers start from scratch when they design new planes?

 

What's keeping the planet from crashing into the sun now?

 

Momentum which keeps us in orbit.

 

what's keeping the planets from coliding?

 

Differing orbits which don’t overlap. It would be pretty hard in all the billions of miles of space you’ve already talked about.

 

And if anyone wants to make thier own "Interview with a creationist" type thread, or post it here, I invite you to do so. Only if you do, don't point out any specific religion, since creation/inteligent design as taught in schools doesn't advocate any specific religion

 

Oh sure thing:

 

Are you a creationist?

 

-Yes

 

Do you beleive in God?

 

-Yes

 

What eveidence do you have?

 

-None

[AzurePhoenix]

You see right there, we already know this is bullshit. We share a common ancestor, we didn’t evolve from them. That’s what accounts for the differences.

Actually, genetic and fossil evidence suggests that we did evolve directly from apes. We actually split off from the common ancestor shared with chimps after an older common ancestor broke off from gorillas, long after the orangutans first broke away.

 

this wikki addresses the matter, and comes with some links to other references.

 

Here's the suggested cladogram/taxonomic timeline

 

The only way to claim that we were never apes is to say that orangutans and gorillas aren't apes either, and that true apes only evolved as chimps after our split, or one could claim that chimps themselves aren't apes, and that either orangutans or gorillas are apes, one or the other, but not both. Of course, that would be taxonomically dishonest. Some might claim that we still are apes, though that's a different matter.

[shinbits]

Well.

 

Hi boys.

 

Thank you all so much for participating in this debate!

 

And of course, I have another, highly anticipated response.

 

 

What you all seem to actively try to shove under the carpet is what is the embarassing foundation of evolution.

What is that, you say?

 

Dumb luck.

 

Some of you have quickly tried to dismiss this laughably shakey foundation for a "scientific" theory. Some tried to post a link, then move away from the topic.

Well I'm not gonna let you off the hook.

 

 

One of you even said "It's not completely random. There's some other force." Oh really. Well, unless this force has "intelligence" in which to shape these random events, then even this force is there by random chance.

 

 

You all have hords of questions. Well I have some for you.

 

Go sit in your living rooms. Turn on your TV. Now sit, there, and contemplate for a moment--what are the chances that particles in the universe--given whatever amount of time you wish--would happily be floating along, and by oh so sweet "chance", start to bump into each other.

 

And not just any particles, mind you. The exact ones needed to make a TV.

And over times, be it billions, trillions, gagillions---of many years, enough of these lucky particles meet, and then form the shape of a box, and become a TV.

Okay?

Then--sit there sweating--over what the chances are, that all the right particles of metal, plastic particles for wire, and everything else needed come together--

Then--sit there drooling--over the chances that all the right pixels would come together--and on top of all that, there'd be a power source, which--oh happy day--had "accidentally" come together.

 

But that may fry your little brains.

Sit, then, and imagine, what the chances are, that a pen, sitting on your living room table, has developed it's shape, it's ink, and a structure which allows you to "click" it, so you can write.

 

Take your time. I'll give you billions of years so this can happen.

Then--

When you're through with the pen, take time to multiply that by what the chances of other little things in the house forming by chance--a book; a fork; a door nob; the door itself;

And when you have finally, painstakingly calculated what the chances are, of EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE THINGS COMING INTO BEING BY ACCIDENT--

Go back to the TV. And figure out it's probably, and factor that in too.

And THEN--

All the while, pulling your hair, factor every other electric appliance, and then finally, your entire house.

 

Tired? I don't blame you.

 

You see, this is the profoundly idiotic untertaking that evolutionist choose to believe, and try to prove.

 

The chances of an entire PLANET, cyclically spinning and orbiting, multiplied by seasons ending and begining like clockwork, multiplied by millions of ecosystems, billions of species--

 

Let's just say this is possible. I'll be kind.

Do you know what types of things are more probable, than an entire earth being formed by chance?

 

1) You are more likely to flip a coin 20 billion times, and accurately guess each and every single outcome.

2) You are more likely to have someone hide on any spot on the entire planet, randomly pick a spot--whether it be in the ocean, a desert, or rainforest or mountain--and find it, every day, for 17 million years.

3) You are more likely to mark a quarter with black ink, throw it into a giant ball with a diameter extend from one end of the galaxy to the other, dive in anywhere blindfolded, pick one, and come out of the pile accurately, everyday, for a year.

 

"Hey, I already pasted a link with irreducible complexity.."

Good for you. Still doesn't change evolutions rediculous probability.

 

Let me end this.

If I told you, that I once played Mortal Kombat with the Pope-- Is it possible? Sure it is. Would you believe me? No. That's too improbable.

 

Yet you believe that wonderfully working DNA structures, billions of trillions of cells on our planet, billions of species, billions of stars---even billions of galaxies---

Are one terribly freak accident.

 

If some one told you your city, with all it's buildings and lights and highways wasn't built by anyone, you'd slap him silly.

 

Well. This breathtakingly retarded theory is founded on this superbly wild chance.

This indescribably wild chance is not only the foundation of evolution--for wild chance is needed for it to begin--wild chance is it's driving force--for it says that by way of the perfect conditions, just so happening to be there, uni-celled organisms formed, then got lucky, then grew, then got lucky, and specialized---

 

So now, my long awaited question. If there's anyone with b*llz enough to answer it, answer this:

How in the hell do you justify believing in such wild stupidity? State your case.

If you're brave enough.

 

Heh. Now that I think of it-- how do you reason with anyone dumb enough to believe in this?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

1. I'd like to see you prove your little probability excercise there.

2. Evolution is not random chance. It is simply the worst die off, leaving the best behind.

3. You are confusing abiogenesis with evolution. EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CREATION OF LIFE. You can come up with any idea you want for that. Evolution concerns animals changing characteristics over time, NOT BEING CREATED.

 

Do you understand that?

[LucidDreamer]

accidentally" come together....and by oh so sweet "chance....EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE THINGS COMING INTO BEING BY ACCIDENT--

etc.

You are confused about what evolution is. It doesn't say that the universe or life came about by chance, or give any predictions about the who and the why of the universe and life. Evolution is a theory for the mechanism that resulted in the diversity of life. Perhaps there is a God. Perhaps He is the Christian God and He created all life on Earth. Science doesn't tell us, but what it definitely tells us is that if He does exist, He used Evolution.

[CPL.Luke]

also shinbits,

 

in an infinite universe it is quite likely that there is a tv floating out there somewhere.

 

also there are laws in the universe that say taht matter should be attracted to itself (gravity) over time matter shall clump together enough to make stars, stars will in turn fuse the matter (free protons) together to form heavier elements. The eventual end is that stars planets and galaxies are formed. (quite possibly through chemical reactions life as well will form), because if you think about it its not that hard to have the reactions occur thatt will produce a dna molecule, its done in labs all the time, then over the course of a few million years these reactions go in just the right order to create a dna molecule that will self replicate, and then evolution starts and 3.9 billion years later here we are.

 

^it should be noted that evolution only starts once the first self-replicating dna molecules are created.

 

but seriously as for the biochemistry bit, if you've ever done any chemistry experiments how could you think that over millions of years it never happened?

 

and the question you should be asking is "how come the natural laws of the universe are exactly what they are?" because that is the one thing that science doesn't even have speculation on. (partially because the question isn't really scientific)

[ydoaPs]

i like how creationists spout the same crap and most of it gives more credance to evolution than it does to ID. like the "if the nose formed upside down, everyone would drown. that means, since our noses are shaped like they are, they are designed." well, wouldn't a nose pointing down be an advantage to such a creature? yea. so, wouldn't the upside-down nosed creatures be selected against? wow, ID evidence actually supports evolution.

 

i was reading a creationist book today, and he was talking about if humans didn't have eyes, they wouldn't be around. they would die. let's analyze that. our form as it is now, evolved to be dependant on eyes, so duh. also, if we didn't have eyes, we wouldn't be human anyway. such creature would have other ways of detecting the world.

 

they also like to talk about how complex the human eye is. they also say it couldn't have evolved gradually; it had to come all at once. let's see...."eyes" range from a part of a single cell that can detect light, to eyes that are much better than ours. some can even see infrared and ultraviolet radiation. it's kinda funny how they choose the human eye. tbh, our eyes kinda suck. they are wired backwards, they suck at distinguishing objects in motion, they can only see a small part of the spectrum, and even in the small part they are capable of seeing, they don't do so well.

 

shinbits, can you come up with something better than your strawman crap? i'll ask you again, and to make sure you'll see it, i'll add a little font: SHOW US EVEN ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT "PROVES" ID. OR EVEN ONE THAT SUPPORTS IT!!

 

btw, given enough time(probably a few trillion times the current age of the universe), atoms would come togather to make a TV.

 

evolution isn't just random chance. it takes: gravity, EM force, organic chemistry, and natural selection. many IDiots tend to forget that there are laws to how the universe works. they think it is "random chance".

 

creationists/IDiots should be banned from ever using probability. they almost never know how to calculate it and they have no idea what criteria are needed to make such probabilities that they use.

 

seriously, dude, READ ALL OF THE FLERKIN LINKS!!!

[bascule]

Well. This breathtakingly retarded theory is founded on this superbly wild chance.

This indescribably wild chance is not only the foundation of evolution--for wild chance is needed for it to begin--wild chance is it's driving force--for it says that by way of the perfect conditions' date=' just so happening to be there, uni-celled organisms formed, then got lucky, then grew, then got lucky, and specialized---[/quote']

 

You know the funny thing about the incomprehensibly vast number of locations in the universe where life didn't happen because it's so improbable?

 

Nobody's there to care... you kind of need sentient life for that to happen

[The Spith]

Actually' date=' genetic and fossil evidence suggests that we did evolve directly from apes. We actually split off from the common ancestor shared with chimps [b']after[/b] an older common ancestor broke off from gorillas, long after the orangutans first broke away.

 

this wikki addresses the matter, and comes with some links to other references.

 

Here's the suggested cladogram/taxonomic timeline

 

The only way to claim that we were never apes is to say that orangutans and gorillas aren't apes either, and that true apes only evolved as chimps after our split, or one could claim that chimps themselves aren't apes, and that either orangutans or gorillas are apes, one or the other, but not both. Of course, that would be taxonomically dishonest. Some might claim that we still are apes, though that's a different matter.

 

All depends on how you use the word 'apes' I guess.

 

If you classify humans as apes then the argument we evolved from them is a bit absurd.

 

My point was assuming the author meant modern/current apes.

 

The alternative is that he meant ape ancestors in the past which was not specified

 

 

And finally shinbits, probability is a science of guesses, and is no basis for an argument. I can flip a coin 100 times and the probability of me getting 100 heads is exceedingly low, however the chances of me getting what I do get are equally improbable.

 

You have also shown that you have no understanding of the mechanism of evolution. Before you try and dispute something, I suggest you learn a bit more about it. Evolution is not a random process. Mutations are random, the process of evolution is both cumulative and selective.

[imasmartgirl]

shinbits,

 

creationism: god waves his magic wand and makes everything poof into existance.

Anyone can say this. it just doesn't make any sense. Where did god come from? Did god just poof him/her/itself into existance?? And what about everything in the bible? Remember, the bible is just a book. written by people. Just cause they lived a long time ago doesn't make them correct.

 

evolutionism: DNA is a pretty cool thing. It changes and replicates. Species evolve over long periods of time. Just think about all the things that need to happen and it all makes sense. A species of fish for example can produce millions of other fish. Some live, some die. Sometimes they fight either to survive, for food, mating, ect. The weakest die and the strongest survive. Millions of fish are born everyday and millions die. Sometimes there are mistakes in the fish's DNA. Maybe a gene got turned off and they end up missing a fin. Somtimes there is a mistake that helps the fish. The fish survives better and produces offspring. The fish and offspring mate with other fish that got the same mistake. And they mulitple more. Its a hit and miss. Theres a chance they couldn't reproduce the mistake at all. But if its common and helps. Eventually almost all the fish will have it.

 

Life evolves to best fit its environment. There is no solid proof simple because we don't have a million years to watch it happen.

 

But can God still exist with evolution? I think it can. Instead of God creating everything at once. Maybe all living things and such were guided in a certain direction along with all the planets and such by God. Science isn't a way to get rid of religion, its just seeking truth. And evolution is the best answer we have so far. And we as humans have to learn how to change our ideas and views and open up to new possiblities. This is a strange world we live in and theres no simple answers, and some answers sometimes arn't ones we want to hear but thats how it is.

[swansont]

Another creationist that doesn't know anything about probability. What were the odds?

 

 

The chances of an entire PLANET' date=' cyclically spinning and orbiting, multiplied by seasons ending and begining like clockwork, multiplied by millions of ecosystems, billions of species--

[/quote']

 

You need to show your work. How does one calculate these probabilities? (correctly, that is)

[ydoaPs]

it's funny.....the probability that life would occur naturally is 1

[Phi for All]

3 days + 137 posts + no remotely challenging evidence or arguments = moved to pseudoscience.

 

If this continues, I'd like to reiterate Dave's earlier advice for everyone to chill and keep their wits about them. I see frustration mounting.

[The Peon]

*gets on his hands and knees*

 

Please for the love of Jeebus, walk away and ignore this thread. This guy is not going to convert anyone here, and I am positive at this point he will not be converted either. This will not help anyone trying to read about this debate since other threads are much better at it.

 

*raises Evolutions hand in the air*

 

Winnor!!! Ok now we can all go home.

[bascule]

Please for the love of Jeebus, walk away and ignore this thread. This guy is not going to convert anyone here, and I am positive at this point he will not be converted either. This will not help anyone trying to read about this debate since other threads are much better at it.

 

It'd be a little more fun if he actually responded to some talking points, especially ones prefixed with "ATTENTION SHINBITS!"

 

Guess we'll never get an explanation why your average CCD designing electrical engineer can come up with a better design for an optical sensor than... God.

[AzurePhoenix]

All depends on how you use the word 'apes' I guess.

 

If you classify humans as apes then the argument we evolved from them is a bit absurd.

 

My point was assuming the author meant modern/current apes.

 

The alternative is that he meant ape ancestors in the past which was not specified

I largely agree' date=' and deciding whether or not we are [b']still[/b] apes can wait until more people are intellectually and emotionally ready to delve into and accept that possibility. And it's true that Humans are closer to chimps than chimps are to gorillas, due to the fact that we share a more recent genetic ancestor, and that our genes are closer, but certain major characteristics of erect, big-brained hominins might still separate and distinguish us from those hunched, small-brained hominins with actual-ape status, which I imagine many people would prefer, whether it's scietifically honest or not.

 

All that matters at this point is that evolutionists understand what "we" were once great apes, actual, true great apes, and that we're still damned close to them. All that's bothering me is that many are under the false impression that our ancestors broke off earlier than that, and didn't really evovle fro apes.

 

*I'm shutting up now. It's hard to keep on track on these kinda threads*

[Mokele]

Ok, time to end this stupid arguement about randomness and complexity once and for all. Take a real good look:

 

 

Those are metalic crystals of bismuth. Notice the order, the complexity, the regularity of the angles. By your logic, that means that God made them, which is flat-out wrong: any moron with a vat of water and a blowtorch and make them.

 

But they *do* illustrate a core concept of evolution: how the imposition of a few simple rules to a random system can create complex order. These metalic crystals come from liquid bismuth, in which the atoms are unarranged and moving randomly. As it cools, they crystalize according to some simple rules for atomic bonding. These simple rules, imposed upon the randomness, can generate complex and orderly results, namely the crystals you see above.

 

While mutation is random, natural selection most definitely is *not*. Selection acts like the atomic bonding rules, imposing order on randomness and resulting in what we percieve as a complex, ordered system.

 

So basically, unless you claim that God directly and miraculously intervenes to guide the formation of every single crystal anywhere ever (even salt crystals I grow in a jar)(and thereby totally ignoring every aspect of materials science and chemistry), you must admit that your arguement is a baseless strawman.

 

Mokele

 

PS. Mods, please don't make the pics into URLs, at least until shinbits' inevitiable banning occurs, since it's clear that he won't confront data unless we shove his nose in it.

[swansont]

Those are metalic crystals of bismuth. Notice the order, the complexity, the regularity of the angles. By your logic, that means that God made them, which is flat-out wrong: any moron with a vat of water and a blowtorch and make them.

 

An intelligent blowtorch?

[J.C.MacSwell]

Extremely cool pictures Mokele. I was beginning to wonder if there was a God, and you come up with these. You have restored my faith! (with God's help of course)

[The Peon]

Ok' date=' time to end this stupid arguement about randomness and complexity once and for all. Take a real good look:

 

[img']http://www.sidech.be/Images/bismuth.jpg[/img]

 

Those are metalic crystals of bismuth. Notice the order, the complexity, the regularity of the angles. By your logic, that means that God made them, which is flat-out wrong: any moron with a vat of water and a blowtorch and make them.

 

But they *do* illustrate a core concept of evolution: how the imposition of a few simple rules to a random system can create complex order. These metalic crystals come from liquid bismuth, in which the atoms are unarranged and moving randomly. As it cools, they crystalize according to some simple rules for atomic bonding. These simple rules, imposed upon the randomness, can generate complex and orderly results, namely the crystals you see above.

 

While mutation is random, natural selection most definitely is *not*. Selection acts like the atomic bonding rules, imposing order on randomness and resulting in what we percieve as a complex, ordered system.

 

So basically, unless you claim that God directly and miraculously intervenes to guide the formation of every single crystal anywhere ever (even salt crystals I grow in a jar)(and thereby totally ignoring every aspect of materials science and chemistry), you must admit that your arguement is a baseless strawman.

 

Mokele

 

PS. Mods, please don't make the pics into URLs, at least until shinbits' inevitiable banning occurs, since it's clear that he won't confront data unless we shove his nose in it.

 

 

Woah, for a second I thought those were clay models of ancient roman ruins. Sweeeeet.

[Mokele]

They're pretty cheap from various online sources. I've got one of my own, about 3 inches long, that I paid about $12 for, iirc.

[JC1]

I don't understand why people believe in this macroevolution, the so-called science that relies on gross amounts of assumptions and pre-bias to make it make sense. Why are you in bondage to this belief system? People are talking about the overwhelming "evidence" to support it, but actually the opposite. Statistically speaking, what's the liklihood of something like amino acids forming from nothing and surviving?

 

ID is a not science unless it goes through peer-reviewed? But what if the peers are bent on removing God from the hearts of men? Everyone

is convinced one way or the other even before the data comes into the equation.

 

Moreover, based on your belief, people are treated unequally which is not what you're designed for. You were created as a son of God, you were created uniquely and equally by and to God rather than, "Once upon a time, a frog became a prince.". But sadly, one that sees you as a lesser life form, just like the world treat dogs less equal than human beings?

 

Jesus is on his way. I pray for the lost souls.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You've forgotten that evolution doesn't include the bit about amino acids forming from nothing.

[Phi for All]

ID is a not science unless it goes through peer-reviewed? But what if the peers are bent on removing God from the hearts of men?

This strawman gets sooooo old. Science isn't interested in removing God from your heart. It may remove some plaque from from your coronary arteries (or bypass them completely), but science really has no interest in proving or disproving God.

[Dak]

I don't understand why people believe in this macroevolution,

 

because this 'macroevolution' is at least similar enough to 'microevolution' in mechanism that, having observed 'microevolution', there is little reason to assume that 'macroevolution' does not occour. plus the fact that 'macroevolution' has been observed.

 

the so-called science that relies on gross amounts of assumptions and pre-bias to make it make sense. Why are you in bondage to this belief system?

 

its not a belief system. it is a logical/empirical system.

 

People are talking about the overwhelming "evidence" to support it, but actually the opposite. Statistically speaking, what's the liklihood of something like amino acids forming from nothing and surviving?

 

whats the likelyhood of rolling a 6? its 1/6, ie its more likely than not that a 6 would not be rolled. yet we do not marvel at the statistical unlikelyhood of every 6 that comes up, because every outcome is unlikely.

 

amino acids forming from 'nothing' and surviving. slim. probability that something would happen. high. any given outcome would have been unlikely, but shit happening was quite likely, and theres no point in going 'hey, why did this unlikely event happen and not one of the other unlikely events?'.

 

out of all of the incredibly unlikely events that could of happened, it was statistically likely that one of them would occour, and it happened to be amino acids forming from 'nothing', which, depending on what you actually mean, might not be as unlikely an event as you actually believe.

 

finally on this point, you are talking about abiogenesis, and possibly the big bang -- neither of which are evolution.

 

read this thread

 

 

ID is a not science unless it goes through peer-reviewed? But what if the peers are bent on removing God from the hearts of men? Everyone

is convinced one way or the other even before the data comes into the equation.

 

no we're not. 1/ science is agnostic, not athiest, and 2/ the thing that you have described above is unscientific, and thus scientists would not do it, or we wouldnt be scientists.

 

Moreover, based on your belief, people are treated unequally which is not what you're designed for. You were created as a son of God, you were created uniquely and equally by and to God rather than, "Once upon a time, a frog became a prince.". But sadly, one that sees you as a lesser life form, just like the world treat dogs less equal than human beings?

 

nope. I suspect you are referring to darwinism, which considered negroes people inferior to caucasions. Darwinism is not the current theory (the current theory is called the modern synthesis), and the modern theory states that negroes and caucasians both evolved from cro-magna homo sapiens and are both of the same species, and definately does not place one race above the other.

 

actually, i think religion is far more guilty of treating people unequaly, espescially if theyre a different religion, of no religion, the same religion but do things in a different way, a different colour or, heaven forbid, the lowest-of-the-low, a female.