Not logged inOpenClonk Forum - Archive
Forum Home Help Search Watchlist Register Login
Up Topic Community / Off Topic / Evolution (locked)
1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Next  
Parent - - By Sven2 [de] Date 2013-06-10 18:24

> Evolution could be proved wrong, if we found an animal that had, say, a diesel engine, or we saw a giraffe giving birth to a dolphin.


(source)
Parent - By Fluff [gb] Date 2013-06-10 18:26 Edited 2013-06-10 18:29
Nevermind, just saw the source link.

And to be pendatic, a giraffe cross-breeding with a dolphin is not the same as two giraffes creating a 100% dolphin via genetic mutation.
Parent - - By J. J. [py] Date 2013-06-11 15:34

>"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."


Michael J. Вehe's book "Darwin's Black Box" seems to provide very compelling evidence that evolution is not possible.
I think there is a free downloadable pdf of his book just type in "Darwin's Black Box."

PS: I just want everyone to know that I have loved chatting with them and that I think more of them ,because of the discussions we've had. :)
Parent - - By Fluff [gb] Date 2013-06-11 19:02 Edited 2013-06-11 19:04
I haven't been able to find a pdf of the book. From what I have found, it doesn't seem to provide any compelling evidence against evolution. Would you please provide a bit of detail for me?
Parent - - By Fluff [gb] Date 2013-06-11 20:34
Do excuse me if I have to take a short break from the discussion. This might take me a while to read.
Parent - - By J. J. [py] Date 2013-06-11 22:30
I understand completely take as much time as you need and please feel free to send any feedback about the book. :)
Parent - By Fluff [gb] Date 2013-08-19 23:35
Okay, I'm back. The black-box was... Eh. I tried reading it a few times. And failed.

Thankfully for me, a book I actually like called "The Science of Discword IV" contains a good enough rebuttal to Darwin's Blackbox for me to say in response to:

>Michael J. Вehe's book "Darwin's Black Box" seems to provide very compelling evidence that evolution is not possible.


No it does not.
Parent - - By Nachtfalter [de] Date 2013-06-12 00:31
This discussion is foolish and senseless. Repent your sins! As we all know: Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning, matthes created the planet. The Clonk planet."
Parent - By ker [de] Date 2013-06-12 06:03
/thread
Parent - - By Sven2 [de] Date 2013-06-12 09:00
Wait, what about Clonk 1-4? Are those just fossils he put on his website to test our faith?
Parent - By Maikel Date 2013-06-12 09:04
:)

But didn't clonks evolve from A.P.E.s?
Parent - - By ala [nl] Date 2013-06-12 10:32
"And he said, let there be lag. And there was lag"
Parent - By ker [de] Date 2013-06-12 12:47
he said, "It is not good for a developer to be alone. I will make everyone willing a suitable helper."
And thus the golden wipf was born to satify us.
Parent - By J. J. [py] Date 2013-06-12 13:10
You guys are too funny. :)
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-06-11 15:58

> "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."


It is important to note that it is incredibly hard to say what "slight" even means in this context. After all, genes change not only by mutation, but we also have cases where whole sequences are taken over from other organisms (bacteria do this a lot, afaik). Even more radical, with every one of us having two chromosomes, the amount of interaction between genes going on is enormous.

So a "slight" change might often be something like "take over this protein from this other animal, and reinterpret its function completely in the context of the new organism". There are a few examples where evolution has probably taken these "backdoor" paths - say with the citric acid cycle.
Parent - By ker [de] Date 2013-06-11 18:53
also: our body isn't just made up of stuff that has our DNA. there's all kinds of bacteria and stuff that lives inside us. if a new bacteria gets in, it might produce something our body hasn't had before but can use in some way.
Parent - By Günther [de] Date 2013-06-09 13:46

> Evolution can be observed quite clearly by examining the fossil record.


Dogs and other breeding efforts are much easier. From the point of view of the cattle, humans are just another factor in the environment creating evolutionary pressure. We don't like to think of ourselves that way, but evolution doesn't care.
Parent - By ker [de] Date 2013-06-08 07:48
would you accept a virtual lifeform as a species?

1. create a complex simulation
2. insert a few different species that have the ability for "micro-evolution" (as you said you believe the scientists that a species can adapt to surroundings)
2.1 give those species surroundings that allows them to survive the way they are supposed to be (so they don't have to adapt)
3. run the simulation at the max of computation power you have available
4. observe
4.1 either you are right, there will always just be the species you inserted with minor modifications
4.1.1 i want to see those results and your setup
4.2 or you are wrong, there will be more or just different species than you started with
4.2.1 i want to see those results and setup, too, and probably never play another game and just meddle with that simulation :D
- - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-08-16 02:26
Define evil and good from an evolutionary stand point.
Parent - - By Newton [th] Date 2013-08-17 08:07 Edited 2013-08-17 08:18
Here comes God-Man to save the day!
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-08-18 14:05 Edited 2013-08-18 14:08
Well, all in good fun, I suppose - but in all fairness those are quite terrible straw-mans. That's like claiming that evolution says that monkeys randomly mutate into humans on the street: It just shows you don't understand the other side very well.

Just take comic 3: According to Christianity, we *always* have a choice, and god chooses to not influence us, so we can choose good or evil on our own. After all in contrast to animals we are intelligent, and should know to choose good, because it is right for the Universe (and the bible serves as an explanation of this). The whole thing with Jesus is even about that it doesn't matter whether we have sinned in the past - if we seek forgiveness, we can become a good person again. "Let's make sure he is never born" is really the last thing a true Christian believer would suggest.
Parent - - By Newton [th] Date 2013-08-20 06:16
What other than for fun do you think this is all about here, Peter? :-D I long gave up on that this here will have any outcome.
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-08-20 10:06
So now we just resort to bullying tactics because we can't be bothered to actually think and make a proper point?

Sorry, maybe have been reading too much /r/atheism - it gets on your nerves at some point ;)
Parent - By Newton [th] Date 2013-08-20 11:23 Edited 2013-08-20 11:26
I can't be bothered to argue with J.J. anymore, yes. See Fluff.
Parent - - By Sven2 [us] Date 2013-08-20 22:30
By the way, you're also in the US right now? (see flag)
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-08-21 16:58
No, that's just the region detection not recognizing my new internet provider for some reason - I'm still in the UK. Will visit the US in about a month though :)
Parent - - By Fluff [gb] Date 2013-08-21 18:26
You've been in the UK this whole time and you never thought about saying hi?
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-08-22 12:41
Er, was that a secret? I've been in Leeds for about three years now. Hi! ;)
Parent - By Fluff [gb] Date 2013-08-22 22:15
Sometimes I'm just slow to react to things.
Parent - - By Nachtschatten Date 2013-08-21 21:40

> So now we just resort to bullying tactics


Let me get this straight.
After the discussion goes from "already bad" to "even worse", J. J. ceases to take part (e.g. "I will (...) reply to you later" - so where is the reply?), and the thread eventually dies for two months. Suddenly, he barges back in and rudely barks commands at people about stuff that only remotely has connections to the topic at hand.
Now you complain nobody licks his boots. Seriously?
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-08-22 12:14 Edited 2013-08-22 16:13
I'm not sure where the "rude" part comes in. J.J. may have been a bit misguided on quite a number of points, but I mostly see the other side resorting to uncalled-for cheap blows along the line of "You will only embarrass yourself".

We seem to be trying to ad-hominem ourselves out of this discussion, and that's intellectually lazy. There's a difference between licking other people's boots and pointing out poor discussion etiquette. If you want to claim moral high ground, you can't do so by kicking people in the balls.
Parent - By Fluff [gb] Date 2013-08-22 22:16
I agree with what PeterW.
Parent - By Nachtschatten Date 2013-08-22 23:15

> I'm not sure where the "rude" part comes in


Well, in a discussion people usually exchange arguments. To give and receive, so to say. Just demanding things to be done, no "please", "thank you", "sorry for the absence" or similar isn't what I'd call "nice".

> resorting to uncalled-for cheap blows


Agreed, simply pointing out some mistakes would have been nice. I don't agree it's uncalled-for, though.
Parent - - By Nachtschatten Date 2013-08-21 21:44

> but in all fairness those are quite terrible straw-mans


Oh my. Extremely over-the-top parody doesn't depict the things it makes fun of accurately. This is outrageous!
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-08-22 16:37
Parody is about taking an argument to extremes in order to show flaws, nothing wrong about it. But nobody made this particular argument in the first place. Hence straw-man.
Parent - By Nachtschatten Date 2013-08-22 23:30
Okay, I'm unsure whether "parody" was the wrong term or if I failed to get across the point that those comics aren't meant as arguments. They don't try to disprove a (misrepresented) position. Calling this a straw-man feels like saying "Charlie Chaplin pretending to slip on a banana peel is a straw-man, because nobody slipped on one in the first place".
Parent - - By Fluff [gb] Date 2013-08-19 23:32
That doesn't make any sense. That's like asking someone to define Tasty and Not Tasty from a musical stand point.
Parent - By Zapper [de] Date 2013-08-20 17:47
There are probably people who can hear flavours - I bet there are also people who can smell god!
- - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-08-29 23:11
From my point of view all people have a belief, creationist believe that God made the world; Evolutionist believe in the big bang and millions of years; Atheist believe there is no god; Muslims believe Allah is god and so on and so forth. Everyone has a belief and everyone has a bias and everyone has a point of view and none are neutral. Who we allow to influence us and what we allow to influence us will determine our point of view and our bias and belief (ie.religion). So what is truth? Why are we here? What is our purpose? Does the Bible answer these questions? Does evolution answer these questions? Do other beliefs answer these questions? Which belief is the right belief? What bias is the right bias? What religion is the right religion? And ultimately will we believe truth or falsehood?
Parent - - By Fluff [gb] Date 2013-09-01 22:09 Edited 2013-09-01 22:18

>Evolutionist believe in the big bang and millions of years


Evolution does not mean you have to believe the Big Bang as having happened, and believing the Big Bang happened doesn't mean you have to believe in Evolution.

>Muslims believe Allah is god


Well, yes. "Allah" is Arabic for "the God". Muslims believe that God is god, the same one that Christians and Jews worship.

>Who we allow to influence us and what we allow to influence us will determine our point of view and our bias and belief (ie.religion).


Except that a lot of people don't get a choice on who they "Allow" to influence them. They do what their parents/government/whatever says, and they have horrible things done to them if they don't. See Asia/Africa/America/Europe/etc. for examples.

>So what is truth?


In accordance with fact or reality: "a true story"; "of course it's true".

>Why are we here?


Why not? Where else would we be? Are we supposed to be somewhere else?

>What is our purpose?


Why are you assuming we have one?

>Does the Bible answer these questions?


It certainly does. "What God says" and "To worship God" aren't very good answers though, especially since they rely on the circular logic of "The truth is what God says" which you can prove because "God only speaks the truth" which you can prove because "The truth is"... etc. etc.

>Does evolution answer these questions?


Not the first one, you need a dictionary for that, but it does answer the other two.

>Do other beliefs answer these questions?


Belief doesn't answer questions ever. Belief is about which answer you choose to accept, and your reason for doing so.

>Which belief is the right belief?


Evolution isn't a belief anyway, it's more of a fact. Besides, the answer is Buddhism.

>What bias is the right bias?


What?

>What religion is the right religion?


Buddhism.

>And ultimately will we believe truth or falsehood?


In this case, it looks like most of us will believe truth, when we have good evidence to back it up.
Parent - - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-02 00:07 Edited 2013-09-02 00:27

>Evolution does not mean you have to believe the Big Bang as having happened, and believing the Big Bang happened doesn't mean you have to believe in Evolution.


Sorry, I meant in general.

>Why are you assuming we have one?


Yes, I am.

>Evolution isn't a belief anyway, it's more of a fact. Besides, the answer is Buddhism.


Evolution is believed by some to be fact, but others believe it is not, thus evolution is a belief.

>It certainly does. "What God says" and "To worship God" aren't very good answers though, especially since they rely on the circular logic of "The truth is what God says" which you can prove because "God only speaks the truth" which you can prove because "The truth is"... etc. etc.


Are you saying the Bible is true?

>What?


Do you know what bias is or did you have some other question about my question?

>Buddhism.


Why Buddhism?

>In this case, it looks like most of us will believe truth, when we have good evidence to back it up.


Then why do most people not believe the same thing?
Parent - - By Fluff [gb] Date 2013-09-02 18:27

>Sorry, I meant in general.


What?

>Yes, I am.


I was asking why you did that.

>Evolution is believed by some to be fact, but others believe it is not, thus evolution is a belief.


Evolution is not a belief, it is a fact. You can believe it to be true or false, but that is your belief. Your belief does not change what evolution is.

>Are you saying the Bible is true?


No.

>Do you know what bias is or did you have some other question about my question?


It just didn't make any sense to me.

>Why Buddhism?


Jesus and Arnold Schwarzenegger came to me in a dream and told me so.

>Then why do most people not believe the same thing?


By "us" I meant "Most of of us on this site." We mostly do believe the same thing, at least as far as evolution is concerned.
Parent - - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-02 20:02 Edited 2013-09-02 20:26

>What?


Sorry, I didn't realize that in general is an American term. What I meant is that frequently that is what they believe.

>I was asking why you did that.

Why I did what? Do you mean why I think we have a purpose?

>Evolution is not a belief, it is a fact. You can believe it to be true or false, but that is your belief. Your belief does not change what evolution is.


Fact?

>No.


Why not?

>Jesus and Arnold Schwarzenegger came to me in a dream and told me so.


I had a dream that I ran over a viking. So what dose that have to do with anything? :\

>By "us" I meant "Most of of us on this site." We mostly do believe the same thing, at least as far as evolution is concerned.


So do we have a forum were most people believe truth or do we have a forum were most people believe falsehood (ie. a lie).

So we are back to the question will we believe truth or falsehood.
Parent - - By Nachtfalter [de] Date 2013-09-02 21:21

>Fact?


I actually do believe in god an the creation of the whole universe. But this reporter is a complete moron.
No matter how convinced you are in what you believe, you always should have respect for other opinions.
Parent - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-02 21:35 Edited 2013-09-07 07:19

>I actually do believe in god an the creation of the whole universe.


Good for you. \o/

>No matter how convinced you are in what you believe, you always should have respect for other opinions.


My opinion is that he does a good job, but that's my opinion. :)
Parent - - By Fluff [gb] Date 2013-09-02 22:26

>Why I did what? Do you mean why I think we have a purpose?


Why you assume we have a purpose.

>Why not?


Because it isn't concordant with reality.

>Fact?


Yes, fact.

>I had a dream that I ran over a viking. So what dose that have to do with anything? :\


My dream was divine inspiration. Jesus and Arnold came to me and told the that Buddhism was correct, and that every other religion was wrong.

>So do we have a forum were most people believe truth or do we have a forum were most people believe falsehood (ie. a lie).


Truth.

>So we are back to the question will we believe truth or falsehood.


No we aren't.
Parent - - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-02 22:58

>Why you assume we have a purpose.


Why not?

>Because it isn't concordant with reality.


Why do you think that it is not in concordant with reality?

>Yes, fact.


Then give me an observable example of a kind of animal changing into another kind animal.

>My dream was divine inspiration. Jesus and Arnold came to me and told the that Buddhism was correct, and that every other religion was wrong.


Are you saying that my dream was not divine inspiration for me to run over a viking?

>Truth.


Then tell me what is truth?

>No we aren't.

Oh ,yes we are.  :)

P.S.: Thank you for taking time out to chat with me. :)
Parent - By Newton [vn] Date 2013-09-03 12:59 Edited 2013-09-03 13:13
I think you finally might have pushed Fluff to the point to give up on you as well, good job :-D

You found the perfect way to "win" an argument:
Parent - - By Fluff [gb] Date 2013-09-03 18:53

>Why not?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

>Why do you think that it is not in concordant with reality?


Because of all the support for racism, slavery, homophobia, misogony, cruelty, evil, and intolerance and so on and so forth.

>Then give me an observable example of a kind of animal changing into another kind animal.


Have eight.

>Are you saying that my dream was not divine inspiration for me to run over a viking?


That's not what I was saying.

>Then tell me what is truth?


In accordance with fact or reality: "a true story"; "of course it's true".

>Oh ,yes we are.  :)


Oh, no we aren't.
Up Topic Community / Off Topic / Evolution (locked)
1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill