Jump to content

Is X-mas acceptable?


jporter12

Recommended Posts

Of course they're being suppressed by science... it takes an understanding of physics to have electricity and computers

It takes an understanding of thermodynamics to run an internal combustion engine.

God isn't getting me to work on a cold January day on a flying carpet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's pretty accurate' date=' except for the belief that science doesn't follow that same hunt for supporting facts. If it said that for both sides, I'd agree with the cartoon. The evidence in opposition to evolution is just as staggering as evidence in opposition to creationism. Besides, when I see one species evolve into another species I'll start to take evolutionists seriously. Adaptation and specialization are believable. I believe that animals adapt to their surroundings. Hell, I do it, but that isn't sufficient evidence to suggest my ancestors swung from tree branch to tree branch. It also isn't sufficient enough to remove the idea that another being "kick-started" the entire process. However, the idea that one species can evolve into another species is completely unfounded, ridiculous and non-existent. It didn't happen. It doesn't happen. It'll never happen. Evolutionists ask me to believe in something the same way Christians do. Both have evidence to support their claims. Both require a certain amount of "faith" to accept, because none of us have witnessed either process in our lifetimes.

And that's the fact, Jack.[/quote']

:plus1:

I think that's a big :bigfinger: to justin....

Even though we all still love you (or love to hate?:lol:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides' date=' when I see one species evolve into another species I'll start to take evolutionists seriously. Adaptation and specialization are believable. I believe that animals adapt to their surroundings. Hell, I do it, but that isn't sufficient evidence to suggest my ancestors swung from tree branch to tree branch. It also isn't sufficient enough to remove the idea that another being "kick-started" the entire process. However, the idea that one species can evolve into another species is completely unfounded, ridiculous and non-existent. It didn't happen. It doesn't happen. It'll never happen.[/quote']Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any compelling evidence that I need to read as the counter-point? Some eyewitness account of an omnipotent being handing a mortal on top of a mountain some tablets of rules?

Maybe evidence of a ship large enough to hold a male and female of every current existing species of plant and animal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and that's where I'm stuck.

I leave the possibility open that something had to kick it off, but whatever the cause I doubt something as insignificant as the human brain would even be able to comprehend what that something was and even if it still exists.

It's awful arrogant to assume that we were made in that something's image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Essentially, evolution is adaptation, mutation, and specialization carried out over huge periods of time (except when we steer or accelerate it in a laboratory).

And the truth is that there's essentially no evidence to support or disprove the idea of some kind of higher being-- it's just a fairly improbable explanation for things we haven't figured out yet.

My biggest problem with organized religions (aside from all the awful things they can make people do) is the way they say, "We don't have any evidence to explain or disprove things, so it MUST be this specific deity who thinks this way and did these specific things according to this book we wrote." It's like saying, "I can't see what's inside the apartment next door, so it MUST be twenty penguins and a polar bear, eating spaghetti out of a giant football helmet." It's basically reaching an awfully detailed and specific conclusion based on absolutely no evidence, just the premise that we don't understand everything.

I can freely admit that we haven't learned everything about everything yet, but I'd have to be an idiot to go making up a concrete explanation without any evidence. Each level of detail that we add without any evidence greatly reduces the likelihood of our guesses being correct.

"Some kind of supreme being?"

Maybe possible, kind of improbable.

"Supreme being who made us in its image?"

Well, ok, might be possible, but there's no evidence to support going that far.

"Supreme being who made us in its image and then impregnated a human woman so she could bear a son so we could kill him and he could resurrect himself so the supreme being could forgive us doing things it doesn't like?"

Hmm... might be going a bit far, at least until we get more solid info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the real meaning, therefore, I don't get so concerned about it. From what I gather, most people doing it out of laziness, and not out of disrespect.

Or they can't spell!

It's not Christmas, or Xmas, it Jesus's Birthday!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article. I'll have to keep an eye on this' date=' but it doesn't debunk the idea that there is a god. It does debunk my argument against evolution occurring in our lifetime. If, in fact, this is evolution and not just adaptation or specialization.

Either way.. be sure to get in touch with me when this e-coli turns into a fish, dog, dinosaur.. whatever.[/quote']

Adaptation (natural selection or whatever) is a driver in evolution. If a species develops a new trait, whether through adaptation or other means, and that trait is passed to other generations genetically you have evolution.

Things take time. Evolution in general is a very slow process and only on rare occasion to you have a sudden leap.

And you are right it doesn't debunk the idea of a god and large number of people who believe seem to except that evolution is god's developed mechanism of change.

Of course the idea that there is a god (or gods) has no weight behind it, but that's for another thread. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're going to need to be a tad bit more specific.
:-D I'm always impressed when people know about it....
that's sad cause they taught that shit to us in elementary school... and it was public school.

we are all fucked

hopefully, that makes moar sense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another evolution article I stumbled upon Digg tonight....

Female Ducks Evolving to Avoid Endowed Males

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/female_ducks_evolving_to_avoid_endowed_males.php

duck-love.jpg

Yaleresearchers have found that some female duck genitalia is evolving,

forming clockwise spirals, to avoid impregnation from undesirable yet

aggressive males.

The study builds upon a finding by Yale in 2007 that first noted how

duck's sexual organs had been morphing. While most birds are

phallus-free, ducks are oddly endowed--up to 8 inches. Using high-speed

video they found that ducks could go from zero to happy in less than

half a second.

That endowment should give the males an advantage during forced mating but these Viagra-free males aren't out of the woods yet.

Want to know what duck endowment looks like? Check out this video over at Boing Boing.There is something very

about all of this.

dog_on_a_duck.jpg

"In species where forced copulation is common, males have evolved

longer penises, but females have coevolved convoluted vaginas with

dead-end cul-de-sacs and spirals in the opposite direction of the male

penis," said Patricia L.R. Brennan, a researcher in the Yale Department

of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.

Yale researchers tested the theory by examining duck penis eversion

in a series of glass tubes. As expected, a straight tube or one that

has counter-clockwise spiraling doesn't slow down the process. The

tubes that mimicked the clockwise spiral completely halted the

eversion.

"This coevolution results from conflict between the sexes over who is going to control fertilization," Brennan added.

"Although we predict that sexual conflict should be ubiquitous,

finding a system where the 'arms race' between the sexes is so dramatic

is exceedingly rare. Ducks are providing us with an incredible

opportunity to understand the evolutionary consequences of conflict,"

said Brennan.

Why Yale decided to study duck penises in the first place I will never know.

Source: EurekAlert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...