So...

[Beldaran]

it's different with Evolution. We have videos of Round Earth, but not Evolution. Just so I can say I didn't set myself up.

Good god. A videotape is not the scientific method.

We don't have videos of time dilation, we don't have videos of sub-atomic particles, we don't have videos of distant planets we know exist, we don't have videos of gamma rays, we don't have videos of x-rays, we don't have videos of the strong nuclear force, we don't have videos of the inside of the sun, we don't have videos of .... and so on and so forth.

You don't need a videotape of something to know it exists. You need observation, hypothesis, testing, analysis, and eventually theory. Evolution is called a "Theory" because it has passed the most rigorous possible examination by the most educated and qualified people on earth.

Speaking of videos, can I see your videotape of god? Obviously you won't accept something unless there is a videotape of it, so I want to see your videotape of Jesus rising from the dead.

[Anthus]

Problem with this thread now = People telling people why they are wrong and/or stupid :f

[Russ]

Excellent! Now, imagine if micro-evolution were to happen billions of times over, and over, and over... if you slightly change something a hundred billion times, it will be completely different.

The funny thing is, the micro/macro distinction was invented by creationists. Scientists know that there is no such thing as micro or macro evolution. There is just evolution.

You do bring up a good point there. I will be thinking about it all night tonight.

However, it just seems like there should be a difference. I can see two dogs eventually turning into many breeds of dogs. I can see one finch ending up as three slightly different finches. But I cann't see a fish growing lungs, coming on land, then growing hard skin, getting up on two legs, then turning into a human. I'm too tired to write anything well thought right now, but I'll be posting more tomorrow.

[Icey]

You do bring up a good point there. I will be thinking about it all night tonight.

However, it just seems like there should be a difference. I can see two dogs eventually turning into many breeds of dogs. I can see one finch ending up as three slightly different finches. But I cann't see a fish growing lungs, coming on land, then growing hard skin, getting up on two legs, then turning into a human. I'm too tired to write anything well thought right now, but I'll be posting more tomorrow.

This is because you know the former has happened in human history (different breeds of dogs) so you accept it as possible.

Now expand your time frame to billions of years, and the idea of water-based organisms gradually, over millions of millions of years, evolving to have the ability to live on land, one attribute at a time, doesn't seem so implausible...

[Beldaran]

russ, honestly, this is just a game forum and we are just dorks with nothing better to do than chat up the local fundamentalist. If you are seriously intellectually curious about the science of evolution, a science I feel is startlingly beautiful and interesting, then by all means read a really good book on it.

I would say even take faith out of the equation. Read a really good hard scientific book about evolution and just acknowledge that you are reading something you don't agree with merely for the purpose of a new perspective. Don't view it as a threat. Make an agreement with yourself that no matter what the science book says, you will remain committed to your faith, and just read it out of curiosity.

I have read the entire Bible twice. I have read parts of it so many times I can't count. I have read apologist literature, and a multitude of arguments in favor of faith. I have studied christian theology in a formal environment. I did these things to enhance my perspective. I do not view alternative viewpoints as a threat.

I suggest you do the same. Become as educated in the arena of scientific thought as you are in faith. You may find that science can enrich your mind and your life beyond your expectations without threatening your faith. Many faithful christians have no problem with the fact that evolution is clearly the method through which complex life came to exist on this planet.

[Modus Ponens]

One of the things that get in the way of people's understanding and acceptance of evolution is that the sheer amount of time that has gone by since the beginning of life on Earth is absolutely staggering. It's practically impossible to work with such an idea in our brains. Sure, it's easy to say "three billion years", but one can just as easily say the word "googolplex", and that number had might as well be infinity, as far as anyone is concerned.

Actually sit down and imagine just how long a year is—go ahead, try it. Picture a year in your mind. Think of all the things that happen in one year: all the dawns, all the nightfalls, all the births, all the deaths, all the Rickrolls. This is just a way of breaking it up into meaningful segments, because what I want you to do is actually imagine that time going by, and imagine all the things that can happen during that time, especially all the cell divisions. Now, that's just one year. Imagine doing that ten times in a row, and you've got the same job that primetime news shows have to do every decade. So now we've got a decade. It's pretty fucking big, right? There might be people on Earth who are capable of really processing this kind of a chunk of time, but I don't think I know any. So, turn ten decades into a century. Ouch. Turn ten centuries into a millenium. Fuck. (Do that twice and you can see why people would be skeptical of the timelessness and veracity of the New Testament.) Turn ten millenia into a ten-thousand-year period. Impossible. Turn ten of those into a one-hundred-thousand-year period. Computers couldn't do this. Turn ten of those into a million-year period. It's utter nonsense. Turn one thousand of those into a billion-year period, then do the whole fucking thing three more times, and we've reached the dawn of life on our fair planet.

We're looking at a fucking shitload of cell divisions. I mean a fucking mind-blowing no-way-to-describe-its-magnitude SHITLOAD. Almost every time, the division went flawlessly, but over such a terrifyingly vast stretch of time, an uncountable number of mutations has occurred. And yet we don't have laser vision! I feel ripped off.

[The_Amaster]

...so...
back off topic...

This guy at my school actually convinced another guy that Nintendo was going to trade the rights for Zelda with Sony in exchange for Final Fantasy back. It was both funny and sad...

[Shazza Dani]

...so...
back off topic...

This guy at my school actually convinced another guy that Nintendo was going to trade the rights for Zelda with Sony in exchange for Final Fantasy back. It was both funny and sad...

That would be a shitty trade on Nintendo's part. Zelda is a whole cast of characters and concepts, while Final Fantasy is basically just a name—a name that hardly has any integrity anymore.

[Pryme8]

"First of all, the sun came one day after Earth. That's possible."

This is the most retarded sentence I have ever read.

I have to agree with Bel on this one...

how the hell would that be possible, what did the earth tiny gravitational field trap the monstrous Sun make it stop in its tracks so that it could make the earth rotate around it...

not plausible...

I have no major in any astrophysics but I am confident it works a little bit like an atom, you would need a nucleus (the sun) to have the electrons (the planets) revolving around it.

I think even with limited knowledge of the solar system we have at least figured out that the sun came first.

Now expand your time frame to billions of years, and the idea of water-based organisms gradually, over millions of millions of years, evolving to have the ability to live on land, one attribute at a time, doesn't seem so implausible...

nope just implausible...

[Russ]

Beldaran, I have read lots of stuff on evolution. And I do agree, it could have been the way life came to be, given that there is somebody to direct it. Really, you could interpet the Bible litterally, or you could say God write it like that because early man could not understand evolution. It's more a matter of what you believe through experiance than what's scientifically accepted. I go with the litteral interpetation because I read stuff literally, and I like to be able to start up an arguement with almost any scientist.