Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

Heh.  Well, you still can't use it as a basis for making emotional decisions when not using your subconscious, no matter how well trained it is.

[Zrk2]

Ok, problems with evolution:
-Irreducable compllexity
-Time (all sorts of math attempts out there which claim to prove that evolution would never have been able to happen in 4 billion years
-I'm sure there are others

[Leafsnail]

-Irreducable compllexity

...Would be a problem if an example of it were shown...

-Time (all sorts of math attempts out there which claim to prove that evolution would never have been able to happen in 4 billion years

...I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim this (sources, please?).  I mean, the fossil record would seem to say otherwise, wouldn't it?

[Urist is dead tome]

Except the problem with fossil record is that there is no single reliable method that gets an accurate time.

[Realmfighter]

Sources Please.

[Urist is dead tome]

It appears my earlier point is no longer valid since I can't find any sources.

And I believe the score is Realmfighter one, me zero.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Ok, problems with evolution:
-Irreducable compllexity

...is a psudoscientific argument. If you take out a single component of our systems, the system will most likely continue to function, just not as well or in the same manner. Complex systems are complex because they built up that complexity over time in response to changes in the system holder's enviorment.

-Time (all sorts of math attempts out there which claim to prove that evolution would never have been able to happen in 4 billion years

Show me. Four billion years is a really, really long time. I don't think any of us can even wrap our minds around just how long of a time that really is.

-I'm sure there are others

And they are all wrong. The Theory of Evolution has been around for about 150 years, and in that time, it's only gotten stronger. If any real evidence came out that rendered evolution false, it would be the biggest biological discovery we've ever made. You would know, I would know, everyone would know because of how large a discovery it would be. Whomever discovered it would be the single most acclaimed scientist in the entire world. But none of that has happened, because nothing disproving evolution has ever entered the scientific arena, and at this rate may never. Probably because, and this is a shocking one here, the theory of evolution is most likely accurate.

[Urist is dead tome]

No way. There simply has not been enough evidence for it to have been getting stronger.

(Keep in mind that I realize that evolution is quite possible and Darwin was a Christian. It is possible to be Christian and in support of evolution.)

[Realmfighter]

Look at all this shit and tell me that there isn't enough evidence

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Darwin was a Christian.

About that...

Long story short, Darwin was an agnostic by his own admission. He also took issue in the concept of a omnipotent being when he found out about this little horror of our world.

[Leafsnail]

Except the problem with fossil record is that there is no single reliable method that gets an accurate time.

You can just look at the order.  Even if you don't have exact dates on them, it's pretty clear that creatures developed.

Not to mention we actually do have moderately reliable methods to date things that seem to give at least a good relative scale of when things happened.

[Urist is dead tome]

I propose that we do not reference Wikipedia. I think you can use Wikipedia's references but not Wikipedia as a reference.

[Realmfighter]

This is a discussion on the internet built upon a foundation of lies, falsification and insanity.

Wikipedia is the best you'll get.

[Leafsnail]

Well, anyone with a bit of sense will realise that you can see the sources Wikipedia references from the Wikipedia page.

[Urist is dead tome]

So why not use those sources?