Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution?

[Somali Caliphate]

If you found a gold rolex in the middle of the desert and this desert had no humans in it to make such a device. Would you say that it formed by itself over millions of years into a perfectly operating watch or would you say someone created. Would you assume that a computer has a person who created it or would you assume that it appeared by itself over millions of years of particles randomly arranging themselves to build a perfect working computer? Surely in both cases you would say, as I assume you're all rational people that humans created the rolex and humans built the computer. So what about the most advanced thing ever created: the human being! If it is not plausible for something as simple as a watch to come into existence by itself, how can the same be said for a human!

[Tsuntion]

Can I ask why you guys exist?

I exist because my parents had sex, mom got pregnant, there were no fatal issues when I was a foetus or child, and I have not commited suicide.

I mean if you're just a bunch of animals as you suggest, then what is the value of living? You might as well all be nihilists.

You do not see animals killing themselves because of angst over feeling pointless. I would like to go on existing because that is the default state for most humans. Religion is not the only thing that can motivate people to live, though remember that you are also making the (false) assumption that everyone here is an atheist.

If Evolution is true, what is advantageous about being moral, (in terms of survival) or speaking out against evil and being killed.

Humans have become fickle creatures. I'm sure someone else can provide a proper answer.

Why are humans the only living things with a conscious,

Source? As far as I know, the consciousness of other animals has not been determined.

or the ability to speak

False. Dolphines and crows are among other species with language.

and build civilizations?

Ant hills.

If Evolution is true,

Evolution is a fact, dude. Even most (semi-sensible) creationists accept that.

then surely other organisms would have developed these capabilities.

Look! Look! They have!

[Ifreann]

It's a proven internet 'debating' tactic, actually. Just categorically deny everything the opponent says, cast aside every answer given to your questions as not being answers at all, ignore everything that truly is capable of derailing your information overload blitzkrieg and keep launching a barrage of questions that are actually not relevant within the context of this thread. Somali Caliphate is all that and probably a big hit with the ladies too.

If evolution is true, why do creationists keep doing the same things over and over without change?

[Chinese Regions]

He can't... He's just copying and pasting from Conservapedia...

Fair enough I did copy and paste. But I'll stop if you guys stop posting things that make no sense, or which do not provide an adequately detailed explanation. For example, I asked how did the DNA originate and the response I got was RNA. Bloody useful that is!

Conservapedia is a parody website a mockery.

[Chinese Regions]

If you found a gold rolex in the middle of the desert and this desert had no humans in it to make such a device. Would you say that it formed by itself over millions of years into a perfectly operating watch or would you say someone created. Would you assume that a computer has a person who created it or would you assume that it appeared by itself over millions of years of particles randomly arranging themselves to build a perfect working computer? Surely in both cases you would say, as I assume you're all rational people that humans created the rolex and humans built the computer. So what about the most advanced thing ever created: the human being! If it is not plausible for something as simple as a watch to come into existence by itself, how can the same be said for a human!

Evolution is not random at all, where do people get this from?

[L Ron Cupboard]

You would think he would at least have the decency to own up to just cut and pasting from Conservapedia.

You expect intellectual honesty from a creationist?

No, I realised a long while ago that they are just regurgitating without understanding the same old objections that they are taught to trot out.

[Ifreann]

If you found a gold rolex in the middle of the desert and this desert had no humans in it to make such a device. Would you say that it formed by itself over millions of years into a perfectly operating watch or would you say someone created. Would you assume that a computer has a person who created it or would you assume that it appeared by itself over millions of years of particles randomly arranging themselves to build a perfect working computer? Surely in both cases you would say, as I assume you're all rational people that humans created the rolex and humans built the computer. So what about the most advanced thing ever created: the human being! If it is not plausible for something as simple as a watch to come into existence by itself, how can the same be said for a human!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker ... #Criticism

[Hurdegaryp]

It's a proven internet 'debating' tactic, actually. Just categorically deny everything the opponent says, cast aside every answer given to your questions as not being answers at all, ignore everything that truly is capable of derailing your information overload blitzkrieg and keep launching a barrage of questions that are actually not relevant within the context of this thread. Somali Caliphate is all that and probably a big hit with the ladies too.

If evolution is true, why do creationists keep doing the same things over and over without change?

Simple: an evolutionary dead end.

[Chinese Regions]

You guys do know that carbon 14 dating, which is what is mostly used to date fossils can be extremely inaccurate when dealing with vast time frames and having virtually no knowledge about the thing being dated. Right? Carbon 14 dating suggested that a living mollusk had died 3000 years ago. If you don't believe me than just look it up. Anyway, no one has yet answered any of my questions? Can I ask why you guys exist? I mean if you're just a bunch of animals as you suggest, then what is the value of living? You might as well all be nihilists.

If Evolution is true, what is advantageous about being moral, (in terms of survival) or speaking out against evil and being killed. Why are humans the only living things with a conscious, or the ability to speak and build civilizations? If Evolution is true, then surely other organisms would have developed these capabilities.

You don't think it is advantageous to be moral?
Incest> Lowers genetic diversity hence it is frowned upon.
Killing someone> Lowers the population hence it is frowned upon.
Having sex> Increases the population hence why it feels so good.

[Songhia]

There is simply not, in any way, any reasoned opposition to the theory of evolution. It is as much a fact as does the sun rise in the east. To impugn against it is absolute slander of the worst sort.

What's worse is that even though evolution is so transparently correct, so obviously true, its opponents - opponents motivated by nothing more than greed, spite, and tribalism - will attempt to reply with some old saw like, 'I'm sure reasonable people can disagree,' or 'clearly there's a controversy, so we should withhold judgement.' That's the worst part, because it is such a falsehood, such sophistry, that the mind reels from the thought.

[Ifreann]

If you found a gold rolex in the middle of the desert and this desert had no humans in it to make such a device. Would you say that it formed by itself over millions of years into a perfectly operating watch or would you say someone created. Would you assume that a computer has a person who created it or would you assume that it appeared by itself over millions of years of particles randomly arranging themselves to build a perfect working computer? Surely in both cases you would say, as I assume you're all rational people that humans created the rolex and humans built the computer. So what about the most advanced thing ever created: the human being! If it is not plausible for something as simple as a watch to come into existence by itself, how can the same be said for a human!

Evolution is not random at all, where do people get this from?

I imagine someone once mentioned 'random mutations' within earshot of a creationist once and they've been repeating the misconception ever since.

[Sociobiology]

Can I ask why you guys exist? I mean if you're just a bunch of animals as you suggest, then what is the value of living? You might as well all be nihilists.

If Evolution is true, what is advantageous about being moral, (in terms of survival) or speaking out against evil and being killed. Why are humans the only living things with a conscious, or the ability to speak and build civilizations? If Evolution is true, then surely other organisms would have developed these capabilities.

You can ask why we exist. You are more than welcome to do so, and it appears you already have. Also, the value of living, and life is incredibly subjective to each individual. Everyone can find a purpose and goal in their life for something to do which makes them feel fulfilled. I think the major consensus of life is for people to enjoy it. Have fun and look to create a better future for the next generation. There is a lot of value to life, if you actually bother to look at it beyond religion.

Also, there are many advantages to being moral. Things such as do not kill, or steal are very important in a tribal/communal sense as humans we are very sociable in nature, going from the hunter/gather stages we had to work together to survive in harsh conditions. It would be nonsensical for us to kill our own kind unless they themselves were a threat to the survival of the tribe or oneself. Again, stealing would be negative as it could lead to expulsion from the group, and we aren't equipped to survive as a single member. Our morals come from the desire to survive and protect our own interests and we achieve this by understanding that it's important to protect other people and their interests as we are dependent on those people.

Also, it is questionable as to whether we are the only ones with the ability to speak or even be the only ones with conscience . There have been records of dolphins using more complex forms of communications which I think could constitute as a primitive language. Also you have to remember, these things aren't considered a target for evolution, they are simply a by-product. Evolutionary processes are pretty merciless and random, they don't really have specific goals to create living beings with a conscious mind, or the ability to speak in complex languages.

morals should be expected to evolve in any social animal with complex behavior, because it reduces conflict for the organism with morals while allowing ti to keep the advantages of living in a herd/pack
baboons, elephants, and even vampire bats have morals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk

[Chinese Regions]

Evolution is not random at all, where do people get this from?

I imagine someone once mentioned 'random mutations' within earshot of a creationist once and they've been repeating the misconception ever since.

Random mutations that are not randomly selected.

[Sociobiology]

You guys do know that carbon 14 dating, which is what is mostly used to date fossils can be extremely inaccurate when dealing with vast time frames and having virtually no knowledge about the thing being dated. Right? Carbon 14 dating suggested that a living mollusk had died 3000 years ago. If you don't believe me than just look it up. Anyway, no one has yet answered any of my questions? Can I ask why you guys exist? I mean if you're just a bunch of animals as you suggest, then what is the value of living? You might as well all be nihilists.

If Evolution is true, what is advantageous about being moral, (in terms of survival) or speaking out against evil and being killed. Why are humans the only living things with a conscious, or the ability to speak and build civilizations? If Evolution is true, then surely other organisms would have developed these capabilities.

You don't think it is advantageous to be moral?
Incest> Lowers genetic diversity hence it is frowned upon.
Killing someone> Lowers the population hence it is frowned upon.
Having sex> Increases the population hence why it feels so good.

NO,
each of those things is an advantage or disadvantage to the genes or the organism not the group.

[Dyakovo]

He can't... He's just copying and pasting from Conservapedia...

Fair enough I did copy and paste. But I'll stop if you guys stop posting things that make no sense, or which do not provide an adequately detailed explanation. For example, I asked how did the DNA originate and the response I got was RNA. Bloody useful that is!

Your inability to understand the basics of biology is not our problem.

[Hurdegaryp]

Evolution is not random at all, where do people get this from?

I imagine someone once mentioned 'random mutations' within earshot of a creationist once and they've been repeating the misconception ever since.

Once you start adopting misconceptions, you just can't stop! The true Misconception Masters (not a title they will adorn themselves with, mind you) will happily go on and on and on, as aptly demonstrated by Somali Caliphate. People like him are the reason we can't have nice things on the internet.

[Mini Reddish]

If you found a gold rolex in the middle of the desert and this desert had no humans in it to make such a device. Would you say that it formed by itself over millions of years into a perfectly operating watch or would you say someone created. Would you assume that a computer has a person who created it or would you assume that it appeared by itself over millions of years of particles randomly arranging themselves to build a perfect working computer? Surely in both cases you would say, as I assume you're all rational people that humans created the rolex and humans built the computer. So what about the most advanced thing ever created: the human being! If it is not plausible for something as simple as a watch to come into existence by itself, how can the same be said for a human!

I'd say another species capable of developing such things would have made it, that species which came to be through the wonders of evolution. What you are doing here is pathetically funny though. You're trying to assume evolution applies to inorganic things hence the 'evolution of the watch'. Such an argument is laughable as there is a lot of things misunderstood about evolution when people actually make that argument.

[Immoren]

If you found a gold rolex in the middle of the desert and this desert had no humans in it to make such a device. Would you say that it formed by itself over millions of years into a perfectly operating watch or would you say someone created. Would you assume that a computer has a person who created it or would you assume that it appeared by itself over millions of years of particles randomly arranging themselves to build a perfect working computer? Surely in both cases you would say, as I assume you're all rational people that humans created the rolex and humans built the computer. So what about the most advanced thing ever created: the human being! If it is not plausible for something as simple as a watch to come into existence by itself, how can the same be said for a human!

When was last time you saw two golden rolexes fucking?

[Chinese Regions]

You don't think it is advantageous to be moral?
Incest> Lowers genetic diversity hence it is frowned upon.
Killing someone> Lowers the population hence it is frowned upon.
Having sex> Increases the population hence why it feels so good.

NO,
each of those things is an advantage or disadvantage to the genes or the organism not the group.

Can you really have self-incest? Cells do not reproduce sexually. A sperm and an egg uniting is generally the basic process in two organisms reproducing sexually.

[Chinese Regions]

If you found a gold rolex in the middle of the desert and this desert had no humans in it to make such a device. Would you say that it formed by itself over millions of years into a perfectly operating watch or would you say someone created. Would you assume that a computer has a person who created it or would you assume that it appeared by itself over millions of years of particles randomly arranging themselves to build a perfect working computer? Surely in both cases you would say, as I assume you're all rational people that humans created the rolex and humans built the computer. So what about the most advanced thing ever created: the human being! If it is not plausible for something as simple as a watch to come into existence by itself, how can the same be said for a human!

When was last time you saw two golden rolexes fucking?

K(l)inky.

[Sociobiology]

He can't... He's just copying and pasting from Conservapedia...

Fair enough I did copy and paste. But I'll stop if you guys stop posting things that make no sense, or which do not provide an adequately detailed explanation. For example, I asked how did the DNA originate and the response I got was RNA. Bloody useful that is!

I also gave you a source for how RNA originates all by itself from the simple laws of chemistry.

I though lying was a sin to you people?

[Ifreann]

I imagine someone once mentioned 'random mutations' within earshot of a creationist once and they've been repeating the misconception ever since.

Random mutations that are not randomly selected.

Which they'd know if they cared to actually research evolution. Aside from those who do know that, but refuse to acknowledge it in favour of pushing their religious agenda.

[Ifreann]

If you found a gold rolex in the middle of the desert and this desert had no humans in it to make such a device. Would you say that it formed by itself over millions of years into a perfectly operating watch or would you say someone created. Would you assume that a computer has a person who created it or would you assume that it appeared by itself over millions of years of particles randomly arranging themselves to build a perfect working computer? Surely in both cases you would say, as I assume you're all rational people that humans created the rolex and humans built the computer. So what about the most advanced thing ever created: the human being! If it is not plausible for something as simple as a watch to come into existence by itself, how can the same be said for a human!

I'd say another species capable of developing such things would have made it, that species which came to be through the wonders of evolution. What you are doing here is pathetically funny though. You're trying to assume evolution applies to inorganic things hence the 'evolution of the watch'. Such an argument is laughable as there is a lot of things misunderstood about evolution when people actually make that argument.

Really? I'd say someone dropped their Rolex. Since I found it in the desert I'd strongly consider keeping it.

[Avenio]

*Moved to next page*

[Yukira]

I believe that evolution is a fact, but that doesn't totally destroy the idea of God like people always assume it does. There are plenty of scientists who will accept both evolution and theism and many religous people who will accept evolution too. It's only when people are absolutely certain that they are right and therefore think that every other opinion is wrong that it becomes an issue and that doesn't matter whether you're a scientist or a Christian. I can't bare fundamentalists of any kind and what gets me most is that science is becoming some kind of new religion with scientists as its priests.