One Third of Americans don't believe in Evolution.

[People Who Say Ni]

Yes. We do know. We know what DNA and RNA are. They aren't supernatural, and thus are not "God".

You have a point, they aren't supernatural. But what's a better candidate for God than the building blocks of human life? There's a lot of building blocks, which would just prove that God is simply an idea instead of 1 person or entity.

You have me thinking; the rocks aren't supernatural. But what is a better candidate for what made rocks but the all-powerful ROCKZOR. There are a lot of types of rocks, which prove that ROCKZOR is simply an idea instead of one person or entity.

I completely understand your logic, but I think that assuming the supernatural, especially god, was the instigator of evolution is fallacious. My reasoning is that if evolution is so complex and incomprehendable that it requires a god to explain, then a complex god like the Christian one (which depends on a number of infinities) is even more improbable without another god to create it. This creates an infinite regress. Rejecting it and looking into the more scientifically sound idea of abiogenesis will vastly improve your knowledge of evolution's beginning. In fact, the major breakthrough associated with evolution was that it was a system which works naturally.

Say a molecular, chemical process involved with thermodynamics creates a self replicating molecule. This molecule, when replicating, has the flaw of sometimes not replicating perfectly, depending on the conditions the molecule was in when it replicated. Now, this molecule will die if it experiences temperatures below 0 degrees, hypothetically. Now, the flaw in the replication has resulted in multiple mutations of the molecule and one of those mutations can withstand the cold. If a winter or an ice age comes along, this species survives. It has evolved naturally - over millions of years, you get a human.

I mentioned in this thread that the idea of God may not even be a person or entity, but the force that drives all science to work with each other. I know it sounds like I'm snorting peyote but bear with me, no scientific process that I can think of can happen by itself without a greater or equal force driving it.

Fixed that for you.

[Euroslavia]

1: It wasn't.
2: No, it didn't. Not in the way you're talking about.
3: Not believing your bullshit ideas is more than just "fine" it's preferred.

The less amount of trolling you do the better it would be for you, I already filed a report to a moderator. Have a good day.

I haven't seen anything of Dyakovo's postings that shows him attacking you personally rather than your argument. No, he hasn't trolled. You on the other hand...


If you're going to report someone, do so in Moderation and leave it at that. Posting a response here could be seen as two things: 1) Threadjacking. Moderation issues are not to be discussed in random threads (That is unless the topic is in itself a discussion of Moderation policies, which this isn't). 2) Trollnaming. You've participated in the debate, so you've avoided an official warning, as generally the rule is applied to people who randomly show up in a debate, post "TROLL", then leave. My advice to you is to read up on the rules here, because your definition of trolling is off compared to how we enforce it here.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

lol, called it

Lets get on topic now

[Sociobiology]

I completely understand your logic, but I think that assuming the supernatural, especially god, was the instigator of evolution is fallacious. My reasoning is that if evolution is so complex and incomprehendable that it requires a god to explain, then a complex god like the Christian one (which depends on a number of infinities) is even more improbable without another god to create it. This creates an infinite regress. Rejecting it and looking into the more scientifically sound idea of abiogenesis will vastly improve your knowledge of evolution's beginning. In fact, the major breakthrough associated with evolution was that it was a system which works naturally.

Say a molecular, chemical process involved with thermodynamics creates a self replicating molecule. This molecule, when replicating, has the flaw of sometimes not replicating perfectly, depending on the conditions the molecule was in when it replicated. Now, this molecule will die if it experiences temperatures below 0 degrees, hypothetically. Now, the flaw in the replication has resulted in multiple mutations of the molecule and one of those mutations can withstand the cold. If a winter or an ice age comes along, this species survives. It has evolved naturally - over millions of years, you get a human.

I mentioned in this thread that the idea of God may not even be a person or entity, but the force that drives all science to work with each other. I know it sounds like I'm snorting peyote but bear with me, no scientific process can happen by itself without a greater or equal force driving it.

yes they can, that's kinda the point.

For example, the idea of gravity is explained to be the attraction of a small object to a much bigger one (ie the Earth's core). This happens through magnetic molecules,

uh no that's not how gravity works

see what happens when you don't understand something, you fit in whatever explanation makes you the most comfortable.

[Sociobiology]

That's not how evolution works.

Well evolution is gradual, right? That means something would have to biologically happen in one's body to be "evolved".

its called a mutation, and they happen all the time, due to chemistry or radiation.

[Sociobiology]

You CANNOT be serious.

I am, how does the Earth rotate without an equal or greater force driving it to? Nothing in science is a coincidence if you really get down to the nitty gritty.

conservation of energy and a lack of friction in space.

just because you don't know does not mean nobody knows.

[Sociobiology]

Really?

Inertia. Without friction there is no force to slow the earth's rotation. The earth does not require any additional energy to maintain momentum.

Ok, so what began it's process of movement? Inertia would only keep it from stopping, but something would have to begin the rotation.

gravity, a collapsing cloud of gas and particles generates angular momentum all by itself, due to among other things tidal effects.
you could wiki most of this. Or ask somebody instead of jumping to a false conclusion.

[Chinese Regions]

I asserted that evolution is not a law not that it hasn't got a law.

so you don't understand what a law is?
also I gave you the law of evolution.
evolution is a law.
you don't see it much because unless you are a population geneticist the equation is not going to have a lot of meaning to you, Its just easier to express it verbally. {populations change over time}

in science a law is a rigorous description, a theory is a rigorous explanation. therefore evolution, by having a rigorous description, is a law.

Having, not being, evolution has a law,.

[Chinese Regions]

You CANNOT be serious.

I am, how does the Earth rotate without an equal or greater force driving it to? Nothing in science is a coincidence if you really get down to the nitty gritty.

Inertia (albeit a different sort being rotational) it is basic high school physics.

[Bottle]

I would be honestly surprised if more than a quarter of Americans could accurately define evolution.

[Czechanada]

I would be honestly surprised if more than a quarter of Americans could accurately define evolution.

You mean Levoution. I see you haven't been playing enough Battlefield 4.

[Sun Wukong]

Stellar formation. As the nebular cloud that created the Solar System collapsed inward it began to rotate. This momentum is conserved to this date.

You ask these questions in the belief they are impossible to answer but they are trivially easy.

Maybe that nebular cloud was God, point is I'm sure evolution happened but it had to have had a cause. I rest my case, if you dont believe me that's fine.

Even I think more of God then to call him an inanimate mass of mostly hydrogen.

[Bottle]

Maybe that nebular cloud was God, point is I'm sure evolution happened but it had to have had a cause. I rest my case, if you dont believe me that's fine.

Even I think more of God then to call him an inanimate mass of mostly hydrogen.

Not to mention the problem with stating that anything "had to have a cause." If that's true, then what caused God, and why shouldn't we worship that?

[Chinese Regions]

Stellar formation. As the nebular cloud that created the Solar System collapsed inward it began to rotate. This momentum is conserved to this date.

You ask these questions in the belief they are impossible to answer but they are trivially easy.

Maybe that nebular cloud was God, point is I'm sure evolution happened but it had to have had a cause. I rest my case, if you dont believe me that's fine.

Weight/Gravity pulled the cloud together and collapse into a fusion reaction, gravity is a force, therefore we must use the force.

[Dyakovo]

Maybe that nebular cloud was God, point is I'm sure evolution happened but it had to have had a cause. I rest my case, if you dont believe me that's fine.

Weight/Gravity pulled the cloud together and collapse into a fusion reaction, gravity is a force, therefore we must use the force.

*waves hand*
This is not the explanation you're looking for.

[Chinese Regions]

Weight/Gravity pulled the cloud together and collapse into a fusion reaction, gravity is a force, therefore we must use the force.

*waves hand*
This is not the explanation you're looking for.

Half-life 3 confirmed

by the Force.

[Sociobiology]

so you don't understand what a law is?
also I gave you the law of evolution.
evolution is a law.
you don't see it much because unless you are a population geneticist the equation is not going to have a lot of meaning to you, Its just easier to express it verbally. {populations change over time}

in science a law is a rigorous description, a theory is a rigorous explanation. therefore evolution, by having a rigorous description, is a law.

Having, not being, evolution has a law,.

the law of evolution describes evolution, not a derivative, not some connected concept, actual evolution, therefore evolution is a law.

[YellowApple]

I would be honestly surprised if more than a quarter of Americans could accurately define evolution.

It's when you feed candy to an animal you caught in a red-and-white ball and make the animal fight other animals until it turns into a new animal.

...right?

[Totalise]

I believe in both evolution with an inelegant design

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

I believe in both evolution with an inelegant design

I want to say it is ironic, but I am not sure if it would fit :|

[Big Jim P]

I believe in both evolution with an inelegant design

I want to say it is ironic, but I am not sure if it would fit :|

Well, if the human body were designed, I would say it was an inelegant design.

[Geilinor]

I believe in both evolution with an inelegant design

I want to say it is ironic, but I am not sure if it would fit :|

This isn't that "intelligent design" nonsense, it's "inelegant design".

[YellowApple]

I want to say it is ironic, but I am not sure if it would fit :|

Well, if the human body were designed, I would say it was an inelegant design.

I'd be a creationist if there were a section of the Bible stating that God was high as fuck when he created the universe and the contents thereof.

I mean, it would certainly make more sense that way.

[Riiser-Larsen]

Having, not being, evolution has a law,.

the law of evolution describes evolution, not a derivative, not some connected concept, actual evolution, therefore evolution is a law.

Law doesn't mean much of anything in Science compared to theory. If the Theory of Gravity states that gravity is a force, then the Law of Gravity can be summarized as an explanation of that force. Even if what you were saying were accurate, the fact that evolution "was a law" wouldn't mean anything. The Theory of Evolution? Okay. The Law of Evolution? Okay. "Evolution is a law"? Completely irrelevant to the nature of this debate.

[Big Jim P]

Well, if the human body were designed, I would say it was an inelegant design.

I'd be a creationist if there were a section of the Bible stating that God was high as fuck when he created the universe and the contents thereof.

I mean, it would certainly make more sense that way.

True.