Let's assume your god exists for the purposes of this argument.

If so, I am 99% certain that It (surely something as outside the human experience as God doesn't have a gender?) definitely "did evolution".

Why?

Evidence. An absolutely ungodly (pun intended) amount of it. There's no need to rehash it here, it's been documented and debated here, there and pretty much everywhere on the web. And it's done. Settled question. Evolution, like gravity, is real. There is no argument. At least, none that you, me or any creationist is qualified to make.

And here's the next part... you personally, are absolutely entitled to your opinion that evolution is wrong. And that makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the reality of the universe.

As for the guy in the video... I have no idea how he became a professor, because he fails to answer the most basic question a student has for him (hint: mutations don't produce "beneficial" changes, they just produce changes. it's the environment that selects the beneficial changes)

To answer her question:

Evolution indeed plays a major role in the killing of people, black or otherwise. However at some point we will evolve into intelligent, sentient beings, who do not kill each other.

I have no interest in answering the personal questions of someone who strives to mock me at every turn.

>> ^hpqp:
I am certain your credentials are most impressive - you have an IQ of 149 after all (which makes creationism trump evolution, of course) - so why not answer my question? It's not like you'd be the only person with game industry history on the Sift. Are you afraid one of your ex-colleagues remembers you? ...or doesn't? Don't be shy, shiny!
>> ^shinyblurry:
My parents respect my choices, even if they don't necessarily agree with my beliefs. They're not anti-theist, as you are. As far the suggestion that I am lying, that would be convenient for your stereotyping, but I am telling the truth about it. I also did work for the video game industry, albiet I wasn't a designer, but my credentials would impress.
>> ^hpqp:
Somehow this sounds as believable as your epic fling in the videogame industry. Soooo... convenient. If it is true though, I truly pity your parents, they must feel they failed miserably.
>> ^shinyblurry:
My Dad is an atheist and my mom an agnostistic/near-theist..I was raised with no religion. Was an agnostic secular materialist by default. I received revelation of Gods existence a few years back. Although I am sad I was lied to all my life and believed the lies, I marvel at the fake world we live in, and am amazed more people don't see right through it..but then remember I used to be one of those people. Although I was never so arrogant as to rule out Gods existence, I have empathy for people who can't see it.

I am certain your credentials are most impressive - you have an IQ of 149 after all (which makes creationism trump evolution, of course) - so why not answer my question? It's not like you'd be the only person with game industry history on the Sift. Are you afraid one of your ex-colleagues remembers you? ...or doesn't? Don't be shy, shiny!

>> ^shinyblurry:

My parents respect my choices, even if they don't necessarily agree with my beliefs. They're not anti-theist, as you are. As far the suggestion that I am lying, that would be convenient for your stereotyping, but I am telling the truth about it. I also did work for the video game industry, albiet I wasn't a designer, but my credentials would impress.
>> ^hpqp:
Somehow this sounds as believable as your epic fling in the videogame industry. Soooo... convenient. If it is true though, I truly pity your parents, they must feel they failed miserably.
>> ^shinyblurry:
My Dad is an atheist and my mom an agnostistic/near-theist..I was raised with no religion. Was an agnostic secular materialist by default. I received revelation of Gods existence a few years back. Although I am sad I was lied to all my life and believed the lies, I marvel at the fake world we live in, and am amazed more people don't see right through it..but then remember I used to be one of those people. Although I was never so arrogant as to rule out Gods existence, I have empathy for people who can't see it.

>> ^Skeeve:


You have seriously discredited yourself multiple times in this thread.
From the "I scored 149 on my last IQ test" to quoting Dawkins to "disprove" evolution, you have shown yourself to be a quote-mining troll with no understanding of the scientific method or simple critical thinking. It is, quite literally, not worth my time (and I'm sure my time isn't worth as much as some of the others here) to even attempt a refutation of the outdated, quote-mined, religious garbage you presented as a case against evolution.
The sheer volume of evidence for evolution is overwhelming and freely available for those who actually wish to learn - you obviously do not wish to learn and for that fact alone you are no longer of interest to me.
Have a nice life.



My comment about banning this troll (simplyblurry) was downvoted.

Please look at the evidence.
>> ^shinyblurry:

3 down..


3 of what are now down? Keeping score of the people you caused to waste time and effort refuting your straw man?

Trolling pure and simple.

>> ^TheGenk:

I have only one question for you now:
How did, to the best of your knowledge, life end up like we see it today(I am not asking for how life came to exist, that has nothing to do with evolution)? And please provide evidence.
Still waiting.


That aside, I really like that 95% of the sources creationists quote are at least 30-40 years old. Quietly disregarding the boost modern computers and electronics have given scientific research and understanding.

So, in other words, you don't have a counter argument except "lalalalalallaalalallalaalllaalala im not listening to you now lalalalallalalalaa i cant hear you lalalalalallaalalala" evolution is right, evolution is true, evolution is my friend, evolution evolution evolution evolution

>> ^gwiz665:
I'm not saying that you have to be an evolutionary scientist to make an argument, I'm just saying you didn't make this particular argument.
The really funny thing is that it's utterly, hopelessly false and misleading. The theory is sound; it explains reality as it is; it can predict. You can use it to create artificial evolution too, even the most stubborn creationist farmers do it.
Evolution is fact, no matter how much you don't want it to be.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yeah, like you're an evolutionary biologist right? I'll be interested to see your personal research...should win a noble. Give me a break. The theory is fundementally flawed and indefensible..I already know how you're going to reply..and im sorry to tell you the facts aren't on your side. >> ^gwiz665:
There's some lovely quote-mining there. I'll make a proper debunking when I get home and have time to do it.
It's fun to google random excerpts of your post, seems like much of the work was done for you
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/recorded_history.htmhttp://signsofthelastdays.com/archives/how-to-disprove-evolution
http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people
A bunch of your quotes are debunked here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.html but I haven't checked them all

I'm not saying that you have to be an evolutionary scientist to make an argument, I'm just saying you didn't make this particular argument.

The really funny thing is that it's utterly, hopelessly false and misleading. The theory is sound; it explains reality as it is; it can predict. You can use it to create artificial evolution too, even the most stubborn creationist farmers do it.

Evolution is fact, no matter how much you don't want it to be.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Yeah, like you're an evolutionary biologist right? I'll be interested to see your personal research...should win a noble. Give me a break. The theory is fundementally flawed and indefensible..I already know how you're going to reply..and im sorry to tell you the facts aren't on your side. >> ^gwiz665:
There's some lovely quote-mining there. I'll make a proper debunking when I get home and have time to do it.
It's fun to google random excerpts of your post, seems like much of the work was done for you
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/recorded_history.htmhttp://signsofthelastdays.com/archives/how-to-disprove-evolution
http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people
A bunch of your quotes are debunked here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.html but I haven't checked them all

Yeah, like you're an evolutionary biologist right? I'll be interested to see your personal research...should win a noble. Give me a break. The theory is fundementally flawed and indefensible..I already know how you're going to reply..and im sorry to tell you the facts aren't on your side. >> ^gwiz665:
There's some lovely quote-mining there. I'll make a proper debunking when I get home and have time to do it.
It's fun to google random excerpts of your post, seems like much of the work was done for you
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/recorded_history.htm
http://signsofthelastdays.com/archives/how-to-disprove-evolution
http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people
A bunch of your quotes are debunked here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/contents.html but I haven't checked them all

Fossils aren't rare, there are billions of them. According to darwins theory, there should be an overwhelming number of transitional fossils, but there aren't any. There is absolutely no evidence showing one kind of animal changing into another kind, period. Which is what the entire theory is based on.

"Given enough time we'll probably find one" Yeah, that's what the theory is hinged on..the faith that they exist. It's been 120 years but don't give up..we've uncovered billions of fossils but i bet thyere in there somewhere! It's a metaphysical belief and you have way more faith than I do.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Actually, you can find all the best ones here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Brace yourself for the disclaimer:
"Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor" ie, no real transitions have ever been discovered..meaning evolution is a fraud
You accuse me of being blind to evidence..I just provided a mountain of evidence showing evolution to be a total fabrication..you do one google search and determine you're right..lol..pretty sad maxyboy. Shows the supreme level of ignorance im dealing with here.
>> ^MaxWilder:
I guess when you Google "transitional fossils" and see all those pages with huge lists of transitional fossils, they are all liars. But the religious people, they know science better than the scientists.
Duh, winning.


I'm glad to see that you accept that general transitional fossils exist. That is, we have many examples of fossils which demonstrated the transition from fish to amphibian, for example.
But you, like all creationists, demand more specificity. You need to see a single branch go from species A to B to C.
Here's the thing you don't seem to get, shiny. Fossils are rare. And during the process of evolution, extinct side branches are common. Well, "common" isn't exactly the right word. The branch that survives basically has to win the evolutionary lotto. So if an animal gets fossilized, it is by far more likely to come from an extinct side branch. It's simply statistics. So species A evolves into a zillion different species B, most of which are evolutionary dead ends. So to find fossil records of the exact variant of species B that fell directly between Species A (which we had a fossil) and Species C (which we had a fossil that wasn't close enough to species A to be sure about)... that's kinda like winning the lotto ten times in a row. We have plenty of them that are close. But the exact ones? You don't understand what you are asking for.
Given enough time, we'll probably find some. But they won't be proving evolution true. The Theory of Evolution is just the best explanation for the evidence we have. You can't really prove it true. The theory as it stands has made a ton of predictions that have been shown to be accurate, but none of those are "enough" for skeptics. Perhaps there is a piece of evidence which would be so bizarre that it could prove it false, but it doesn't really work the other way around. Only mathematical theorems can be "proven" true.
No, if we ever find a "true" transitional fossil as you have defined it, it will simply prove creationism false. But then again, you've never let logic or evidence dissuade you from your beliefs, so it probably wouldn't change anything.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Actually, you can find all the best ones here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Brace yourself for the disclaimer:
"Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor" ie, no real transitions have ever been discovered..meaning evolution is a fraud
You accuse me of being blind to evidence..I just provided a mountain of evidence showing evolution to be a total fabrication..you do one google search and determine you're right..lol..pretty sad maxyboy. Shows the supreme level of ignorance im dealing with here.
>> ^MaxWilder:
I guess when you Google "transitional fossils" and see all those pages with huge lists of transitional fossils, they are all liars. But the religious people, they know science better than the scientists.
Duh, winning.



I'm glad to see that you accept that general transitional fossils exist. That is, we have many examples of fossils which demonstrated the transition from fish to amphibian, for example.

But you, like all creationists, demand more specificity. You need to see a single branch go from species A to B to C.

Here's the thing you don't seem to get, shiny. Fossils are rare. And during the process of evolution, extinct side branches are common. Well, "common" isn't exactly the right word. The branch that survives basically has to win the evolutionary lotto. So if an animal gets fossilized, it is by far more likely to come from an extinct side branch. It's simply statistics. So species A evolves into a zillion different species B, most of which are evolutionary dead ends. So to find fossil records of the exact variant of species B that fell directly between Species A (which we had a fossil) and Species C (which we had a fossil that wasn't close enough to species A to be sure about)... that's kinda like winning the lotto ten times in a row. We have plenty of them that are close. But the exact ones? You don't understand what you are asking for.

Given enough time, we'll probably find some. But they won't be proving evolution true. The Theory of Evolution is just the best explanation for the evidence we have. You can't really prove it true. The theory as it stands has made a ton of predictions that have been shown to be accurate, but none of those are "enough" for skeptics. Perhaps there is a piece of evidence which would be so bizarre that it could prove it false, but it doesn't really work the other way around. Only mathematical theorems can be "proven" true.

No, if we ever find a "true" transitional fossil as you have defined it, it will simply prove creationism false. But then again, you've never let logic or evidence dissuade you from your beliefs, so it probably wouldn't change anything.

Actually, you can find all the best ones here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Brace yourself for the disclaimer:

"Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor" ie, no real transitions have ever been discovered..meaning evolution is a fraud

You accuse me of being blind to evidence..I just provided a mountain of evidence showing evolution to be a total fabrication..you do one google search and determine you're right..lol..pretty sad maxyboy. Shows the supreme level of ignorance im dealing with here.

>> ^MaxWilder:
I guess when you Google "transitional fossils" and see all those pages with huge lists of transitional fossils, they are all liars. But the religious people, they know science better than the scientists.
Duh, winning.

Thank you for your good will here, I genuinely appreciate it. It's one of the few acts of sincerity I've received on this board. Because of that, you've inspired me to present my defense. I will attempt to show that evolution is every bit as metaphysical as a belief in God. I will also attempt to answer the question you posed about compartmentalization. I should get to it later today. Thank you again.

>> ^shuac:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I had a little rant here..ive erased it for civilities sake..if you want to address me in civilized manner instead of attacking my intellect, which I will assure you is doing just fine, let me know..
You mistake me, sir, for a common internet thug. My comment takes no such attitude. There exist very learned scientists who are among the most pious Christians ever. People like William Jennings Bryan, Freeman Dyson, and the head of the genome sequencing project, Francis Collins.
The younger Behe's answer about compartmentalization would probably, in my estimation, apply to all of them. That's not an attack on their intellect, sir. At least, I don't see it as one and I certainly don't mean it as one. In fact, a very decent argument could be made that such a sophisticated partitioning would require a degree of sophistication beyond that of normal needs.
For instance, I have very achievable compartmentalization requirements when I carry two opposing thoughts in my head. Typically, they are thoughts like "I hate 80s hair metal but I love that one song by Warrant" or the like. That kind of partitioning doesn't require a lot of mental horsepower but then, my needs are modest. You see what I mean?
As far as the second quote by Behe the Younger goes...well, I believe that sums up the entire ID stance and is similarly in no way an attack on your (or anyone else's) intellect. Hey, I get it: creationists feels strongly about this stuff and I'm not surprised they're trying to get around the rules.
Just understand that we also feel strongly.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I had a little rant here..ive erased it for civilities sake..if you want to address me in civilized manner instead of attacking my intellect, which I will assure you is doing just fine, let me know..

You mistake me, sir, for a common internet thug. My comment takes no such attitude. There exist very learned scientists who are among the most pious Christians ever. People like William Jennings Bryan, Freeman Dyson, and the head of the genome sequencing project, Francis Collins.

The younger Behe's answer about compartmentalization would probably, in my estimation, apply to all of them. That's not an attack on their intellect, sir. At least, I don't see it as one and I certainly don't mean it as one. In fact, a very decent argument could be made that such a sophisticated partitioning would require a degree of sophistication beyond that of normal needs.

For instance, I have very achievable compartmentalization requirements when I carry two opposing thoughts in my head. Typically, they are thoughts like "I hate 80s hair metal but I love that one song by Warrant" or the like. That kind of partitioning doesn't require a lot of mental horsepower but then, my needs are modest. You see what I mean?

As far as the second quote by Behe the Younger goes...well, I believe that sums up the entire ID stance and is similarly in no way an attack on your (or anyone else's) intellect. Hey, I get it: creationists feel strongly about this stuff and I'm not surprised they're trying to get around the rules.

Just understand that we also feel strongly.

I had a little rant here..ive erased it for civilities sake..if you want to address me in civilized manner instead of attacking my intellect, which I will assure you is doing just fine, let me know..


>> ^shuac:
Nice one, BRM. I liked the Salty-Behe article, in particular this bit, which might apply to shinyblurry:

When asked for, “insights into how the mental compartmentalization which allows someone with a decent education to be a creationist works?” Behe had this to say:

After not questioning an issue for twenty years, hearing everyone and everything around you affirm it repeatedly, the brain becomes so used to looking at it in a certain way- as truth, in this example- that it can be very difficult or even nearly impossible for you to look at the issue without that desensitization in the back of your head assuring you that it’s true and can’t be disproved. I know someone has reached that point when literally nothing I can say will change their minds. [...] the idea will not require any detectable amount of proof after lying stagnant in the creationists’ head for so many years. They will look at it and it will appear absolutely normal and completely plausible. This is the damage that indoctrination causes.