12th Archivist
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 789
Registered: 12-07-2008
IP: Logged

One of the problems with the forums these days is that certain threads become big arguments and shout-fests. One person makes a post with incorrect information, one person corrects that information, one person gets annoyed with the information, and one person starts the avalanche of shouting and downmods.

We should not do this. If there is a meaningless thread on the forums, rather than arguing about it, we should thank our deities that we don't have to pay for all the wasteful threads and just ignore it. If you have a problem with the thread, be polite about it and talk about it instead of insulting the thread starter. If you cannot do this, simply ignore the thread. Sooner or later, the person who annoyed you is going to learn your point somehow and stop annoying you.

For example, take this thread. Samuel made content, Monkey corrected that content, and, you guessed it, Jatopian got angry and insulted Samuel. But things took a downturn. Snacko himself started the avalanche, not Jatopian. Very unusual behavior for Snacko these days. However, would any of you say that your behavior was adequate for these forums?

Let's go over this again. Insults piled atop of insults do not help anyone.

____________________________
It was going well until it exploded.
~Scott Manley

Check out the DROD Wikia project here!

Dischorran
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 3407
Registered: 09-10-2005
IP: Logged

But they're fun! Also, you totally could've used an "escalators vs. elevators" metaphor (and thanks to the edit function, it's not too late!).

____________________________

Lamkin
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 606
Registered: 08-17-2008
IP: Logged

For some reason, I've found that glass escalators aren't nearly as much fun to ride as glass elevators.

NoahT
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1133
Registered: 06-17-2003
IP: Logged

But when it's hot, plastic escalators are probably more fun than plastic elevators.

-Noah

____________________________
And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.

My stuff:

Snacko
Level: Smiter
Rank Points: 448
Registered: 06-08-2006
IP: Logged

Just to clarify, I was not attempting to start an argument, I was just getting progressively more impatient with Jatopian's negativity.

____________________________
Director of the Department of Orderly Disruptions

Jatopian
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1842
Registered: 07-31-2005
IP: Logged

The person who starts quote pyramids in random threads can shut up and sit down.

____________________________
DROD has some really great music.
Make your pressure plates 3.0 style!
DROD architecture idea generator

Dischorran
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 3407
Registered: 09-10-2005
IP: Logged

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

____________________________

Snacko
Level: Smiter
Rank Points: 448
Registered: 06-08-2006
IP: Logged

Jatopian wrote:
The person who starts quote pyramids in random threads can shut up and sit down.

RAINBOW

____________________________
Director of the Department of Orderly Disruptions

---

[Last edited by Snacko at 07-29-2009 06:58 AM]

Sillyman
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 339
Registered: 09-08-2006
IP: Logged

Snacko wrote:

Jatopian wrote:
The person who starts quote pyramids in random threads can shut up and sit down.

RAINBOW

Did somebody say... ROYAL RAINBOW?

(na na na, nananana nana, nananananaaaaaa)

____________________________
Who, me?
FNORD

hyperme
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1067
Registered: 06-23-2006
IP: Logged

Warning, the following box may contain content unsuitable for internet idiots, the worst kind of idiots.



____________________________
[Insert witty comment here]
Qzvlkx?

NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

yeah, guys, the joke is over.

Dischorran
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 3407
Registered: 09-10-2005
IP: Logged

hyperme wrote:
Warning, the following box may contain content unsuitable for internet idiots, the worst kind of idiots.

Second worst - you forgot creationists.

____________________________

NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

Don't knock the creationists, they're hilarious. Take a look at [20]conservapedia

Their obama page is priceless, thanks to this little gem:

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons observed that Obama used techniques of mind control in his campaign, as in this speech: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, 'I have to vote for Barack.'"

Which used to also say this:

The doctors observe that "Obama's logo is noteworthy. It is always there, a small one in the middle of the podium, providing a point of visual fixation ... [that] resembles a crystal ball, a favorite of hypnotists."

hyperme
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1067
Registered: 06-23-2006
IP: Logged

No, the people at hypocritapedia are internet creationists, the idiots with 0th place the top ten idiot chart.

Must... resist...temptation...to vandlize.

____________________________
[Insert witty comment here]
Qzvlkx?

---

[Last edited by hyperme at 07-29-2009 03:21 PM]

Someone Else
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1304
Registered: 06-14-2005
IP: Logged

Hey! I'm a creationist, and the only other theory of how the world as we know it came to be (evolution) has so many little flaws that it's ridiculous to call people of faith idiots. Sorry - I'm not trying to start a fight, I just feel like I have to defend myself and my faith whenever anyone brings up creation vs. evolution because it feels like people think that they can just bash Christianity and anything associated with it whenever they want with no fear of retribution.

Maurog
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1501
Registered: 09-16-2004
IP: Logged

I'm not calling people of faith idiots, but I call creationists idiots every time. Have faith in whatever you like, as long as it doesn't blind you to the facts. And all the facts point to evolution. Creationism doesn't explain anything, doesn't predict anything, doesn't have one shred of evidence to support it.

Notice how its proponents don't even try to defend it. They just poke evolution with sticks and hope this magically validates their own position. It doesn't.

____________________________
Slay the living! Raise the dead!
Paint the sky in crimson red!

Dischorran
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 3407
Registered: 09-10-2005
IP: Logged

I'm not bashing Christianity. I'm bashing its misinterpretation.

____________________________

Someone Else
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1304
Registered: 06-14-2005
IP: Logged

@Maurog: Most of the stuff you said in your first paragraph is wrong. All of the facts do not point to evolution (i.e. fossil record, irreducible complexity). Creationism explains exactly what it's supposed to: the origin of Life, the Universe, and Everything. Of course it doesn't predict anything, it's a theory of the origin of life. There is plenty of evidence to support it, if you know where to look. I'm not saying that most of that evidence is obvious to everyone, as a lot of it takes place in the form of miracles. The evidence for it is mainly this: Everything (or at least a lot) of the things in the Bible that can be proven have, so it follows logically that that which cannot be proven is also correct. Shaky logic, I agree, but there's nothing actually wrong about the logic.
Evolutionists are the same way about Evolution. They say that Creation is not a viable scientific theory (neither is Evolution, by the way), but then make arguments against Creation as if it proves Evolution. They act as if there are only the two theories, so we do too.
Please, don't propose these opinions as fact.
@Dischorran: Creation is actually the only reasonable interpretation of the Genesis record. If you want, I can provide evidence as to why a compromise view of the Genesis record with Evolution is impossible, or at least logically flawed.

If you want to carry on a civil discussion of this, I can do that. But as once someone resorts to insults (such as the ones already put forward by Maurog and Dischorran), I'm going to stop posting about this.

RoboBob3000
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1978
Registered: 10-23-2003
IP: Logged

So here's my problem with the Creation vs Evolution debate: Neither view sufficiently answers the question of existence. How and why are we (or anything for that matter) here?

Say we were put here by a benevolent God. Where did that benevolent God come from?

Say we came about as a result of a long chain of events after the Big Bang. Where did that super-dense ball of matter come from?

I think that debating whether or not evolution is a real thing is silly, but people will believe what they want to believe. There's an enormous amount of scientific evidence in support of it. However, the concept of evolution does not directly prove the non-existence of a God. Who's to say that God didn't plan it out this way in the first place? Maybe he created that ball of matter and created the rules of physics such that evolution would occur and the world would turn out exactly as it has today.

So even though the concept of evolution can't prove there is no God, it can definitely refute most of the interpretations that are out there, particularly the ones that deny evolution.

Why are science and religion so diametrically opposed? Aren't they one and the same? Don't they both seek to understand the world we live in? Why can't common religious concepts adapt (ha!) to common scientific concepts?

The problem with many religions today is that they are totally rigid. They tend to believe that the infallable word of their god was handed down to them and they believe and follow it to a tee. Why does a god have to be infallible? Couldn't he have misspoken when handing down his word? Why can't holy books be revised? Why can't beliefs change?

____________________________
http://beepsandbloops.wordpress.com/

---

[Last edited by RoboBob3000 at 07-29-2009 08:24 PM]

UrAvgAzn
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 468
Registered: 04-15-2006
IP: Logged

Should we move the Creationism vs Evolutionism debate to a new thread so we can stay on this one's respective topic?

Or was this thread never really on topic to start with?

____________________________
"The leaf, still green, must someday fall.
Such grief, such joy, to live at all."
- T.A. Barron, The Lost Years of Merlin

Dischorran
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 3407
Registered: 09-10-2005
IP: Logged

Someone Else wrote:
irreducible complexity

Don't quote Behe at me - "irreducible complexity" is the end result of evolution over a very large number of generations (for bacteria, a half-hour generation time is more than enough to hit "very large"), using actual mathematical models and proven mechanisms for evolution vs. an entirely undescribed creation mechanism. To be taken as a scientific theory as per evolution, creation needs to demonstrate a reproducible mechanism of divine creation to compete with mutation paired with computational modeling of the enormous amount of remarkably consistent data available from genetic sequencing - until that happens, Biblical creation is just not a theory. As for much of the Bible being true, sure, I'd imagine that the genealogies are probably correct, but one could use the same argument to turn any work of historical fiction into a textbook.

As for Genesis, the other reasonable interpretation would be that it's a placeholder - a way for people many thousands of years ago to stop obsessing over where they came from when they didn't yet have the resources to figure it out for themselves (note that every religion has one of these, and they tend not to agree on more than a few coincidental points). Robobob said it better, but insisting on a literal interpretation of one's religious text strikes me as sort of missing the point - if you take that as an insult, suit yourself.

And no, I don't really plan to argue this more either. I've tried before, and in almost all cases it ends with me arguing from a standpoint of making my interpretations match the existing objective facts, and the other guy arguing from the standpoint of putting his/her belief first as a statement of faith and doing his/her best to argue towards that fixed point.

____________________________

Someone Else
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1304
Registered: 06-14-2005
IP: Logged

Actually, that's quite interesting. I read a book that suggested that the whole reason that science exists is because of the Christian faith.
Evolution and Christianity are actually opposed, because of the simple fact that the Christian God's characteristics would make that method of creating impossible, or at least not like him.
I think that your first question is impossible to answer, and therefore any explanation is good for that. It's how we got from that initial point of something existing to here.
Christianity has changed. That's why there's so many divisions (Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, Baptist, etc.). And most Christians have accepted most scientific theories. But as I said before, Evolution is not scientific. This is simply because science is, by definition, "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena [and activities thereof]." http://www.answers.com/science Because the origin of life and species cannot be observed, Evolution (or, more correctly, the Theory of the Origin of Species) cannot be a scientific theory.

I think that debating whether or not evolution is a real thing is silly, but people will believe what they want to believe.

Very true.

skell
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 3734
Registered: 12-28-2004
IP: Logged

RoboBob3000 wrote:Couldn't he have misspoken when handing down his word?

I prefer different explanation:
Imagine that long time ago, when the bible was being written, God enlightened some chosen people and told them "See folks, actually the universe is build of atoms which consists of quarks, which have electrons running around them and your body is nothing more than bunch of bunches of bunches of bunches of such things. Oh and the planet is spherical, sun is NOT running around earth, and actually you know, get over those stupid kings and stuff, democracy is the way!
And so on. Perhaps the bible was meant for simple people with simple needs and simple minds.
Ok, I just wanted to point the possibility (and you had to post three messages while I was writing this post), I am not willing to elaborate or continue.

And besides, we all will return to/turn into aiúa in the end.

____________________________
My website | Facebook | Twitter

Maurog
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1501
Registered: 09-16-2004
IP: Logged

See? You don't even know that evolution doesn't deal with origin of life but you debate it. Speciation can be observed, was observed and will be observed in the future. There is no conceivable mechanism in nature which can allow two populations in different environments to deviate in everything except, for some reason, reproductive compatibility with a group they are isolated from.

Lions and tigers are on the verge of completing their speciation, for example. If they survive long enough as a species, it's inevitable, as they live in different environments and never intermingle in the wild.

____________________________
Slay the living! Raise the dead!
Paint the sky in crimson red!

---

[Last edited by Maurog at 07-29-2009 09:27 PM]

RoboBob3000
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1978
Registered: 10-23-2003
IP: Logged

Someone Else wrote:
But as I said before, Evolution is not scientific. This is simply because science is, by definition, "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena [and activities thereof]." http://www.answers.com/science Because the origin of life and species cannot be observed, Evolution (or, more correctly, the Theory of the Origin of Species) cannot be a scientific theory.

I think that the "Theory of the Origin of Species" is a misnomer. Evolution is not about ultimate origin, and posing it as such (which most people on both sides of the argument typically do) is probably what gets everybody spinning their wheels. I maintain that ultimate origin cannot be adequately understood.

Evolution is about getting from point A to point B. Generations of change (for example, watching a petri dish full of bacteria) can be observed.

____________________________
http://beepsandbloops.wordpress.com/

zex20913
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1723
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

Stop it, it's too good?

____________________________

Nuntar
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 4592
Registered: 02-20-2007
IP: Logged

Aww, don't tell me I missed the best part of an evolution debate? I guess I'll have to go back and reply to one point at a time.

(1) "The only other theory of how the world as we know it came to be (evolution) has so many little flaws." All scientific theories have little flaws; that's why they get refined over time into better ones that get gradually closer to the truth. There's still much left to discover in evolution as in all other fields of science, but unless you can find some big flaws, the theory isn't likely to be replaced by something completely different.

(2) "Creationism explains exactly what it's supposed to: the origin of Life, the Universe, and Everything. Of course it doesn't predict anything, it's a theory of the origin of life." Then in what sense can it explain anything? A theory with no predictive power is like Calvin's dad explaining that wind is caused by trees sneezing. Might be true, might not, and if true then it does give a picture of the causation underlying observed events -- but it's not clear what part of any of this deserves to be called an explanation. An explanation should be something that makes parts of a picture fall into place so that you can see something simpler underlying them and bringing them together.

(3) "Everything (or at least a lot) of the things in the Bible that can be proven have, so it follows logically that that which cannot be proven is also correct." That's not logic, it's induction -- the same principle that underlies the discovery of scientific truths. But in this case it's faulty induction. If 999 randomly chosen statements from a book all turn out to be true, you can be pretty sure that the thousandth is probably also true. But if a book has sections on history and sections on theology, and the historical sections turn out to be true, that doesn't guarantee anything about the theology. They're such different fields that even if the book was written by one writer, it would be entirely plausible that he knew lots about history and nothing about theology.

(4) "Evolutionists are the same way about Evolution. They say that Creation is not a viable scientific theory (neither is Evolution, by the way), but then make arguments against Creation as if it proves Evolution." I'm not responsible for what any particular evolutionist has said, but even if some of them have used this faulty reasoning, that doesn't disprove evolution. The fact is, evolutionists are keen to make arguments against creationism because many people are convinced of the truth of creationism and need to be unconvinced before they will look at the evidence for evolution with an open mind. But the evidence is there; there are a lot more reasons why I believe in evolution than just because I don't believe in creationism.

(5) As for evolution "not being a viable scientific theory", I'd like to know why you think that -- as the only thing you've said so far that really carries bite, it deserved a little more respect than being confined to a parenthetical comment. If your main argument here is that we can't get into a time machine and observe the evolution of the giraffe, I wonder whether for the same reason you would say that geology is not scientific, or astronomy, or even the reconstruction of unrecorded proto-languages in linguistics. All the knowledge we have comes from observing the present state of the world, but in all these cases we can make hypotheses about what the past must have been like for the present to be the way it is, use these hypotheses to make predictions about as-yet unknown aspects of the present state of things, and test these predictions. Sounds pretty scientific to me.

____________________________
50th Skywatcher

NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

RoboBob3000 wrote:
So here's my problem with the Creation vs Evolution debate: Neither view sufficiently answers the question of existence. How and why are we (or anything for that matter) here?

Evolution neatly explains why we're here. To pass on our genes. Not that it makes us particularly egocentric, as we've also adapted to try our best to get other people who carry our gene's to also pass them on. Hence altruism. How life came to be can be answered with probability. How many planets are there? Well according to this, plenty. The pure probability that one wouldn't start the process of life (that is, create the very first thing that could self replicate) is actually less likely.

Yes, about 100 years ago the christian faith was still a major factor in science. It's not any more. Science is ever changing, and is slave to no master other than the evidence. Why is why where science originates means jack all.

Evolution has been observed. Why do we need new anti biotics, as bacteria somehow evolves to become drug resistant? That's positive proof of evolution.
If your going to dismiss the fossil record, why are there no rabbits in the pre-cambrian? Why has there been yet to be one thing that has been found to be irreducibly complex?

I'm surprised to hear you say something as internally inconsistent as the bible has been mostly proven. Where did you get such an idea?

I think that debating whether or not evolution is a real thing is silly, but people will believe what they want to believe.

Sometimes, but not all the time. Otherwise nobody would bother arguing ever, and science would stop.

RoboBob3000
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1978
Registered: 10-23-2003
IP: Logged

NiroZ wrote:
Evolution neatly explains why we're here. To pass on our genes.

I wouldn't say that constitutes the "Why". I would say that that's "What" we're doing here.

Put another way: Why are we passing on our genes? And if the answer is "to pass on our genes," then I revise the question again: Why are we involved in an endless cycle of passing along our genes?

____________________________
http://beepsandbloops.wordpress.com/

Dischorran
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 3407
Registered: 09-10-2005
IP: Logged

12th Archivist wrote:
the discussion has become very philosophical and intelligent

Not by design, I assure you.

____________________________