human evolution

  • Leave A Comment

    Please Login to comment
    15 Comment threads
    35 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    19 Comment authors
    EvilcritterTHELOTUSEATER725fracked againacid_monkeynyokki Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    Evilpenguin556
    Member
    Evilpenguin556

    The transition from unicellular organism to fish is a bit… sudden.

    AgZed
    Member

    Perhaps it’s an attempt to reconcile Evolutionary & Creationist beliefs? “In the beginning, there was nothing. Then God created fish. Which turned into people.”

    TheLotusEater725
    Member

    Actually this isn’t too far off from the bible,even with literal translations. Aquatic creatures were the first to be created. That aside i thought the currently accepted theory is that we are an offshoot of starfish. What a lame animal to evolve from. I mean shit,we should have at least kept the ability to regenerate limbs.

    Rafter
    Member

    Youre a bit off in your Bible translation. God created creatures of the sea, birds, and other animals… then it specifically says, God created man. It doesnt say God then let the fish become man.

    TheLotusEater725
    Member

    You do realize that there are hundreds of translations and interpretations of the bible? And that the bible was not supposed to be a scientific text of the world and its creation? Could you imagine going over the minutiae of the development of Eyes alone? Christ scientists have written whole libraries on chemical and electrical synapses alone, let alone the massive amount of data that would be required to adequately explain their development. Books in the bible were written for pre-scientific minds and thus will be overly simplified when it comes to scientific matters. It’s like looking for instructions on… Read more »

    nyoki
    Member

    I’m fine w/ most Christians, those that don’t take the bible literally (e.g. most evangelicals). They always want to argue the bible and I’m not in the least bit interested in doing that.

    TheLotusEater725
    Member

    Well first you need to figure out which translation and version of the bible to debate. Whether to limit it to canonical texts, what way the word was used in its original hebrew context. For example the oldest Book on Christianity (the book of thomas) is not considered canonical scripture.

    Meh, fuck the bible. I’d rather get my spiritual enlightenment from the source.

    natedog
    Member

    FUCK YOU, STARFISH ARE COOL

    fracked again
    Member

    We share a common ancestor, but the echinoderms and chordates don’t share more than some similarities in early development and a little DNA. We split off more than 530 mya.

    natedog
    Member

    THIS IS WHAT EVOLUTIONISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE

    Dragunov
    Member
    Dragunov

    THIS IS WHAT FASCISTS REALLY BELIEVE

    natedog
    Member

    srsly, WAT?

    WaltherKid
    Member

    close. frames 9 thru 12 show us that a creature from “where the wild things are” turn into asians.

    The_Royal_We
    Member

    WHERE’S YO’ HEAAAD AAAAAAT?
    (WHERE’S YO HEAD AT? WHERE’S YO’ HEAD AT?)

    Q-delta
    Member

    Wait… I never knew Casemods had a tail??!?!!

    jonblaze81
    Member

    I’m with evilpenguin. Going from frame 1 to frame 2 seems like a rather big leap. I’m a creationist, but even if I was an evolutionist, I would think that from a scientific point of view like there is quite a few steps missing. Side Point: To all of you evolutionist out there: For the big bang theory to be correct ask yourself this one question. Where did the atomic particles that form atoms, that form spacedust, that form whatever it was that allegedly made the big bang come from? Or did the neutrons, and electrons just magic themselves into… Read more »

    TheLotusEater725
    Member

    Ooooh god dude, i hope you realize you are opening up a can of atheist rage fuel. Trust me on this, your best bet in face of confrontation will be to agree to disagree. Trust me, the internet is overflowing with angry atheists and to a lesser degree agnostics. That’s not to say all atheists are assholes mind you, most of the ones i know in real life are levelheaded people who are content to let believers believe. I warn you sir. Here there be dragons.

    jonblaze81
    Member

    Fair Enough. Just call it food for thought.

    Hob
    Member

    He baited the evolutionists and the quantum physicists. Man’s got some casemods in him I think!

    Hob
    Member

    Your side point is flawed. You assert that it is unlikely that a subatomic particle can magic itself into existence.

    However, your theory is that some supreme being magiced itself into being, and then magiced the subatomic particles into being. Two of said magiccings.

    Per Occam’s Razor, the simpler of the two is the more reasonable theory.

    Belbo
    Member

    what the hell does the big bang have to do with evolution?

    fracked again
    Member

    No Lotus, no need to show rage.

    Jon, You do realize that this is closer to what creationists believe than the evidence for evolution suggest. But you are right. There are quite a few steps missing in this image, gaps that science has either filled with evidence or testable hypothesis.

    I suggest you spend some time perusing www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

    nyoki
    Member

    Evolution and Big Bang Theory do not correlate. So that’s just a stupid setup. However, I don’t know what, who, when or anything prior to The Big Bang. I don’t have to answer that question because science doesn’t require everything to have an answer now. We just don’t know and have no need to make up things to explain it. If you want to believe God did it, that’s fine, just remember science has its own rules and God isn’t among them.

    sickmindedone
    Member

    ATHEIST RAGE RAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    natedog
    Member

    if you view these in reverse order, the monkey man takes a shit. and this submission gets moar better

    NoOneInParticular
    Member

    Even if you’re an evolutionist, the sequence is still very wrong. For example, man is supposed to be descended from APES. The main physical characteristic of apes is NO TAIL. So the tail they show shrinking was gone LONG before the development into man.

    And as others pointed out, there are probably more steps between image 1 and 2 than between all the rest of the stages.

    Evilcritter
    Member

    I’d like to point out this is a silly bit of art and not meant to be the complete fossil record leading to humans. Hence, the gaps and inconsistancies.
    NoOne, humans and the rest of the apes evolved from a common ancestor. Chimps aren’t our ancestors, they are our cousins.
    God is the answer when you stop asking questions. If I don’t know the answer to something, I prefer to wait until an answer is discovered, rather than to simply say “It was MAGIC!!!!”

    TheLotusEater725
    Member

    I respectfully disagree. Saying God did it does not mean you should abandon scientific endeavor and leave it at that. Otherwise you will not grow spiritually and worse yet you will not grow in scientific knowledge. Anyone who seriously claims that we should just leave it as “god did it” is accepting willful ignorance of gods work which in turn leads to scientific ignorance and hinders our progress.

    fracked again
    Member

    You just described a fair portion of Xian America. When you say that god did it, and then show that god didn’t do it and natural processes are responsible, god gets smaller and smaller. Its why most of Xian America rejects evolution in favor of creationism. It doesn’t just violate biblical literalism, but it makes YHWH smaller with every discovery. Honestly, though I consider these people to be my allies in an enemy of my enemy kind of way, paving the way for the surviving godlings dwindle away into the past with Zeus and friends. I don’t want to see… Read more »

    TheLotusEater725
    Member

    [quote]When you say that god did it, and then show that god didn’t do it and natural processes are responsible, god gets smaller and smaller. [/quote] Well Mr Fracked you may be right. I don’t really think that a “natural” process is indicative of anything other than showing that there is a process at work. Of course this leads off into the Who or what created the univserse arguement and then into the who or what created god argument, neither of which we have a solid answer for. For example showing how a monkey branched off from another monkey and… Read more »

    fracked again
    Member

    If god is indistinguishable from nature and god’s existence can’t be teased out by asking god to intervene in a double blinded randomized clinical trial on HIV progression or pregnancy rates in fertility treatments, then deism is about as close as we can get and still fit the evidence. I consider the addition of a deity to the mix to be an unnecessary detail. Exclusion of this detail doesn’t negatively affect the universe, except in a sentimental manner. As for the glow in the dark pigs, let’s say they glow because of the addition of luciferase, a gene found in… Read more »

    fracked again
    Member

    Shit, not fruit flies, fireflies. I have fruit flies on the brain as I am in the middle of teaching a non-mendelian genetics chapter.

    TheLotusEater725
    Member

    If god is indistinguishable from nature and god’s existence can’t be teased out by asking god to intervene in a double blinded randomized clinical trial on HIV progression or pregnancy rates in fertility treatments, then deism is about as close as we can get and still fit the evidence.

    I think we are in mutual agreement here.
    As for my question thank you for the answer. It is nice to get a respectful and informative reply. Plus i enjoy learning. I take it you are a professor much like Reboot?

    Also, jesus loves you fracked.

    fracked again
    Member

    I am. And having seen pics of Jesus, she’s hot.

    TheLotusEater725
    Member

    Lol good response.

    Evilcritter
    Member

    The moment I see anything aside from wishful thinking and delusions as evidence of any supreme being’s “work,” then I’ll consider the possibilty. Haven’t seen or heard of a single scrap. Religious belief is a byproduct of our social structure, and it is sad to see otherwise intelligent people believing so fiercely in something that is as real as fairies. We are wired to believe in invisible things, that’s why people fall for scientology, christianity, the force. Christ, have you ever heard of Otherkin? They are just as valid as any of your gods, which means not at all. But… Read more »

    TheLotusEater725
    Member

    I’m sorry i was under the impression we could have a civil discussion about this and at least come to a mutual agreement of some sort. But you are right, there is no empirical evidence (that we know of so far)that can lead us to definitely conclude that there was a creator. Evidence at this point is either anecdotal or philosophical in nature and is not testable in a laboratory or in the field. Yet there is no evidence for the non existence of a creator either. At this point the most rational stance would be agnostic-atheism. Personally for my… Read more »

    acid_monkey
    Member

    its okay if thats the only thing you want to belive.

    Evilcritter
    Member

    Lotuseater, if I met you in person we might get along fine. I know lots of lovely religious people. But honestly I find a belief in any god to be absurd. I consider religion ridiculous and it saddens me that mainly sensible people will take an abrupt turn in their usually rational thinking like you do. I have heard the argument that agnosticism is superior to atheism many times, because at least you are open to the possibility. But why would I be open to the possibility of something if nothing, ever, indicated that it existed? It’s like believing I’ll… Read more »

    fracked again
    Member

    😀

    Based on the definitions I use, agnosticism and atheism are compatible as they define different qualities. Agnostic means you don’t know. Atheist means you don’t believe in gods. So an agnostic atheist doesn’t believe, but doesn’t have certain knowledge. I fit there, as does Dawkins and most of the “new” atheists. Its extremely unlikely, so I might as well be a gnostic atheist, but I’m open to evidence, just not expecting any. The degree of gnosis is a qualifier of a/theism and not a middle ground, except for apatheists.

    Evilcritter
    Member

    That degree of hairsplitting sounds too much like religion for me.
    I have to look up apatheists. brb.

    Evilcritter
    Member

    Wow. There sure are a lot of divisions in non-belief. Wiki says Dawkins is simply an athiest. I have a degree of apatheism in me too, mainly because debating religion versus atheism is always pointless. And yet, sometimes I do it. Even though it wears me out.
    Anyone here seen “A History of Lying”? I wonder why that didn’t get picketed by religious groups.

    TheLotusEater725
    Member

    Well i understand where you are coming from. Obviously i disagree but you’ve presented yourself here in a much calmer and respectful manner. For that i thank you. Too each their own i suppose Sir EvilCritter. Things could be worse also, i could be an inquisitor and you could be having your legs beaten into a pulp for not saying god bless you.

    Evilcritter
    Member

    That would be Ma’am, actually.
    I’ve been told off for not saying “bless you” when people sneeze. Apparently some people still think that’s how evil spirits get in their heads. I guess.

    Evilcritter
    Member

    Lotuseater, didn’t you warn jonblaze81 not to get involved in an argument? Funny that you expect reasoned debate here. Casemods lives here! Anyway, I’m not being mean, I just think faith is dumb. Be offended by that, that’s ok. And you sound remarkably like a friend of mine. You aren’t by any chance an epistomologist, are you? Do you believe tectonic plates are bunk and the Roman empire never existed? He is tiresome to talk to. Self-proclaimed genius. Completely insane. And a paranoid narcassist. You aren’t him, are you? I wonder how many Battlestar Galactica fans believe in those gods.… Read more »

    TheLotusEater725
    Member

    Well jonblaze was flat out taunting the resident atheists/ “evolutionists” . To me that is not a constructive way to argue. I make no claims of genius. Just claims of differing perspective. I mean i love a good conspiracy theory and all and i do ponder heavily on Epistemology because i find it to be an interesting subject. However i don’t think i would go as far as to claim that the roman empire never existed. Tectonic plates i have never seen so i can’t be 100% sure of their existence but as far as i know that is a… Read more »

    Evilcritter
    Member

    That wasn’t meant to be an insult, Lotuseater. You just argue the same way he does, is all. I doubt you are as out there.



    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Architecture Art Awesome Things Batman Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Donald Trump Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Interesting LOLcats Military Movie Posters Movies Music Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF X-Mas