Could a intelligent animals play doom

[kb1]

Of course they could. Animals have just about all of the faculties that humans have, except for the annoying ones. Just today, when I pulled up to work, my friend squirrel ran about 100 feet towards me, saying "hello", and asking me for a peanut. He recognized me apart from everyone else that pulls up, and he knows I am his friend.

 

There are 3 problems that I see, that would need to be overcome:

1. Controllers are typically designed for human hands.
2. No one really knows how other animals see. There are a lot of theories, yes. But what about how our eyes mix colors? Frame rates? Animals may have difficulty seeing the screen.
3. And the biggest issue: incentive. Doom appeals to our sense of adventure, to our desire to hunt for sport, and a lot of other things which do not seem to interest animals. Yes, animals explore...to sense dangers, to hunt, to find mates. But, for fun?
4. Lack of focus. One quality that makes humans unique is our ability to hone in and direct our focus, for hours at a time. This is not seen often in animals.

You could always provide a treat when the animal accomplishes something in the game. But, I don't know if such a correlation can be made.

 

I've found that many people have a way of "looking down" on animals as lesser life forms, which I find ridiculous and ignorant. I've found the opposite to be true. I see animals as brilliant, resourceful, in tune with nature, generally in peace with themselves and others, and innocent. You don't see them stabbing each other in the back to climb the ladder of success. You don't see them launching wars. They don't generally take much more than they need, like humans do. Of course they could play Doom, or a thousand other unexpected things. But, they don't want to :) Humans are the mutants.

[kb1]

7 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Yes, that follows necessarily, because in order to play a Doom level you first of all need to get past barriers such as input devices, you also need to be able to solve more complex problems in Doom than what the most intelligent primates have been able to solve after spending several minutes worth of thinking and experimenting.

 

Did you see one of those experiments where scientists dangled some bananas in front of Orang Utans, but so high up that the primates couldn't actually reach the food? Maybe you should have a look, because it took a relatively long time for the primates to figure out that stacking some empty crates and then climbing on top of those will solve that problem. And that's a task our toddlers can do, our youngest children are able to figure this out faster.

I would like to see your toddlers know which berries to eat, which plants to extract water from, which branches will support them. Let's see your toddler swing from one tree to another, 100 feet up.

 

7 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

That's how large the gap between humans and primates is. And I'm not saying humans are all that brilliant, humans voted for Trump after all, but I'm saying that's how large of a gap there is between humans and primates when it comes to solving problems.

Couldn't help yourself, huh? When in doubt, sling some shit. Hey, monkeys do that :)

 

7 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

 

Your are too wasteful with your optimism. The simple fact of the matter is that learning a few very simple gestures over a long period of time (like weeks and months kinda long for just a few) is nowhere near as demanding, complex, and abstract as understanding what's required to finish even the most basic iWAD maps.

What animal language do *you* speak?

 

7 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

 

Oh yeah? Where would those holes be, and what has less holes to begin with? Creationism, or what?

Holes?

• Common sense says otherwise, for those endowed. Sure, Evolution plays a role in tweaking things to match the environment. But going from a amoeba to birds, trees, whales, tomatoes, people? Of course not.
• Lack of proof, for one. No Scientific Method. Just a story that half-ass fits: Here's the story:

1. Steal underpants
2. ??????
3. Profit!!

So, let's take an example: Dinosaurs to birds. To believe the Evolution story, at some point, the dinosaur had to endure mutations that happened to benefit the dinosaur enough to allow it to bypass its siblings, and survive to reproduce offspring that also benefit from this mutation. Rinse and repeat.

 

For this to be true, in a single mutation, that dinosaur would need, at a minimum, to have its bones hollowed, and to grow wings well formed enough to support flight. Because, if the bones are not hollow, it weighs too much to fly. And, if the wings are not fully formed and perfect, SPLAT!

 

Now, one could argue that the bones could have become hollow over many generations. But, this is not beneficial if you can't fly - it makes your skeleton weak, after all. So this theory violates the Evolution rule that mutations must be beneficial to survive.

 

One could also argue that wings could form over many generations. But, is a wing, not capable of flight, any benefit over having an arm, with a hand that could pick things up, or a hoof that assists in walking, or claws that assist in fighting?

 

No, both of these "mutations" would have to occur at once, in a single life, and without inhibiting the dinosaur-bird's ability to reproduce. Can this new dino-bird even have sex? How would he hold down his conquest, with weak bones and wings instead of arms/legs? :) Ridiculous.

 

And, genetically speaking, can a dino-bird that has sex with a dinosaur actually reproduce? A dog cannot hump a cat and create dog-cats. Seriously, I don't claim to know, but it seems a bit fishy to me.

 

There's 2 things I want to know:

1. Why do most Evolutionists believe that one theory cancels out the other? In other words, if Evolution is true, what's wrong with the theory that God created Evolution? Talk about telling your ass from your elbow...
2. Why are people that don't believe in God, so threatened by God?

Yeah, I know a few animals that play Doom...

[Nine Inch Heels]

3 hours ago, kb1 said:

I would like to see your toddlers know which berries to eat

Show me a little chimp that has never been fed by its mother and instead grew up all by itself without ever having learned anything from an older animal first. Do you actually happen to know what the term "mammal" stands for? Just asking because it seems to me that you don't.

 

3 hours ago, kb1 said:

Let's see your toddler swing from one tree to another, 100 feet up.

Let me see your monkey speak his first few sentences at two years of age, and do basic math properly at four years of age. When you have shown me that monkey, show me the one that can write a poem or compose a song.

3 hours ago, kb1 said:

Couldn't help yourself, huh? When in doubt, sling some shit. Hey, monkeys do that :)

See? I can speak animal language perfectly fine, now show me the monkey that plays doom like I do.

3 hours ago, kb1 said:

So, let's take an example: Dinosaurs to birds. To believe the Evolution story, at some point, the dinosaur had to endure mutations

... Once upon a time there was a meteor... Oh wait, you obviously don't believe that, because god has left us with no written records of that one time he dropped his cosmic car key on our planet, so let's assume that.... oh wait...

3 hours ago, kb1 said:

For this to be true, in a single mutation, that dinosaur would need, at a minimum, to have its bones hollowed, and to grow wings well formed enough to support flight.

"Single mutation" never happened to such a degree in history ever, it's why humans don't suddenly give birth to feathered crocodiles with rainbow coloured beaks.

 

3 hours ago, kb1 said:

Now, one could argue that the bones could have become hollow over many generations. But, this is not beneficial if you can't fly - it makes your skeleton weak, after all. So this theory violates the Evolution rule that mutations must be beneficial to survive.

Which is what happened over millions of years as fossiles found in dig sites all across the globe have provided us with enough material to reconstruct what prehestoric specimen looked like. Among those specimen there have been fossiles which resemble something similar to these guys:

And here's what the reconstruction of the prehistoric specimen looks like:

 

You see, in order to think that the nonsensical story you're cooking together there makes any bloody sense to begin with, one would have to be uneducated enough to assume that feathers only ever served as a means to allow something to fly, which is utter nonsense, because bats fly, and bats don't have feathers. In fact, when you search the word feather over at wikipedia, you will end up with this here link that states (among other things):

"Feathers insulate birds from water and cold temperatures. They may also be plucked to line the nest and provide insulation to the eggs and young."

Here's another one:
"Although feathers are light, a bird's plumage weighs two or three times more than its skeleton, since many bones are hollow and contain air sacs."

 

And now you might be thinking you're onto to something, except you're not, because the evolution of the bird's skeleton has gravitated towards less bones since the era of the dinosaurs as is also evident by findings of fossiles from several prehistoric periods. Birds at the time didn't fly, but they were pretty damn good running if their skeletal structure is in any way shape or form indicative of where the majority of the muscles have been located. In fact, birds weren't the first creature to fly anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur

Quote: "Pterosaurs are the earliest vertebrates known to have evolved powered flight. Their wings were formed by a membrane of skin, muscle, and other tissues stretching from the ankles to a dramatically lengthened fourth finger."

 

3 hours ago, kb1 said:

One could also argue that wings could form over many generations. But, is a wing, not capable of flight, any benefit over having an arm, with a hand that could pick things up, or a hoof that assists in walking, or claws that assist in fighting?

Yes, wings have formed over many generations, those of Pterosaurs are one example of many. And no, a wing that does not allow a bird to fly is not as good as a hand, but when you're talking about hands, you're talking about one of the most complex "tools" that evolution has brought forth, and obviously that doesn't happen over night. It turns out people have already asked themselves that particular question, so here's another link to help you become more educated: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13683-evolution-myths-half-a-wing-is-no-use/

 

3 hours ago, kb1 said:

No, both of these "mutations" would have to occur at once, in a single life, and without inhibiting the dinosaur-bird's ability to reproduce. Can this new dino-bird even have sex? How would he hold down his conquest, with weak bones and wings instead of arms/legs? :) Ridiculous.

You're the living proof that uneducated and extremely misinformed aren't mutually exclusive. Congratulations.

 

3 hours ago, kb1 said:

And, genetically speaking, can a dino-bird that has sex with a dinosaur actually reproduce?

Crossbreeding is not the same as evolution.

 

3 hours ago, kb1 said:

Why do most Evolutionists believe that one theory cancels out the other?

Because the proof that comes with the discovery that species did not magically appear from out of nowhere also implies that the earth was not "built" by god in just a week. The very same proof also implies that before mankind inhabited earth, there have been other things living their lives here.

 

3 hours ago, kb1 said:

if Evolution is true, what's wrong with the theory that God created Evolution? Talk about telling your ass from your elbow...

Ironically I am a pretty religious person, and my stance towards what you say there is that what you're doing is invoking "the god of the gaps". And the god of the gaps is what people back in more primitive times used to stick to. They put "god", and "satan", and "spirits" and "whatever" into everything they couldn't rationally explain. People who suffered from epilleptic seizures in medieval times were deemed posessed by demons, and killed quickly if they didn't die by themselves, for example. Why? Because people couldn't explain it, and therefore it must have been a demon of sorts, which is really convenient, because people don't like demons, so you can easily get away with killing a man.

 

3 hours ago, kb1 said:

Why are people that don't believe in God, so threatened by God?

The people who are most afraid of god are catholics to begin with, you have no idea how afraid these guys are when you catch them red handed. Atheists literally don't give a fuck. And just because an atheist tells me that there is no such things as gods and spirits it doesn't make me think they're afraid of god. That's highly assumptious on your end, which doesn't come as much of a surprise after your totally bonkers theory on how birds came to be. Anyways, fact of the matter is that just because somebody does not believe that something exists it doesn't imply that the denial is due to fear.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Nine Inch Heels

[Linguica]

The OP has been banned for being literally too young to use this site without parental permission, so we can move along now.

[Mayomancer]

I wonder how well a neanderthal could do

[Gez]

A neanderthal would do as well as we do. In fact, we are (partly) neanderthals!

[Cant delete my DW account]

I'd sincerely love seeing a monkee playing Doom.

[geo]

8 hours ago, Linguica said:

The OP has been banned for being literally too young to use this site without parental permission, so we can move along now.

Did you ask the parents? We need to continue to take this thread seriously.

 

Okay here's something... we take a horse, put it on a treadmill with a VR helmet. Keep listening, I am not crazy. When Doomguy gets hit, the horse gets shocked! The horse will learn bad guys cause shocks, so the horse will learn to make noises at enemies which will shoot the gun. Then at the end of the maze with the exit door (like Left 4 Dead), the horse will get food.

 

Suddenly we have horses trained to play Doom that will teach their offspring how to play Doom!

Edited June 16, 2018 by geo

[rehelekretep]

thanks @Nine Inch Heels for so thoroughly putting an end to kb1's anti-evolutionary nonsense. puts a lot of his posts in perspective now...

[Urthar]

There's plenty of animals capable of navigation and simple puzzle solving. You don't have to spent long on youtube to find videos of squirrels solving mazes and navigating assault courses to reach a reward of hazelnuts. I guess you would a simplified version of Doom, and have some kind of mechanical hopper to delivery nuts or other rewards, and a robust big button controller.

[MrGlide]

I bet crows could do it.

[kb1]

@Nine Inch Heels I don't disagree that there are pieces of the puzzle. But it is wrong to take those pieces, form a hypothesis, and then claim that it has to be that way, just because the pieces almost fit.

 

You can't say it is true, and neither can anyone else. It reminds me of those shows where they've dug up some ancient culture, and the commentator goes on to say: 

"This room is where they performed rituals to speak to the gods." And, there's literally a busted up floor, and a few bricks. In a few thousand years, they'll be digging up a radio, and claiming "This is an ornamental box where the king's most prized possessions were preserved for the afterlife."

 

What I provided is food for thought. But it looks like you've decided to turn it into some personal campaign to insult my intelligence - again without having any real knowledge to base it on. Ironically, you chose to actually consider any of it - not a very wise move from someone who feels so capable of judging intelligence.

 

On 6/16/2018 at 1:08 AM, Nine Inch Heels said:

Because people couldn't explain it, and therefore it must have been a demon of sorts, which is really convenient, because people don't like demons, so you can easily get away with killing a man.

In this sentence, you understand about people devising stories about things they cannot fully explain. Yet, Evolution is fact, because... what? I suggest that you open up your mind to the possibility that things are not necessarily what they seem. Or, risk drinking the koolaid.

 

And, no, you may not see my monkey.

 

[whirledtsar]

My dog taught me everything I know about Doom. He's 40 in dog years, been playing since it was first released.

[Aquila Chrysaetos]

57 minutes ago, kb1 said:

Yet, Evolution is fact, because... what?

Don't want to get involved, but I feel I must.

Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory.

 

Quote

theory

[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]

 

noun, plural the·o·ries.

1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject:number theory.

The Theory of Evolution fits definition number one better than two, just like the Theory of Relativity, the Big Bang Theory, and others.

A theory must be disprovable, but at the same time, it must remain true all the time. If it's wrong one time, then the whole theory goes, so prove Evolution incorrect. You only need one example where Evolution is wrong to disprove the theory.

 

57 minutes ago, kb1 said:

I don't disagree that there are pieces of the puzzle. But it is wrong to take those pieces, form a hypothesis, and then claim that it has to be that way, just because the pieces almost fit.

Equivalent argument: Objects fall to large masses, unless they are moving at sufficient velocity that their centrifugal force (a contentious topic itself) is roughly equivalent to the force pulling them to the mass. Example: the Solar System, the ISS, literally any satellite.

These objects, if they stop, will fall at the same rate toward the same mass: that which is greatest.

This applies to every known object in existence, but the one piece of the puzzle that remains is that we can't observe gravity directly, so the whole thing must be incorrect?

 

How about this one: General Relativity holds that space and time warp around mass, and that this is gravity. Unlike Newtonian gravity, this is something we can actively measure. Satellites in orbit do not pass time at the same rate we do on the surface. Indeed, there's another clock, GPS time, that runs on satellite time, because it's out of sync with every time zone on Earth.

You can also look and see light bend around large masses (or you could, if you didn't have to look directly at the Sun, which would be the best source), which we call gravitational lensing.

 

The point is that the hypothesis formed from pieces of a puzzle we can't actually complete is actually the basis for every theory ever formed, but it's wrong to attempt to explain the world by observation of how it acts just because we can't find all the pieces? That makes no sense.

 

Alright, I'm off my soapbox now. Continue with your regularly scheduled programming.

Actually, no, this reply was pointless and off-topic anyway. We should probably close it.

[Nine Inch Heels]

2 hours ago, kb1 said:

I don't disagree that there are pieces of the puzzle. But it is wrong to take those pieces, form a hypothesis, and then claim that it has to be that way, just because the pieces almost fit.

That's what we have science for, it comes with the scientific method, and the science says that evolution the way it is described and explained by scientific means is the only theory that holds up to any and all kinds of "informed scrutiny". And by informed scrutiny I mean not stuff that you say, which is obviously based entirely on filling a construct that consists of more holes than a swiss cheese with bonkers theories of how birds can't exist without divine intervention, because you didn't even know feathers are not only good for flying, but also for other things. Rest assured, I could have picked your totally bonkers shitpost about how evolution works apart even more than I already did with close to no effort at all.

 

2 hours ago, kb1 said:

You can't say it is true, and neither can anyone else. It reminds me of those shows where they've dug up some ancient culture, and the commentator goes on to say: 

Just becaue you don't understand it at all, and don't care to understand it at all, it doesn't mean it's not true.

 

2 hours ago, kb1 said:

This room is where they performed rituals to speak to the gods." And, there's literally a busted up floor, and a few bricks. In a few thousand years, they'll be digging up a radio, and claiming "This is an ornamental box where the king's most prized possessions were preserved for the afterlife.

Nonsense BS is nonsense. When people dig up ruins of ancient civilizations, and they wanna reconstruct which buildings and rooms served which purpose, they look at all kinds of things, such as:
-size of rooms and building
-what's found in these buildings

-are there any altars in a building or not

-are there any glyphs or writings on the walls or not

-are those glyphs and writing on the walls of any other rooms, etc yadda yadda.

 

Again you don't know what you're talking about, and I'd suggest spending time with some decent literature.

 

2 hours ago, kb1 said:

What I provided is food for thought.

Food for laughter at best, since you have demonstrated a total lack of understanding of how evolution and natural selection are inevitably tied together to produce more specialized and therefore advanced species over the course of lots of generations.

 

2 hours ago, kb1 said:

But it looks like you've decided to turn it into some personal campaign to insult my intelligence

I'm not saying you're not intelligent, I'm saying you're not knowledgeable about evolution. Instead of at least trying to do your homework before posting makeshift nonsense, that makes much less sense than any theory science suggests to begin with, you decided to put your lack of common knowledge on display while accusing me of flinging shit because I made a joke. And here you are wondering why I take the opportunity to pull your pants down in public for posting your uninformed crap? You should have picked someone who is less informed than me to mess with.

 

2 hours ago, kb1 said:

again without having any real knowledge to base it on.

Look who's talking. For none of your made up bullshit you provided any links that back anything you say up in any way shape or form. I sat my ass down, applied common sense, provided links that clearly illustrate how wrong your nonsense is, and you have the audacity to talk about "real knowledge"? Good luck selling that shit.

 

2 hours ago, kb1 said:

Ironically, you chose to actually consider any of it - not a very wise move from someone who feels so capable of judging intelligence.

I considered all of it and proved you wrong by way of facts where I saw fit to do so. Also wisdom and intelligence are not the same thing. I could also easily prove your shit about hollow bones being too weak wrong by just pointing out that bamboo exists, or by pointing out that scientifically proven laws of physics say that the stability of a structure is not only a matter of how much mass there is, but also a matter of how that mass is distributed. Which is also common knowledge, for the record. And again, I'm not judging your intelligence, I am judging how educated you are about the topic of evolution, because you chose to write a completely nuts memo about it that is factually wrong every step of the way.

 

2 hours ago, kb1 said:

In this sentence, you understand about people devising stories about things they cannot fully explain. Yet, Evolution is fact, because... what?

Because any and all scientific evidence thus far brought forth suggests that it is the only theory that holds up to scrutiny, while on the other hand so far no scientific evidence suggests any sort of divine intervention. And it doesn't actually matter if "god" started evolution or not, the fact of the matter is: Evolution happened anyway.

 

2 hours ago, kb1 said:

I suggest that you open up your mind to the possibility that things are not necessarily what they seem.

Again you're not one to give out advice like that, because you have spent no time whatsoever on educating yourself on this subject up to this point. And I'd rather listen to people who spent decades worth of their lifetime to learn about how that worked and publish books about that, than listening to someone like you, who doesn't even understand fundamental laws of physics.

 

2 hours ago, kb1 said:

And, no, you may not see my monkey.

And nobody is surprised.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Nine Inch Heels

[kb1]

You can't start out with "scientific method", and then discuss mere theories as fact. The amount of conjecture you present as fact is only topped by your use of insults as convincers.  You may beat up your friends that way, but in intelligent discussion, it just looks try-hard. You assume to know what I know, just like you know Evolution - two stories, both flawed for the same reason.

 

My God, you're not "informed", nor have you "pulled my pants down", though that seems to be the goal. You say you "proved me wrong" with theories. Do you realize how asinine that sounds? The "literature" breaks down when the people involved start claiming to know the truth about events they have never witnessed, using spotty, incomplete evidence. I've considered the literature, and I'm not convinced.

 

My cat just had 5 beautiful babies. You know what they look like? Kittens - perfect kittens. And, Momma is a perfect cat, born from perfect parents. If you consider the short amount of time that life has supposedly existed on this planet, these mutations must be massive, and happening all over the place, in every birth, for the number of distinct healthy creatures that have existed/do exist. Every account I've seen of mutations is extremely rare, and is usually a grotesque deformity that absolutely is not beneficial. So, you've got significant mutations being extremely rare, with beneficial mutations being extremely rare, in an extremely short (in terms of Evolution) amount of time. Evolution theory just doesn't add up, not by itself.

 

Usually when man crossbreeds an animal, the animal is sterile. So, there's yet another extremely rare occurence: An animal, born with a mutation that qualifies it to be classifiable as a new animal, with a new genetic makeup that disallows breeding with the the type of animal it was born from. One has to agree that, in the theory of Evolution, at some point in time, the offspring must be considered a different animal that cannot breed with the parent species. Cats are not dogs, after all. So, it's logical that you would need for there to be a male and a female of this new species, around each other at the same point in time to breed.

 

When you stack all of these probabilities, and consider the amount of time since the first cell on Earth, there's no way to win that lottery.

 

You seem to possess some intelligence, from what I've seen. You've shown your hand, and I called your bluff. Instead of devoting so much energy trying to "teach" an uneducated person who has spent no time on the subject, why not use that intelligence to question conjecture presented as facts, and consider for yourself if things add up. Who knows, you may one day figure it out. But, you'll never figure it out just blindly believing conjecture as fact. Often, the people that present this information have agendas, and have been paid to produce results. It's not often that these professionals go against their colleagues, which may or may not apply here, but it's worth consideration.

 

You haven't been able to sufficiently answer the questions I presented, to my satisfaction...but that's okay. I don't expect you to be able to - there aren't sufficient answers yet. What I do expect, is the realization that there are questions that cannot be answered with a quick comeback. What I would hope, is that these questions spark a tiny bit of curiosity, which can be interesting to everyone.

 

I feel that I am in an awkward position. It's as if I am playing Hide and Seek with a child, trying desperately to avoid crushing the child's spirit as he thinks he's outsmarted me by standing in plain sight, facing the corner of the room with his hands over his eyes. You've taken pride at "proving me wrong" and insulting my intelligence, while I am amazed at how easily you accept theories wholesale, and refuse to consider the questions at face value, not knowing that you don't know.

 

You don't need to tell me. Just think about it on your own time, and see what conclusions you arrive at - that's my best wish. I will consider the facts as they are revealed, and I reserve the right to change what I believe, when and if it seems appropriate. After all, that's what intelligence is for.

[Nine Inch Heels]

59 minutes ago, kb1 said:

You can't start out with "scientific method", and then discuss mere theories as fact.

You don't know what scientific method is, that much has become apparent, so here's roughly how it works:

Somebody forms a hypothesis. Now that hypothesis either gets valideted, or proven wrong. If proven wrong it's obviously not going anywhere, but if validated by means of observation and calculation from different people, you have an actual theory (an emergent truth, basically) that has held up to scrutiny. And if you make the claim that something is wrong, you bloody well need to deliver something that can serve as proof, and that something that you come up with of course also needs to be validated. And also that something that you come up with needs to be more than "I say so, because maybe", which has been your line of arguing thus far, because you presented nothing other than mere opinion. You also can't just cherrypick outliers and say "Well here's one or two gaps that we have yet to unveil in millions of years of earth's history and therefore the whole theory is wrong". That's not how science works either. There, you learned something.

 

59 minutes ago, kb1 said:

The amount of conjecture you present as fact is only topped by your use of insults as convincers.

You started the insults, now roll with the punches like you have some decency. Plus so far all you cooked up is conjecture, no proofs presented whatsoever, I also haven't gotten to see your monkey play doom yet.

 

59 minutes ago, kb1 said:

You may beat up your friends that way, but in intelligent discussion, it just looks try-hard.

I still prefer tryharding with common sense and actual facts to presenting makeshift nonsense like you do.

 

59 minutes ago, kb1 said:

You assume to know what I know

I don't care about what you know, but I know lack of knowledge when I see it, and when you think you have any authority to deem the efforts of decades worth of scientific research wrong you better have something to show, because otherwise you get ridiculed, and rightfully so, might I add.

 

59 minutes ago, kb1 said:

My God, you're not "informed", nor have you "pulled my pants down", though that seems to be the goal. You say you "proved me wrong" with theories. Do you realize how asinine that sounds?

Are you saying feathers don't serve the purpose of insulation are therefore only desireable for creatures to have assuming they can fly? Because that has been your line of arguing a few posts prior, and yes, it's factually wrong. It always has been as is evident by the many pillows humans filled with feathers in past years, because it's nice and warm.

 

59 minutes ago, kb1 said:

The "literature" breaks down when the people involved start claiming to know the truth about events they have never witnessed, using spotty, incomplete evidence.

Okay, and you were an eye witness when god magically created brids? You bloody hypocrite.

 

59 minutes ago, kb1 said:

I've considered the literature, and I'm not convinced.

The problem with scientific truths is that they're true regardless of whether or not you choose to believe in them. And I don't care what you believe, but you can be sure I'm not gonna watch you spoonfeed this utter nonsense of yours to people who might actually be tempted to believe something as absurd as your stuff by virtue of simply not knowing any better. And again you can't just say everything that has been discovered is wrong because a few things have yet to be explained so that you can understand them, not to mention that at this point all you did was claiming there's holes that are in need of answers, but at no point in this discussion have you made the effort to actually say what those holes are. You just say "I think there's holes", well where's the fucking holes then?

 

Quote

My cat just had 5 beautiful babies. You know what they look like? Kittens - perfect kittens. And, Momma is a perfect cat, born from perfect parents. If you consider the short amount of time that life has supposedly existed on this planet

That short period of time that you mention here is actually several million years. So it's not that short.

Quote

Every account I've seen of mutations is extremely rare, and is usually a grotesque deformity that absolutely is not beneficial.

Mutation and evolution are not the same thing. And mutation does not need to be 100% perfect, all it needs to be is good enough for a species to be able to survive, that's when genes are being passed on the following generations, that's where natural selection comes into play, and that's where you never understood how evolution actually works.

 

Quote

When you stack all of these probabilities, and consider the amount of time since the first cell on Earth, there's no way to win that lottery.

Millions of years of natural seleection seems pretty good odds, when all you need to do is to be part of a species that is able to survive somehow, and when you look at how many different kinds of felines exist nowadays it's safe to say the outcome of your "perfect cat" is pretty much inevitable from a certain point onward.

 

Quote

You seem to possess some intelligence, from what I've seen. You've shown your hand, and I called your bluff.

You have yet to present anything that actually proves me wrong, and I don't give two fucks what you say. I'm wrong? Show me proof. You're the one who's bluffing.

 

Quote

Instead of devoting so much energy trying to "teach" an uneducated person who has spent no time on the subject, why not use that intelligence to question conjecture presented as facts

I am questioning the conjecture that is presented to me in this here thread. So far I have been able to successfully srcutinize all arguments you came up with, provided actual evidence by way of articles and links, while you lean back and blabber away without actually presenting anything.

Quote

But, you'll never figure it out just blindly believing conjecture as fact.

That's why I am asking you to deliver proofs that back up your claims, because otherwise all you are presenting is conjecture. So basically: Proof or realize you're out of your league here. And don't get any funny ideas of being like "Oh, well, I don't need to prove anything to begin with", because that train has left the station 4 posts ago. Bring on the proof.

Quote

You haven't been able to sufficiently answer the questions I presented, to my satisfaction...but that's okay.

Must be an easy life you're living when you can just disregard any and all scientific efforts.

Quote

What I do expect, is the realization that there are questions that cannot be answered with a quick comeback.

Which is not true for any of the questions you have asked so far.

 

Quote

I feel that I am in an awkward position. It's as if I am playing Hide and Seek with a child, trying desperately to avoid crushing the child's spirit as he thinks he's outsmarted me by standing in plain sight, facing the corner of the room with his hands over his eyes. You've taken pride at "proving me wrong" and insulting my intelligence, while I am amazed at how easily you accept theories wholesale, and refuse to consider the questions at face value, not knowing that you don't know.

Delusion at work, ladies and gentlemen. And besides, since you made "you don't know what I know argument", you don't know how much time I spent with any of those theories either, so my advice would be that you don't imply I'm just being "easily fooled" by people who are, you know, a couple hundred times more knowledgeable than you are about certain topics.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Nine Inch Heels

[Grain of Salt]

[kb1]

4 hours ago, Aquila Chrysaetos said:

The point is that the hypothesis formed from pieces of a puzzle we can't actually complete is actually the basis for every theory ever formed, but it's wrong to attempt to explain the world by observation of how it acts just because we can't find all the pieces? That makes no sense.

You're right - that makes no sense. It's also not what I said. I said that it's wrong to take those pieces, form a hypothesis, and then claim that it has to be that way, just because the pieces almost fit.

 

The situations you describe can be recreated at will, and observed. These 'pieces' *fit*. *This* is the scientific method. On the other hand, the Evolution debate goes something like this:

 

"Son, I know it was you that eat the cookies off the table. I know I didn't eat them, and your sister wouldn't lie about it. And I've never seen any of our 3 dogs eat cookies off the table, so you must have done it!" Sure, it sorta fits, if you claim to "know" certain things, and use that "knowledge" to back other similarly-discovered knowledge. It's a bad foundation, and nowhere near worthy of being called truth.

 

1 hour ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

You don't know what scientific method is, that much has become apparent, so here's roughly how it works:

Somebody forms a hypothesis. Now that hypothesis either gets viladeted, or proven wrong. If proven wrong it's obviously not going anywhere, but if validated by means of observation and calculation from different people, you have an actual theory (an emergent truth, basically) that has held up to scrutiny.

Woah, you just skipped a bunch of steps. Before you ever get to the 'not proven wrong' stage, you gather evidence, you do tests, you test the tests, in an effort to suggest that you may be onto something. The burden of proof first lies with those generating their hypothesis.

 

By the way, I like how you take my statement that conjecture is not fact, and try to use it to disprove my theory, yet you can't seem to apply it to your theory. But it doesn't really apply, because I never claimed to know the facts. I only claim to know that Evolution has not been proven as fact.

 

Quote

You started the insults...

The record is right there, just scroll up...

 

Quote

Plus so far all you cooked up is conjecture, no proofs presented whatsoever.

I never claimed otherwise.

 

Quote

I still prefer tryharding with common sense and actual facts to presenting makeshift nonsense like you do.

Keep trying.

 

Quote

I don't care about what you know, but I know lack of knowledge when I see it.

So do I, that's my point.

 

Quote

...and when you think you have any authority to deem the efforts of decades worth of scientific research wrong you better have something to show, because otherwise you get ridiculed, and rightfully so, might I add.

Further down you say that scientific truths are truths, regardless of what you choose to believe. Why do I "need to show" that something untrue is untrue, when it is untrue. I have the authority to judge the believability of anything I see, don't you? Isn't that what you've been doing? Being ridiculed by people that aren't thinking through a problem is not much of an insult.

 

Quote

Are you saying feathers don't serve the purpose of insulation are therefore only desireable for creatures to have even assuming they cannot fly? Because that has been your line of arguing a few posts prior, and yes, it's factually wrong. It always has been as is evident by the many pillows humans filled with feathers in past years, because it's nice and warm.

 

Okay, and you were an eye witness when god magically created brids? You bloody hypocrite.

Never mentioned feathers... Name calling, tsk, tsk. By the way, what is a "brid"?

 

Quote

 

The problem with scientific truths is that they're true regardless of whether or not you choose to believe in them. And I don't care what you believe, but you can be sure I'm not gonna watch you spoonfeed this utter nonsense of yours to people who might actually be tempted to believe somethis as absurd as your stuff by virtue of simply not knowing better. And again you can't just say everything that has been discovered is wrong because a few things have yet to be explained so that you can understand them, not to mention that at this point all you did was claiming there's holes that are in need of answers, but at no point in this discussion have you made the effort to actually say what those holes are. You just say "I think there's holes", well where's the fucking holes then?

Actually, it was MetroidJunkie that said that. My reasonings were my common sense, and the lack of proof. The *lack of*. Not a few little things yet to be explained.

 

Oh, and the others: The extremely small probability of a beneficial mutation, followed by the extremely small probability that that mutation produces what would be described as a new animal, on top of the extremely small probability that such a new animal would find a mate of the same new type that was also viable for breeding. And, all of that on top of the fact that life has supposedly only been around for a few billion years or so. And, on top of all that, the extremely small probability that some chemicals rolled on down the side of a volcano, in just the right type and proportion to create a living cell, capable of absorbing nutrients (that had better also be present), excreting waste, and being able to not only survive all of the other chemicals and conditions present, but to be able to divide itself in such a way as to end up with 2 copies of each other, also capable of doing the same thing.

 

Multiply those odds together, and consider the age of the Earth vs. the length of generations of the various lifeforms involved, and, purely scientifically speaking, God is more likely.

 

You're nervous that someone might believe my theories, presumably because there's common sense in them. I suggest it's something more along the lines that you wanted to strike up a debate, and when it didn't pan out, you're hurling insults as a form a reputation damage control. I can tell, because, instead of having a civil discussion (albeit with a bit of humor), you've resorted to cursing, name calling, and general lack of any attempt to devote any real constructive thought towards the possibility that life is governed by processes more divine and beautiful and bizarre than anything man has conceived.

 

I would like to make sure that people have the chance to continue to think rationally about what they've been taught, vs. having some doctrine crammed down their throat. You seem opposed to this, instead choosing to "pull down their pants" by calling them ignorant, uneducated bloody hypocrites, and asking "where's the fucking holes?", then ignoring them as they are presented to you plainly. Do you think your insults hide this?

 

The name calling, attempts at insults, and lack of dimension are what crush your believability - I had nothing to do with it.

 

I never said Evolution was wrong because it was missing a few things. Your question: "where's the fucking holes then?", so it was along those lines that I was answering. The probabilities discussed above are all that is needed to convince me of the sheer unlikeliness of Evolution being the driving factor in the diversity of life on Earth.

 

Ever wonder why a mother cat will raise a baby squirrel, bunny, or duckling, that has lost its mother? Ever wonder why most babies of all species are cute? You think that's because of "random mutation...if the offspring lives, rinse and repeat"? Do you even think about these things? There's more going on than the cold hard facts of science, and ignoring them is missing the very meaning of life.

 

Please stop getting pissed because there are people that think differently than you, and embrace this fact. How boring would it be if everyone believed the same thing? Until I know differently, I choose to believe what makes the most sense to me. Isn't that what we all do? It's not an attack on you. You act like I stole your bike.

 

I'm fighting for my right to believe what I believe, and to express it on an open forum, in a civil manner, after a question was presented.

You're fighting my right to believe what I believe, and to express it on an open forum, in a civil manner, after a question was presented.

 

Couldn't you have expressed your thoughts without going on the offense?

 

Anyway, I've managed to say what I needed to, and explained my view. Hope it meant something to someone.

 

Edited June 19, 2018 by kb1

[Nine Inch Heels]

1 hour ago, kb1 said:

The situations you describe can be recreated at will, and observed. These 'pieces' *fit*. *This* is the scientific method. On the other hand, the Evolution debate goes something like this:

 

"Son, I know it was you that eat the cookies off the table. I know I didn't eat them, and your sister wouldn't lie about it. And I've never seen any of our 3 dogs eat cookies off the table, so you must have done it!" Sure, it sorta fits, if you claim to "know" certain things, and use that "knowledge" to back other similarly-discovered knowledge. It's a bad foundation, and nowhere near worthy of being called truth

No, you cannot recreate findings of fossiles which are millions of years old at will in your back yard. Your way of arguing against a theory that is widely accepted for good reasons by knowledgable people merely shows that you are scientifically illiterate.

 

Here's a link for your cat evolution, and because I'm nice it has a special treat for you in it called the cat gap. How this whole theory works is that it looks at how things are today, and then asks how it came to be, and instead of putting "god" or a "higher power" in place, which is the easy and unscientific thing to do, people literally start digging. And they dig all around the world and find fossilized bones of animals that resemble something like another version of today's cats. They determine how old the soil is in which the fossiles are found (using scientific means, double checking, etc) and can conclude that there are gaps between the fossiles found, and the cats today. But as time passed, more fossiles from different eras of the past emerged and people eventually were able to track the evolutional paths of cats. That's how that works. And even if there are still gaps somewhere, these gaps don't disprove the whole theory. And you can't magically reproduce results like that. If you can, do it, record a video show it to me, and I'll take back everything I said. That's the deal I'll cut you.

 

If all you have to add to the conversation is "There are gaps, therefore science is wrong", then don't expect anybody to actually consider your stance to be respectible in any way shape or Form. Just because there are no written records of the past 6,000 years it doesn't mean the past 6,000 years didn't exist. This isn't rocket science.

 

1 hour ago, kb1 said:

Woah, you just skipped a bunch of steps. Before you ever get to the 'not proven wrong' stage, you gather evidence, you do tests, you test the tests, in an effort to suggest that you may be onto something. The burden of proof first lies with those generating their hypothesis.

This is what the process of VALIDATION is there for, it entails all these steps, it's how science is done these days, whether you like it or not.

 

1 hour ago, kb1 said:

I never claimed to know the facts.

Finally we're getting somewhere, since now we're finally at the point where you openly admit not to know anything about the topic you're trying to discuss with somebody who knows some things, let me point out that in order for your "Science is wrong" argument to stick, you better know a bloody thing or two, because otherwise it's 100% conjecture.

 

1 hour ago, kb1 said:

Further down you say that scientific truths are truths, regardless of what you choose to believe. Why do I "need to show" that something untrue is untrue, when it is untrue.

Because science backs its truths up by validated facts, and if you say something is untrue (even if proven to be correct) you are expected to back that up as well, otherwise you're just bullshitting and wasting people's time. But clearly I am not surprised you're not going to deliver any actual proofs or facts, because you ain't got none.

 

1 hour ago, kb1 said:

Never mentioned feathers... Name calling, tsk, tsk. By the way, what is a "brid"?

 

On 6/15/2018 at 9:07 PM, kb1 said:

So, let's take an example: Dinosaurs to birds. To believe the Evolution story, at some point, the dinosaur had to endure mutations that happened to benefit the dinosaur enough to allow it to bypass its siblings, and survive to reproduce offspring that also benefit from this mutation. Rinse and repeat.

 

For this to be true, in a single mutation, that dinosaur would need, at a minimum, to have its bones hollowed, and to grow wings well formed enough to support flight. Because, if the bones are not hollow, it weighs too much to fly. And, if the wings are not fully formed and perfect, SPLAT!

You may not have mentioned feathers, but you did mention birds, and I used the example of birds to show you how you're entire line of thinking is based on false assumptions such as the claim that all mutations would have to occur at once and needed to be 100% beneficial, which, again, is not how evolution works, it's not how natural selection works, and if god started evolution, it's not how god planned it assuming it went according to plan that is.

1 hour ago, kb1 said:

Actually, it was MetroidJunkie that said that. My reasonings were my common sense, and the lack of proof. The *lack of*. Not a few little things yet to be explained.

You have yet to state what it is that you want proof for. So far you hide your weak position in this argument behind "there's gaps" (where?), and "lack of proof" (what needs proof?). And none of your arguments are backed up by anything but hot air.

 

1 hour ago, kb1 said:

The extremely small probability of a beneficial mutation, followed by the extremely small probability that that mutation produces what would be described as a new animal, on top of the extremely small probability that such a new animal would find a mate of the same new type that was also viable for breeding

Again, you don't know how evolution works. There are no LARGE JUMPS in evolution. There are many small steps within a species over millions of years, and none of these small steps make one animal imcompatible with another animal of the same species. If that were the case, and just the smallest change in DNA would make mating impossible, crossbreeding would not be a thing, but people crossbreed dogs, sheep, goats, cows, and more, because it does not work how you think it works, it works how it always has. And if it worked the way you make it seem, mankind would be extinct already, because all humans are different, and would therefore be unable to reproduce. In short: Just the mere fact that we're having this discussions proves that your theory is wrong at its very core.

 

1 hour ago, kb1 said:

And, all of that on top of the fact that life has supposedly only been around for a few billion years or so. And, on top of all that, the extremely small probability that some chemicals rolled on down the side of a volcano, in just the right type and proportion to create a living cell, capable of absorbing nutrients (that had better also be present), excreting waste, and being able to not only survive all of the other chemicals and conditions present, but to be able to divide itself in such a way as to end up with 2 copies of each other, also capable of doing the same thing.

And now you're shifting goalposts. But it's good to see you contradict yourself since now you openly admit that life as we know it originates from cells which eventually evolved into more complex lifeforms.

 

By the way, your entire "God is more likely" line of arguing completely ignores that evolution could roll the dice thousands of times per species per year, multiplied by a fucklot of years and species to begin with, so even if the odds are looking pretty poor on first sight, dude, if I can get a lottery ticket each day for millions and millions of years the odds of me hitting the jackpot become pretty fucking decent. It doesn't matter how unlikely something is, if you have enough time to roll the dice often enough, you are bound to hit eventually.

You keep forgetting, or willfully ignoring, that no species on this planed at this point in time is "perfect". Every living thing dies, every living thing can get ill, every living thing has limits, every living mammal depends on its parents after birth. We don't live in a world that is perfect, we live in a world that has flaws, and the reason is that nothing is perfect, not even humans the pinnacle of evolution are free of error.

 

1 hour ago, kb1 said:

Multiply those odds together, and consider the age of the Earth vs. the length of generations of the various lifeforms involved, and, purely scientifically speaking, God is more likely.

It doesn't matter what you think of how the odds were stacked. We have observable truths that prove how natural selection works, why some animals survived and evolved further while others did not meet the requirements at the time, and it doesn't matter how unlikely the entire sequence may have been, everything that has been tracked back so far shows no evidence of god, or a divine intervention, instead all evidence thus far brought forth clearly indicates natural selection over millions and millions of years. In fact, even Georges Lemaître (A catholic priest) was sensible enough not to invoke the god of the gaps:

"He proposed on theoretical grounds that the universe is expanding, which was observationally confirmed soon afterwards by Edwin Hubble. He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article. Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg"."

 

His fellow priests said, when he concluded that there must have been a "Cosmic Egg" from which everything came to be eventually, that he found evidence of god, and again Lemaître was sensible enough not to go there.

 

I would also like to add that any and all attempts to prove the existence of god by virtue of science not knowing something 100% is a recipe for problems, because when you make the case that god exists because science couldn't explain "X", then the moment science figured "X" out you're gonna be hard pressed for a good explanation as to why god exists again. This sort of "god of the gaps" line of thinking is actually a problem for religions as a whole, because it makes followers of religions that act their belief out that way look like uneducated and ignorant zealots.

 

1 hour ago, kb1 said:

You're nervous that someone might believe my theories, presumably because there's common sense in them.

No, I'm not "nervous", and there is no common sense in your "theories" (which are actually a mere hypothesis for lack of scientific proof, by the way) since you provide no evidence whatsoever to back up your bonkers claims by solid facts. And since we live in a day and age in which some people actually think monkeys can play Doom properly, and others believe the earth is flat, and some others believe Evolution is a lie, and yet others believe that climate change is a lie too, the most responsible thing to do is to point out why your nonsense is wrong, because scientific illiteracy is one of the greatest threats to our survival as a species. In other words: You are part of a problem that needs dealing with.

 

1 hour ago, kb1 said:

I can tell, because, instead of having a civil discussion (albeit with a bit of humor), you've resorted to cursing, name calling, and general lack of any attempt to devote any real constructive thought towards the possibility that life is governed by processes more divine and beautiful and bizarre than anything man has conceived.

First off I am a priestess, second of contrary to you, I think I know where not to put "god". A belief system is not there to get easy answers for complex problems, god is not there so you can hide your lack of knowledge behind invocations of divine intervention, and it turns out some of the most religious people (like Georges Lemaître) knew that. And it's high time you've woken up and realized that you're not only wasteful with where you put "god", but you're also irresponsible in doing so.

 

1 hour ago, kb1 said:

The name calling, attempts at insults, and lack of dimension are what crush your believability - I had nothing to do with it

My believeability looks pretty decent seeing how I provided some actual back up for the things I said, rather than just making shit up. Just saying.

 

1 hour ago, kb1 said:

Ever wonder why a mother cat will raise a baby squirrel, bunny, or duckling, that has lost its mother? Ever wonder why most babies of all species are cute? You think that's because of "random mutation...if the offspring lives, rinse and repeat"? Do you even think about these things? There's more going on than the cold hard facts of science, and ignoring them is missing the very meaning of life

I never said that nothing exists other than science, but you shouldn't put god where science has already provided pretty damn good explanations, and you also shouldn't put god where science has not yet discovered everything, because eventually science will make these discoveries and push your god out of that gap. Granted, you are pretty damn good a holding on to the gaps that you put your god in, but it doesn't change the cold reality that as far as evolution is considered, your god does not belong in there. That's not even asking much. If I were your god, at this point I'd be like "Dude give me a damn break, I'm not responsible for everything you can't explain easily".

 

Also, it doesn't really matter why the babies of most species are cute, because it turns out that each species takes care of their babies even when they're not "cute", obviously outliers exist to some degree, but: Larvae of ants for example are anything but cute as far as I'm concerned, still ants do everything they can to keep their swarm alive and prosper. And I hate to tell you so, but, survival is in our DNA. Every living thing has a basic will to survive (ignoring highly depressed people and such because those are outliers). That said, I think about those things, and yeah, having a child is a magical experience I can tell because I have a son, but just because something gives me special feelings it doesn't make it "divine" by default. That's not how this works.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Nine Inch Heels

[rehelekretep]

kb1 give up, jesus christ you literally do not understand evolution or natural selection at all

[Nine Inch Heels]

Hopefully this is the last time I'll be posting in this here thread, but I felt I should get a few things out of the way that have been edited in later down the line:
 

3 hours ago, kb1 said:

Please stop getting pissed because there are people that think differently than you, and embrace this fact. How boring would it be if everyone believed the same thing? Until I know differently, I choose to believe what makes the most sense to me. Isn't that what we all do? It's not an attack on you. You act like I stole your bike

I'm not pissed because we have different opinions, what actually pisses me off is that you say you're "fighting for your right to believe what you want to believe", while at the same time you clearly say that what others believe is wrong. Here's the evidence, just to make sure:

On 6/15/2018 at 9:07 PM, kb1 said:

Holes?

• Common sense says otherwise, for those endowed. Sure, Evolution plays a role in tweaking things to match the environment. But going from a amoeba to birds, trees, whales, tomatoes, people? Of course not.
• Lack of proof, for one. No Scientific Method. Just a story that half-ass fits: Here's the story:

1. Steal underpants
2. ??????
3. Profit!!

You can choose to believe whatever you so desire, but the moment you post it on any given forum and present it in such a way that it intrinsically aims to falsify decades worth of scientific research spanning several fields of scientific disciplines (archeology, genetics, physics, biology, geology, botanics and more) you seriously can't expect not to get called out, not even in communities as small as this one.

 

3 hours ago, kb1 said:

I'm fighting for my right to believe what I believe, and to express it on an open forum, in a civil manner, after a question was presented.

You're fighting my right to believe what I believe, and to express it on an open forum, in a civil manner, after a question was presented.

Believe what you want, but the moment you declare something else is nonsense solely based on your belief (believing isn't knowing), you're calling for trouble. If you have a problem with your belief being subjected to any form of scrutiny, keep it to yourself. And before you get the funny idea that I'm telling you not to communicate your ideas at all: I'm all for free speech, but freedom of speech and expression does not mean questioning or challenging your POV is off limits for everybody else.

 

3 hours ago, kb1 said:

Couldn't you have expressed your thoughts without going on the offense?

After you said that I communicate by way of throwing feces I didn't feel like being overly gentle.

[MrGlide]

2 hours ago, rehelekretep said:

kb1 give up

Don't listen to him, I still believe in you kb1, you can win!

[Aquila Chrysaetos]

9 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

And if you make the claim that something is wrong, you bloody well need to deliver something that can serve as proof, and that something that you come up with of course also needs to be validated.

You don't have to reply to this (you don't need my help, anyway), I just wanted to share a link that means just this, pretty much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard

 

7 hours ago, kb1 said:

Multiply those odds together, and consider the age of the Earth vs. the length of generations of the various lifeforms involved, and, purely scientifically speaking, God is more likely.

May we see a source to support this statement? The statistical likelihood of God is something that's eluded me for years. I've always wanted to know, despite being an "unbeliever," because if he actually exists, then not much I can do about it.

 

7 hours ago, kb1 said:

My reasonings were my common sense, and the lack of proof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Absence_of_evidence

Amusingly, that statement doesn't have a source.

Also, there's this statement just up the page:

Quote

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Just sayin'.

 

Alright, now I'll shut up.

[chungy]

On 6/15/2018 at 10:48 AM, MetroidJunkie said:

When did I ever mention Creationism? That's a little presumptuous. The Scientific Community at large is admitting that there's an abundance of contradictory evidence, such as the Cambrian Explosion, genetic limitations, irreducible complexity, and the like. 

These are all the creatonists' talking points, none of which is actually contested in the scientific community and all of which has been debunked (but creationists keep bringing it up).

 

So yeah. You exposed yourself pretty well there.

[Cynical]

On ‎6‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 9:07 PM, kb1 said:

So, let's take an example: Dinosaurs to birds. To believe the Evolution story, at some point, the dinosaur had to endure mutations that happened to benefit the dinosaur enough to allow it to bypass its siblings, and survive to reproduce offspring that also benefit from this mutation. Rinse and repeat.

 

For this to be true, in a single mutation, that dinosaur would need, at a minimum, to have its bones hollowed, and to grow wings well formed enough to support flight. Because, if the bones are not hollow, it weighs too much to fly. And, if the wings are not fully formed and perfect, SPLAT!

 

Now, one could argue that the bones could have become hollow over many generations. But, this is not beneficial if you can't fly - it makes your skeleton weak, after all. So this theory violates the Evolution rule that mutations must be beneficial to survive.

Today I learned that kb1 has never seen a chicken.  Or a turkey.  Or a penguin.

[VGamingJunkie]

1 hour ago, chungy said:

These are all the creatonists' talking points, none of which is actually contested in the scientific community and all of which has been debunked (but creationists keep bringing it up).

 

So yeah. You exposed yourself pretty well there.

 

No I didn't, many Scientists who don't even believe in a God admit his theory is full of holes. Honestly, there's a ton of information that we know now that contradicts Darwin's theories. This has nothing to do with Creationism, it has to do with the facts. Are you determined to derail this thread?

[MrGlide]

6 minutes ago, MetroidJunkie said:

Are you determined to derail this thread?

1. we're way past talking about the possibility of animals playing video games. This is now a creationism vs evolution thread. 2. he said one comment, I don't think derailment would be chungy's fault.

[VGamingJunkie]

Alright, if you want to talk about Darwin's Theory of Evolution, consider this. The Missing Link doesn't exist, fabrications have been made but it's never been found. Not only that but the fossil record seems to have a ton of animals all appearing at once, AKA the Cambrian Explosion. Not only that but you can't adapt one type of animal to a completely different environment just by changing one or two traits, they'd have to completely transform at once and have a suitable partner. Irreducible complexity means that all of our organs work in unison, remove any major organ and it all falls apart. Not only that but, when a single chromosome is changed, the results are very ugly and never passed on genetically. Scientists have been purposefully trying to crossbreed fruit flies to change them but they've never made them turn into a different species, despite the incredibly short lifespan of fruit flies and purposefully crossbreeding the most different ones.

 

Please note: This is not an endorsement for Creationism, you don't have to believe in Creationism at all to have questions about Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

[Cynical]

5 minutes ago, MetroidJunkie said:

Irreducible complexity means that all of our organs work in unison, remove any major organ and it all falls apart.

Da fuq?

 

You can live on one kidney, with no gallbladder and no appendix and no eyes and massive damage to large parts of the brain. 

 

Scientists have been purposefully trying to crossbreed fruit flies to change them but they've never made them turn into a different species, despite the incredibly short lifespan of fruit flies and purposefully crossbreeding the most different ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Artificial_speciation

 

Might want to research claims before you make them.