Answers to 15 Creationist arguments

[WeekendLazyness]

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.

This will probably help clear up some things in IR, but I posted it here for greater visibility.

[FallenLord]

On the internet, knockin' down strawmen is serious business.

[WeekendLazyness]

Scientific American is a magazine. And you're just mad beacuse you don't have any rebuttal.

[frazz]

8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones.
wow. That is a totally relevant argument </sarcasm> It seems that proteins are subject to natural selection.
Well, this difinitively proves that evolution is true beyond the shadow of a doubt. </more sarcasm>

[ScottieIWU]

Yep Frazz, I definitely accept your professional condemnation of the article in Scientific American, as, in the past, your insight has only been correct and well thought out. </sarcasm>

[FallenLord]

If you refuse to appreciate the elegant brilliance of my flawlessly appropriate retort, that only reinforces my poor opi...

/is unceremoniously beaten unconscious by the care police

[frazz]

Yep Frazz, I definitely accept your professional condemnation of the article in Scientific American, as, in the past, your insight has only been correct and well thought out. </sarcasm>
Atleast I read the article.

[ScottieIWU]

Atleast I read the article.

Do you always spout nonsense out of your ass, or do you just save it for a few select occasions? I'm not arguing the merits of the article or your "claim" against it, I'm arguing that you're a fool.

[frazz]

Do you always spout nonsense out of your ass, or do you just save it for a few select occasions? I'm not arguing the merits of the article or your "claim" against it, I'm arguing that you're a fool.
So you didn't read the article;)

[ScottieIWU]

So you didn't read the article;)

Except I did, thank you. When did I say anything or insinuate that I didn't read it. I simply said I'm not going to argue the merits of the article.

[frazz]

Well Scottie, I made a point, and you started insulting me. Yet you made no reference to the article I was talking about. What was I to expect?

[WeekendLazyness]

You made a point but didn't back it up at all. I'm sure that's what Scottie is waiting for, not some dumb "I READ THE ARTICLE AND I THINK THIS SPECIFIC PASSAGE IS INCORRECT BUT FOR NO PARTICULAR REASON!"

[Uuugggg]

So this is a list of things that everyone already knows or ignores?
What's so special about that?

[Schwitzer]

Come on guys don't fight! Let's all get along lolz! :D

[Ender]

Oh God, Schwitzer is turning in PC. The day has come.

*Ender packs all his things and prepares to move*

And yes, let's all be friends! If we are all friends, our good buddy Squiggles will play with us!

[Dark_Viper]

But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

oh i so love this.. I just want to see a creature form spontaneously from my watch.

I just love the fact that creationallists wish to teach "Intelligent design" as a science in our schools.. yet they have nothing Intelligent to teach our students. Only meer hogwash spouted from nothingness.

I would be more open to this if there was any real proof or fact in "Intelligent design".

[WeekendLazyness]

So this is a list of things that everyone already knows or ignores?
What's so special about that?Your post hardly deserves a reply, but here it is:

If you had actually clicked the link you would have found that it is a article published by Scientific American (a magazine) detailing why arguments presented by creationists in their effort to disprove evolution are wrong.

[Sikawtic]

Darwin said lots of shit.... like his deal about parts of a moustrap being worthless.

[Wick3d]

Well, I believe god is all powerful. For all I know, The entire world could've been created 5 seconds ago, and all the memories implanted in my head. Who knows?

[WeekendLazyness]

Darwin said lots of shit.... like his deal about parts of a moustrap being worthless.Yay for baseless arguments.

I don't think a single creationist here has posted a meaningful (or intelligent, for that matter) retort. Is this what happens when you've been bested - dissect one small part of an article and attempt to dissprove it while at the same time clearly showing you didn't understand the analogy?


For all I know, The entire world could've been created 5 seconds ago, and all the memories implanted in my head. Who knows?There are actually some scientists that say that scenario is quite likely.

[Wick3d]

Well I'm no creationist but how about this: Why couldn't God have made that fossil record up. God obviousld doesn't want human being to explore the mysterys of the universe; After all, Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden for eating from the Tree of Knowledge. It's true, science is not on creationist's side. But how do you know God isn't on their side? Why can't you just accept that other people beleive in God without mocking them?

[WeekendLazyness]

Well I'm no creationist but how about this: Why couldn't God have made that fossil record up. God obviousld doesn't want human being to explore the mysterys of the universe; After all, Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden for eating from the Tree of Knowledge. It's true, science is not on creationist's side. But how do you know God isn't on their side? Why can't you just accept that other people beleive in God without mocking them?I'd like to note that I added one of your quotes to my previous response. If you had read the article carefully, you would have realized that the article itself doesn't disprove the idea of creationism at all. In fact, it suggests that there could have been some kind of intelligent being that seeded the earth with a few species and evolution could have taken off from there. Basically the article is attacking the creationists who attack evolution. The article does not attack the idea of creationism. Also, I don't think I mocked anyone in this thread for their views on creationism, just their inablilty to make intelligent posts.

[Wick3d]

Well I can't really argue. I know everything in that article to be true. It doens't matter to me though.

[Jedi_Templar]

*JT cracks his knuckles

As a former creationist (which I used to be back in the day, on BF), I wish creationists would stfu. Seriously. Nobody gives a shit. I don't care if you believe God or Allah or whatever made the Earth and life on it. I'll believe what I want to believe and I'll let you believe in whatever you want to believe so long as it does not infringe upon my right to believe. Libertarianism ftw.

That said, I've noticed something that hasn't been discussed by the creationists or the scientists. I think I've made this arguement before, though.

DNA is composed of four different bases- thyamine, cytosine, guanine, and adenine. The four bases arrange themselves into a code, as popularized in Jurassic Park. A sequence of three bases are called codons, and each codon represents a different amino acid- a codon made up of two adenines and a guanine codes for a lysine amino acid. Via the processes of transcription and translation, the codon sequences are used to make proteins, which make up cell structure. More information can be found here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

So where am I going with this? Basically, even if organic molecules can be made from inorganic processes (like the famous Miller experiment, where a few amino acids were made in a beaker in a lab when a solution was zapped with electricity), there's no way in hell that the codons, the transcription and translation processes, even DNA itself, is a mere accident, a cosmic chance. It resembles written and computer languages too much for it to be random; yet if someone were to suggest that the English language, or Japanese, or Pascal came about by chance, they would be call a lunatic.

Even after taking a few biology courses (one was basic cellular biology, the other was about evolution and ecology), I haven't even heard of this being brought up. This idea comes closest to being answered by number 8 from the Scientific American article (Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance), but the answer doesn't really answer anything- how can nonliving chemicals from before life even existed be affected by evolutionary processes?

I know this idea has little to do with evolution itself (which I have no qualms against), but as for the origins of life, well, if my idea is not erroneous, then it means one of two things- 1) life was created by an external sentience (God, Allah, aliens, extradimensional beings, etc.) or 2) life is simply a given, a property of the universe akin to energy or matter.

[GenocideAlive]

DNA is composed of four different bases- thyamine, cytosine, guanine, and adenine. The four bases arrange themselves into a code, as popularized in Jurassic Park. A sequence of three bases are called codons, and each codon represents a different amino acid- a codon made up of two adenines and a guanine codes for a lysine amino acid. Via the processes of transcription and translation, the codon sequences are used to make proteins, which make up cell structure.
You've glazed several of the processes and failed in mentioning some things, but this isn't science class so I'm going to just go with your definition. Suffice it to say that this is a layman's blanket definition--DNA isn't the do-all end-all to life as we know it.
So where am I going with this? Basically, even if organic molecules can be made from inorganic processes (like the famous Miller experiment, where a few amino acids were made in a beaker in a lab when a solution was zapped with electricity), there's no way in hell that the codons, the transcription and translation processes, even DNA itself, is a mere accident, a cosmic chance.

Even after taking a few biology courses (one was basic cellular biology, the other was about evolution and ecology), I haven't even heard of this being brought up. This idea comes closest to being answered by number 8 from the Scientific American article (Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance), but the answer doesn't really answer anything- how can nonliving chemicals from before life even existed be affected by evolutionary processes?
It's not brought up because it's stupid polemic bullshit. Feel free to extrapolate on the "mathmatical" numbers you're using.

You're arguing that it's OMFG IMPOSSIBLE for an organism to derive meaningful, complicated structure from "chance". However, if you take a high school class in bacteriology, you'll find that over the past 60 years that one of the most prolific, infectious bacteria indigenous to the skin, Staphylococcus aureus, has become almost 90% immune to the antibiotic penicillin. Penicillin was used widely to treat S. aureus with almost 100% success ratio during- and post-World War II. However, now it's almost entirely worthless and most doctors now refuse to use it to treat S. aureus for fear that it will only increase its immune-properties.

So, since it's impossible for "chance" to produce overly complicated or difficult mechanisms, it's only "logical" to scientifically observe that a "God type being" has rendered the bacteria immune to our antibiotic. Maybe if we all pray and be good religious people he'll restore its vulnerability.

For those of us dissatisfied with the retarded assumption that either "science needs to give us a complete, definitive answer now or the only logical recourse is to break out our Bibles", there's a simple explanation. Penicillin is classified as a beta-lactam, or a bacteriostatic compound that prevents the formation of murein in bacteria. S. aureus and several other Gram positive bacteria (whom are affected most by the presence of beta-lactams) have developed a "beta-lactamase", or a molecule that binds to, and renders ineffective, beta-lactams in or around their environment.

Bacteria, given their generally extremely fast proliferation rate, and fast generation times, provide one of the most powerful living models of evolution we have available. They express some of the widest diversity and niche-based existances that we've ever seen.

I'm not saying that life on Earth came from some pool of amino acids on primordial Earth, but I'm not saying it didn't.

[Jedi_Templar]

You've glazed several of the processes and failed in mentioning some things, but this isn't science class so I'm going to just go with your definition. Suffice it to say that this is a layman's blanket definition--DNA isn't the do-all end-all to life as we know it.

Though, it's what everything on Earth uses (either DNA or RNA, and they both work (almost) the same way), so, logically, everything living on Earth now had the same ancestor since they all share this basic genetic material. Unless there were organisms that operated without DNA/RNA, but we have no proof of that.


It's not brought up because it's stupid polemic bullshit. Feel free to extrapolate on the "mathmatical" numbers you're using.

What I was really trying to get was "how did each individual codon come to represent each amino acid? How did CAG come to mean Glutamine and CUU come to mean Leucine?" As I've said, it's not like the chemicals can evolve to represent other chemicals.


You're arguing that it's OMFG IMPOSSIBLE for an organism to derive meaningful, complicated structure from "chance". However, if you take a high school class in bacteriology, you'll find that over the past 60 years that one of the most prolific, infectious bacteria indigenous to the skin, Staphylococcus aureus, has become almost 90% immune to the antibiotic penicillin. Penicillin was used widely to treat S. aureus with almost 100% success ratio during- and post-World War II. However, now it's almost entirely worthless and most doctors now refuse to use it to treat S. aureus for fear that it will only increase its immune-properties.

As I've said, I have no qualms against evolution. It's only the origins of life on Earth that (some) scientists have come up with that I have issues with.


So, since it's impossible for "chance" to produce overly complicated or difficult mechanisms, it's only "logical" to scientifically observe that a "God type being" has rendered the bacteria immune to our antibiotic. Maybe if we all pray and be good religious people he'll restore its vulnerability.

For those of us dissatisfied with the retarded assumption that either "science needs to give us a complete, definitive answer now or the only logical recourse is to break out our Bibles", there's a simple explanation.

That's not what I said. Go back and read it.


Penicillin is classified as a beta-lactam, or a bacteriostatic compound that prevents the formation of murein in bacteria. S. aureus and several other Gram positive bacteria (whom are affected most by the presence of beta-lactams) have developed a "beta-lactamase", or a molecule that binds to, and renders ineffective, beta-lactams in or around their environment.

Bacteria, given their generally extremely fast proliferation rate, and fast generation times, provide one of the most powerful living models of evolution we have available. They express some of the widest diversity and niche-based existances that we've ever seen.

I'm not saying that life on Earth came from some pool of amino acids on primordial Earth, but I'm not saying it didn't.

As the evolutionists like to say, the origin of life =/= evolution. Hence, your arguement (while true) has little relevance to what I've said.

[ScottieIWU]

life is simply a given, a property of the universe akin to energy or matter.Life is a given. The universe is infinite, and a lot of time has passed. The result? It shouldn't be a surprise that life can randomly spring up, and that other life, besides us, exists in the universe.

People say it's a mathematical impossibility for life to arise by chance, but in reality it's almost a mathematical certainty (as a result of an infinite universe and a lot of time having passed), there are just a lot of failed attempts. Think that, since the universe is infinite, for every planet that has successfully created life, there are probably a million or so planets that did not end up with life.

I'd say we're egotistical as hell if we think we're special or unique since math kind of points to life being an inescapible part of the universe.

[Kingscrab]

I'll get my spam in while i can (ie: before this gets hauled to the IR) and say that this thread is providing some pretty interesting ideas. Nice work and thanks guys. I liked reading it. :)

[GenocideAlive]

Though, it's what everything on Earth uses (either DNA or RNA, and they both work (almost) the same way), so, logically, everything living on Earth now had the same ancestor since they all share this basic genetic material. Unless there were organisms that operated without DNA/RNA, but we have no proof of that.
You have a lot of the right conclusions, but you're derriving them the wrong way. For instance, DNA and RNA are remarkably different in role and operation.
What I was really trying to get was "how did each individual codon come to represent each amino acid? How did CAG come to mean Glutamine and CUU come to mean Leucine?" As I've said, it's not like the chemicals can evolve to represent other chemicals.
I'm unsure as to what you're either trying to derrive or prove here. You suffer some of the common problems of those with scientific qualms--it's not that science doesn't have their answers, it's that your question needs work. I can say "why are there only 28 letters of the alphabet?" but already one can determine that I don't know my ABC's.

AA's could easily have been random joinings of codons. Proteins are just joinings of AA's. It's frighteningly simple.
As the evolutionists like to say, the origin of life =/= evolution. Hence, your arguement (while true) has little relevance to what I've said.
Actually, it has a lot of relevance. However, you're so busy trying to posit that redundant fact that you're not paying attention to what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that chance forming complex molecules with biological function (ultimately what the simplest life-form was) is far from "no chance in hell".

I'm also awating your numbers for "mathematically" proving that it's impossible.

[cole]

I beleive in god. My opinion may be irrelevant to most but eh. Theres some things that happen that science just cant explain. Some may have found "evidence" of evolution but theres been evidence that things like the shroud of turin isnt fake and such. Theres also been evidence of crusifictions. But like i said, science cant explain everything that goes on in this world.

[Uuugggg]

Your post hardly deserves a reply, but here it is:

If you had actually clicked the link you would have found that it is a article published by Scientific American (a magazine) detailing why arguments presented by creationists in their effort to disprove evolution are wrong.


... which amounts to a list of things that everyone already knows or ignores...

[Jedi_Templar]

I'm unsure as to what you're either trying to derrive or prove here. You suffer some of the common problems of those with scientific qualms--it's not that science doesn't have their answers, it's that your question needs work. I can say "why are there only 28 letters of the alphabet?" but already one can determine that I don't know my ABC's.

Perhaps I should rephrase the question- how did the code get set up in the first place?


I'm also awating your numbers for "mathematically" proving that it's impossible.

As Scottie pointed out, if you set anything to run forever then anything is possible. Including, apparently, God. But that's besides the point.

I did have an interesting probability equation that listed the probablility of the creation of the codon/amino acid code, but if you let it run on forever, hell, it might as well have been written by monkeys on typewriters. ^_^

[ScottieIWU]

Theres some things that happen that science just cant explain.Science is unable to explain a lot, however it's important to note that unable to explain currently and unable to explain at all are two completely different things.

It is wrong, however, to assume that just because science cannot now explain something that it will never be able to. Think about things that used to be explained as the will of God that were slowly revealed to be natural processes. Science is still young and needs time to grow, learn and discover. To assume that because it cannot answer the most important existential question on almost everybody's mind it is flawed and that there must be a god is wrong. Ignorance of a scientific answer doesn't imply absence of a scientific answer.

Not that that changes your mind, but really I think it's important for people to consider.

[GenocideAlive]

I beleive in god. My opinion may be irrelevant to most but eh. Theres some things that happen that science just cant explain. Some may have found "evidence" of evolution but theres been evidence that things like the shroud of turin isnt fake and such. Theres also been evidence of crusifictions. But like i said, science cant explain everything that goes on in this world.
Crucifixions were a common tool for torture-killing people, no?

And the Shroud of Turin was found to be a hoax, was it not?

Perhaps I should rephrase the question- how did the code get set up in the first place?
Which "code"? What does "set up" mean?

I hope I'm not coming across as an ass, but if you want an honest, accurate answer, you first have to make a targeted question. It's very easy for me to immediately just spout off a shotgun reply but you're looking for a rifle answer.

[cole]

Crucifixions were a common tool for torture-killing people, no?

And the Shroud of Turin was found to be a hoax, was it not?.

Actually there was evidence that was discovered that supported the shroud of turin. It didnt support it 100% but carbon dating and such proved that it was around at the specified time or close to it and other things like that. There were also drawings, paintings and things discovered that depicted a man being carried into a tomb. And all of which depicted the same exact man in each drawing. The drawings were so detailed and everything coincided with what the bible stated meaning they werent just some random drawings. The drawings also varied in age. Im not trying to convince people to beleive in god because im not a hardcore christian myself, but i beleive that there are higher powers out there. Evolution only explains so much. If we evolved from apes, where did apes come from? Where did everything come from? Was there nothing then all of the sudden some random thing appeared? Or were things just sorta there? I still dont like the idea of evolution though.

[frazz]

I'd say we're egotistical as hell if we think we're special or unique since math kind of points to life being an inescapible part of the universe. Do you really have any numbers? any resources? No? than stop making stuff up.

and JT, an evolutionist kinda made this thread.
I'd say we're egotistical as hell if we think we're special or unique since math kind of points to life being an inescapible part of the universe.
Evolution(big bang) says there was nothing. then there was an amazing amount of something. than this something exploded and after a trillion or so years everything just warped into place and here we are now:P

[ScottieIWU]

let N equal the number of advanced technological civilizations in the galaxy. Let us define advanced civilizations as those capable of radio astronomy, as there may be worlds with civilizations capable of language and writing, etc, but we won't hear from them without at least radio astronomy.

Drake's equation: N=(N*)fpneflfifcfL
N*, number of stars in Milky Way Galaxy
fp, fraction of stars with planetary systems
ne, number of planets in a given system ecologically suitable for life
fl, fraction of otherwise suitable planets where life actually arises
fi, fraction of inhabited planets on which intelligent life evolves
fc, fraction of planets inhabited by intelligent beings on which a communicative technical civilization develops
fL, fraction of a planetary lifetime graced by a technical civilization

All but N* and ne are fractions, reducing the huge number that is N*.

For this equation, Carl Sagan, in Cosmos, solves the problem as such:

N* = 4x10^11
fp = approx. 1/3
ne = 2

With these numbers, the number of planets in the galaxy suitable for life becomes approx 3x10^11

fl = approx. 1/3

Now, choosing the next two are difficult, so Sagan conservatively estimates that only 1% of life that arises will become technical.

fi * fc = approx 1/100
fL = 1/10^8

The end result of all of this is that N = approx. 10 planets in the Milky Way Galaxy with technologically advanced life.Now, the early parts of this equation, Sagan points out in his book, are quite sure. We know numbers of stars in the galaxy, there tends to be a predisposition toward the formation of planetary bodies in those systems. Based on our system there are many places ecologically suited to spring up life (mind you, not Earth-like, because we adapted to fit Earth, not vice versa.)

However, as we hit further points it becomes educated speculation based upon what we know about our solar system and life on earth. Sagan's estimates in Cosmos are pretty conservative and tend to be on the lower end of the spectrum, but you can see that in general the amount of planets most likely suitable to life is huge. Plus, consider that this is just our galaxy, and millions of other galaxies exist.

I will also point out that 10 is an estimate of the number of technologically advanced civilizatoins, not life in general. Sagan's conservative estimates put the universe at about 1 x 10^11 (a hundred billion) worlds inhabited by any life. Is that statistical enough for you? If you disagree with what I wrote in that blurb, take it up with Carl Sagan, who was one of the top in his field and knows more about evolution, astronomy and astrophysics than you could ever hope to, Frazz.

Evolution says there was nothing. then there was an amazing amount of something. than this something exploded and after a trillion or so years everything just warped into place and here we are now:PI don't know what theory of evolution you're talking about, but clearly you need to shut your mouth and learn what evolution is before you talk any more. What you're referring to, I think, is the big bang. The big bang and evolution are not actually related theories in any aspect other than the fact that they both try to explain different origins (and that's about it.)

[frazz]

I don't know what theory of evolution you're talking about, but clearly you need to shut your mouth and learn what evolution is before you talk any more. What you're referring to, I think, is the big bang. The big bang and evolution are not actually related theories in any aspect other than the fact that they both try to explain different origins (and that's about it.)
Fixed.
most people believe in evolution and some sort of big bang style thing. Still that is the general philosophy for evolution, big bang and all that.

[ScottieIWU]

I honestly don't know what the hell you're talking about. I didn't twist your words, in fact, here they are verbatim:
Evolution(big bang) says there was nothing. Completely untrue. Learn your facts.

Anyway, if I can decipher your incessant rambling from that most recent post, you're saying that equating big bang and evolution is okay because most people who believe in evolution believe in big bang? If that's the case, please stfu. If not, correct me in an understandable fashion, because your last post was unbelievably vague.

[WeekendLazyness]

If anyone cares to RTFM on thermodynamics, they'll find that one of the laws of thermodynamics has something to do with the conservation of energy and matter. The Big Bang did not come from nothing, evolution doesn't spontaneously create things, and the only similarity between the two theories is that religious nuts don't understand that they are in fact separate.

[frazz]

Ok. let me clarify. There were more parts to my post. I put them into one sentence.
Big bang says there was an immense amount of something then it exploded.
Some theory that follows the philosophy of evolution(stuff coming together by chance) and is based on the big bang(immense amount of energy at the beginning exploding) says that all this stuff kinda fell together and made our star, planet and galaxy.
Evolution says everything over time kinda fell together by chance and created a single cell lifeform(or plant or w/e). This lifeform then reproduced and evolved, eventually evolving into us humans.
happy?:confused:

[GenocideAlive]

Ok. let me clarify. There were more parts to my post. I put them into one sentence.
Big bang says there was an immense amount of something then it exploded.
Some theory that follows the philosophy of evolution(stuff coming together by chance) and is based on the big bang(immense amount of energy at the beginning exploding) says that all this stuff kinda fell together and made our star, planet and galaxy.
Evolution says everything over time kinda fell together by chance and created a single cell lifeform(or plant or w/e). This lifeform then reproduced and evolved, eventually evolving into us humans.
happy?:confused:
I think everybody will be generally "happy" when you shut your trap and stop pretending like you have either the information or the capacity to argue anything more than Pokemon. This is complete and utter overgeneralized bullshit; you don't know what you're talking about, so rather than just continuing to dig your hole deeper and deeper, stfu.

[Kingscrab]

I think everybody will be generally "happy" when you shut your trap and stop pretending like you have either the information or the capacity to argue anything more than Pokemon. Holy shit and shineola! I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. Fuckin' POKEMON! Hahahaha! ROTFL! Sorry frazz... ya had it comin' on this one. pwn.

[Uuugggg]

... If we evolved from apes, where did apes come from? Where did everything come from? Was there nothing then all of the sudden some random thing appeared? Or were things just sorta there? I still dont like the idea of evolution though.

... If we didn't evolve from apes, where did god come from? Where did everything come from? Was there nothing then all of the sudden some random thing appeared? Or was god just sorta there?


How is it easier to believe that everything started with one omnipotent being?

[GenocideAlive]

Just as a quick addendum and clarification:
NO ONE IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY OR RELATED TO EVOLUTION CONTENDS THAT WE EVOLVED FROM APES. INFORM YOURSELF, THEN OPEN YOUR FUCKING MOUTH.

[WeekendLazyness]

Since the time of Carolus Linnaeus, the great apes were considered the closest relatives of human beings, based on morphological similarity. In the 19th century, it was speculated that our closest living relatives were chimpanzees and gorillas, and based on the natural range of these creatures, it was surmised humans share a common ancestor with African apes and that fossils of these ancestors would ultimately be found in Africa.

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

[GenocideAlive]

I assume you're attempting to back me up with that statement, but from the way you've bolded the highlighted text...there's some question. I'll leave it to you to determine if "evolved from apes" is equivalent to "sharing a common ancestor". And when I say "leave it to you", I mean if you're stupid enough to think that your father is your brother, I don't think there's much that can be done to help your fucking retarded ass.

[kirby]

people have gone to jail for talking about this stuff...I don't know if its appropriate for this forum...

[WeekendLazyness]

I assume you're attempting to back me up with that statement, but from the way you've bolded the highlighted text...there's some question. I'll leave it to you to determine if "evolved from apes" is equivalent to "sharing a common ancestor". And when I say "leave it to you", I mean if you're stupid enough to think that your father is your brother, I don't think there's much that can be done to help your fucking retarded ass.Haha, I realized that after I read that. I should have bolded this part:
"humans share a common ancestor with African apes"

So yes, I was backing you up.

people have gone to jail for talking about this stuff...I don't know if its appropriate for this forum...Well it's a good thing I live in a country where you won't get jailed based on your opinions.