ARK Encounter opens today!

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Unicorns do not impress me.
I demand that they add a cyclops.

and yet the cyclops sees more with one eye than the religiously blinded see with two.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Cerp has given me ample evidence that he is NOT interested in honest discussion, especially on a subject like this.

HAHAHA! The ironing is delicious!

 

[BurnItDwn]

Cerp has given me ample evidence that he is NOT interested in honest discussion, especially on a subject like this.

It is not really possible to have an honest discussion about an idea that one contemptuously dismisses as completely asinine, ludicrous, impossible, and stupid.

Very few will debate with you here with any level of "serious" because "the great world wide flood" caused by 40 days of rain is stupid and impossible. The "2 of every species" is stupid and impossible. The Dinosaurs which went extinct 65+ million years ago and humans which evolved in the last million years coexisting is stupid and impossible.

The foundation of the Noah Ark mythology is assumptions contradicting reality.

 

[BurnItDwn]

and yet the cyclops sees more with one eye than the religiously blinded see with two.

Except for depth perception, yes.

 

[buckshot24]

It is not really possible to have an honest discussion about an idea that one contemptuously dismisses as completely asinine, ludicrous, impossible, and stupid.

That is how I feel about the fairy tale of Darwinian evolution. Genetic copying errors being in anyway responsible for the exquisite design we find in the cell is idiotic. I'm not looking for a debate on the flood.

 

[BurnItDwn]

That is how I feel about the fairy tale of Darwinian evolution. Genetic copying errors being in anyway responsible for the exquisite design we find in the cell is idiotic. I'm not looking for a debate on the flood.

Feelings are irrelevant

Pretending to be willfully ignorant in order to provoke people into interesting reactions is usually frowned upon unless you happen to be living in an internal fantasy land where the laws of nature are irrelevant or maybe when your neurons are not firing on all cylinders, those will grant you pity, and possibly some sympathy.

In any case, I hope you some day grasp the concept of critical thinking, it will help you to understand and learn a lot about the world. I am no psychologist though, so I don't know what kind of internal battle is going on in your head.

I do not have the "delusion capacity" to be a theist, nor do I have the capacity to delude myself into believing any other impossible nonsensical fantasy.

 

[buckshot24]

I do not have the "delusion capacity" to be a theist, nor do I have the capacity to delude myself into believing any other impossible nonsensical fantasy.

Do you believe a microbe turned into people via something like Darwinian evolution?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Except for depth perception, yes.

fine, go on, be literal... kids these days

 

[BurnItDwn]

Do you believe a microbe turned into people via something like Darwinian evolution?

"Believe in" is not the correct term.

I understand a little bit of biology. It's easy to see simple evidence over short term and then extrapolate it over a long timeframe.

Just look at corn,
a few hundred years ago, wild corn survived well on it's own, but only provided small amount of food for people

People came along and for many generations have raised corn crops, replanting the seeds of the ones with the biggest yields. Breaking natural selection and instead going with human selection. Since then, the corn of today vastly different from the corn of the past.

The same can be said about domestic animals. In nature, they evolved one way, then humans came into the picture and bred them to best serve us.

Apply the same principles, extend the timeframe by several orders of magnitude, and it is pretty easy to grasp that yes, over 3.5 billion years, simple single cell microbes did evolve into bigger and more complex beings, including the biggest whales, dinosaurs, humans, goats, chickens, and frogs.

There is not really any honest debate about that since the body of evidense is so large and convincing it is more or less axiomatic.

 

[BurnItDwn]

fine, go on, be literal... kids these days

Yay, I feel young!
Have considered myself more or less a creepy old man ever since I hit 35 last year...

Sheik Yerbouti, you are teh fountain of youth!

 

[buckshot24]

Apply the same principles, extend the timeframe by several orders of magnitude, and it is pretty easy to grasp that yes, over 3.5 billion years, simple single cell microbes did evolve into bigger and more complex beings, including the biggest whales, dinosaurs, humans, goats, chickens, and frogs.

Why? What do we observe today that leads you to believe (or whatever term you'd like to use) complex organs can genetically error itself into existence if there was just more time?

Do you think watching a baby crawl across the floor is evidence that he could crawl to the moon given enough time?

I simply do not have enough faith that genetic copying errors could produce people given trillions of years.

You also have to consider the total number of opportunities for genetic changes to occur. In mammals alone there have only been approximately 10^20 organisms. How much trial and error was needed to produce echolocation, twice in that line? You don't have endless opportunity.

 

[WelshBloke]

That is how I feel about the fairy tale of Darwinian evolution.

Yeah, but to be fair that's because you're an idiot.

 

[WelshBloke]

In other words, even you know that such "arguments" are so poor they'd be torn to shreds if you put them forth.

Instead, your only option is to allege their existence to save some kind of face and avoid the inevitable humiliation you'd face at attempting to defend them.

Got it.

No he's got all the answers.

Honest.

He just doesn't want to share them for... reasons.

 

[agent00f]

That is how I feel about the fairy tale of Darwinian evolution. Genetic copying errors being in anyway responsible for the exquisite design we find in the cell is idiotic. I'm not looking for a debate on the flood.

That's because many people have trouble grasping just how big large numbers are. They can literally only fit in their head the period of a lifespan or so, in which case only "design" makes sense, like an engineer designing a car like they see on tv.

In contrast, evolution has had billions of years to operate. That is a very very long time written in potentially misleading logarithmic notation which suggests it's only 3 digits more than millions of years, which only 3 digits more than thousands of years, which is only two digits more than what they can fit in their head.

That's in large part why the "design" of a cell (eg via dna encoding) is so hard to figure out, because it was never designed in the first place but rather very inefficiently evolved over eons like the ultimate spaghetti code.

 

[buckshot24]

Yeah, but to be fair that's because you're an idiot.

What would you expect from a brain created by the accumulation of genetic copying errors? You must have all the good errors, right?

 

[buckshot24]

That's because many people have trouble grasping just how big large numbers are. They can literally only fit in their head the period of a lifespan or so, in which case only "design" makes sense, sort of like an engineer designing a car like they see on tv.

10^20 mammals have ever existed. How much variation can you get in that number of animals, by blind processes? How many changes needed to occur in order for a mouse like creature to turn into people, whales, and bats? You've only got around 10^20 opportunities to get all this done.

Any change requiring 3 simultaneous mutations will happen once every 10^27 cell divisions.

 

[brycejones]

No he's got all the answers.

Honest.

He just doesn't want to share them for... reasons.

We're not as brilliant as buckshat is I guess. Our puny minds can't handle "THE TRUTH"....

Or buckshat is just coward.

Some dude's razor applies here.

 

[WelshBloke]

10^20 mammals have ever existed. .

How many of those do you reckon fitted on the ark?

 

[buckshot24]

No he's got all the answers.

Honest.

He just doesn't want to share them for... reasons.

I'm not interested in debating about this topic. Am I required to do so because of reasons?

 

[WelshBloke]

I'm not interested in debating about this topic. Am I required to do so because of reasons?

So why are you posting then?

 

[buckshot24]

How many of those do you reckon fitted on the ark?

10^20 is an estimate based on evolutionary assumptions. I'm speaking to your fairy tale at the moment.

 

[buckshot24]

So why are you posting then?

I'm not talking about that topic, smarty pants.

 

[WelshBloke]

10^20 is an estimate based on evolutionary assumptions. I'm speaking to your fairy tale at the moment.

So how many do you think fitted on the ark then? How far off is your 10^20 estimate?

 

[BurnItDwn]

buckshot, it seems like you are fixated on one particular aspect of evolution that you do not understand. The formation of new genes.

New genes form in a variety of ways. "Genetic copying errors" is not the full picture. It is more like a talking point, it sounds fancy, but it's just bullshit.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2945180/
This is the very first result in a google search for "evolution new genes formed"

It explains much about the different mechanisms for how new genes evolve, not just through "duplication". A lot of this does go over my head since I am not an expert on the subject, but, the general jist of it is that people fuck, and than baby is born. People can fuck missionary, they can fuck doggy style, as long as sperm goes to egg, baby can be formed. There are many ways in which new genes evolve, as long as certain criteria are met, it happens naturally. It's repeatable, able to be induced almost at will by scientists.

 

[buckshot24]

So how many do you think fitted on the ark then? How far off is your 10^20 estimate?

I'm not talking about the ark. My estimate is using your fairy tale assumptions.