@sickrandr. A teansitional species in evolutionary parlance means a species in he process of evolving into another species, having characteristics of both. A lizard with wings, say. Or a mnnkey that can talk (without help from genetic engineering aka planet of the apes.
To the people who have come here purely to relax and enjoy the comedy, NOT to have religious rants at each other that nobody else is going to read:
Could you please tell me why Sheldon went back to live with his mother? I've only just started watching so I don't know what the others did to humiliate him, and Wikipedia isn't that detailed in it's synopsis!
@Quacki29 they went to the north pole. Note: SPOILER ALERT!!!!! TURN BACK NOW IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS. To find magnetic monopoles, but couldn't find any and sheldon was getting very hard to live with, So the guys faked some results with an oven and sheldon thought he had done it. Then the guys told him the truth.
...The point I'm trying to make is that we can never TRULY KNOW anything beyond trivial things that are true by definition, like "a triangle has 3 sides" or "I exist", and so at some point, the deeper you go into apparent "fact", you will eventually have to accept some axiom which you cannot prove; and in order to advance I'm fields like science everybody really has to have some consensus on which axioms to use. Not ideal, but the best we have.
Unfortunately all knowledge is fundamentally confirmed by consensus. Even in a field like mathematics where proof essentially means truth, it still requires somebody to convince somebody else of their logic. If there were only 2 people in the world. If one of them could prove Pythagoras' theorem, and the other could disprove it using faulty logic, how would either of them know which one was truly at fault?
I am a Christian a strong Christian one who does belive that man and the so called intellegent universe was created by a force that used it's power to bulid our world in the face of his holy powers image, but i love science. I am not a man to say evelution is wrong infact I think its right god bless darwin and his theory on evelution. This show is so funny. stop with ur negitive anti christian comments ur just people who got picked on in high school because ur creepy goth nothing little shits
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
why the FUCK does sheldon love his mother!?!?!? if my mother were that much of a religious nut i'd want to fucking kill her. people that ignorant don't deserve to live. at all.
@habs4life9 Looks like she was using some reverse psychology there. She tends to do that alot with Sheldon. So what if she's religious? You're the one that looks like the overreacting nut case.
why the FUCK does sheldon love his mother? if my mother were this much of a religious nut i'd want her to fucking die a miserable painful death as soon as possible.
@KnightOfLightning In as much as stating a irrefutable fact is "closed minded" then yes, your statement is true. It's exactly like arguing the shape of the earth while having a satellite photo of it in front of you. If you know what you're looking at then it's a fact, and if you don't.....you're "open minded".
People would be very surprised to know just how many people with science degrees believe in God and in Creation. I remember hearing a radio program with a rabbi who also had a Phd in genetics. Very fascinating discussion which led me to believe that God and science can live together.
@Spudskie Religion and Science could live together. But think of it like this, we have this boy called Science that goes to a school where he is bullied by a mean boy called Religion. Of course Science bullies Religion as revenge. But one day, Religion doesn't come to school because he was run over by a car. Science has some compassion and is initially upset, but after a while he realizes that Religion's bullying was holding him back and without him he can now achieve something better.
@Spudskie Being a physicist myself, it's true that some do believe in God (or Allah, or Vishnu), yet I've never met one that even remotely believes in the creation story. If we're studying the interrelation between relativity and quantum mechanics via the subatomic particulars at varies moments after the big bang, then I just don't understand how one would rationalize the Abrahamic, Dharma, or any other creation stories while maintaining such a logically demanding career.
@Spudskie Especially when much of the goal of science is to assume you don't understand reality, that you don't know the answers and then systematically searching for them. Not to seek things to support the answers you assume you had all along. Then in a mixed religious team we'd have Hindus searching for praja manifestation fluxes, Christians for souls, and Buddhists for chi leptons because their respective doctrines claim these things to be truths that they already "know" are true.
So, the creotards are upset that they decended from the same common ancester as chimps (and everything if you go back far enough) but they don't get upset that they were made from dirt? Priceless!
@RigOfDoom The Probability of the simplest cell coming to life from non-life by natural causes is virtually zero. The simplest cell has enough information in it's DNA to fill 1,000 Encyclopedias, but that was done by natural causes? Hah! I don't have enough faith to be an atheist(when 1,000 Encyclopedias come about by nature, then say something). No scientist has observed or created life from non-life, thus it's by faith that they believe that the first organism came about by natural causes.
@cqghost Who said I'm an atheist? Evolution is not incompatible with faith. Francis Crick (head of the genome project) is Christian, as is the leading genetics expert Ken Miller. In any event your post confuses abiogenesis with evolution. They are not the same thing. DNA occured when it's predecessor RNA stablized. You are already fully aware of natural chemical reactions: The table salt you use was once the metal sodium and the gas Chlorine. Purely natural. Multiply it by billions of years
@RigOfDoom You totally answered around my question. There is still the question of how everything got there? Did it occur by natural causes, there is a virtually zero chance of that, or by design?
Billions of years does not prove evolution. Also, things that were dated using radiometric dating my not also be correct. For instance, when new rock is dated, or rocks of known age, the date comes out radically exaggerated.
@cqghost The creationist position creates a much bigger question of how God got here in the first place. St Augustine's "first cause" argument is an embarrassment to scientifically literate Christianity. Evolution has actually been proved in labs. Look up the Lenski experiments. The fact of evolution does not diminish humanity in any way at all. Only human behaviour can do that. Natural Selection operates at the level of the individual gene - not the total organism.
@RigOfDoom God did not have to get here. He transcends time because he created it. Keep in mind that i never mentioned God either, i mentioned a designer. You still left most of my question unanswered. How did the first organism get here, when it's DNA had enough messages to fill 1,000 encyclopedias (usually some intelligence is required when sending out messages; nature doesn't do that)? That has never been recreated observed.
@cqghost Actually it has. Craig Venter's labs did it last year. Created brand a brand new cell that could properly self-replicate. You confuse the terms "messages" with the real term "information." That information is made from protein strings. Those protein strings are made from the same thing as everything else - the elements of the periodic table. The periodic table elements were created in the sun.
@RigOfDoom Craig's experiments did not create life from non-life, or using the original conditions of the earth, but from present DNA. Also, you only reaffirm my point. That life that was created must be, let me use your words, "CREATED".
Yes, but those protein strings are used as messages
@RigOfDoom I am already aware of Lenski's papers, I have read them. They talk about life mutating, not about how life came to be. My original question is still unanswered.
@cqghost I must give you many kudos on the things you've said. I've always held with the grand designer theory. I have a simple experiment for everyone out there. Go to a beach and build a sand castle. Try and convince everyone who passes that do to the wind, waves, and shifting earth, it formed by itself. See how many people believe you. Ironically, there is a higher chance of that happening than there is for life to magically appear on the world without some outside force.
@lagerbaer The idea behind many evolution theories is that somehow the forces of nature came together through countless centuries and somehow formed the first organisms which formed into life as we know it. Going by that theory, the winds, rains, waves, and people walking on the beach, Could have caused the sand to form into the castle. The odds of that happening are actually far greater than the idea of life someone magically being formed from nothing.
@TekelBrighteyes 1) There is only ONE evolution theory 2) Evolution is not Abiogenesis. 3) Evolution is NOT random chance. Mutations are random chance, but natural selection is NOT random chance.
@lagerbaer But... evolution does not explain how life came about in the first place since there is no natural force on earth which can create life besides other life. And evolutionist do have different theories on how this came about.
@cqghost And if you doubt the billions of years bit - that means you take 2000 year old scientific authority more seriously than new advances? If you don't know what a Potassium Argon clock is then you don't even have sufficient knowledge to have an opinion. The creationist position is dishonest because it says it must be Creation OR evolution. If evolution is proven wrong (not happened in 150 years of trying) then its replacement will not be creation, it will be a new properly tested system.
Um... I have a question for everyone who says theory=fact. I've done research into the loop and string theories. Both have to do with how everything was created. Now, they both can't be right yet according to how everyone wants to define theory they both must be right. So my question is, which is it? It's been awhile since I've been in school, but the last time I checked it was called the law of gravity, not the theory of gravity. Like they're called the laws of physics.
@TekelBrighteyes A scientific theory doesn't mean the explanation must be correct, it means it is a coherent explanation that takes the relevant observable facts into consideration. A theory can be wrong (ToE), in fact all science must be falsifiable in order for it to be science. But the ToE is one of the strongest theories out there, in that it is supported by many different fields of science and is not contradicted by any observable facts, something the theory of gravity can't claim.
@Shadowmantis77 But... but... everyone talks about theories like they are facts. I was just pointing out that theories aren't facts. What you just said, "A theory can be wrong," proves as such.
@TekelBrighteyes By the way, gravity, like evolution, is both a theory and a fact. The fact of gravity is the observable occurence of it, like the fact of evolution is the observable occurence of it. The Law of Gravity is mathematical expression of that observance (since evolution utilizes random mutations, among other factors, I don't think it could be mathematically expressed as a Law). The theory of gravity, like evolution, is the explanation of what we see and its cause.
@AdamArchangel glad to see someones trying to show people theres a difference and remind those who forgot theres a difference. hell gravity is just a theory now becuase of astro physicist finding something that hasnt been explained yet! to bad the creationist will keep using that argument. hell the only reason why theres still a large amount of creationist is becuase of all the brainwashing, the conspiracy theorist were right except its not the goverment useing "mind control"
@Anathiron A scientific theory is an explanation used to best explain an observed phenomena. Of course science is always changing, that's the point, but when all experts in a certain field agree on an explanation, you can damn sure accept that it is true.
@Anathiron That is not what I said. I said that when the majority of experts in a particular field of study agree on an explanation, you can be pretty sure that it is true. In the case of your example, it would have to be all of the world's geologists implying that the earth is flat. However, no one that I would call sane would claim that the earth is flat.
@AdamArchangel that's fair, only thing is, its an incomplete theory, having and working on an incomplete theory isn't a problem for me, trying to teach it and pass it off as fact is a problem for me.
@CFaux220 How is it an incomplete theory? The evidence for evolution is so high that you could literally make a mountain out of it. Our DNA alone proves that evolution is entirely possible, and things like fossil records and comparative embryology just further cement it as a scientific fact.
@AdamArchangel now don't get me wrong, i agree that evolution happens, that DNA changes and mutates, that is fact. please, im no fool, though my first comment may give that impression. however, there is not enough evidence to say we evolved from the primordial muck, such as it were, to make it fact.
@CFaux220 Fair enough, apologies if my tone came across as harsh, I tend to react in a snappy way. It is true that the evidence for abiogenesis still needs more investigation, and unfortunately it isn't a field that a lot of people are putting time into. It's just important to note that abiogenesis and evolution are two completely separate fields; even if by some chance we are the products of some kind of creator (though I can't see how), evolution still remains a fact =]
@AdamArchangel are you kidding? we both kept our heads together, considering our venue we should be receiving plaques with our names on them. i can agree with what you said (aside the creator thing) glad we could come to that agreement.
@CFaux220 Fair enough, apologies if my tone came across as harsh. It's true that abiogenesis is a field that still requires a lot more research put into it, and unfortunately not enough time is being put into the field. It is important to note, though, that even if by some chance we are the products of a creator (though I can't see how such things are possible), evolution would still remain a fact.
@AdamArchangel i'm curious as to how you would explain the Cambrian Big Bang then? And why over the past 150-200 years since the "origin of species" we have not ascertained undeniable middle stage fossils in evolutionary steps and also seeing as you yourself say DNA is proof of our evolution could you explain to me how we managed to get all that information together in the original species (i think it tops over 1 million pieces of information) when some scientists say that if the world were.....
@AdamArchangel ... created ex nihilo (out of nothing) naturally there would much less "information" around, i believe they say around 400 pieces. Information being that found in DNA such as genes and alleles. Also how would the first cell mutate, and thereby evolve, considering it probably reproduced asexually and more likely by budding. I agree with micro evolution as seen in darwin's finches but the whole evolutionary theory just doesn't stand firm with me.
@blobbers18 Cambrian explosion that happened over millions of years? Despite the fact it was quick in evolutionary time it's still a very long process.and with conditions willing theres no reason why there couldn't be a big boom in accelerated evolution. Cells don't just reproduce A sexually they also have the ability to work with other cells and also borrow genes from other cells via horizontal gene transfer. (cont)
@blobbers18 (cont) You're asking for transitional fossils which is another misunderstanding you see everything is a transition from what was before to what is to come there aren't clear cut boxes that separate and by that I mean donkeys and mules can breed and only very rarely produce viable offspring and as they drift genetically further apart they become less and less capable of breeding and become different species. Just look at things like microraptor or archaeoptaryx or Australopithecus
I love it when Creationists try to sound like their fallacies are some kind of rebellion. "Go against the flow, man!" Um, not in a river of truth, buddy. Sorry.
I apologize to you then. When you said," If it's psychologically disturbing to you that your cousins are chimps, " I thought that's what you were saying.
And to all the people saying in science theory=facts, are you talking about the string theory or the loop theory? They are both scientific theories, yet they both can't be right. You can't have it both ways. And once again, to everyone arguing with me, I never said my was was the right way. All I said was the THEORY of creationism has some merit to it. What does it hurt you if I choose to believe it? Just as it doesn't hurt me if you are for the string or loop theory. But theory doesn't = fact.
I would love to discuss this more everyone, but it's time for me to head to work. But I'm wondering, when did the roles become reversed? It used to be creationist were hard headed and when confronted with science they said, "You're wrong," without really backing up what they were saying. I'm not saying I'm right, just that I gave a valid logical explanation for my belief. Instead of being met with scientific feedback, I was answered with, "You're wrong."
@TekelBrighteyes lol cause you are wrong. If someone claimed the Norse gods were real, I could only say they are WRONG and I think most people would understand why it'd be silly to even discuss the notion further. I feel the same way about your god, and also of your so called "valid theory", aka intelligent design.
I bet you'd agree the Norse gods don't exist. You only have problem with one more so have faith, there's still hope for you ;)
@CelestialTina Is it you won't discuss it further or you can't? You can say I'm wrong all you want, that doesn't make it so. Instead of simply saying I'm wrong, which any 2 year old can do, back it up. As for the Norse gods thing, the Bible does say there are other gods. So while I don't worship them, I won't say they aren't there. BTW, if it's silly to discuss this any further, stop replying to me. Why does it hurt you so much that I believe what I do and can back it up with science?
@TekelBrighteyes I know I said I was done with the discussion but I just couldn't help myself. And boy was it worth it. I've actually found a person who will go so far to prove his/her point they'll even say they belive in Thor and Odin. And here I was just watching scenes from Big Bang Theory XD
Why your beliefs hurt me? Stupidity hurts me. I'm sensitive to stupidity. I'd even go so far as saying allergic.
@CelestialTina lol I never said I believe in them. But I'm willing to keep an open mind. And again, I'm wondering where the roles got reversed? When did the creationist become the ones willing to keep an open mind and at least consider someone else might be right? All you've done so far was to say I'm wrong and belittle me. But you never once tried to disprove my ideas with any facts. I think the problem is you're scared I might be right. You can't attack my theories so instead you come after me
@TekelBrighteyes There's a difference between open mind and absurdity. Should I keep an open mind about Santa Claus? Maybe toys really do come alive when humans aren't around? And maybe trolls live in the forest close to my home? After all, I don't want to be unscientific and say "no way". Heck, I am a physics student after all...
I think I know why you're confused. Science does say you can only say how likely/unlikely something is. But for gods, the probability is so small, it's INSIGNIFICANT.
@CelestialTina Part 1) lmao I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were a physics student. Of course that makes you right and me wrong. I'm willing to admit my education is somewhat lacking. I've always believed you should put up or shut up. And I've said I have an open mind. So I'll do just that. There are some questions I've had due to being a product of a poor education system. So if you can give me a satisfactory answer to some of them, I'll at least consider changing my mind. Fair enough?
@TekelBrighteyes BTW, saying "I don't know" or "Because you're wrong" are not satisfactory answers. Anyway, here's my first question: Where are all the missing links? I'm not talking about the one between apes and man, I mean all of them. If we all evolved from the same basic place, there should be millions of intermediate or transitional forms between those descendant forms we know today. I'm willing to concede that one or two might not have been found yet.
@TekelBrighteyes Part 3) lol Sorry I forgot to number part two. Anyway. With all the fossils that have been found, the record should show this but in fact all that has ever been seen is each life form appearing suddenly and in perfection. There is no sign of gradual change as fin changes to limb and limb to wing. Again, I don't get out much so I may be wrong. If you know where it's at please tell me so I can look it up and learn. So once again, where are all the links?
@TekelBrighteyes ... about evolution and the evidence, I warmly recommend Richard Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show on Earth", it's precisely about what we're talking about, I think it will answer all your questions.
And that is why I don't want to talk about proof of evolution here, I'm not a biologist and any attempt from me trying to explain the fin-to-leg transition would sound ridiculous. I can only give you logical arguments regarding the god question. For the rest, read what the pros say.
@TekelBrighteyes I don't think being a physics student is a credential in a biology discussion, I mentioned it in a different context, u might wanna re-read that.
I'll base my answers to your questions on what I've heard from real biologists:
1) Newsflash: the missing links are no longer missing! It was true in Darwin's time, but since then, they've all been found. You'd know it if you'd read a biology book written later than 1859.
2) same as above. If you want a really good book ....
@CelestialTina lol Yeah, but you were the one who brought up being a physics part. XD I have read some good, up to date biology book, they still don't explain a lot. Which one are you using? I'll check it out.
@CelestialTina@CelestialTina lol I know, but you were still the one who brought it up. I don't bring up any specifics on my education because I know that's the first thing people will go after. But I still want you to know I am a man of my word. I will do research into the information you presented. But I'm also taking it with a grain of salt. I know there have been fossils found which may suggest there are links in evolution. But I also know...
@TekelBrighteyes there haven't been as many found as there should have been. And that even many of the evolutionist disagree with each other as to weather this proves a link or not. But again, I will research it. I'm willing to keep an open mind about such things.
@TekelBrighteyes I'm glad you're keeping an open mind, that's more than what you hear from most creationists.
But your claims that biologists disagree on key issues and not that many fossils have been found, are just plain wrong. They disagree on some minor details but I can assure you evolution is as certain as night and day.
The physicist part I brought up to make the point that reason and logic are especially important principles to me.
@CelestialTina lmao Yeah, that's what I meant in my earlier posts about role reversals. While I haven't changed my mind, I do keep an open one and am willing to research what other people have to say. But I must say, the biggest problem with evolution is the evolutionists themselves. Many have set themselves up saying they are right and anyone who disagrees with them is not only wrong but lack any type of education. I'm willing to keep an open mind and let other people believe their ideas.
@TekelBrighteyes Disliking evolutionists doesn't make evolution wrong. If you find another "view" to be more correct, you owe it to yourself to change your mind.
Let me tell you about changing ones mind. My mother's side is very catholic. She is the worst die-hard creatonist. I used to believe all sorts of crazy shit as a teen: spirits, wicca, dreams foretelling the future, even god. As I learned more about the world, I realized I had been wrong. So don't tell me about keeping an open mind ;)
@CelestialTina lmao I donj't dislike evolutionists. I just feel many should be a little more accepting to others beliefs. Until something has become a proven fact, I think they need to let other people have their beliefs. As I've said, I'm keeping an open mind and am looking into the things we've discussed. I also want to add on a personal note, I have found all of this to be a very amusing experiment. I proposed my theory and backed it up sound scientific data.
@TekelBrighteyes I expected to be met with scepticism. In fact, I yearned for an intelligent discussion. What I received were answers like, "You're wrong." It wasn't till the very end that anyone even tried to offer any scientific data to back up their claim. Even then I had to dig to get it out. But one I did get it, it was nice to see someone finally back up their ideas.
@TekelBrighteyes Besides, the whole premise of creationism is god. Without god, no creationism. If I can disprove god, I've disproven creationism.
Try this: I think the no.1 reason people in the developed world believe in god is cause he's been passed down through generations. If we all had collective amnesia about god, NOBODY in the developed world would invent him, because in our time of knowledge and relative prosperity, there is no need for god as an explanation for ANYTHING.
@TekelBrighteyes Sorry for the late reply. Funny you said stalemate, my brother sent me a quote from Christopher Hitchens yesterday which I thought just brilliantly fits our discussion:
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
@CelestialTina Greetings and welcome back. rotflmao You realize that works both ways right? That which can be dismissed without evidence can be asserted without evidence. XD But remember, that was my whole point in the beginning. I wasn't trying to make anyone believe in creationism. Far from it. I respect other peoples opinions and theories. My point was only to show I have valid reasons to believe in mine.
@TekelBrighteyes Eh... no. If that were true, all logic could be thrown out the window. And for what? So that religion could be contained in its own special bubble, untouchable and beyond logic and reason, because people like you don't like the rules of the game: it needs to make sense and you need proof.
If it's psychologically disturbing to you that your cousins are chimps, TOO BAD. If science is too complicated to understand, TOO BAD. It's still the best explanation for the world we've got.
@CelestialTina lmao Again? I have used logic in my past posts. And yes, it does work both ways. It sounds like you're the one trying to keep things contained in their own special bubble. I never said evolution was psychologically disturbing. And I never brought up the chimps. But since you did, where are the talking ones? If we did evolve from chimps, we should have found a closer relative to them by now. And why do you sound so defensive? Why does my belief hurt you so much?
@TekelBrighteyes For the last time: WE. DID. NOT. EVOLVE. FROM. CHIMPS. You have just proven that you know virtually nothing about evolution. Good day to you.
@minipancho94 Hahaha, that's pretty funny, I was talking to my dad the other day about this discussion and he said something very similar, "you should have told the creationist that the "talking chimp" is him", but I'm on my good behaviour now so I try not to insult them too much XD
@TekelBrighteyes You say "until something has become a proven fact". Evolution HAS been proven to be a FACT! How many times do I have to say it? There is no question about it being true. It's been proven not only through the fossil record, but through DNA analysis. You'd be fascinated to learn how you can see in DNA exactly what genes are turned off in humans, and those differences are what makes us humans and not apes.
lol Ok, let's try this. You're out in a field and find a beautiful pocketwatch. Not only is it expertly made, but it's keeping precision time. You'd like to know who made the watch but can't find any signatures or markings on it. I say no one made the watch. Isn't it possible that since the beginning of time, the materials shaped and formed themselves and fell into perfect order creating the watch? If the watch is made from natural ores and gems, it's more possible.
@TekelBrighteyes Forces in nature could create a natural watch. But as has been discussed before, no known force can create life. Life must come from life.
@TekelBrighteyes I've heard this "life must come from life" before. How are you defining "life"? What are the requirements for something to be considered "alive"?
@deedubya286 Well, as I said in one of my first posts: the most simple living thing, a mycoplasma, has 468 proteins each consisting of an average of about 250 units. According to all that is known concerning reactions in chemistry and physics, not even one protein could be formed just by the forces of nature. So in order for life to be on the earth it would have to have spontaneous (magically) created itself. The idea that life could magically create itself was dis-proven.
One of the many facts that creationists seem to miss is that even the simplest form of life on Earth today is the result of over 3 billion years of successful evolution. Only creationism says that life began in the forms we see today.
No one knows what the simplest possible form of life is because it has never been seen.
I'm willing to wait for the day when the secret is cracked and new life is generated in the lab and I'm looking forward to reading your denial of it.
Where does everyone get their definition of theory? I remember in school it was always the highest level, before fact. After all, creationism is a theory. Since it's called a theory does that make it fact as well? Please go to wikipedia and look it up.
@steeleydan65 Creationism at least explains how we got here. And I've given good arguments to this. So please explain to me another, logical, way life got here.
*sigh* Not angry, just bored. You just keep attacking my ideas without trying to back up your own. As for the facts I keep talking about, go back to my first posts and reread. And you made no points other than just disagreeing with me so how am I supposed to answer them? BTW, I don't mind people arguing with my ideas, in fact, I love a good conversation. But you're not presenting any of your own ideas to back up your belief. So no, it's not arguing with you. It's more like talking to the wind.
I'm not interested in regurgitating biology books to prove you something that's common knowledge in any respected university. Your "facts" are just claims. Yes life comes from life, it's called birth. But we're talking about the source of life, no? So by your logic, first life came from a living being, ie god is a living biological being? Thought he was some kind of spirit or force. But you guys aren't really clear about what he is anyway, are you?
Part 1: I love this episode. That being said, I'm a creationist. I believe we were put here by a higher power. Remember, all other theories about creation are just that, theories. I'm also a biogenesis. Meaning I believe life can only come from pre-existing life. I've had it said that my beliefs are nothing more than hocus-pocus. However, my beliefs require less magic than many evolutionist beliefs. For example, many evolutionists would say somehow the forces of earth came together...
@TekelBrighteyes Part 2: and created life. However, looking at it, the most simple living thing, a mycoplasma, has 468 proteins each consisting of an average of about 250 units. According to all that is known concerning reactions in chemistry and physics, not even one protein could be formed just by the forces of nature. So in order for life to be on the earth it would have to have spontaneous (magically) created itself. The idea that life could magically create itself was dis-proven.
@TekelBrighteyes Part 3: Because it follows the idea that people once had that maggots magically came from old meat. But science proved it was because flies laid eggs on the meat. So with creationism, science is once again on our side. Life could not have magically sprung up on earth, it had to have been created by something else.
@TekelBrighteyes I'm curious. Do you believe the bible as 100% true because it is the inspired word of God? Ever think that the cosmos is some Pimply faced beings lab experiment.
@steeleydan65 lol I've always suspected that one day we'll actually create a starship. Then we'll fly to the farthest reaches of the cosmos. Then we'll hit the inside of a test tube. XD
@TekelBrighteyes FAIL. Just because a mycoplasma TODAY in year 2010 contains so many proteins does not mean it did many millions of years ago. You forget (ignore???) all the countless stages between the first simple organism classified as "life" and a modern day mycoplasma.
@CelestialTina lol No I neither forgot nor ignored that life has to go through countless stages from beginning to end. Yet a simple grade school education tells us you need life to create life. Or would you have us believe life magically came from nowhere? Besides, my arguments aren't meant to prove creationism. They are simply to point out that creationism is a valid theory.
@CelestialTina You mad? You sound mad. Yeah, you mad. lol What upsets you so much? Is it the fact that using simple grade school science I'm able to point out that creationism is a valid theory? This is evident from the works of Louis Pasteur. Are you upset that my belief is different than your's? The reason I posted in the first place is because I read posts saying that creationists were uneducated people. I think I've proven otherwise. Is that what upsets you?
@TekelBrighteyes YOU mad? Got owned and now trying to psyche me as a last resort?
I just realized that it's pointless to argue with people who don't adhere to logic. But I'll indulge in one last exercise in futility by breaking it to you that creationism has ZERO evidence on its side and evolution has millions. If you think god had anything to do with it it's due to your inability to see further than your nose. For PROOF, try any normal biology book.
@sickrandr. A teansitional species in evolutionary parlance means a species in he process of evolving into another species, having characteristics of both. A lizard with wings, say. Or a mnnkey that can talk (without help from genetic engineering aka planet of the apes.
Drtomterrific 1 week ago
run Sheldon, run! for the sake of your sanity! (whatever is left of it at this point)
alexwolff1990 2 weeks ago 2
If we evolved from apes and monkeys why are there still apes and monkeys today???
iROK2298 1 month ago
@iROK2298 Are you joking or really fucking stupid?
jquixlo 1 month ago
@iROK2298 nice joke now tell another
AWEF321 1 month ago
@iROK2298 you mean apes like you?
vickyKH 1 month ago
@iROK2298 If America was colonized by the English, why do we still have England?
cesinco 3 weeks ago
@iROK2298 we evolved from a common ancestor
dmayfield2 2 weeks ago
Huge high five to sheldon's mother!!!! :D
OwlCityFan26 2 months ago
ahh the battle between science and religion
Jgaldragon 2 months ago
Evolution MY ASS!!
MegaBabielove 2 months ago
@MegaBabielove what about it????
positronicum97 1 month ago
And it still ends with the uneducated Christian winning.
Thanks, Chuck Lorre.
tibieryo 2 months ago 4
Evolution always saves the day.
dummychaos 2 months ago
FACT-
Creationists are idiots.
barraki92reborn 3 months ago 28
@barraki92reborn "And that is your opinion!"
olemy 3 months ago 8
@barraki92reborn fact, that's an opinion, therefore making your entire argument void. (Im not a creationist)
ArtTheRussian 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zhenjing1
Thanx! :)
Quacki29 3 months ago
@zhenjing1
Thanx! :)
Quacki29 3 months ago
To the people who have come here purely to relax and enjoy the comedy, NOT to have religious rants at each other that nobody else is going to read:
Could you please tell me why Sheldon went back to live with his mother? I've only just started watching so I don't know what the others did to humiliate him, and Wikipedia isn't that detailed in it's synopsis!
Quacki29 3 months ago
@Quacki29 they went to the north pole. Note: SPOILER ALERT!!!!! TURN BACK NOW IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS. To find magnetic monopoles, but couldn't find any and sheldon was getting very hard to live with, So the guys faked some results with an oven and sheldon thought he had done it. Then the guys told him the truth.
zhengjing1 3 months ago
that's my aunt!
:)
0d0i0a0n0e0L0a0 3 months ago
I am a creationist, and I think this is hilarious
MariquitaJ15 4 months ago
I LOVE SHELDON"S MOM!!!!
ifonlyclanax33 4 months ago
YES WE DID COME FROM THE SAME GRANDFATHER AS CHIMPS ITS NO SECRET ANYMORE
watching2632 4 months ago
I love how a simple thing such as light and distance disproves young earth creationism.
retrogamerist 5 months ago
@SuperBuzz12
...The point I'm trying to make is that we can never TRULY KNOW anything beyond trivial things that are true by definition, like "a triangle has 3 sides" or "I exist", and so at some point, the deeper you go into apparent "fact", you will eventually have to accept some axiom which you cannot prove; and in order to advance I'm fields like science everybody really has to have some consensus on which axioms to use. Not ideal, but the best we have.
captainmealot 6 months ago
@captainmealot I'm curious as to how you define your capitalized "true knowledge".
Bobopoa 5 months ago
@SuperBuzz12
Unfortunately all knowledge is fundamentally confirmed by consensus. Even in a field like mathematics where proof essentially means truth, it still requires somebody to convince somebody else of their logic. If there were only 2 people in the world. If one of them could prove Pythagoras' theorem, and the other could disprove it using faulty logic, how would either of them know which one was truly at fault?
captainmealot 6 months ago
I am a Christian a strong Christian one who does belive that man and the so called intellegent universe was created by a force that used it's power to bulid our world in the face of his holy powers image, but i love science. I am not a man to say evelution is wrong infact I think its right god bless darwin and his theory on evelution. This show is so funny. stop with ur negitive anti christian comments ur just people who got picked on in high school because ur creepy goth nothing little shits
Irongrad 6 months ago
Comment removed
V0lk 6 months ago
Its a TV show people do they have to put a disclaimer at the start of every episode.
bv842cytv 6 months ago
Its just a show--a damn funny one at that
cellofingers 6 months ago
I don't know. I'd just like to see on "transitional species" just once.
Drtomterrific 7 months ago
Comment removed
Sappharos 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i LOVE this!!! :))
Should you wish to see more Big Bang and unleash your geekiness, you may frequently visit:
thebig-bangblog.blogspot.com
cs30crammers 7 months ago
"Evolution isnt opinion, its fact!"
"And that is your opinion"!
Damn strait
Andiodnumber12345 7 months ago 5
His mum is so wise...even if she is a Texan right wing religious fanatic.
98raza20 8 months ago 4
6 people are creationists.
behnamasid 8 months ago 51
Evolution ftw
amadeus5889 8 months ago 89
how is it that Sheldon grew up in a family with such strong Texan accents(his mom and Missy) yet he doesn't have one? was it on purpose or what?
GothicPredalienWolf 9 months ago
@GothicPredalienWolf He worked to lose it?
trinitymike 5 months ago
I know people like this. The woman I mean.
NelbiumBK201 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
why the FUCK does sheldon love his mother!?!?!? if my mother were that much of a religious nut i'd want to fucking kill her. people that ignorant don't deserve to live. at all.
habs4life9 11 months ago
@habs4life9 Looks like she was using some reverse psychology there. She tends to do that alot with Sheldon. So what if she's religious? You're the one that looks like the overreacting nut case.
Waveblade 10 months ago
@habs4life9 How very enlightened, tolerant, and forward-thinking of you.
theaperturepriority 10 months ago
@habs4life9 ah yes,we should all listen to the very tolerent people like you.
loligloomy 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why the FUCK does sheldon love his mother? if my mother were this much of a religious nut i'd want her to fucking die a miserable painful death as soon as possible.
habs4life9 11 months ago
Sheldon's mom is more "open-minded" than him!
KnightOfLightning 11 months ago
@KnightOfLightning In as much as stating a irrefutable fact is "closed minded" then yes, your statement is true. It's exactly like arguing the shape of the earth while having a satellite photo of it in front of you. If you know what you're looking at then it's a fact, and if you don't.....you're "open minded".
phatferr 11 months ago
@phatferr Okay, get in your time machine and bring a camera; I wanna see the irrefutable fact in action.
KnightOfLightning 11 months ago
@KnightOfLightning You might as well ask how magnets work. Scientists? They're just talkin shit and gettin you pissed.
phatferr 10 months ago
I can not hear the laughter from back every 30 seconds
dmcyprus 11 months ago 2
People would be very surprised to know just how many people with science degrees believe in God and in Creation. I remember hearing a radio program with a rabbi who also had a Phd in genetics. Very fascinating discussion which led me to believe that God and science can live together.
Spudskie 1 year ago
@Spudskie its true im a science major but i consider myself to be agnostic
jvmassey 1 year ago
@Spudskie Religion and Science could live together. But think of it like this, we have this boy called Science that goes to a school where he is bullied by a mean boy called Religion. Of course Science bullies Religion as revenge. But one day, Religion doesn't come to school because he was run over by a car. Science has some compassion and is initially upset, but after a while he realizes that Religion's bullying was holding him back and without him he can now achieve something better.
turbooggyboy 11 months ago
@Spudskie Being a physicist myself, it's true that some do believe in God (or Allah, or Vishnu), yet I've never met one that even remotely believes in the creation story. If we're studying the interrelation between relativity and quantum mechanics via the subatomic particulars at varies moments after the big bang, then I just don't understand how one would rationalize the Abrahamic, Dharma, or any other creation stories while maintaining such a logically demanding career.
PeacefulAtheist1 11 months ago
@Spudskie Especially when much of the goal of science is to assume you don't understand reality, that you don't know the answers and then systematically searching for them. Not to seek things to support the answers you assume you had all along. Then in a mixed religious team we'd have Hindus searching for praja manifestation fluxes, Christians for souls, and Buddhists for chi leptons because their respective doctrines claim these things to be truths that they already "know" are true.
PeacefulAtheist1 11 months ago
i wish everyone arguing would just shut up. im a christian and i love this show
TheSkittleMages 1 year ago 2
@TheSkittleMages
And you'd enjoy it more of you didn't believe in a magical space daddy! :D
burakmorali 1 year ago
@burakmorali lol
surshot56 11 months ago
I love all the mothers in this show! :D
CuttyKitty1 1 year ago 2
That's the best!
IThinkdoU 1 year ago
So, the creotards are upset that they decended from the same common ancester as chimps (and everything if you go back far enough) but they don't get upset that they were made from dirt? Priceless!
RigOfDoom 1 year ago
@RigOfDoom The Probability of the simplest cell coming to life from non-life by natural causes is virtually zero. The simplest cell has enough information in it's DNA to fill 1,000 Encyclopedias, but that was done by natural causes? Hah! I don't have enough faith to be an atheist(when 1,000 Encyclopedias come about by nature, then say something). No scientist has observed or created life from non-life, thus it's by faith that they believe that the first organism came about by natural causes.
cqghost 1 year ago
@cqghost Who said I'm an atheist? Evolution is not incompatible with faith. Francis Crick (head of the genome project) is Christian, as is the leading genetics expert Ken Miller. In any event your post confuses abiogenesis with evolution. They are not the same thing. DNA occured when it's predecessor RNA stablized. You are already fully aware of natural chemical reactions: The table salt you use was once the metal sodium and the gas Chlorine. Purely natural. Multiply it by billions of years
RigOfDoom 1 year ago
@RigOfDoom You totally answered around my question. There is still the question of how everything got there? Did it occur by natural causes, there is a virtually zero chance of that, or by design?
Billions of years does not prove evolution. Also, things that were dated using radiometric dating my not also be correct. For instance, when new rock is dated, or rocks of known age, the date comes out radically exaggerated.
cqghost 1 year ago
@cqghost The creationist position creates a much bigger question of how God got here in the first place. St Augustine's "first cause" argument is an embarrassment to scientifically literate Christianity. Evolution has actually been proved in labs. Look up the Lenski experiments. The fact of evolution does not diminish humanity in any way at all. Only human behaviour can do that. Natural Selection operates at the level of the individual gene - not the total organism.
RigOfDoom 1 year ago
@RigOfDoom God did not have to get here. He transcends time because he created it. Keep in mind that i never mentioned God either, i mentioned a designer. You still left most of my question unanswered. How did the first organism get here, when it's DNA had enough messages to fill 1,000 encyclopedias (usually some intelligence is required when sending out messages; nature doesn't do that)? That has never been recreated observed.
cqghost 1 year ago
@cqghost Actually it has. Craig Venter's labs did it last year. Created brand a brand new cell that could properly self-replicate. You confuse the terms "messages" with the real term "information." That information is made from protein strings. Those protein strings are made from the same thing as everything else - the elements of the periodic table. The periodic table elements were created in the sun.
RigOfDoom 1 year ago
@RigOfDoom Craig's experiments did not create life from non-life, or using the original conditions of the earth, but from present DNA. Also, you only reaffirm my point. That life that was created must be, let me use your words, "CREATED".
Yes, but those protein strings are used as messages
cqghost 1 year ago
@cqghost No they are not messages. Are you actually going to go and read the Lenski papers or not?
RigOfDoom 1 year ago
@RigOfDoom I am already aware of Lenski's papers, I have read them. They talk about life mutating, not about how life came to be. My original question is still unanswered.
cqghost 1 year ago
@cqghost I must give you many kudos on the things you've said. I've always held with the grand designer theory. I have a simple experiment for everyone out there. Go to a beach and build a sand castle. Try and convince everyone who passes that do to the wind, waves, and shifting earth, it formed by itself. See how many people believe you. Ironically, there is a higher chance of that happening than there is for life to magically appear on the world without some outside force.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes That's bogus, because sand castles don't reproduce. The old "Tornado in a Junkyard" argument simply doesn't apply.
lagerbaer 1 year ago
@lagerbaer The idea behind many evolution theories is that somehow the forces of nature came together through countless centuries and somehow formed the first organisms which formed into life as we know it. Going by that theory, the winds, rains, waves, and people walking on the beach, Could have caused the sand to form into the castle. The odds of that happening are actually far greater than the idea of life someone magically being formed from nothing.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes 1) There is only ONE evolution theory 2) Evolution is not Abiogenesis. 3) Evolution is NOT random chance. Mutations are random chance, but natural selection is NOT random chance.
lagerbaer 1 year ago
@lagerbaer But... evolution does not explain how life came about in the first place since there is no natural force on earth which can create life besides other life. And evolutionist do have different theories on how this came about.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@cqghost And if you doubt the billions of years bit - that means you take 2000 year old scientific authority more seriously than new advances? If you don't know what a Potassium Argon clock is then you don't even have sufficient knowledge to have an opinion. The creationist position is dishonest because it says it must be Creation OR evolution. If evolution is proven wrong (not happened in 150 years of trying) then its replacement will not be creation, it will be a new properly tested system.
RigOfDoom 1 year ago
Um... I have a question for everyone who says theory=fact. I've done research into the loop and string theories. Both have to do with how everything was created. Now, they both can't be right yet according to how everyone wants to define theory they both must be right. So my question is, which is it? It's been awhile since I've been in school, but the last time I checked it was called the law of gravity, not the theory of gravity. Like they're called the laws of physics.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes A scientific theory doesn't mean the explanation must be correct, it means it is a coherent explanation that takes the relevant observable facts into consideration. A theory can be wrong (ToE), in fact all science must be falsifiable in order for it to be science. But the ToE is one of the strongest theories out there, in that it is supported by many different fields of science and is not contradicted by any observable facts, something the theory of gravity can't claim.
Shadowmantis77 1 year ago 2
@Shadowmantis77 But... but... everyone talks about theories like they are facts. I was just pointing out that theories aren't facts. What you just said, "A theory can be wrong," proves as such.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes By the way, gravity, like evolution, is both a theory and a fact. The fact of gravity is the observable occurence of it, like the fact of evolution is the observable occurence of it. The Law of Gravity is mathematical expression of that observance (since evolution utilizes random mutations, among other factors, I don't think it could be mathematically expressed as a Law). The theory of gravity, like evolution, is the explanation of what we see and its cause.
Shadowmantis77 1 year ago
@TehJedicake Of course it has a lot of pro science stuff. It focuses on two theoretical Physicists living together!
thespiesman 1 year ago
I love it when Creationists try to tell us that it's "only a theory!" There is a big difference between a scientific theory and a general theory.
AdamArchangel 1 year ago 94
@AdamArchangel glad to see someones trying to show people theres a difference and remind those who forgot theres a difference. hell gravity is just a theory now becuase of astro physicist finding something that hasnt been explained yet! to bad the creationist will keep using that argument. hell the only reason why theres still a large amount of creationist is becuase of all the brainwashing, the conspiracy theorist were right except its not the goverment useing "mind control"
minipancho94 1 year ago
@AdamArchangel Not to mention it is a proven theory...
donking121 10 months ago
@donking121 Unlike string theory, which I refuse to accept until it is proven.
Only ten dimenisions my ass!
SirTimbo 9 months ago
@AdamArchangel but the fact that is't a "scientific theory" doesn't mean it's true
Anathiron 8 months ago
@Anathiron A scientific theory is an explanation used to best explain an observed phenomena. Of course science is always changing, that's the point, but when all experts in a certain field agree on an explanation, you can damn sure accept that it is true.
AdamArchangel 8 months ago
@AdamArchangel so if everyone agrees the earth is flat instead of spherical it's true?
Anathiron 8 months ago
@Anathiron That is not what I said. I said that when the majority of experts in a particular field of study agree on an explanation, you can be pretty sure that it is true. In the case of your example, it would have to be all of the world's geologists implying that the earth is flat. However, no one that I would call sane would claim that the earth is flat.
AdamArchangel 8 months ago
Comment removed
Sappharos 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AdamArchangel
Science by consensus is not science. It is foolish and dangerous.
SuperBuzz12 7 months ago
@AdamArchangel that's fair, only thing is, its an incomplete theory, having and working on an incomplete theory isn't a problem for me, trying to teach it and pass it off as fact is a problem for me.
CFaux220 4 months ago
@CFaux220 How is it an incomplete theory? The evidence for evolution is so high that you could literally make a mountain out of it. Our DNA alone proves that evolution is entirely possible, and things like fossil records and comparative embryology just further cement it as a scientific fact.
AdamArchangel 4 months ago
@AdamArchangel now don't get me wrong, i agree that evolution happens, that DNA changes and mutates, that is fact. please, im no fool, though my first comment may give that impression. however, there is not enough evidence to say we evolved from the primordial muck, such as it were, to make it fact.
CFaux220 4 months ago
@CFaux220 Fair enough, apologies if my tone came across as harsh, I tend to react in a snappy way. It is true that the evidence for abiogenesis still needs more investigation, and unfortunately it isn't a field that a lot of people are putting time into. It's just important to note that abiogenesis and evolution are two completely separate fields; even if by some chance we are the products of some kind of creator (though I can't see how), evolution still remains a fact =]
AdamArchangel 4 months ago
@AdamArchangel are you kidding? we both kept our heads together, considering our venue we should be receiving plaques with our names on them. i can agree with what you said (aside the creator thing) glad we could come to that agreement.
CFaux220 4 months ago
@CFaux220 Fair enough, apologies if my tone came across as harsh. It's true that abiogenesis is a field that still requires a lot more research put into it, and unfortunately not enough time is being put into the field. It is important to note, though, that even if by some chance we are the products of a creator (though I can't see how such things are possible), evolution would still remain a fact.
AdamArchangel 4 months ago
@AdamArchangel i'm curious as to how you would explain the Cambrian Big Bang then? And why over the past 150-200 years since the "origin of species" we have not ascertained undeniable middle stage fossils in evolutionary steps and also seeing as you yourself say DNA is proof of our evolution could you explain to me how we managed to get all that information together in the original species (i think it tops over 1 million pieces of information) when some scientists say that if the world were.....
blobbers18 4 months ago
@AdamArchangel ... created ex nihilo (out of nothing) naturally there would much less "information" around, i believe they say around 400 pieces. Information being that found in DNA such as genes and alleles. Also how would the first cell mutate, and thereby evolve, considering it probably reproduced asexually and more likely by budding. I agree with micro evolution as seen in darwin's finches but the whole evolutionary theory just doesn't stand firm with me.
blobbers18 4 months ago
@blobbers18 Cambrian explosion that happened over millions of years? Despite the fact it was quick in evolutionary time it's still a very long process.and with conditions willing theres no reason why there couldn't be a big boom in accelerated evolution. Cells don't just reproduce A sexually they also have the ability to work with other cells and also borrow genes from other cells via horizontal gene transfer. (cont)
ronocko 4 months ago
@blobbers18 (cont) You're asking for transitional fossils which is another misunderstanding you see everything is a transition from what was before to what is to come there aren't clear cut boxes that separate and by that I mean donkeys and mules can breed and only very rarely produce viable offspring and as they drift genetically further apart they become less and less capable of breeding and become different species. Just look at things like microraptor or archaeoptaryx or Australopithecus
ronocko 4 months ago
I love it when Creationists try to sound like their fallacies are some kind of rebellion. "Go against the flow, man!" Um, not in a river of truth, buddy. Sorry.
TD9001 1 year ago 6
my sister is the same... apparently facts are a matter of opinion these days -facepalm-
spydrebyte 1 year ago 3
Facts in Texas are like clothes in church: optional.
TD9001 1 year ago 3
I apologize to you then. When you said," If it's psychologically disturbing to you that your cousins are chimps, " I thought that's what you were saying.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
dayyyyyyyyyyyum Sheldon's mum is a MILF.
dronesincedawnoftime 1 year ago
Comment removed
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes MILF = Mum I'd Like to Fuck
dronesincedawnoftime 1 year ago
@dronesincedawnoftime lmao Thanks for explaining that. I'll have to remember it. XD
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
thumbs up if u noticed sheldon mum's sexy legs!
Bengetowutang 1 year ago 119
@Bengetowutang Now I did
bassguitartrombone95 8 months ago
Also, sorry to the poster for clogging up the comments like this XD
CelestialTina 1 year ago
And to all the people saying in science theory=facts, are you talking about the string theory or the loop theory? They are both scientific theories, yet they both can't be right. You can't have it both ways. And once again, to everyone arguing with me, I never said my was was the right way. All I said was the THEORY of creationism has some merit to it. What does it hurt you if I choose to believe it? Just as it doesn't hurt me if you are for the string or loop theory. But theory doesn't = fact.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
I would love to discuss this more everyone, but it's time for me to head to work. But I'm wondering, when did the roles become reversed? It used to be creationist were hard headed and when confronted with science they said, "You're wrong," without really backing up what they were saying. I'm not saying I'm right, just that I gave a valid logical explanation for my belief. Instead of being met with scientific feedback, I was answered with, "You're wrong."
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes lol cause you are wrong. If someone claimed the Norse gods were real, I could only say they are WRONG and I think most people would understand why it'd be silly to even discuss the notion further. I feel the same way about your god, and also of your so called "valid theory", aka intelligent design.
I bet you'd agree the Norse gods don't exist. You only have problem with one more so have faith, there's still hope for you ;)
CelestialTina 1 year ago
@CelestialTina Is it you won't discuss it further or you can't? You can say I'm wrong all you want, that doesn't make it so. Instead of simply saying I'm wrong, which any 2 year old can do, back it up. As for the Norse gods thing, the Bible does say there are other gods. So while I don't worship them, I won't say they aren't there. BTW, if it's silly to discuss this any further, stop replying to me. Why does it hurt you so much that I believe what I do and can back it up with science?
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes I know I said I was done with the discussion but I just couldn't help myself. And boy was it worth it. I've actually found a person who will go so far to prove his/her point they'll even say they belive in Thor and Odin. And here I was just watching scenes from Big Bang Theory XD
Why your beliefs hurt me? Stupidity hurts me. I'm sensitive to stupidity. I'd even go so far as saying allergic.
CelestialTina 1 year ago
@CelestialTina lol I never said I believe in them. But I'm willing to keep an open mind. And again, I'm wondering where the roles got reversed? When did the creationist become the ones willing to keep an open mind and at least consider someone else might be right? All you've done so far was to say I'm wrong and belittle me. But you never once tried to disprove my ideas with any facts. I think the problem is you're scared I might be right. You can't attack my theories so instead you come after me
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes There's a difference between open mind and absurdity. Should I keep an open mind about Santa Claus? Maybe toys really do come alive when humans aren't around? And maybe trolls live in the forest close to my home? After all, I don't want to be unscientific and say "no way". Heck, I am a physics student after all...
I think I know why you're confused. Science does say you can only say how likely/unlikely something is. But for gods, the probability is so small, it's INSIGNIFICANT.
CelestialTina 1 year ago
@CelestialTina Part 1) lmao I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were a physics student. Of course that makes you right and me wrong. I'm willing to admit my education is somewhat lacking. I've always believed you should put up or shut up. And I've said I have an open mind. So I'll do just that. There are some questions I've had due to being a product of a poor education system. So if you can give me a satisfactory answer to some of them, I'll at least consider changing my mind. Fair enough?
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes BTW, saying "I don't know" or "Because you're wrong" are not satisfactory answers. Anyway, here's my first question: Where are all the missing links? I'm not talking about the one between apes and man, I mean all of them. If we all evolved from the same basic place, there should be millions of intermediate or transitional forms between those descendant forms we know today. I'm willing to concede that one or two might not have been found yet.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes Part 3) lol Sorry I forgot to number part two. Anyway. With all the fossils that have been found, the record should show this but in fact all that has ever been seen is each life form appearing suddenly and in perfection. There is no sign of gradual change as fin changes to limb and limb to wing. Again, I don't get out much so I may be wrong. If you know where it's at please tell me so I can look it up and learn. So once again, where are all the links?
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes ... about evolution and the evidence, I warmly recommend Richard Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show on Earth", it's precisely about what we're talking about, I think it will answer all your questions.
And that is why I don't want to talk about proof of evolution here, I'm not a biologist and any attempt from me trying to explain the fin-to-leg transition would sound ridiculous. I can only give you logical arguments regarding the god question. For the rest, read what the pros say.
CelestialTina 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes I don't think being a physics student is a credential in a biology discussion, I mentioned it in a different context, u might wanna re-read that.
I'll base my answers to your questions on what I've heard from real biologists:
1) Newsflash: the missing links are no longer missing! It was true in Darwin's time, but since then, they've all been found. You'd know it if you'd read a biology book written later than 1859.
2) same as above. If you want a really good book ....
CelestialTina 1 year ago
@CelestialTina lol Yeah, but you were the one who brought up being a physics part. XD I have read some good, up to date biology book, they still don't explain a lot. Which one are you using? I'll check it out.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes I didn't say I was a physicist, I said I STUDY it, actually I'm in my first year lol. ie, not a physicist.
CelestialTina 1 year ago
@CelestialTina @CelestialTina lol I know, but you were still the one who brought it up. I don't bring up any specifics on my education because I know that's the first thing people will go after. But I still want you to know I am a man of my word. I will do research into the information you presented. But I'm also taking it with a grain of salt. I know there have been fossils found which may suggest there are links in evolution. But I also know...
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes there haven't been as many found as there should have been. And that even many of the evolutionist disagree with each other as to weather this proves a link or not. But again, I will research it. I'm willing to keep an open mind about such things.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes I'm glad you're keeping an open mind, that's more than what you hear from most creationists.
But your claims that biologists disagree on key issues and not that many fossils have been found, are just plain wrong. They disagree on some minor details but I can assure you evolution is as certain as night and day.
The physicist part I brought up to make the point that reason and logic are especially important principles to me.
CelestialTina 1 year ago
@CelestialTina lmao Yeah, that's what I meant in my earlier posts about role reversals. While I haven't changed my mind, I do keep an open one and am willing to research what other people have to say. But I must say, the biggest problem with evolution is the evolutionists themselves. Many have set themselves up saying they are right and anyone who disagrees with them is not only wrong but lack any type of education. I'm willing to keep an open mind and let other people believe their ideas.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes I just wish everyone else was willing to do the same.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes Disliking evolutionists doesn't make evolution wrong. If you find another "view" to be more correct, you owe it to yourself to change your mind.
Let me tell you about changing ones mind. My mother's side is very catholic. She is the worst die-hard creatonist. I used to believe all sorts of crazy shit as a teen: spirits, wicca, dreams foretelling the future, even god. As I learned more about the world, I realized I had been wrong. So don't tell me about keeping an open mind ;)
CelestialTina 1 year ago
@CelestialTina lmao I donj't dislike evolutionists. I just feel many should be a little more accepting to others beliefs. Until something has become a proven fact, I think they need to let other people have their beliefs. As I've said, I'm keeping an open mind and am looking into the things we've discussed. I also want to add on a personal note, I have found all of this to be a very amusing experiment. I proposed my theory and backed it up sound scientific data.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes I expected to be met with scepticism. In fact, I yearned for an intelligent discussion. What I received were answers like, "You're wrong." It wasn't till the very end that anyone even tried to offer any scientific data to back up their claim. Even then I had to dig to get it out. But one I did get it, it was nice to see someone finally back up their ideas.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes Besides, the whole premise of creationism is god. Without god, no creationism. If I can disprove god, I've disproven creationism.
Try this: I think the no.1 reason people in the developed world believe in god is cause he's been passed down through generations. If we all had collective amnesia about god, NOBODY in the developed world would invent him, because in our time of knowledge and relative prosperity, there is no need for god as an explanation for ANYTHING.
CelestialTina 1 year ago
@CelestialTina lmao You can no more disprove the existence of God than I can prove He does exist. I'd say we reached a stalemate on that one.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes Sorry for the late reply. Funny you said stalemate, my brother sent me a quote from Christopher Hitchens yesterday which I thought just brilliantly fits our discussion:
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
CelestialTina 1 year ago
@CelestialTina Greetings and welcome back. rotflmao You realize that works both ways right? That which can be dismissed without evidence can be asserted without evidence. XD But remember, that was my whole point in the beginning. I wasn't trying to make anyone believe in creationism. Far from it. I respect other peoples opinions and theories. My point was only to show I have valid reasons to believe in mine.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes Eh... no. If that were true, all logic could be thrown out the window. And for what? So that religion could be contained in its own special bubble, untouchable and beyond logic and reason, because people like you don't like the rules of the game: it needs to make sense and you need proof.
If it's psychologically disturbing to you that your cousins are chimps, TOO BAD. If science is too complicated to understand, TOO BAD. It's still the best explanation for the world we've got.
CelestialTina 1 year ago 4
@CelestialTina lmao Again? I have used logic in my past posts. And yes, it does work both ways. It sounds like you're the one trying to keep things contained in their own special bubble. I never said evolution was psychologically disturbing. And I never brought up the chimps. But since you did, where are the talking ones? If we did evolve from chimps, we should have found a closer relative to them by now. And why do you sound so defensive? Why does my belief hurt you so much?
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes For the last time: WE. DID. NOT. EVOLVE. FROM. CHIMPS. You have just proven that you know virtually nothing about evolution. Good day to you.
CelestialTina 1 year ago 9
@CelestialTina on second thought the creationist might of evovled from chimps, how else do you explain their inhuman stupidity?
minipancho94 1 year ago
@minipancho94 Hahaha, that's pretty funny, I was talking to my dad the other day about this discussion and he said something very similar, "you should have told the creationist that the "talking chimp" is him", but I'm on my good behaviour now so I try not to insult them too much XD
CelestialTina 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes You say "until something has become a proven fact". Evolution HAS been proven to be a FACT! How many times do I have to say it? There is no question about it being true. It's been proven not only through the fossil record, but through DNA analysis. You'd be fascinated to learn how you can see in DNA exactly what genes are turned off in humans, and those differences are what makes us humans and not apes.
CelestialTina 1 year ago
lol Ok, let's try this. You're out in a field and find a beautiful pocketwatch. Not only is it expertly made, but it's keeping precision time. You'd like to know who made the watch but can't find any signatures or markings on it. I say no one made the watch. Isn't it possible that since the beginning of time, the materials shaped and formed themselves and fell into perfect order creating the watch? If the watch is made from natural ores and gems, it's more possible.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes Forces in nature could create a natural watch. But as has been discussed before, no known force can create life. Life must come from life.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes I've heard this "life must come from life" before. How are you defining "life"? What are the requirements for something to be considered "alive"?
deedubya286 1 year ago
@deedubya286 Well, as I said in one of my first posts: the most simple living thing, a mycoplasma, has 468 proteins each consisting of an average of about 250 units. According to all that is known concerning reactions in chemistry and physics, not even one protein could be formed just by the forces of nature. So in order for life to be on the earth it would have to have spontaneous (magically) created itself. The idea that life could magically create itself was dis-proven.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes
One of the many facts that creationists seem to miss is that even the simplest form of life on Earth today is the result of over 3 billion years of successful evolution. Only creationism says that life began in the forms we see today.
No one knows what the simplest possible form of life is because it has never been seen.
I'm willing to wait for the day when the secret is cracked and new life is generated in the lab and I'm looking forward to reading your denial of it.
deedubya286 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes arguement by analogy isn't valid.
steeleydan65 1 year ago
@steeleydan65 lmao It's better than the arguments people have been giving me. "You're wrong," is not an argument.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
Where does everyone get their definition of theory? I remember in school it was always the highest level, before fact. After all, creationism is a theory. Since it's called a theory does that make it fact as well? Please go to wikipedia and look it up.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes A hypothesis only if it's logicaly consistent.Creatioism is neither logical , nor nor consitent .
Wiki pedia? RU insane?any student who used wiki as source material would certainly get an F
steeleydan65 1 year ago
@steeleydan65 Creationism at least explains how we got here. And I've given good arguments to this. So please explain to me another, logical, way life got here.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
*sigh* Not angry, just bored. You just keep attacking my ideas without trying to back up your own. As for the facts I keep talking about, go back to my first posts and reread. And you made no points other than just disagreeing with me so how am I supposed to answer them? BTW, I don't mind people arguing with my ideas, in fact, I love a good conversation. But you're not presenting any of your own ideas to back up your belief. So no, it's not arguing with you. It's more like talking to the wind.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
I'm not interested in regurgitating biology books to prove you something that's common knowledge in any respected university. Your "facts" are just claims. Yes life comes from life, it's called birth. But we're talking about the source of life, no? So by your logic, first life came from a living being, ie god is a living biological being? Thought he was some kind of spirit or force. But you guys aren't really clear about what he is anyway, are you?
CelestialTina 1 year ago
Part 1: I love this episode. That being said, I'm a creationist. I believe we were put here by a higher power. Remember, all other theories about creation are just that, theories. I'm also a biogenesis. Meaning I believe life can only come from pre-existing life. I've had it said that my beliefs are nothing more than hocus-pocus. However, my beliefs require less magic than many evolutionist beliefs. For example, many evolutionists would say somehow the forces of earth came together...
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes Part 2: and created life. However, looking at it, the most simple living thing, a mycoplasma, has 468 proteins each consisting of an average of about 250 units. According to all that is known concerning reactions in chemistry and physics, not even one protein could be formed just by the forces of nature. So in order for life to be on the earth it would have to have spontaneous (magically) created itself. The idea that life could magically create itself was dis-proven.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes Part 3: Because it follows the idea that people once had that maggots magically came from old meat. But science proved it was because flies laid eggs on the meat. So with creationism, science is once again on our side. Life could not have magically sprung up on earth, it had to have been created by something else.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes I'm curious. Do you believe the bible as 100% true because it is the inspired word of God? Ever think that the cosmos is some Pimply faced beings lab experiment.
steeleydan65 1 year ago
@steeleydan65 lol I've always suspected that one day we'll actually create a starship. Then we'll fly to the farthest reaches of the cosmos. Then we'll hit the inside of a test tube. XD
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes FAIL. Just because a mycoplasma TODAY in year 2010 contains so many proteins does not mean it did many millions of years ago. You forget (ignore???) all the countless stages between the first simple organism classified as "life" and a modern day mycoplasma.
CelestialTina 1 year ago 2
@CelestialTina lol No I neither forgot nor ignored that life has to go through countless stages from beginning to end. Yet a simple grade school education tells us you need life to create life. Or would you have us believe life magically came from nowhere? Besides, my arguments aren't meant to prove creationism. They are simply to point out that creationism is a valid theory.
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
Comment removed
CelestialTina 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes No, you're the one who thinks life magically came to life (god). I think Sheldon's response is the best to people like you... SIGH.
CelestialTina 1 year ago 23
@CelestialTina You mad? You sound mad. Yeah, you mad. lol What upsets you so much? Is it the fact that using simple grade school science I'm able to point out that creationism is a valid theory? This is evident from the works of Louis Pasteur. Are you upset that my belief is different than your's? The reason I posted in the first place is because I read posts saying that creationists were uneducated people. I think I've proven otherwise. Is that what upsets you?
TekelBrighteyes 1 year ago
@TekelBrighteyes YOU mad? Got owned and now trying to psyche me as a last resort?
I just realized that it's pointless to argue with people who don't adhere to logic. But I'll indulge in one last exercise in futility by breaking it to you that creationism has ZERO evidence on its side and evolution has millions. If you think god had anything to do with it it's due to your inability to see further than your nose. For PROOF, try any normal biology book.
And nope, still not angry =D
CelestialTina 1 year ago