itt: evolution and trolling

[Saturn V]

ph lock this shit, it's just turning into a flame war.
no one here is going to turn the pope atheist and no one here is going to turn water into wine. everybody is stubborn everyone is ignorant and everybody will believe what they believe is true, no matter what. everyone shut the fuck up and leave, now.

I SEE YOU'RE QUOTING CORINTHIANS

[Cops]

in before lock

[the_paul]

I SEE YOU'RE QUOTING CORINTHIANS

Ahahah best post of this thread

[MetalHeadz]

Ok Milosh, you're clearly a believer in the 'god of gaps', i.e. your only evidence for god is the limitations of science and logic. Which, may I say, is a rather pathetic position and one which does not promote positive, rational or coherent thinking.

Some of these questions are unanswerable, you're right. But why do you think for one moment that this gives weight to the idea of a celestial creator? This position only increases the burden upon reason as it asks us to believe that there exists a intelligent designer behind everything.

At most milosh, you can claim that there was a deistic god; a god which created the universe but plays no role in human affairs.

Moreover, you're logic does not support any of the claims made by religions. How does the fact that we cannot explain the preliminary stages of life support the idea that Jesus was born a virgin, for example? You don't get many religious people saying 'I believe in God because I find it possible to explain how the rules and maxims of this universe are so perfect'.

How did unicellular organisms develop into multi-cellular organisms? Seriously, how does a wolf turn into a whale and where are the transitional fossils?

This is where you start to lose the battle, in disputing the theory of evolution. You cannot expect to find 'transitional fossils' for every evolutionary transition, this is unreasonable.

How did something as complex as the human eye or brain happen by chance mutations and reactions, much more life itself!?

The complexity of the eye is something that many evolutionary biologists have explained. What started off as very sensitive cells, capable of differentiating shades of light, evolved slowly and incrementally into eye-like organs with optical fibres etc. Those species which had more optic sensitivity had vastly improved chances of survival and thus were much more likely to pass on their genes for future generations.

[Cops]

alright this is over now.

[Exalt]

someone ?buy this man some logic classes

I see that your completely ignorant mr startrek. Thank you though, for your concern. I will accept any gift u want to buy me with pleasure.

[Saturn V]

I see that your completely ignorant mr startrek. Thank you though, for your concern. I will accept any gift u want to buy me with pleasure.

lrn2 NOT LOGICAL FALLACY

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

[DoTheFandango]

I see that your completely ignorant mr startrek. Thank you though, for your concern. I will accept any gift u want to buy me with pleasure.

he meant philosophical logic, as in how you are using argumentum ad ignorantiam to say that you are correct. Just because X isn't correct does not prove Y.

[Cops]

for the love of god kolar close this thread or ill punch you in your kidneys around 3:30 am

[castromarx]

Can somebody please fix this thread title? Someone spelled tit wrong.

[Exalt]

he meant philosophical logic, as in how you are using argumentum ad ignorantiam to say that you are correct. Just because X isn't correct does not prove Y.

of course it doesn't, but it also does not disprove Y either, that's all I ever said

its general logic because if you cannot prove or disprove something, there is still the ability for it to exist or not exist, it applies to everything, i never said it MUST exist because u cannot disprove it

and you all read everything wrong, i never said i was correct, that's up to you to interpret what you believe, i just said you cannot use logic to automatically count something out if you cannot prove or disprove something

it applies to basic understanding... no one believed the world was round except a few select individuals, but nothing could prove or disprove the believe until they circumnavigated the globe

[DoTheFandango]

of course it doesn't, but it also does not disprove Y either, that's all I ever said

not disproving != proving, either. not disproving is just saying that a lack of information exists for anyone to prove that you are not right.

take a 100-level philosophy course, seriously.

[Saturn V]

take a 100-level philosophy course, seriously.

this is what i'm saying

[Galleleo]

Ow great, metalheadz and his English got in this too

[Kolar]

I think that is enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Dmt0NMIPnE