The 10 most ridiculous things people believe.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Actually, the article said clearly that it could still be debated whether or not the changes had a genetic basis at all. Let me ask you this-- do you believe in God? Darwin did.

BumFluff122

All concepts of God came from a common belief in an intelligence and a creator.. whether it's Buddah, Spinoza's God, or Jehovah. Out of Darwin's own mouth in 1879: "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God."

I actually belive that Darwin and traditional evolutionists are the ones that are overcomplicating things, not creationists. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Actually, the article said clearly that it could still be debated whether or not the changes had a genetic basis at all. Let me ask you this-- do you believe in God? Darwin did.

hartsickdiscipl

All concepts of God came from a common belief in an intelligence and a creator.. whether it's Buddah, Spinoza's God, or Jehovah. Out of Darwin's own mouth in 1879: "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God."

I actually belive that Darwin and traditional evolutionists are the ones that are overcomplicating things, not creationists. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

Humans aren't used to constructing things using genetic materials. We're used to building things with crude materials. But any craftsman or builder will agree that it makes more sense to build similar things using common materials. It makes no more sense to assume that the Ape chromosomes were reformed on their own to create the human configuration than it does to assume that my lego pieces came together on their own or as a result of some sort of mutation. The only thing that we have true proof of is that the same materials were used, but put together differently.

hartsickdiscipl

You specifically denied that we came from apes. I have presented evidence to the contrary, which indicates not only similarity to other apes, but also a variance between us and chimpanzees that provides evidence for common ancestry. You have not even attempted to address this point, except to use the universal fallback that "a designer did it". That is not even a coherent argument; it does not explain the "why" in any way, shape, or form.

Occam's Razor, which is believe is grossly misapplied here.. would not be consistent with assuming that common materials configured very similarly (in this case, just one step away from each other) MUST evolve into each other.

hartsickdiscipl

Occam's Razor states that one should only incorporate as many assumptions into one's explanation for a phenomenon than are necessitated by the evidence. Faced with the fact that chromosome #2 has a compound in the middle found only on the ends of ape chromosomes everywhere else, my conclusion is, "They were fused together." Yours is, "A designer made it that way, just as he made two chimpanzee chromosomes that are unfused but would be identical were they fused."

It is quite clear to me that your explanation contains a rather unnecessary and complicating assumption that the evidence most certainly does not require in any way, shape, or form.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]Humans aren't used to constructing things using genetic materials. We're used to building things with crude materials. But any craftsman or builder will agree that it makes more sense to build similar things using common materials. It makes no more sense to assume that the Ape chromosomes were reformed on their own to create the human configuration than it does to assume that my lego pieces came together on their own or as a result of some sort of mutation. The only thing that we have true proof of is that the same materials were used, but put together differently. Occam's Razor, which is believe is grossly misapplied here.. would not be consistent with assuming that common materials configured very similarly (in this case, just one step away from each other) MUST evolve into each other.Vandalvideo

I don't belive that I'm misrepresenting evolution at all. The very basis of the belief comes from observation of similar species, and the study of the genetic structures and similarities of these creatures. Whether we're talking about chromosomes, legos, or car parts.. we're talking about construction.. construction with common parts. To see a bunch of common parts configured just a step or 2 from being something different does nothing to prove that they weren't just created that way.

I don't belive that I'm misrepresenting evolution at all. The very basis of the belief comes from observation of similar species, and the study of the genetic structures and similarities of these creatures. Whether we're talking about chromosomes, legos, or car parts.. we're talking about construction.. construction with common parts. To see a bunch of common parts configured just a step or 2 from being something different does nothing to prove that they weren't just created that wayhartsickdiscipl

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Humans aren't used to constructing things using genetic materials. We're used to building things with crude materials. But any craftsman or builder will agree that it makes more sense to build similar things using common materials. It makes no more sense to assume that the Ape chromosomes were reformed on their own to create the human configuration than it does to assume that my lego pieces came together on their own or as a result of some sort of mutation. The only thing that we have true proof of is that the same materials were used, but put together differently.

GabuEx

You specifically denied that we came from apes. I have presented evidence to the contrary, which indicates not only similarity to other apes, but also a variance between us and chimpanzees that provides evidence for common ancestry. You have not even attempted to address this point, except to use the universal fallback that "a designer did it". That is not even a coherent argument; it does not explain the "why" in any way, shape, or form.

Occam's Razor, which is believe is grossly misapplied here.. would not be consistent with assuming that common materials configured very similarly (in this case, just one step away from each other) MUST evolve into each other.

hartsickdiscipl

Occam's Razor states that one should only incorporate as many assumptions into one's explanation for a phenomenon than are necessitated by the evidence. Faced with the fact that chromosome #2 has a compound in the middle found only on the ends of ape chromosomes everywhere else, my conclusion is, "They were fused together." Yours is, "A designer made it that way, just as he made two chimpanzee chromosomes that are unfused but would be identical were they fused."

It is quite clear to me that your explanation contains a rather unnecessary and complicating assumption that the evidence most certainly does not require in any way, shape, or form.

I think you are missing the point and simplicity of my entire argument, not the other way around. Just because we have striking genetic (and other) similarities to apes does not mean that one set of chromosomes used to be the other way around. What leads you to assume that they did? To me, that is the biggest assumption of all! Remember, the idea of a common creator was around and widespread long before the idea of evolution. This is tantamount to me looking at 2 things that are constructed of the same materials (remember, the earthly environment that we originated from has the same raw materials to construct hundreds of thousands of different species), and assuming that one of them must have come from the other. They are simply configured differently. This idea requires the least assumption of all!

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Actually, the article said clearly that it could still be debated whether or not the changes had a genetic basis at all. Let me ask you this-- do you believe in God? Darwin did.

BumFluff122

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]I don't belive that I'm misrepresenting evolution at all. The very basis of the belief comes from observation of similar species, and the study of the genetic structures and similarities of these creatures. Whether we're talking about chromosomes, legos, or car parts.. we're talking about construction.. construction with common parts. To see a bunch of common parts configured just a step or 2 from being something different does nothing to prove that they weren't just created that wayVandalvideo

I hope you're not going to send me a link like the one earlier with the transplanted lizards.. Why is it so hard to believe that a bunch of species that came from the same planet would simply have been put together differently using the same basic materials? And that the ones that appear and act most closely to each other would be so similar genetically? Why must we ASSUME mass evolution from that?

I hope you're not going to send me a link like the one earlier with the transplanted lizards.. Why is it so hard to believe that a bunch of species that came from the same planet would simply have been put together differently using the same basic materials? And that the ones that appear and act most closely to each other would be so similar genetically? Why must we ASSUME mass evolution from that?hartsickdiscipl

I think you are missing the point and simplicity of my entire argument, not the other way around. Just because we have striking genetic (and other) similarities to apes does not mean that one set of chromosomes used to be the other way around. What leads you to assume that they did? To me, that is the biggest assumption of all! Remember, the idea of a common creator was around and widespread long before the idea of evolution. This is tantamount to me looking at 2 things that are constructed of the same materials (remember, the earthly environment that we originated from has the same raw materials to construct hundreds of thousands of different species), and assuming that one of them must have come from the other. They are simply configured differently. This idea requires the least assumption of all!

hartsickdiscipl

In what way, shape, or form is it an assumption to say that chromosome #2 in humans came about through the fusion of two chromosomes? Humans have one less chromosome pair than other apes; there exists the compound in the middle that is only ever found on the ends of chromosomes; and there are two chromosomes in chimpanzees that, were they fused, would be identical to chromosome #2 in humans. My assertion that this chromosome came about through fusion is not an assumption; it is the conclusion necessitated by the evidence! This is exactly why I asked you to provide an alternate explanation. You seem entirely unable to do so. "A theoretical, unproven entity whose existence I am assuming for the purpose of this explanation did it" is not an explanation. It is an assumption, the very thing which you are accusing me of making.

But if you're still unconvinced, then let's continue. If indeed we were designed, rather than arising from common ancestry through mutation and natural selection, then:

- Why do we have toenails?

- Why do we have a tailbone but no tail?

- Why do some flightless birds have hollow bones?

- Why do some flightless birds have marrow-filled bones (i.e., why do not all flightless birds have hollow bones)?

This list can continue, if you like, but I'll cut it short there for now.

This list was clearly made by a bunch of Liberal/Conspiracy Theory Atheists. That is all I can gather from it.

"So what is it – Christina w/ a racist preacher or Muslim with a racist complainer?"

I didn;t know there was a religion called "Christina", LEarn something everyday don't we :P

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Actually, the article said clearly that it could still be debated whether or not the changes had a genetic basis at all. Let me ask you this-- do you believe in God? Darwin did.

PannicAtack

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I think you are missing the point and simplicity of my entire argument, not the other way around. Just because we have striking genetic (and other) similarities to apes does not mean that one set of chromosomes used to be the other way around. What leads you to assume that they did? To me, that is the biggest assumption of all! Remember, the idea of a common creator was around and widespread long before the idea of evolution. This is tantamount to me looking at 2 things that are constructed of the same materials (remember, the earthly environment that we originated from has the same raw materials to construct hundreds of thousands of different species), and assuming that one of them must have come from the other. They are simply configured differently. This idea requires the least assumption of all!

GabuEx

In what way, shape, or form is it an assumption to say that chromosome #2 in humans came about through the fusion of two chromosomes? Humans have one less chromosome pair than other apes; there exists the compound in the middle that is only ever found on the ends of chromosomes; and there are two chromosomes in chimpanzees that, were they fused, would be identical to chromosome #2 in humans. My assertion that this chromosome came about through fusion is not an assumption; it is the conclusion necessitated by the evidence! This is exactly why I asked you to provide an alternate explanation. You seem entirely unable to do so. "A theoretical, unproven entity whose existence I am assuming for the purpose of this explanation did it" is not an explanation. It is an assumption, the very thing which you are accusing me of making.

But if you're still unconvinced, then let's continue. If indeed we were designed, rather than arising from common ancestry through mutation and natural selection, then:

- Why do we have toenails?

- Why do we have a tailbone but no tail?

- Why do some flightless birds have hollow bones?

- Why do some flightless birds have marrow-filled bones (i.e., why do not all flightless birds have hollow bones)?

This list can continue, if you like, but I'll cut it short there for now.

My theory only requires the observation that different species have shared parts, some of which you have listed. Yours and Darwins requires coming to an unncessary conclusion that similar chromosomal ends must have at some point come together. Why could they have not simply have been created that way from a genetic "parts-bin?" If a creator wanted variety, would he not have simply used genetic variations of the parts he already had? It is a human failing to think that we can alone figure out the origin of the existence of our species. I don't think we're smart enough to figure this out, so we come to "conclusions" based on facts that could be interpreted many different ways.

By the way, toenails act as a counterforce when the end of the toe touches an object, enhancing the sensitivity of the nerves in the toe. They help us to feel. Did they evolve from a claw of some sort? Maybe so.. but maybe they were created to help the sensitivity of the ends of our toes.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="BumFluff122"]No I don't. Do you believe in Buddah? The Dalai Lama does. Do you believe in Spinoza's God?" Einstein did. I question whether Darwin actually did believe in God as you claim since I have actually read his books. It's true that he grew up in a Christian household but he lost those beliefs.

BumFluff122

Ths fact is, he still stated in 1879 that he believed in God.

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="UltimoIce"]

It's just as viable as calling humans apes.

UltimoIce

How do you figure? There are some mammals in the ocean with vestigial pelvis bones from when they used to live on land. Should we stop calling them mammals because they evolved?

Umm that has nothing to do with their classification as mammals, they are mammals due to the way they give birth to live young not their skeletal structure, all mammals except for monotremes( the pesky platypus) give birth to live young. Now had you said they were once land mammals and now have become aquatic mammals should we still call them land mammals it would have made more sense, lol but that doesn't make much either.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]I hope you're not going to send me a link like the one earlier with the transplanted lizards.. Why is it so hard to believe that a bunch of species that came from the same planet would simply have been put together differently using the same basic materials? And that the ones that appear and act most closely to each other would be so similar genetically? Why must we ASSUME mass evolution from that?Vandalvideo

I see no genetic proof here. All this article talks about are changes in behavior and a small change in the size and shape of the bird's beaks. Changes that were not measured or documented in this article. I would say the changes in the birds in this article are akin to a species of wolves migrating to a different area based on food supply, and growing thicker fur because it's colder. Yet, when genetic studies are done on the wolves, they are found to be the same species.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"] I believe he classified himself as an agnostic later in life. He generally stayed out of religious discussion altogether, for easily understandable reasons.hartsickdiscipl

Ths fact is, he still stated in 1879 that he believed in God.

You're reading things into the statement that were never stated.

My theory only requires the observation that different species have shared parts, some of which you have listed. Yours and Darwins requires coming to an unncessary conclusion that similar chromosomal ends must have at some point come together. Why could they have not simply have been created that way from a genetic "parts-bin?" If a creator wanted variety, would he not have simply used genetic variations of the parts he already had? It is a human failing to think that we can alone figure out the origin of the existence of our species. I don't think we're smart enough to figure this out, so we come to "conclusions" based on facts that could be interpreted many different ways.

By the way, toenails act as a counterforce when the end of the toe touches an object, enhancing the sensitivity of the nerves in the toe. They help us to feel. Did they evolve from a claw of some sort? Maybe so.. but maybe they were created to help the sensitivity of the ends of our toes.

hartsickdiscipl

I notice that you did not even attempt to answer the questions regarding the tailbone and flightless birds.

But OK, suppose for the sake of argument some creator created humans such that chromosome #2 only looked like it was two chimpanzee chromosomes fused together, and suppose that this creator decided to put the compounds at the ends of all other ape chromosomes in the middle of this double-size chromosome. And suppose that this creator gave us a tailbone, despite the fact that we were not also given tails.

So, answer this question then:

Why did he/she/it do this?

I see no genetic proof here. All this article talks about are changes in behavior and a small change in the size and shape of the bird's beaks. Changes that were not measured or documented in this article. I would say the changes in the birds in this article are akin to a species of wolves migrating to a different area based on food supply, and growing thicker fur because it's colder. Yet, when genetic studies are done on the wolves, they are found to be the same species.hartsickdiscipl

hartsickdiscipl

A ****c example of ring species is the Larus gulls circumpolar species "ring". The range of these gulls forms a ring around the North Pole.

The Herring GullL. argentatus, which lives primarily in Great Britain and Ireland, can hybridize with the American Herring GullL. smithsonianus, (living in North America), which can also hybridize with the Vega or East Siberian Herring GullL. vegae, the western subspecies of which, Birula's GullL. vegae birulai, can hybridize with Heuglin's gullL. heuglini, which in turn can hybridize with the Siberian Lesser Black-backed GullL. fuscus. All four of these live across the north of Siberia. The last is the eastern representative of the Lesser Black-backed Gulls back in north-western Europe, including Great Britain.

The Lesser Black-backed Gulls and Herring Gulls are sufficiently different that they do not normally hybridize; thus the group of gulls forms a continuum except where the two lineages meet in Europe.

A recent genetic study has shown that this example is far more complicated than presented here (Liebers et al., 2004): This example only speaks to the complex of species from the ****cal Herring Gull through Lesser Black-backed Gull. There are several other taxonomically unclear examples which belong in the same superspecies complex, such as Yellow-legged GullL. michahellis, Glaucous GullL. hyperboreus and Caspian GullLarus cachinnans.

Being Christian myself, I'm not sure what to make of these statements. I found them quite humerous and ignorant at the same time.

Does this article just make up its numbers?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]I see no genetic proof here. All this article talks about are changes in behavior and a small change in the size and shape of the bird's beaks. Changes that were not measured or documented in this article. I would say the changes in the birds in this article are akin to a species of wolves migrating to a different area based on food supply, and growing thicker fur because it's colder. Yet, when genetic studies are done on the wolves, they are found to be the same species.Vandalvideo

My argument is against genetic evolution into completely different species, not against small changes in traits to adapt to the environment.

My argument is against genetic evolution into completely different species, not against small changes in traits to adapt to the environment.hartsickdiscipl

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

My theory only requires the observation that different species have shared parts, some of which you have listed. Yours and Darwins requires coming to an unncessary conclusion that similar chromosomal ends must have at some point come together. Why could they have not simply have been created that way from a genetic "parts-bin?" If a creator wanted variety, would he not have simply used genetic variations of the parts he already had? It is a human failing to think that we can alone figure out the origin of the existence of our species. I don't think we're smart enough to figure this out, so we come to "conclusions" based on facts that could be interpreted many different ways.

By the way, toenails act as a counterforce when the end of the toe touches an object, enhancing the sensitivity of the nerves in the toe. They help us to feel. Did they evolve from a claw of some sort? Maybe so.. but maybe they were created to help the sensitivity of the ends of our toes.

GabuEx

I notice that you did not even attempt to answer the questions regarding the tailbone and flightless birds.

But OK, suppose for the sake of argument some creator created humans such that chromosome #2 only looked like it was two chimpanzee chromosomes fused together, and suppose that this creator decided to put the compounds at the ends of all other ape chromosomes in the middle of this double-size chromosome. And suppose that this creator gave us a tailbone, despite the fact that we were not also given tails.

So, answer this question then:

Why did he/she/it do this?

My argument has never been against the fact that if you take those 2 ape chromosome ends and put them together, you get a human. I'm sure that it's true. My argument is that the creator purposely manipulated the chromosomes of SOME of his creations to create variety, while leaving some of the chromosomes unfuzed. It's intelligent and passionate design to create a variety of different things with the same genetic material. That is the "why." The Bible states that God created man "in his own image." I've always taken this to mean that he gave us his creative and free-thinking ability.. "free-will," if you will.. One of our chief needs in life is for variety, and to create things for ourselves.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]My argument is against genetic evolution into completely different species, not against small changes in traits to adapt to the environment.Vandalvideo

Often what might appear to be a real genetic change is found to simply be the emergence of a recessive genetic trait that was present all along. Hence the wolves I was describing earlier.

Often what might appear to be a real genetic change is found to simply be the emergence of a recessive genetic trait that was present all along. Hence the wolves I was describing earlier.hartsickdiscipl

lol. good thread! +1

my favorite is the "fake moon landing" People that actually believe it was staged are nuts. and A TON of the stuff in the bible (or any other book written by somebody that heard god speaking) is extremely outlandish. You heard about some of the stuff Mormons believe? LOL

Talldude80

How did I predict what would be in this thread?

those are indeed ridiculous

My argument has never been against the fact that if you take those 2 ape chromosome ends and put them together, you get a human. I'm sure that it's true. My argument is that the creator purposely manipulated the chromosomes of SOME of his creations to create variety, while leaving some of the chromosomes unfuzed. It's intelligent and passionate design to create a variety of different things with the same genetic material. That is the "why." The Bible states that God created man "in his own image." I've always taken this to mean that he gave us his creative and free-thinking ability.. "free-will," if you will.. One of our chief needs in life is for variety, and to create things for ourselves.

hartsickdiscipl

No, that's not the why. You didn't answer the question. Why did God set it up so that the chromosome would be identical to two chimpanzee chromosomes put together? Why did he structure it so that the obvious conclusion just in looking at the chromosome in isolation is that it is the two chimpanzee chromosomes, only put together, if indeed that is not what happened? Why is that the only time, ever, when the compound otherwise solely found on the ends of chromosomes is found in the middle, if indeed we are not to come to the conclusion that the chromosome was indeed formed through the fusion of two chromosomes?

If God specifically designed us in this way, then why leave so many hallmarks of a progression, rather than individual design of each and every organism?

Is God trying to fool us?

Is God trying to fool us?GabuEx

The only thing I am "iffy" about is the Fake Moon Landing. I, for the most part, believe we landed on the moon. Though, the article states "Have you seen the special effects in pre-Star Wars films? Do you really think a non-George Lucas run government could have pulled something like that off?" Wow, kind of contradictory. We didn't have the special effects back then to fake a moon landing, but somehow we had the technology to build a spacecraft, fly into space, land on the moon, a different planet, and fly back home. Does seem a little sketchy giving it was the 50's and we were in a extremely tight race with Russia for national dominance.

[QUOTE="lightleggy"][QUOTE="Talldude80"]

lol. good thread! +1

my favorite is the "fake moon landing" People that actually believe it was staged are nuts. and A TON of the stuff in the bible (or any other book written by somebody that heard god speaking) is extremely outlandish. You heard about some of the stuff Mormons believe? LOL

hartsickdiscipl

Mormons believe that Jesus came to North America. I'd call that different.

I'm on the Science side of the fight.

It was also funny seeing that guy talk about assumptions in darwin's theory, as if "some mighty all powerful being must have created everything because we don't understand stuff" isn't a massive assumption.

Not really that ridiculous. I mean, if people are religious, there's no reason not to believe these kind of things. Now, people that believe the world is ending on 2012...

you forgot the organization that believes the world is flat

you forgot the organization that believes the world is flat

mrbojangles25

Congratz on 20k posts. ;)

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

you forgot the organization that believes the world is flat

RobboElRobbo

Congratz on 20k posts. ;)

thanks lol

im having a party over in another thread. Dont forget to invite a dead celebrity!

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="lightleggy"] mormons dont believe in anything different than the christians...I bet you believe that mormons are some arabic religious people...your post is extremely offensivelightleggy

Mormons believe that Jesus came to North America. I'd call that different.

Creationism and Evolution are just as ridiculous. Nothing from nothing vs Something to something. It's all ridiculous. And as for truthers, I hate truthers. I hate hating, but that is one group that absolutely disturbs me with stupidity. It's sooooooooooooo debunkable, and it's been debunked too many times for it to still be an actual thought.FunnyMouth

[QUOTE="lightleggy"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Mormons believe that Jesus came to North America. I'd call that different.

harashawn

they believe that 2 angels appeared in front of joseph smith then they were being followed by a blinding light, then joseph smith was momentaneously blinded by that light (hence the name) and he heard jesus speaking, they also believe that jesus appeared to them...im tellin you this cuz my friend is mormon and he lectures me about this kind of stuff...