Ignorance Taken To The Next Level.

...given the amount of human sexual interaction with each other, would take several hundreds of years at the least.

I put on my robe and wizard hat. COME ON ANYE LETS DO SCIENCE!

I put on my robe and wizard hat.

COME ON ANYE LETS DO SCIENCE!

Just to clarify: Evolution on a genetic level occurs over long, long periods of time.

First, a mutation has to occur, against which the human body has developed several complex mechanisms (less complex species have fewer). Secondly, the mutation has to be phenotypically visible--in other words, it has to manifest itself in some sort of biochemical process that affects the organism's vitality. Thirdly, the mutation has to be beneficial to a large degree for it to be passed on; if not beneficial, then the organism would have less of a chance in its shortened lifetime to pass on the mutation, depending on its lifespan and sexual maturity. Fourthly, the mutation has to be so prominent and prevalent in several individuals of a species for it to be passed on from generation to generation--even then, it takes a considerable amount of time for it to actually manifest itself regularly in an entire species, and, given the amount of human sexual interaction with each other, would take several hundreds of years at the least.

That being said, evolution has a wide variety of interpretations; generally the word implies a process of development, so human evolution could very well entail the (exponential) development of human intelligence, or even the mechanism by which our immune systems continuously develop antibodies against antigens throughout our entire lives.

-edit- Something like "less hair" would be considered phenotypic plasticity by biologists, and not a result of genetic mutation.

That said, I am of the opinion that the idea of evolution via genetic mutation does not eliminate the possibility of the existence of a creator God.

I can't stand this. As a science major, I cannot abide this. There are so many things I cannot say given my position. So. many. things.

The scientific method is BASED on the idea of making assumptions which are themselves based on previous studies--the hypothesis. Even theories we once understood to be "proven fact" are debunkable.

1.) Nothing is perfect

2.) Science never proves anything. It only supports or refutes. This simple mistake in nomenclature signals right away that one lacks a proper scientific education.

3.) Scientific method is not a perfect system. If it was then it would be full proof that scientists don't make mistakes. Most published papers have at least something that can be legitamantly questioned.

4.) Having faith in what you study is a recipe for disaster. This usually comes in the form of assumptions. These are extremely dangerous.

I'm sorry Jet, but you either have no science background, a terrible one, or are in the infancy of your scientific education. Not only that but you are either unable to construct and organize your thoughts, back them up with nothing more than insults or 3 word phrases, or you are getting your rocks off seeing several people formulate logical conversation/debate to your arse-hattery.

while wearing this t-shirt:


That's us doing in vitro fertilization

So you aren't an athiest now? You were a few weeks ago.

Ah, now I see you truly are a troll. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, two of the more recent popular atheists, both agree with the Infinite Possibilities theory...You are no atheist, sir, you are a rebellious, pompous ***.

when I see somebody on here besides Chaosx or myself (maybe 1 or 2 others at times) can do this, I'll give a ***about what you people say.

atheism means lacking a belief in a deity, lacking a belief in a deity =/= claiming a god doesn't exist.

Definitions of atheist on the Web:

•someone who denies the existence of god
•related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

•A person without a belief in, or one who lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods; A person who believes that no gods or deities exist
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheist

•atheism - the doctrine or belief that there is no God
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

•atheistic - rejecting any belief in gods
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

•atheism - A belief that there are no gods. Greek "a-theos": without-god. [see the 'Atheism' page for complete information]
www.reasoned.org/glossary.

•atheism - Denies the existence of any God, thought it is traditionally focused on the rejection of the Biblical God

Looks like atheists don't believe in god. (Gasp an atheist who knows nothing about atheism, oh the irony)

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay.

I think Jet fits into the Agnostic Atheist mold. Saying a god might exist, but I have no proof to support such a claim, so I don't believe one does exist.

Those definitions are a little narrow when trying to describe all atheists.

atheism = lacking a belief in a god, whether or not you're agnostic is another matter entirely.

atheism = lacking a belief in a god, whether or not you're agnostic is another matter entirely.

So atheists can believe god exists but just reject him then?

I agree, but still think Agnostic Atheist fits you.

unfortunately this applies to too many people, but in your case: really you don't find the scientific method to be absolute? then why are you studying science?

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay.

Because it's fun.

The scientific method is great, but it's not "absolute." The study of anything in the name of science takes into account the fact that there IS no absolute.

That being said, anyone who ever claims to actually HAVE absolute knowledge--not "know everything," but to say that one's perception of absolute truth is clear--is absurd. We only have a limited perspective on truth, and we all have convictions based on that perspective (some stronger than others), but by no means do we have a grasp on even the smallest wisp of absolute truth.

Because it's fun. The scientific method is great, but it's not "absolute." The study of anything in the name of science takes into account the fact that there IS no absolute. That being said, anyone who ever claims to actually HAVE absolute knowledge--not "know everything," but to say that one's perception of absolute truth is clear--is absurd. We only have a limited perspective on truth, and we all have convictions based on that perspective (some stronger than others), but by no means do we have a grasp on even the smallest wisp of absolute truth.

that's why I stopped trying and /blocked.

So atheists can believe god exists but just reject him then?

We've tried to explain that to him. It's funny how many people don't remember the famous saying, "I know I know nothing".

there are absolutes in this world, that's the very fundamentals of everything we know, but you have a point as to whether or not they are truly absolute is questionable, but then again that bring into question our entire existence.

for the sake of studying the observable world (the one we live in) the scientific method is absolute, then again like all rules that are put in place they are only a rule as long as the conditions stay the within the realm as they were perceived when created.