Debunk evolution once and for all

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I'm sick of Atheist and any anti-Religious, or anti-God movement who revolve all their arguments around evolution.

--Start--


People seem to think because there are different versions of human beings, somehow it all came together by chance.

The point is, it didn't. The point is, if you examine computers without the knowledge of a creator, you can also conclude that they came to existence without any creator, that they steadily evolved and the other computers became extinct due to natural selection, and the survival of the fittest.



There is huge similarities between the evolution of computers and human beings.

Here is something you should ask yourself, (using the theory of evolution), can we conclude without the presence of human beings that, computers/technology evolved on itself without any outside influence?

Now create a whole new field, call it technology evolution in our sciences. Then create the objective of this scientific field, what are we trying to achieve? We are trying to prove technology evolved on its own, that human beings didn't have anything to do with it. Don't forget to create the exact scenario we were in at the time of Darwin, the exact scenario, the only difference, instead of looking at biological beings, we are looking at technological beings.

Think about it, if you do excessive thinking on this matter, you will come to the same BS conclusion supposed scientists have come up with today in regards to human beings. Does that make it true?

GOD takes the idea of evolution as an insult to him. I would also be insulted if someone came around and claimed computers and technology came to exist by mere chance.



[edit on 23-8-2010 by oozyism]



+56 more 
posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Hey, can you pass god my regards, please? I have been meaning to call him and seeing as how you are close enough to know what pisses him off....

Anyway, sarcasm aside, you analogy is flawed in one pretty simple way (although in a very general level, you are correct that computers have evolved through a survival of the fittest process) -- basically, it is that computers do not self-replicate, thus cannot be considered life.

Good try, though. By all means, keep pondering the subject it is great stuff to philosophize over.

[edit on 8-23-2010 by rogerstigers]


+25 more 
posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
This is...

an affront to intelligence. Nobody would come to the same conclusion if you ignore the fact that humans created computers.

You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God; it is a concept in the minds of human beings. There is no tangible, provable thing to be labeled 'God'.

Could one exist? Sure. Would he be so insulted by the thought process of a being "he created" with Free will I doubt it. No omniscient being would be hurt by his creation seeing what is obvious.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 




basically, it is that computers do not self-replicate, thus cannot be considered life.


Ohh really ..
What century are you living in? .


Ever seen those massive computer arms which puts your cars together? Computers producing computers, like human beings producing human beings



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by eNumbra
 


1. Not hurt, but insult at human level. As I said, I would be insulted, god tells us why it is the way it is from our own perspective.

2. Everything around you is evidence that GOD exists.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Hmmm. interesting. and I know where technology is expected to go so.............



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Here is something you should ask yourself, (using the theory of evolution), can we conclude without the presence of human beings that, computers/technology evolved on itself without any outside influence?


I don't think anyone suggests that evolving life forms didn't have any outside influences. In fact, they did. The primordial soup could have had wave energy, which was influenced by tidal forces and wind. Tidal forces are influenced by the moon, which is influenced by gravity and other forces defined by our present knowledge of physics. There are a multitide of different influences that aided in helping evolution, to include the rest of nature.

Just because something is currently unexplainable or not so easily understood, doesn't mean that some dude in a white robe is calling all of the shots.

Now, I'm not saying that I'm absolutely certain that evolution is right because if I was, then it wouldn't be a theory, however I find the theory of evolution much more plausible than the major theological theories.

--airspoon

[edit on 24-8-2010 by airspoon]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   
When you refer to evolution, what exactly does that mean? I have had some thoughts on this subject, but would prefer to keep them to myself until I know exactly what it is that you're talking about.

I should clarify my question. Are you talking about the evolution of humans from earlier species of mammals, primates, simpler life forms, and so on? Or are you referring to evolution in general, regardless of species?

[edit on 24-8-2010 by John_Q_Llama]


+4 more 
posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by eNumbra
 


2. Everything around you is evidence that GOD exists.

Computer monitor, speakers, tower, various books, alarm clock, cell phone and a dismantled airsoft gun.

Nope, no god here.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
Just because something is currently unexplainable or not so easily understood, doesn't mean that some dude in a white robe is calling all of the shots.

--airspoon


How can a "white robe" exist before a universe is created? Sorry for the absurd comment but I felt that yours was an absurd statement.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by The Endtime Warrior
 


That's not what I said or implied. I don't know where or how you could get that from what was quoted and I honestly have no idea how to answer you, because I have no idea where your head is, especially seeing how you just pulled that out of thin air.

--airspoon



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


It is not the unexplained that leads me to believe in GOD, it is the explained.

Technology is explained, and our own creation, at least partially hence the atoms, the electrons, the laws of the universe etc etc was already there, we just manipulated to design these technologies.

So the argument that I'm somehow claiming GOD because I don't understand, is a false claim.

It is rather the opposite.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Well, I do believe in something that some might consider a "god". although it is nothing like the Christian god, so I have never seen any conflict between the concept of natural selection and my view of a supreme conciousness.

I don't view your analogy of robot arms assembling cars as quite accurate.. that would be more akin to humans having sex to breed dogs. Not quite the point. Besides, that is not self-reproduction.. That is assembly.

I really do not see where the conflict exists between even the Christian god and the scientific viewpoint of evolution? Is it just dogma?

BTW, I apologize for my earlier sarcasm.. sometimes my sense of humor gets in the way of good taste.

[edit on 8-24-2010 by rogerstigers]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


You are arguing that evolution is null and god must have created life (or at least humans) because there is no other explanation. Am I right?

--airspoon



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


I know that was the point. It was absurd.

edit to add: equating god with a "dude in a white robe"
logic follows this is absurd.

[edit on 8/24/2010 by The Endtime Warrior]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by eNumbra
 




Computer monitor, speakers, tower, various books, alarm clock, cell phone and a dismantled airsoft gun.

Nope, no god here.


Once again you fail to see.

Are you somehow suggesting that a computer monitor wasn't designed and created?



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 




You are arguing that evolution is null and god must have created life (or at least humans) because there is no other explanation. Am I right?


No ..

I'm arguing that evolution does exist, but it is not random as evidence suggests.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 

It was created by a person.

That hardly even suggests that god created the universe, or that he's had a hand in the biological and technological growth of humanity.

You have a belief, not proof: deal with it and move on from this mindset.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by John_Q_Llama
When you refer to evolution, what exactly does that mean? I have had some thoughts on this subject, but would prefer to keep them to myself until I know exactly what it is that you're talking about.

I should clarify my question. Are you talking about the evolution of humans from earlier species of mammals, primates, simpler life forms, and so on? Or are you referring to evolution in general, regardless of species?

[edit on 24-8-2010 by John_Q_Llama]


I'm talking about Universal + Biological evolution, I believe non is random, it is absurd to claim it is random because it has been proven that nothing in this universe is random.



The Oxford English Dictionary defines "random" thus:
Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard.

Wikipedia



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by The Endtime Warrior
 



equating god with a "dude in a white robe"
logic follows this is absurd.


It's a figure of speech and not meant to be taken literally. Most people who believe in "God", believe that he is a man or human-type being (singular) and that he walks (or floats) around creating things.

While this would have been a cool assumption thousands of years ago, I would hope that our scientific advances have opened up our minds to a much more suitable theory or speculative conjecture for the things that are a little more complicated or difficult to understand.

--airspoon



top topics
 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join