Ganon's Beard - General. Social. Rankings.

[Superspright]

Actually, I've looked into religion abit, and personally I found it to be illogical. My belief in God is purely philosophical.

Oh really?

and based off the fact I think it's impossible that the world could have been conceived without an eternal metaphysical being above physical principles etc.

Unfounded--negative truth fallacy. Plus Occams' razor would show you that you don't know philosophy--because logic is a BIG part of it.

My theory is obviously much deeper than that, but this is not the palce to go into depth.

Hmm, honestly, from just the start of this I can see that you think that the colloquial definition of theory and scientific theory are the same thing. They are not. No one seems to get this. Gravity is a scientific theory. Atomic THEORY. It's not a conjecture--or a set of hypothesis. I am tired of repeating this definition--so look it up on wikipedia. It is accurate and it will explain the difference. But scientific theories are based on axioms and can predict things--without evolutionary science you wouldn't have a lot of the medicine we have today, and plenty of other things like our bio-engineered crops that have been providing your food.

You shouldn't think religious people are stupid though, some of the greatest minds were theologians, and it takes a brilliant argument to disprove a theologian, an athiest off the street hwo hasn't really studied the issue would get destroyed in a debate with them, but I'm unaware of your knwoledge so I'm not just gonna assume you're one of them.

Dumbest thing ever. So because your average atheist [if we went by averages that would include babies--so you're essentially saying very young children or babies who haven't been indoctrinated...] is an invalid the average theologian can defeat the atheist--which is what happens at a very young age. These children do not believe in ANYTHING. Then someone tells them how to think or believe--it is not given to them after they have amassed a sensible model of their secular world. It is given while their mind is fragile and plastic.

But I am going to assume you mean someone around my age who doesn't know the arguments--but, you're just saying that essentially a great mind beats an average mind--so what? I'm not an average mind. I know the arguments, and I understand how most of them fail--and all of them fail. Trust me.

I'm not sure about macroevolution, but what I do know it's not a definite fact, it's a strong theory, but still has many possible weaknesses that the general public aren't really aware of or care about.

No weaknesses whatsoever in macroevolution. Here is an example of macro-evolution. The problem is that people like you want to believe that science is a bunch of guesswork. Mathematics is the language of the universe. It is a very fortunate thing that math can so eloquently describe forces and nature itself. It's just funny that people don't believe in evolution when we know more about that than light...or gravity. Seriously--I am not joking.

This is not the place for a debate, but I will say this, whether God exists or not can't be proven by science, it's a philosophical issue. Even if macroevolution did happen, that's not the full answer, because evolution doesn't account for how the original conditions for it to exist came about, eg, time, motion, energy, matter, laws of physics, senses/perception etc. Atheist philosophers know this, and will try to explain this phenomena.

No. Scientists are explaining it through string theory--and quantum darwinism, and quantum mechanics, and by solving the measurement problem, or finding the higgs boson--etc. etc. Science is making leaps into the past and generating tons of brilliant experiments that will uncover why our universe is the way it is--or how it evolved to become this way.

But yeah we shou;dn't really debate here, I'm just letting you know I'm not just someone who blindly follows a belief becuase I was raised that way, alot of thought and study has gone into my thinking, although it'd be foolish for me to claim that of all the people in the world, I have the ansers to all the big questions.

No, actually. I don't think much thought has gone into anything you believe. You loosely use the word philosophy but I doubt you've read Kant, or Sartre, or Nietzsche, or Hume, or Hobbs, or Plato, or Socrates, or Camus, Aristotle--any of the big ones. If you have, you maybe glanced.

It is easy to be an intellectually satisfied atheist nowadays with science making such deep discoveries about life, and the universe. I trust in science any day. It will save us ultimately from destruction. It tells us about how we act--why we behave the way we do. Why we love, or don't. It may take the 'magic' out of life, but it makes it sane.

If you still want to have an intellectual discussion for it, let me know, this is not the place for it. This is the Ganondorf boards, Gdorf didn't give a crap about the Gods, he wanted to abuse the power they had to rule the world lol.

Gdorf is a god.

Yes religious/non-religious views are probably fine here, but what's not ok is when people start insulting other people's beliefs, as if it's so obvious as to what the actual truth is, because anyone who thinks they can disporve a claim in three lines clearly has no idea of the magnitude of research and knowledge this topic requires.

And secondly, existence is a philosophical idea. The idea of existence is in ontology and metaphysics (and probabvly other fields too), which are philosophical fields, and came well before science. Science only deals with how existences work, not what it is to exist, is existence real, or why there is existences.

K now I'm done lol.

...science does deal with all of those things and more. You're not particularly versed in sciences at all.

 

[*JuriHan*]

ugh i just got through my theories of society class i dont need to hear similar stuff again

and holy **** its cold here in houston

 

[Dre89]

Oh really?



Unfounded--negative truth fallacy. Plus Occams' razor would show you that you don't know philosophy--because logic is a BIG part of it.



Hmm, honestly, from just the start of this I can see that you think that the colloquial definition of theory and scientific theory are the same thing. They are not. No one seems to get this. Gravity is a scientific theory. Atomic THEORY. It's not a conjecture--or a set of hypothesis. I am tired of repeating this definition--so look it up on wikipedia. It is accurate and it will explain the difference. But scientific theories are based on axioms and can predict things--without evolutionary science you wouldn't have a lot of the medicine we have today, and plenty of other things like our bio-engineered crops that have been providing your food.



Dumbest thing ever. So because your average atheist [if we went by averages that would include babies--so you're essentially saying very young children or babies who haven't been indoctrinated...] is an invalid the average theologian can defeat the atheist--which is what happens at a very young age. These children do not believe in ANYTHING. Then someone tells them how to think or believe--it is not given to them after they have amassed a sensible model of their secular world. It is given while their mind is fragile and plastic.

But I am going to assume you mean someone around my age who doesn't know the arguments--but, you're just saying that essentially a great mind beats an average mind--so what? I'm not an average mind. I know the arguments, and I understand how most of them fail--and all of them fail. Trust me.



No weaknesses whatsoever in macroevolution. Here is an example of macro-evolution. The problem is that people like you want to believe that science is a bunch of guesswork. Mathematics is the language of the universe. It is a very fortunate thing that math can so eloquently describe forces and nature itself. It's just funny that people don't believe in evolution when we know more about that than light...or gravity. Seriously--I am not joking.



No. Scientists are explaining it through string theory--and quantum darwinism, and quantum mechanics, and by solving the measurement problem, or finding the higgs boson--etc. etc. Science is making leaps into the past and generating tons of brilliant experiments that will uncover why our universe is the way it is--or how it evolved to become this way.



No, actually. I don't think much thought has gone into anything you believe. You loosely use the word philosophy but I doubt you've read Kant, or Sartre, or Nietzsche, or Hume, or Hobbs, or Plato, or Socrates, or Camus, Aristotle--any of the big ones. If you have, you maybe glanced.

It is easy to be an intellectually satisfied atheist nowadays with science making such deep discoveries about life, and the universe. I trust in science any day. It will save us ultimately from destruction. It tells us about how we act--why we behave the way we do. Why we love, or don't. It may take the 'magic' out of life, but it makes it sane.



Gdorf is a god.



...science does deal with all of those things and more. You're not particularly versed in sciences at all.

Actually, I've read most of those philosophers. And I have nothing against sciences, I never said that they were wrong, I'm just saying they don't cover the whole picture. Science is onyl a tool that athiest philosophers use to argue God doesn't exist. Science doesn't explain how time, gravity, motion, the laws of matter, physics etc. came to be, they just explain they work.

Science explains how the world works, in this way it can possibly disprove religions, because anything that suggests contrary operative mechanics to science can be deemed false (if we're assuming science is absolutely correct here). But science doesn't disprove the idea that an eternal meatphysical being could have set that in motion. I relaly don't get what you're arguing here, all educated atheists know this, what I'm stating is just common knowledge, not my own opinion.

And yes there are criticisms of evolution, at least of macroevolution anyway.

It's also the modern belief now that science is just as religious as religion is, they're bothpre- rational belief systems based on having faith in previously determined or presumed premises.

And as if you use Wikipedia for these sorts of things, every page they have on philosophy has at least one thing wrong, you'd automatically fail if you refernced Wiki in an essay lol.

With regards to the theologian thing, I'm just saying that you need brilliant arguments to refute them, assuming you can disprove them in three lines is just plain ignorant. Any argument that can be said in three lines would have been thought of thousands of times before, and the intellectual 'metagme' has moved well beyond that level of thinking now. None of the great atheist scientists or philosophers display that sort of ignorance/arrogance.

Look there's no point arguing anymore, you're being insultive when I'm just trying to have mature conversation with you, so it's not going to get anywhere. Let's just accept our differences and let the Gdorf boards be a fun place again.

However, I'm happy to settle our differences with you on Msn, it seems like were at the computer at the same times anyway, my Msn is Dre_Iannucci@hotmail.com if you're interested.

 

[TP]

I'll be quick. I normally don't get involved in these things but when I see people pretend that bad arguments are good ones I get mad.

And as if you use Wikipedia for these sorts of things, every page they have on philosophy has at least one thing wrong, you'd automatically fail if you refernced Wiki in an essay lol.

First of all, you ruined your whole argument right here by proving that you did not click on his link. Had you actually clicked on it, you would have seen that the article was only about 5 sentences long and never even mentioned evolution. It was absolutely factual. Seriously, if you aren't going to bother to consider what your opponent brings to the table, you are too close-minded for a debate.

But science doesn't disprove the idea that an eternal meatphysical being could have set that in motion.

And here we have you expecting too much from science, as so many do. If you are as smart as you say, you know perfectly well that this point is both irrelevant and incorrect. Science does not have to disprove a thing that CAN'T be disproved. I know you know about falsifiability. Since there is no possible evidence that could disprove the notion of a metaphysical being sparking everything, it is outside of the realm of science and outside of science's responsibility to disprove it. We must assume the argument isn't there in the first place, or else we must also discuss the teapot that COULD be orbiting the sun, the invisible pink unicorn that could be grazing somewhere, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster that may actually be our supreme ruler. If you don't feel like disproving any of those things, don't act like the status of "not disproved" gives your argument any more points.

Argue better, OK? I would hate to see less educated people reading these posts and think you were making better points than you actually are.

Nidoking, take it away.

 

[fromundaman]

The Ganon Board: We've taken to discussing the existence of God and the meaning of life, because we are much more likely to end those arguments than actually succeed with Ganon.

Wow, I had somehow missed this. Too good TP, too good!

 

[NatP]

Hey guys, I'm thinking about using Ganon in some matches at my next tourney. I know that none of them have ganon experience or knowledge of the matchup (except maybe the 0 100 matchups) but there's one problem: I have a strictly online ganon. I have played like two or three matches offline. So what do you guys think, should I try using ganon at my tourney or would I simply be wasting my time?

 

[Ganonsburg]

I'll be quick. I normally don't get involved in these things but when I see people pretend that bad arguments are good ones I get mad.




First of all, you ruined your whole argument right here by proving that you did not click on his link. Had you actually clicked on it, you would have seen that the article was only about 5 sentences long and never even mentioned evolution. It was absolutely factual. Seriously, if you aren't going to bother to consider what your opponent brings to the table, you are too close-minded for a debate.



And here we have you expecting too much from science, as so many do. If you are as smart as you say, you know perfectly well that this point is both irrelevant and incorrect. Science does not have to disprove a thing that CAN'T be disproved. I know you know about falsifiability. Since there is no possible evidence that could disprove the notion of a metaphysical being sparking everything, it is outside of the realm of science and outside of science's responsibility to disprove it. We must assume the argument isn't there in the first place, or else we must also discuss the teapot that COULD be orbiting the sun, the invisible pink unicorn that could be grazing somewhere, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster that may actually be our supreme ruler. If you don't feel like disproving any of those things, don't act like the status of "not disproved" gives your argument any more points.

Argue better, OK? I would hate to see less educated people reading these posts and think you were making better points than you actually are.

Nidoking, take it away.

But he was saying earlier that he DOESN'T know it all. Just enough to realize that there's so much more to learn and that there's a lot to consider in every argument.

That's all. I'm not going to argue, especially in an argument where I'm outnumbered. Even if one mind is the greatest in the world, it will never be able to think fast enough to argue multiple other minds at the same time effectively.

Not to mention the internet is not the place.

 

[Superspright]

Actually, I've read most of those philosophers. And I have nothing against sciences, I never said that they were wrong, I'm just saying they don't cover the whole picture. Science is onyl a tool that athiest philosophers use to argue God doesn't exist. Science doesn't explain how time, gravity, motion, the laws of matter, physics etc. came to be, they just explain they work.

Science is actually what has given you the ability to even ramble about this nonsense--go study chaos theory. Without it we would barely understand weather systems as well.

Science explains how the world works, in this way it can possibly disprove religions, because anything that suggests contrary operative mechanics to science can be deemed false (if we're assuming science is absolutely correct here). But science doesn't disprove the idea that an eternal meatphysical being could have set that in motion. I relaly don't get what you're arguing here, all educated atheists know this, what I'm stating is just common knowledge, not my own opinion.

Negative truth fallacy. If you really studied philosophy you would know that philosophers have dealt with God already. The God hypothesis is weak. And, as 'brilliant' as their arguments are [which they aren't] I do not need a brilliant argument to swat down pascal's wager, or St.Aquinas' arguments.

And actually, that is your own opinion. Science doesn't disprove or prove that idea because as was indicated earlier it is NOT falsifiable. It cannot be tested based on the scientific method, or any method we could devise . But, you might read that as, "it may be true then!"

No, what I am actually saying is...god is almost certainly not true--to paraphrase Dawkins.

And yes there are criticisms of evolution, at least of macroevolution anyway.

Nope. Actually, there are no criticisms of evolution that don't add to the theory itself. There are some gaps in our knowledge of evolution because of the fact it has had 4.5 billion years to really work out the kinks. And, evolution has tons of variables in it. You can't expect them to get EVERY detail down--especially when the fossil record is incomplete because we just can't FIND all the fossils. Too many. But evolution is still happening. In fact, a new protein has just come about called Nylonase. I know how you don't like to take wikipedia seriously--but I am tired of it. The Britannica has 2 errors per entry and wikipedia has 3. It is roughly the same.

It's also the modern belief now that science is just as religious as religion is, they're bothpre- rational belief systems based on having faith in previously determined or presumed premises.

It's not rational if you must first develop your conclusion and then make your premises fit--or vice versa. Science makes no assumptions and attempts to discover an objective way of understanding things. I don't know where you hear this crap about science being a religion--because it actually has none of the qualifications of being a religion at all. You can check the dictionary for that one.

And as if you use Wikipedia for these sorts of things, [every page they have on philosophy has at least one thing wrong, you'd automatically fail if you refernced Wiki in an essay lol.

That's because most professors are still under the assumption that wikipedia is erroneous--but MOST sources have errors anyway. And, when they do have something wrong someone fixes it almost immediately. My friends had them fix the liar paradox because they had added: "I always tell lies" is actually not a liar paradox.

With regards to the theologian thing, I'm just saying that you need brilliant arguments to refute them, assuming you can disprove them in three lines is just plain ignorant. Any argument that can be said in three lines would have been thought of thousands of times before, and the intellectual 'metagme' has moved well beyond that level of thinking now. None of the great atheist scientists or philosophers display that sort of ignorance/arrogance.

They don't need to address the argument of God because it's ridiculous. It is a desperate hope for immortality for hope's sake.

Look there's no point arguing anymore, you're being insultive when I'm just trying to have mature conversation with you, so it's not going to get anywhere. Let's just accept our differences and let the Gdorf boards be a fun place again.

If we were having a mature conversation you wouldn't belittle my sources--I wouldn't quote a wikipedia page that was inaccurate anyway. I've read and studied this stuff on my own. Wikipedia sometimes does a good job at it.

However, I'm happy to settle our differences with you on Msn, it seems like were at the computer at the same times anyway, my Msn is Dre_Iannucci@hotmail.com if you're interested.

It wouldn't be a challenge because you have no clue about science, religion, or philosophy. Not worth my time at all. This is the kind of high-level ignorance that you must will to keep. You will never open your eyes and see that evolution happened...you came from the stars, quite literally, and your entire body and mind are discrete matter based things--there is no soul that has ever been discovered. Why assume one?

When you can stop making assumptions and clear your mind and see the universe for what it is--let me know. Because that's all we can really know right now. Assuming more is dangerous, and a waste of time ultimately--when we could be dealing with things that are CERTAINLY happening.

 

[GHNeko]

The Ganon Board: We've taken to discussing the existence of God and the meaning of life, because we are much more likely to end those arguments than actually succeed with Ganon.

:034:

This is golden. Like nothing but brilliance in verbal form.

 

[Superspright]

I had to quote that...

 

[PK-ow!]

If I get to talking about religion I'm going to make everyone cry.


I'll just mention that the cool thing about Atomic Theory is that it can be substantially backed by philosophical, a priori reasoning alone. The specific claims about its structure - i.e., that the smallest particles have incommensurate natures except for mass and charge etc. - are of course empirical matters, but the notion that existence must consist of 'smallest things' can be - and was - arrived at purely by speculation and reasoning.

Also note that the claim of Atomic Theory in this sense identifies the so-called subatomic particles as the atoms. The way that name ended up on something divisible in the scientific theory is... well, weird.

 

[Superspright]

If I get to talking about religion I'm going to make everyone cry.


I'll just mention that the cool thing about Atomic Theory is that it can be substantially backed by philosophical, a priori reasoning alone. The specific claims about its structure - i.e., that the smallest particles have incommensurate natures except for mass and charge etc. - are of course empirical matters, but the notion that existence must consist of 'smallest things' can be - and was - arrived at purely by speculation and reasoning.

Also note that the claim of Atomic Theory in this sense identifies the so-called subatomic particles as the atoms. The way that name ended up on something divisible in the scientific theory is... well, weird.

You are right. It was essentially discovered philosophically before Christ was even born. You'd think someone might put that in the bible if they were so...divinely inspired.

 

[Ganonsburg]

You are right. It was essentially discovered philosophically before Christ was even born. You'd think someone might put that in the bible if they were so...divinely inspired.

Well, it can't mention everything. That would make it unreadable. Do you science books mention everything there is to know about the universe? No, they only tell you what's essential.

Something that the Bible does mention is that the earth is a sphere. Shame that people ignored the Bible for so long, eh?

 

[Dre89]

Lol wait a minute, Richard Dawkins? Are you serious lol? That guy is considered a joke even amongst atheists lol. Well at least that explains why you're so insulting in all of your posts. But please don't tell me you actually think he's a good philosopher lol.

Your whole paragraph about the God issue not being falsifaible is exactly my point, that it's a philosophical issue, not a scientific one, like you were arguing.

Also, if you think the only criticisms of evolution are related to the fossil record, then don't boldy state 'there are no ciriticisms of evolution', because they go far beyond the fossil record. Alot of anit-evolution arguments come from scientists anyway.


So basically, you're saying because science can't disprove or prove God, it's not important. That's my point,- science doesn't tell us everything, and before you say anything outside of science is unimportant, science came from philosophy, philosophy began much earlier than science, heck the actual sciences we have today were categorised by a philosopher.

And no I'm not claiming to be smart, I'm not ignorant enough to state my opinion as if it were fact, which is exactly what you're doing.

Look let's just drop it, I would have done so by now, had you not kept insulting me in every post you make.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Wow, who would have thought that the Ganon boards would be arguing over this? Zelda maybe, but Ganon is about power. He doesn't care for the past, only for the future! At least, a future where he's in charge.

 

[TP]

Look let's just drop it.

Okay.

 

[@HomE]

I think you all need to get a pile of weed, a telephone, some energy drinks, and just have to time of your lives.

All these arguments have been made before, why not just go read them, and skip to the last page instead of regurgitating them all over our Ganon boards..

Now if anyone wants to have a drum off or a blunt rolling competition... I'll be sitting in my living room playing HoN


We are all just monkeys who think we know more then we do...

Spoiler

OH ****

and the most intelligent post of the week goes too....

 

[TP]

...Twilight Prince, for pointing out that you should be playing LoL instead of HoN.

 

[DLA]

Ha, my 4th of 47 still reigns supreme, although you are more consistent than I am. However, I've got my sources (people who have played both of us IRL) that say I'm a tougher opponent than you. And if THAT'S not proof, I don't know what is! jkjkjkjkjkjkjk

BTW, I completely agree with the rest of your post.

Haha yes, 4th out of 47 is really impressive. There's no clear winner on who the best Midwest Ganon is, and I'm content to keep it that way. I still have yet to fight you and Breezy; I'm meeting up with Fonzi this weekend though, and we're going to have some epic matches. And I doubt either of us will care who the better Ganon is, especially since he doesn't even main Ganon. We should all just be happy that there are some raep Ganons in the midwest :D

Having said that, I must ask a question: who are your "sources"? I'm just curious XD

 

[TP]

Haha yes, 4th out of 47 is really impressive. There's no clear winner on who the best Midwest Ganon is, and I'm content to keep it that way. I still have yet to fight you and Breezy; I'm meeting up with Fonzi this weekend though, and we're going to have some epic matches. And I doubt either of care who the better Ganon is, especially since he doesn't even main Ganon. We should all just be happy that there are some raep Ganons in the midwest :D

Having said that, I must ask a question: who are your "sources"? I'm just curious XD

I won't say, don't wanna create negative feelings between people.

 

[Superspright]

Lol wait a minute, Richard Dawkins? Are you serious lol? That guy is considered a joke even amongst atheists lol. Well at least that explains why you're so insulting in all of your posts. But please don't tell me you actually think he's a good philosopher lol.

He's not a philosopher. He's a biologist... >.>

Your whole paragraph about the God issue not being falsifaible is exactly my point, that it's a philosophical issue, not a scientific one, like you were arguing.

Then so is everything within the spectrum of fantasy. Why does God get a special place in the philosophical circle? Why not leprechauns and space aliens, and gods that only eat bacon on thursdays when there is a girl named Sally who walks through Kmart isle 5 at 12 PM EST--etc. etc. I am sorry I am reducing it to the absurd--but you get my point. There are any number of unfalsifiable things--but why consider God? You have to admit you are being biased and closed-minded to only consider God. You should also consider tons of other impossible things.

Also, if you think the only criticisms of evolution are related to the fossil record, then don't boldy state 'there are no ciriticisms of evolution', because they go far beyond the fossil record. Alot of anit-evolution arguments come from scientists anyway.

I'm sorry, but that's just a flat out lie. No scientist has made an 'anti-evolution' argument. Never. Evolution is taken as a scientific fact within the scientific community. That's not what they argue about. They argue about HOW it happened--not IF it happened.

You don't have a clue about what you're talking about.

So basically, you're saying because science can't disprove or prove God, it's not important. That's my point,- science doesn't tell us everything, and before you say anything outside of science is unimportant, science came from philosophy, philosophy began much earlier than science, heck the actual sciences we have today were categorised by a philosopher.

All I am hearing is, "PHILOSOPHERS STARTED THIS SHEET!" Well, science finished it. Science finally took the B.S. out of philosophy and made it practical and concrete. Philosophy is great when we're trying to consider possibilities--but a lot of philosophy runs into dead-ends and is only inspired by what exists in the first place.

And no I'm not claiming to be smart, I'm not ignorant enough to state my opinion as if it were fact, which is exactly what you're doing.

Look let's just drop it, I would have done so by now, had you not kept insulting me in every post you make.

Insulting you? No, you're insulting me by telling me lies. By telling yourself lies about evolution and science, and philosophy. All I hear is a person who is scared to believe their life may be as insignificant as a rock gently rolling down a hill. I find comfort in it. No pressure--and I get to make the story.

You're just a person who has given up the quest for reason. GL.

 

[Kishin]

let's just drop it

Okay.

blah blah blah

Oh Good Day.

 

[DLA]

Now if anyone wants to have a drum off...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDifaMAVXrg

Who's next

 

[*JuriHan*]

If evolution is true and we evolved from apes how come there are still apes alive? Like, wouldn't there be half human/half monkeys walking around? How come some apes didn't evolve but we did? wtf?

 

[Clai]

I'm in the midst of engineering exams out the wazoo and philosophical debates containing things I have no clue about are the last thing I want to see in a game forum, lol. To answer SNO's question, though, it took time for apes to evolve into humans. There were half-human, half-ape species walking around (the Neanderthals), but as "humans" got more and more evolved, they fought with the Neanderthals until that species got extinct and humans prevailed on the Earth. At least I think that's what happened.

On an unrelated note, do most of you guys actually take your Gdorf to tourneys? I'm just curious realistically how high a top-level Gdorf can place.

I take Ganondorf to tournaments and use him in all but about 5-6 matchups. However, my technical skill is balls and I never place well because I end up doing stupid things such as up-B'ing the wrong way upon recovering from a WKC and thus losing matches needlessly. I won't make Pound 4, sadly, but I'll try to make the NY tournaments while I'm home for semester break.

 

[*JuriHan*]

I'm in the midst of engineering exams out the wazoo and philosophical debates containing things I have no clue about are the last thing I want to see in a game forum, lol. To answer SNO's question, though, it took time for apes to evolve into humans. There were half-human, half-ape species walking around (the Neanderthals), but as "humans" got more and more evolved, they fought with the Neanderthals until that species got extinct and humans prevailed on the Earth. At least I think that's what happened.

I took archeology at my university and they never mentioned there was a war, but they mentioned the Neanderthals iirc. and ugh half-ape half-human gives me the creeps thinking about it.

 

[Ganonsburg]

If evolution is true and we evolved from apes how come there are still apes alive? Like, wouldn't there be half human/half monkeys walking around? How come some apes didn't evolve but we did? wtf?

They didn't get the memo.

Stop talking about evolution as if it's irrefutable. There are many, many scientists (yes, you are allowed to believe in God/a god/gods and be a scientist. Things aren't that communist) that don't accept it to be true.

And Richard Dawkins is an even worse biologist than philosopher. Nobody except the common man accepts anything he says. In the educated community he is pretty much ignored. He's like the **** Cheney or Bill O'Reilly of science.

 

[Z1GMA]

I've got my WIFI back up again, now - after 4 long months...
Anyone up for a couple of dittos?

 

[*JuriHan*]

They didn't get the memo.

Stop talking about evolution as if it's irrefutable. There are many, many scientists (yes, you are allowed to believe in God/a god/gods and be a scientist. Things aren't that communist) that don't accept it to be true.

And Richard Dawkins is an even worse biologist than philosopher. Nobody except the common man accepts anything he says. In the educated community he is pretty much ignored. He's like the **** Cheney or Bill O'Reilly of science.

hey im Catholic, I don't believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy hearing

Spoiler

********

theories

Spoiler

to laugh my *** off at

 

[Ganonsburg]

hey im Catholic, I don't believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy hearing

Spoiler

********

theories

Spoiler

to laugh my *** off at

I don't mind listening to theories either, just as long as people don't try to talk about it as if it were fact. I can stand a good discussion rather than a stubborn argument. But you can't accomplish anything by arguing, especially when one side refuses to admit their fallible nature.


I'm Southern Baptist BTW, not that it really matters. I don't like subscribing to a specific denomination because I go to the Bible for answers first. I'm not saying everyone else should do this, I'm just saying this because you mentioned yours.

Dang, I really didn't mean to encourage further discussion on the topic; I just can't stand seeing people talk as if they know everything.

 

[PK-ow!]

If evolution is true and we evolved from apes how come there are still apes alive? Like, wouldn't there be half human/half monkeys walking around? How come some apes didn't evolve but we did? wtf?

The story goes that we didn't evolve from "apes" as that term refers today, but rather the same species as whatever it was that was the "proto-ape". I.e., at some point, proto-hominids and proto-apes refer to the same thing.

Then, they both broke off into separate lines.

It's the same as asking why orangutans are still alive, and wondering why there aren't half-orangutan half-baboon things walking around.
(Note: I only got 70s in my Anthropology classes, and I may be forgetting crucial details about the Old World Monkeys / New World Monkeys division; just mix and match any two ape species and run with it)


. . .

I'm surprised that befuddlement is still floating around.


SNO, where do you think the Human form came from? Forgive me for not having my Catholicism straight.

 

[*JuriHan*]

SNO, where do you think the Human form came from? Forgive me for not having my Catholicism straight.

God. But I donno about that whole Adam and Eve stuff. Wouldn't that mean everyone is inbred? o.O He had to make more than two lol. And lol @ blaming the woman for original sin (im pretty sure a man wrote Genesis). Good stuff. But hey, maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Dre89]

The Catholics believe humans were simply created by God. In terms of evolution, the Church doesn't accept macroevolution, but I think certain denominations accept microevolution.

But yeah SNO, PK-ow! is right about the ape thing (not saying that it's necessary true, but that's what the evolution theory says).

And for the record Superspright, I have an anti-evolution book in my bedside table who's author is a scientist, so saying no scientists are against evoltuion was a pretty bold claim to make, especially considering Charles Darwin hismelf said later in his life he didn't believe his own theory, that it was merely speculation that people took hold off and made mainstream, and that creationism began with scientists.

 

[Ganonsburg]

The story goes that we didn't evolve from "apes" as that term refers today, but rather the same species as whatever it was that was the "proto-ape". I.e., at some point, proto-hominids and proto-apes refer to the same thing.

Then, they both broke off into separate lines.

It's the same as asking why orangutans are still alive, and wondering why there aren't half-orangutan half-baboon things walking around.
(Note: I only got 70s in my Anthropology classes, and I may be forgetting crucial details about the Old World Monkeys / New World Monkeys division; just mix and match any two ape species and run with it)


. . .

I'm surprised that befuddlement is still floating around.

Right, I've read about that. Which sounds more plausible then what the theory of evolution previously said. Which just shows that the theory isn't infallible. It wasn't in the past, and it's naive to think that it is now. There's always stuff we don't know. Which is why you can't simply force your opinions/beliefs/"facts" on others. Explaining why we think how we do makes sense, because then we understand each other. Maybe I'm just talking to a wall here.

SNO, where do you think the Human form came from? Forgive me for not having my Catholicism straight.

I can't say what she believes, but I believe that God created man. Physically, I'm not sure why he picked this form. But he created man in his own image. Not physical image, but spiritual image. We have souls, animals don't. So yeah, monkeys and apes have our same physical form, but not our spiritual form. Again, this is what I believe, based off of the Bible. Not forcing it on anyone, not looking for an argument. Just answering a question (that was aimed at someone else. My bad).

I apologize for jumping into the discussion between you (PK) and SNO.

 

[Superspright]

If evolution is true and we evolved from apes how come there are still apes alive? Like, wouldn't there be half human/half monkeys walking around? How come some apes didn't evolve but we did? wtf?

If you understood evolution than you'd know that it's not a teleological process. *sigh*

Right, I've read about that. Which sounds more plausible then what the theory of evolution previously said. Which just shows that the theory isn't infallible. It wasn't in the past, and it's naive to think that it is now. There's always stuff we don't know. Which is why you can't simply force your opinions/beliefs/"facts" on others. Explaining why we think how we do makes sense, because then we understand each other. Maybe I'm just talking to a wall here.

*sigh* Yet again, you are showing how profoundly ignorant you are to the theory of evolution. Theories are by nature not infallible--they are falsifiable which is what makes them scientific theories in the first place. The problem is that you don't get it...that science is set up to PROVE its hypothesis--yes, but contradictory evidence just leads to new hypothesis and new testing, and thus new results--and new understanding. Science is not rigid like religion. Religion thinks it has it figured out, and still believes that for 2,000 years. It essentially thinks we came from dust and a spare rib.

How elegant. How startlingly poetic.

But, evolution on the other hand has only grown since Darwin's time. Darwin got down some of the most basic details, and sometimes he was very much wrong, but he was not wrong about evolution. It was independently discovered shortly before he published the Origin of Species [it's actually WHY he published it, because he was afraid of someone else taking all the credit] which has lead to tons of medicines and breakthroughs in science].

I can't say what she believes, but I believe that God created man. Physically, I'm not sure why he picked this form. But he created man in his own image. Not physical image, but spiritual image. We have souls, animals don't. So yeah, monkeys and apes have our same physical form, but not our spiritual form. Again, this is what I believe, based off of the Bible. Not forcing it on anyone, not looking for an argument. Just answering a question (that was aimed at someone else. My bad.

If god created this form, then he is an engineering imbecile. Even common sense tells you that lots of the things that you have are unnecessary or just generally BAD. Your eye has a blind spot, and is extremely fragile to retinal detachments because of the way the bundle of nerves in your eye reach back into your eyesocket. The cross right over a bunch of photocells--and thus you have a blindspot--plus, your brain has to flip the image--your right and left eye go respectively to the left and right side of the brain--huh?

You get goosebumps which used to be a reaction for raising your hair and thus looking bigger, or to get more air in the fur. Some people have vestigial muscles in their ears when we used to be able to move them--we have useless organs, or relatively useless.

That's JUST humans--and that's JUST a few examples. There are HUNDREDS. But, they are strong evidence for evolution. God wouldn't make something so stupid. God is perfect. He'd make something perfect. Why would he make something so clearly flawed? Completely BLIND in the dark--also, why would he put a breathing hole and an eating hole adjacent? Some people will die because of that. Why put your genitals next to your anus?

Why do people like you believe you've thought about these kinds of things? Doesn't it bother you that you can't answer why? Because you're definitely wrong? Because evolution did happen--is still happening--and will always happen anywhere there are the proper conditions?

Go pick up a book. I doubt you've even read the bible anyway. It's amazing how anyone who can believe in human rights can even believe in that crap. ****** and murdering non-virgin women--the nonstop misogyny...being able to sell your children into slavery?

But, cherry picking is probably what you're good at. The parts that don't seem rational anymore are rejected--yet they are the divinely inspired word! Kill those who wear polyester blends--stone those who grow two crops in their fields.

Do these things--because God did command it.

The Catholics believe humans were simply created by God. In terms of evolution, the Church doesn't accept macroevolution, but I think certain denominations accept microevolution.

But yeah SNO, PK-ow! is right about the ape thing (not saying that it's necessary true, but that's what the evolution theory says).

And for the record Superspright, I have an anti-evolution book in my bedside table who's author is a scientist, so saying no scientists are against evoltuion was a pretty bold claim to make, especially considering Charles Darwin hismelf said later in his life he didn't believe his own theory, that it was merely speculation that people took hold off and made mainstream, and that creationism began with scientists.

*sigh* No scientist has ever published a paper against evolution. You just can't find one because NO scientist is disputing evolution. None. Do you get that? None. What you are probably reading is a christian scientist [which isn't science, but bull****]. I can't name a single scientist who disagrees with evolution--but I could find plenty who disagree with the taxonomy of species, or perhaps how they lived...just recently they changed how they think T-rex probably fed. They believe he was probably a scavenger more than a big time predator because of his massive olfactory center--he was a giant land vulture essentially--or they believe he was opportunistic--but no scientist is disputing whether T-rex existed--just how it may have behaved.

No one will know for sure, but that is called speculation. Theory is different.

Also, Darwin never once renounced his theory. You took that out of context if you did--what he did say was that he thought his theory was going to be radically changed once they amass more knowledge. Strangely enough it really hasn't changed much. Just more details about it have been amassed. He never made a bedside conversion either...and yet again...let's talk logic!

Even if Darwin had renounced his theory and said it was an utter lie given to him by Satan himself...it wouldn't even matter. It is true. There is no evidence on this planet that has ever refuted it.

None. Only creationists try to make it seem like there ever was, or is. I really have looked deeply into this. You haven't. That's why I keep coming in here and I have to keep correcting you, but you are just going to cover your eyes and keep espousing this drivel. You keep doing that. Stay in the dark buddy. When you want antibiotics--ask for God to give them to you. Don't improve your health with that Darwinistic magic.

 

[DLA]

If evolution is true and we evolved from apes how come there are still apes alive? Like, wouldn't there be half human/half monkeys walking around? How come some apes didn't evolve but we did? wtf?

Just because you don't understand a theory (or haven't even learned anything about the theory) doesn't mean that it is invalid. That's just like saying "I don't understand how a nuclear reaction works, so they obviously don't exist."

This is extremely basic science, but I don't want to type it out because I'm lazy. Just look at wikipedia or something and read the first few paragraphs and you'll understand it.

They didn't get the memo.

Stop talking about evolution as if it's irrefutable. There are many, many scientists (yes, you are allowed to believe in God/a god/gods and be a scientist. Things aren't that communist) that don't accept it to be true.

And Richard Dawkins is an even worse biologist than philosopher. Nobody except the common man accepts anything he says. In the educated community he is pretty much ignored. He's like the **** Cheney or Bill O'Reilly of science.

Evolution IS irrefutable. It is extremely clear that evolution took place. It's a basic, observable fact. Not theory, fact. And yes, I can pretty much guarantee there are no biologists who deny that evolution took place. Unless you count those "creation science" wackjobs.

When people talk about the "theory of evolution," they refer to the current theory on how evolution took place. Most scientists agree with the current theory, while some scientists have slightly different variations. They argue about HOW and WHY it took place, not whether it actually took place. Because it's an observable fact that evolution took place, and therefore no biologists argue about it.

Also, I have no idea where you get the idea that Richard Dawkins is a joke. He has written many widely acclaimed books on evolution, in addition to a few books on atheism. He even won an award from the British government for being the most intellectual man in the country. You are not a biologist, and you obviously haven't talked to any biologists about him. You probably just dislike him because the religious nuts in the South paint devil horns on him and call him an idiot, and you blindly believe it. Read the books yourself, and see if you still think he's a joke.

hey im Catholic, I don't believe in evolution, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy hearing

Spoiler

********

theories

Spoiler

to laugh my *** off at

I have news for you... Catholics believe in evolution. In fact, the Church officially condoned the theory of evolution decades ago. It's widely known lol. The Church just teaches that God guides evolution, which of course is a half-***** explanation, but it's better than the whole Adam and Eve story.


I don't know how to make this any clearer: Evolution is a FACT. The Theory of Evolution is a THEORY. That's why it's called a THEORY.

 

[Dre89]

I apologize for jumping into the discussion between you (PK) and SNO.

How come apoligised for jumping into my discussion wit hSpright lol jks, na it's good to get outside input.

But yeah in terms believing humans are superior to animals in terms of spirtuality etc. there are arguments for that outiside of religion, but there's no point going into them now.

I think the argument is cooling down now, which is good, my whole initial point with my first post was just to make the point that people shouldn't be insulting other people's beliefs here, but then it just escalated so I'm sorry for that.

 

[DLA]

The Catholics believe humans were simply created by God. In terms of evolution, the Church doesn't accept macroevolution, but I think certain denominations accept microevolution.

But yeah SNO, PK-ow! is right about the ape thing (not saying that it's necessary true, but that's what the evolution theory says).

And for the record Superspright, I have an anti-evolution book in my bedside table who's author is a scientist, so saying no scientists are against evoltuion was a pretty bold claim to make, especially considering Charles Darwin hismelf said later in his life he didn't believe his own theory, that it was merely speculation that people took hold off and made mainstream, and that creationism began with scientists.

The Pope himself says that the theory of evolution is valid. Yes, the spiritual leader of the Church who is believed to be able to talk to God. Also, there are no denominations within Catholicism; there are some orders of priests and all that, but all Catholics must believe in Church dogma.

Also, that bit about Darwin is just BS. It's a bunch of religious crazies who completely warped and distorted his quotes to make him seem "repentent." There was no "speculation"; he wrote an entire book on evolution (On the Origin of Species).

 

[*JuriHan*]

I have news for you... Catholics believe in evolution. In fact, the Church officially condoned the theory of evolution decades ago. It's widely known lol. The Church just teaches that God guides evolution, which of course is a half-***** explanation, but it's better than the whole Adam and Eve story.

He asked me what *I* beleive. Not my religion. Catholic church believes many things, like a woman shouldn't have a right to an abortion. If she gets *****, I feel she has every right in the world to. Why should she be forced to unwillingly bear a child because a man violated and destroyed her life? Also if it's life threatening she should have a right to.

I align myself with the Catholic religion, but that doesn't mean I still don't have a mind of my own.

 

[Ganonsburg]

God. But I donno about that whole Adam and Eve stuff. Wouldn't that mean everyone is inbred? o.O He had to make more than two lol. And lol @ blaming the woman for original sin (im pretty sure a man wrote Genesis). Good stuff. But hey, maybe I'm wrong.

Actually, Genesis is pretty clear that man, woman and the serpent (devil) got equal blame. Woman caused man to sin, but it was still man's sin and ultimate responsibility.

Also the idea with Adam and Eve is that yes, they were the original and only two. Everyone is ultimately descended from them. But in the beginning there was no sin, and thus no mutation. So as they had children, it wasn't so dangerous for siblings to marry. Even after Noah (10/11 generations after Adam) there were relatively few mutations.

The Catholics believe humans were simply created by God. In terms of evolution, the Church doesn't accept macroevolution, but I think certain denominations accept microevolution.

Some individual churches even accept macro-evolution. But I personally don't. I accept "micro-evolution" (which really doesn't fall under evolution) because we actually see it happening. We see mutations here and there, but ultimately a dog is a dog. And, if we didn't have it, we'd only have one species of dog, one species of cat, etc. because of Noah's Flood. But no new types of animal are produced. All the dog species can still breed with each other, which indicates they are not different animals. If you follow.

Again, not forcing you guys to accept this and not saying I know everything. Just explaining my thoughts and beliefs.