so.........I bet evolution taught this spider how far to jump to survive...Right?

I like that you've contemplated existence. I'm somewhat in support of the always-was. Nothing is a concept. You cannot have nothing, therefor there must've been something. Even if that something is "God," what is God composed of? How was God created and if he wasn't, then following the same logic, why were we?

Off topic but since the OP is so boring, why not?

Watching the video and remembered Sam Harris came out for gun rights. Loved it. I don't understand how more social leftists don't support gun rights. Last thing I want is to ever be subjugated by a bunch of religious whackos.

I can assure you my AK I have fully loaded in the corner of my room makes me feel much better about it, whether that is irrational or not, it is how I feel.

The reason I bring it up is because I doubt you feel the same way.

I haven't found another atheist that feels quite the same way as I and good old Mr. Harris.

thanks for your interpretation of what this thread meant to say...and
no one has witnessed evolution, therefore it us not evidence of itself.....

The spider evolved into the way it is.

I am in the same boat as you my friend. The problem is with modern theological arguments, is that everyone argues about if there is or is not a god, without ever defining the concept of god to begin with.

And I suppose there could be nothing, it is just a very hard concept to wrap your head around. Even harder to understand how something could come from nothing. That is why, I don't. I tend to think the pre-universe was something, just different.

Yes we have. We can not only witness it today by seeing how microorganisms are evolving, like viruses.

Also we have plenty of fossil records to 'witness' it.

I think you're thinking about macro-evolution, largely criticized in this very same debate about human evolution, due to "missing links." If you would like an example of rapid physical change of being please see the butterfly. DNA contains endless possibilities -- not all are enabled at once. The particular genetic switches that are activated are directly related to survival elements.
Do you have children? If so, have you noticed the seemingly innate traits they have that appear to be a product of your own development? Children are not born learned, yet they can possess skills that another child in a similar environment might not.

I feel like the gun debates main drive is simply emotion. How could you read about something like Sandy Hook and not want guns eradicated?
I've done more reading, considered it some more and I am for gun rights more than I am against them now. After Sandy Hook I took a pretty strong stand against certain types of weapons, but I think if someone broke in to my house and threatened my family I would want something I know was going to put them down. It should be everyones right to defend themselves.

I'm still for background checks for any gun and mental health checks and longer waits for certain types of weapons (full auto).

Anywho... I tried to go to sleep 4 hours ago. Sorry to rattle you, OP but I'm quite serious when I say if you truly trust the Abrahamic past then you cannot take your holy book as an absolute, unaltered work of God. In fact, you have to consider that Satan, whomever it is, has deliberately led those who would follow Yahweh down the wrong path.
Faith is admirable, though ignorance is not.


Much love, my intentions are with you.

Of course the main drive is emotion. I admit, I cling to my firearms out of fear. If not for fear, I would have no desire to own a firearm or want them to exist in any manner.

But fear is a perfectly rational emotion, it is what allowed us to evolve. Without our primitive amygdalas fight or flight mechanism, a frontal lobe would have never come about.

I hope it is out of our rational (debatable) fear, we are able to evolve further. The type of evolution I am now thinking of is more of an intellectual one. And in order for our ideas to be able to exist, the minds behind them need to be protected. And in particularly they have to be protected from people who believe blasphemy, or my thoughts, are punishable by death.

And of course, that is a large macro kind of ideological tangent in support of my 2nd amendment. But even if the entire world were atheist, I would of course still feel more comfortable with ability to defend myself with a firearm from any type of animal that wishes me or my family harm, human or not.

Yep...

Perfectly rational. I wish I could add to that but that I feel anything I say could just be redundant.

However, if I was to ask you about this debate on a larger scale, say on the parties of god in Iran actively seeking nuclear weapons capabilities. ( I know they say they don't, evidence is to the contrary, however)
Would you say it's Iran's right to a nuclear weapon or would you say it's in the best interest of human survival and the continuation of our evolution to deny religious fanatics this kind of apocalyptic weaponry? Where does the line get drawn?

Who ever left me negative Karma saying



You are a complete dumb ass. Seriously.

If you think that evolution crafted 'this', you're a lemming pushing a bigot cause. Transfer of genetic material is evolution. Procreation by similar symbiotic life forms is evolution.

Ape did not become man! If so, why are there apes who are not evolving? Why are they not building their own systems and societies? Why are they NOT living like cavemen at the very least?

It is astonishing how science spends thousands on 'research' to show a monkey how to 'use' a twig to get ants out of an ant hill. Anyone buying into this needs to get the Golden Gate bridge off of my hands.

I can't for the life of me understand the ignorance behind creationism (and when I say "ignorance" I don't mean it as an insult...ignorance simply means uninformed). To think one species simply generated another species complete as it exists as we see it ridiculous, yet this is what I understand is the thought that goes along with creationism ("I didn't evolve from a monkey"...of course you didn't...no one did. You simply are not grasping how evolution works. The idea of God speaking things into existence didn't sound right to me even when I was a Christian. The idea of evolution does not negate the existence of God, it's only in conflict of early texts, scripture about the specifics.)
If there were no such thing as evolution, we wouldn't have medicine, electricity, computers or cell phones (or we would have had them from the start).
Creationists, do you realize if we brought the average European Christian from 1400 to today they'd call you a devil worshiper? The western world Christian view at that time was that God created everything and anything not created by God was of the devil. Do you realize that when physicians first wanted to operate it was forbidden because if God had wanted this person healed, God would heal them?
So despite your insistence that there's no such thing as evolution, how is it we've evolved from people who had no cars, no phones, no t.v., no computers and the people that wrote the ancient texts you so revere didn't even know we lived on a planet or even what a galaxy is?
No real scientist has ever set out to prove there is no God (OR that there is one). Science is about studying our world and learning. If it is crime against God to do these things then maybe you should think about dropping out of society and moving to the wilderness and living off the land because to do otherwise is living under and accepting those things the devil has brought into existence.

no; idiot; you do not understand the basics.

True.
But the creature that became the many creatures over millions of years is related to the monkey and us.

But it wasn't like the modern chimp nor human.

Evolution does not mean we're monkeys, yet it does hypothesize we share a distant mammal cousin.

Good point. Exposed my thoughts for just how hypocritical they are. But alas, I am human.

If I were to try and be a purist, or an ideologue, I would say that since I believe in my right to a weapon to defend myself out of fear, then anyone else should be allowed that same right. Whether a person or a group of people. And of course then what if a rifle or handgun is not adequate? Then nuclear arms are our right!

But of course I don't believe that. So of course, regulations need to be put in place. And hence the never ending arguments on who should be restricted and what they should be restricted to.

And out of a hypocritical self-interest, I advocate for my right to own firearms (I could get by with low capacity munitions although I own high capacity since it is legal) and for the right of my government to restrict that right from anyone who may cause arm with them. Or at least people we that are more likely to cause harm with them.

So then the debate continues, well just who can be trusted with arms and who cannot? Myself, arguing from authority, believe that I can be trusted with these weapons, but someone who believes in killing for their god should not.

Just as the United States ticks off the world, by arguing from authority, that itself, its allies including Israel can own nuclear weapons, but mentally unstable Iran over there should be restricted.

Just part of the human condition. Luckily we did evolve to be somewhat selfish and self serving or else even more people might think it is a good idea for a country like Iran to have nuclear weapons.

And it is not just because they are religious. I am no fan of North Korea either, despite their state sponsored atheism.

But alas, it is 3:30 AM, and I have to go to bed. I am not even quite clear if what I just typed makes any sense whatsoever, but I hope it is at least somewhat coherent.

Good night my friend, and thank you for the chat.

Your idiocy knows no bounds. At least try to get educated if you insist on debating the subject. Good day.

now that is just stunning!

let me repeat that so it can sink in.

"creation needs no other evidence....creation is evidence in itself

unarguable logic, effective for any debate.

plug in your favorite topic

-global warming needs no other evidence....global warming is evidence in itself-

elenin needs no other evidence...elenin is evidence in itself

go ahead plug in your own value-presto the field is yours

Creationists are proof that there is no such thing as "intelligent design".

And stop trying to be DGN.
One fuckwit is enough, thank you.

ok can anyone explain the origin of information then? explain how dna organized itself initially.

[link to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

pre medicine, even humans had a high failure rate. If a female carried her child full term & the birthing went wrong, both would die.

[link to www.nrao.edu]

The ape argument. Sigh.

There could be many reasons. Our line probably came into existence millions of years before other apes? Maybe they're evolution is slower due to vegetarian diets? We are not apes. You are correct. But you;re being presumptuous & deliberately ignorant by bringing up this argument.

There are thousands of species of aquatic animals, how come there are onyl a few of them which come out on top? Much like we come out on top in regard to mammals.

Thought it was "The Jehovah witness guy" too

You people with your bullshit fundamentalism just need to GIVE IT A REST. You're wrong, at the very least. At worst, you're also stupid. No wait, you're both.

Of course the theory of evolution has holes in it. So does general relativity. Does that mean we haven't improved our understanding of the world a great deal because of general relativity? Of course not. Similarly, our understanding of microbiology has improved considerably because of Charles Darwin. So own up to the fact that the world wasn't created 6,000 years ago and get over your bullshit. And for God's sake, stop taking your kids to the "Creationist museum" and brainwashing them. You can delude yourself whatever way you choose, but don't abuse your kids by indoctrinating them into some crap that will prevent them from advancing in the sciences should they ever pursue such a career.

You people miss perhaps the most important point - even if evolution doesn't provide the exact scientific mechanism YET as to how each organism has evolved, that DOESN'T MEAN the default answer is that "JESUS MUST HAVE MADE IT." You fundamentalists see whatever evidence of the incompleteness of the theory of evolution as being CONFIRMATION of the fact that "GOD MUST'A MADE IT." Well, YOU'RE WRONG, hillbillies. Disproving evolution (a scientific theory) doesn't PROVE the validity of your (wholly unscientific) theory. That's not how science works. We don't just proceed with some ridiculous assumption that "JESUS MUST'A MADE IT" until we've proven the exact mechanism by which an organism has come to be through natural selection. In fact, we don't proceed with any assumptions AT ALL. That's what science is. When you presume that some Old Man in the Sky made everything to begin with - that's the very definition of unscientific bullshit.

Grow up, move out of your pisshole rural area, and join the real world someday. We would like to have you make some meaningful contribution to he sciences, that is, if you can ever get your heads straight.

Well said.

This is a red flag which should signal that your argument is not going to influence any of the creationists. If someone doesn't know how apes could still be apes and how humans can be humans, it's not worth the time and the effort to being explaining.