4.

4 pages of nonsense

I'm Big Business and i condoned the use of page 4.

I'm Big Business and i approved this message.

2/13/2009 3:04:11 PM

lol in that case i'm fine where i am. i was just trying to understand what exactly she was trying to say at first...

this is a college message board, which usually means each user is at least a few things, somewhat intelligent and educated, technologically competent, and usually open to new/ideas/learning. so i'm not really surprised at the distribution of people.

folks in the 'C' group get run out of here pretty quickly because they can't adapt to the situation...

(eheheh)

2/13/2009 3:05:18 PM

Quote :

"you either believe that: 1.) a supreme being created the universe (directly or indirectly creating the laws of the universe and therefore setting evolution into motion, directly or indirectly) 2.) the supreme being is actively involved in "evolution" 3.) there is no supreme being and we're a cosmic *poof* (in which case i would assume you're following a scientific approach and i would assume you believe that evolution is the case, rather than the idea that we all just winked into existence this very second) i don't see how there are any other options"

2/13/2009 3:05:55 PM

Quote :

"i don't see how there are any other options"

you're limiting yourself.

2/13/2009 3:16:27 PM

Quote :

"you're limiting yourself."

perhaps...give me an example of something that doesn't fit (loosely) into one of those 3 categories?

i mean, i can pretend that we were all just winked into existence RIGHT THIS MOMENT with memories and clothes and all that jazz...but you either believe in a supreme being/beings or don't...and if you do, don't you have to believe that they created the laws of the universe, evolution included? otherwise, it/they can't be very supreme

i know there are some variations you can put on it that might exempt it from one of those 3 on a technicality, but for the VAST majority of beliefs/disbelief, i don't know what else there is

*shrug*

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 3:25 PM. Reason : .]

2/13/2009 3:18:14 PM

Quote :

"Arab13: i don't get what you are trying to say here, are you saying A is to extreme excluding any idea of a higher power being involved? or B being too centered around the idea of God? if that's the case then you're agnostic evolution which is A(B) (reserving the right to B if God/higher power exists) not simply "evolution" which = A"

Before this thread, I didn't think A was so extreme as to exclude God. I didn't think evolution really had anything to do with God. I thought it was a given and not something people, outside of idiots, actually debated.

I guess I'm trying to say I believe in the basics of evolution. But I don't know what I believe if it's couched with God. It shouldn't be couched with God. This thread, this question, is stupid, and we're all stupid for playing along. Evolution exists or it doesn't. Almost all of us seem to think it does. What caused it to exist is a separate question. So this thread should be two questions, not one. Darwin should be in the first question about whether or not evolution exists...he should not be included in the second question about what caused evolution to exist (and he wouldn't want to be).

Like, I believe in salmon burgers. I ate one just a couple hours ago. I also believe in popsicles. I had one for dessert. But if you ask me whether or not I believe in natural salmon burgers or divine salmon burgers...I don't know...just put me down for fucking salmon burgers.

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 3:41 PM. Reason : Your chart mixes science with faith, which is interesting but stupid.]

2/13/2009 3:27:42 PM

apples and oranges, b. apples and oranges...

I'm Big Business and i approved this message.

2/13/2009 3:32:37 PM

I mean, evolution without natural selection and shit, is not evolution. If God is making decisions on which members of which species get to breed...that's not fucking evolution. That's just God. So that would be C.

If you think fossils and shit are the devil's work, that's not evolution. So that would be C.

If you think God set shit into motion, that's evolution. So that would be A.

If you think no God set anything into motion, that's evolution. So that would be A.

If you're not sure how it got going, that's evolution. So that would be A.

It's evolution or it isn't. Whether or not God is involved is not important...if he's really, really involved, it's like my first example, and then it's not evolution anymore. Either way though, it is or it isn't. God stuff is separate.

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 3:41 PM. Reason : ?]

2/13/2009 3:39:36 PM

Quote :

"Seeing how there are rocks (older than what the bible says is the age of the earth) that have fossilized remains them, and those remains kind of look like animals that exist today. It is pretty easy to observe."

Though it is said that the earth was created with "the appearance of age." If one believes that God created the earth, there's no reason to doubt that he could create fossilized remains along with it.

2/13/2009 3:43:00 PM

i'm surprised this thread has stayed on track in chitchat

2/13/2009 3:43:55 PM

he is a tricky motherfucker, that's for sure.

2/13/2009 3:44:15 PM

Do people still go by Matthew to determine how old the earth is?

2/13/2009 3:49:54 PM

Boobs: Natural?... Divine?... or Non-Existent?


You choose

2/13/2009 3:51:25 PM

^^i count the number of seconds since january 1, 1970

2/13/2009 3:53:19 PM

D) eez nuts!

2/13/2009 3:54:22 PM

^^^ now that's an idea i can get behind, or on, or in....

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 3:54 PM. Reason : ^^^]

2/13/2009 3:54:31 PM

lol, divine boobs...

Quote :

"I mean, evolution without natural selection and shit, is not evolution. If God is making decisions on which members of which species get to breed...that's not fucking evolution. That's just God. So that would be C."

No, that's B.

Quote :

"If you think God set shit into motion, that's evolution. So that would be A."

No, that's B.
Please stop trying to derail the thread. You already gave your answer. Thanks and good bye.
(It is what it is. Leave it well enough alone already...)



darwinian natural evolution: (A)
----------------------
Willy Nilly
miska
ALkatraz
Stimwalt
stowaway
Arab13
nastoute
HockeyRoman
Flying Tiger
puppy
Walter
jataylor
evan
djeternal
Smath74
DeltaBeta
zorthage
Fareako
Supplanter

divine evolution: (B)
----------------------
Joie
supercalo
0EPII1
sawahash
dagreenone
icyhotpatch
jackleg
punchmonk
tchenku
grimx
GoldenGirl
AndyMac
Bird
fleetwud
quagmire02

no evolution: (C)
----------------------
maximus

unsure: (D)
----------------------
BridgetSPK


A) darwinian natural evolution = Plants and animals adapted to their environments through random mutations and/or natural selection.
B) divine evolution = God, or a "higher power", is the guiding force behind and/or designer of the process of evolution.
C) no evolution = God, or a "higher power", created all life, which has always existed in its present form.

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 3:58 PM. Reason : ]

2/13/2009 3:56:32 PM

A

2/13/2009 3:59:00 PM

Quote :

"Boobs: Natural?... Divine?... or Non-Existent?"

2/13/2009 4:00:48 PM

dear heavens (or darwin, whatever)...i'd motorboat the hell (or nothingness) out of those boobies

2/13/2009 4:03:07 PM

neither A,B nor C

I don't believe the past has any definite, concrete existence...so I sincerely believe that both evolution and some form of creationism are simultaneously correct (neither is totally correct, but the truth is a superposition of them)

2/13/2009 4:04:13 PM

I'm one of those A/B grey area types.

2/13/2009 4:04:26 PM

his or her penis or vagina

I'm Big Business and i approved this message.

2/13/2009 4:04:29 PM

chit chat got all srs up in dis thread.

2/13/2009 4:15:58 PM

2/13/2009 7:00:51 PM

B

2/13/2009 7:07:07 PM

Quote :

"everything has to have a beginning right?"

You can't say that with 100% certainty...infinity is a hard concept for humans to grasp because of the time scale on which we live

2/13/2009 7:09:31 PM

A

though I still see B as plausible...

or

J: I don't give a shit, it's not my problem to worry about, and it will never affect my personal life in any way since I do not plan on doing anything even remotely related to biology.

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 8:02 PM. Reason : .]

2/13/2009 7:56:23 PM

A, for sure.


I honestly figured like 95% of people on here would agree with me.

2/13/2009 9:40:09 PM

LOOK YOU LITTLE SPIC STAIN

THAT IS THE SECOND TIME YOU'VE DROPPED ME FROM THE POLL

I AM TAKING THIS PERSONALLY NOW AND DEMAND A RECOUNT!!11

also, I would kill that blonde girl on the left up there with my dick

2/13/2009 9:52:33 PM

Quote :

"everything has to have a beginning right?"

i hate people who don't question this.

Um, if there was a beginning then that would mean that is in reference to something else that was already happening.

I'm Big Business and i approved this message.

2/13/2009 9:56:00 PM

A

yay empirical evidence


[Edited on February 14, 2009 at 1:58 AM. Reason : .]

2/14/2009 1:47:23 AM

A

2/14/2009 2:16:55 AM

They recently did some "news" story about this in Japan (Americans not believing in evolution). They got some Japanese reporter to go find the redneckiest assholes he could so they could go off on evolution. It was really embarrassing

2/14/2009 2:31:35 AM

I'm amazed at how many people believe that god actually did create the universe

it's a great parable/fable/story/whatever to give people something to believe in

but i feel sorry for people who think that it's anything but A. divine evolution? are you serious? god is sitting somewhere telling a tortoise on one of the islands in the galapagos to have an arch in the front of his shell to allow them to reach higher branches? or he made the trees on one island to be home to a particular type of bug that lays larva in the bark and then made a finch with a beak used to make tools out of twigs to pry said larva out?

it's amusing that people actually believe that is true but know santa claus is fake by the time they're 10

[Edited on February 14, 2009 at 3:56 AM. Reason : .]

2/14/2009 3:49:21 AM

There are really two different sorts of "divine evolution" that would fall under Willy Nilly's category B.

One would be that god made everything in a base/primitive state, and then evolution took its course, god not required for the process itself to occur over time. Basically the same as A but with a different origin. Personally I'd consider this one to be the same as A, given that it still treats evolution as a natural process... unless this thread is also asking about the origin of the universe and not just evolutionary development.

Then there's the idea that god made things evolve... that he created stuff, and then gradually changed stuff. God stretched the beaks of some insignificant bird species over millions of years, and ect... Which to me just seems silly. But it is also the most accurate to what is described as option B.

[Edited on February 14, 2009 at 5:01 AM. Reason : .]

2/14/2009 4:58:32 AM

my question with those chicks is that

A.) is def hotter than B.)

but does B.)'s ( 0 )( 0 ) give her the edge????

2/14/2009 5:11:10 AM

wtf edit

[Edited on February 14, 2009 at 5:17 AM. Reason : v]

2/14/2009 5:16:18 AM

^^ Just choose option C) Both of the above

[Edited on February 14, 2009 at 5:17 AM. Reason : fuck you, "edit post"]

2/14/2009 5:16:57 AM

Quote :

"One would be that god made everything in a base/primitive state, and then evolution took its course, god not required for the process itself to occur over time. Basically the same as A but with a different origin. Personally I'd consider this one to be the same as A, given that it still treats evolution as a natural process..."

But that's not quite right. "Natural" is in the sense of "the nature of things", of order rising from non-order, of being truly without design or intent. The scenario where a god (or "higher power",) starts it all, or "winds a clock", still has an element of intent or design -- so even though the resulting process of evolution from that is identical to that of actual natural evolution, it isn't really a natural process in the same way. So, it falls into category B.



darwinian evolution: (A)
----------------------
Willy Nilly
miska
ALkatraz
Stimwalt
Tiberius
stowaway
Arab13
nastoute
HockeyRoman
Flying Tiger
puppy
Walter
jataylor
evan
djeternal
Smath74
DeltaBeta
zorthage
Fareako
Supplanter
Cyphr_Sonic
tromboner950
ShawnaC123
jwb9984
Str8Foolish
goalielax

divine evolution: (B)
----------------------
Joie
supercalo
0EPII1
sawahash
dagreenone
icyhotpatch
jackleg
punchmonk
tchenku
grimx
GoldenGirl
AndyMac
Bird
fleetwud
quagmire02
bottombaby

no evolution: (C)
----------------------
maximus

unsure: (D)
----------------------
BridgetSPK

[Edited on February 14, 2009 at 7:36 AM. Reason : ]

2/14/2009 7:09:46 AM

Quote :

"anybody ever seen a new species come from an already existing one? hmmm, interesting"

HAHAHAHAHAHAH. nice trolling

Quote :

"I just wish that everyone who thinks you can't have faith in God and accept evolution at the same time realized they were wrong. It's totally possible. But people who think that (especially the religious ones) lack education in both subjects."

You absolutely can have faith in God and accept evolution. The problem is that you can't believe in a literal interpretation of the bible and accept evolution. And a good number of Americans are in that category....

[Edited on February 14, 2009 at 7:38 AM. Reason : oh. A and the chick on the right is definitely hotter]

2/14/2009 7:38:14 AM

Quote :

""anybody ever seen a new species come from an already existing one God? hmmm, interesting""

fixed it for you

2/14/2009 9:11:50 AM

A and B are functionally equivalent, I don't know why the initial article lumped B and C together.

2/14/2009 9:58:12 AM

A

2/14/2009 10:14:13 AM

-willy nilly thread
-evolution
-chit chat
Serious Thread

wtf

2/14/2009 10:15:29 AM

definitely A

2/14/2009 10:37:33 AM

Quote :

"A and B are functionally equivalent"

Not exactly....
A and only one class of B are "functionally equivalent". Other classes of B are quite functionally different. And even with the class of B that is "functionally equivalent", that doesn't really matter, because the distinction between A and B is in what's responsible for evolution in the first place, not necessarily in how it functions. In other words, A does not equal B, and that's all that matters. It is what it is.....

Quote :

"I don't know why the initial article lumped B and C together"

Yeah... That seemed odd.
I guess they were looking more at whether or not reality is "god's doing"....

Quote :

"This is a college message board so pretty much everybody is going to agree with evolution. So this thread is basically, "God: Yes?...No?""

Not exactly. If you don't believe in any god, gods, or "higher power", then clearly you can't choose B. However, belief in god, gods or a "higher power" doesn't preclude you from choice A. Just because they may exist doesn't mean that they necessarily created, designed, or started the evolution of life.

[Edited on February 14, 2009 at 10:43 AM. Reason : ]

2/14/2009 10:42:32 AM

^ way to clarify all the way on the 4th page

your ways displease Crom

2/14/2009 11:58:57 AM

Well, I am a theist so I can't justify not saying B

[Edited on February 14, 2009 at 12:05 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2009 12:05:05 PM

^not really. you could have a do nothing god

2/14/2009 12:25:17 PM