IGX

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages ... .imq9AW7OX

What in the actual fuck to some of these people.
Especially the one about 'secularists' embracing the idea that life on Earth is an alien invention. Ridley Scott does not speak for everyone, bro.

Turd, I agree. Only GOD cures the clap through prayer.

Shit. I was impressed. I thought those were thoughtful, generous and impressive responses. Well, except the pudge pudge blonde goof chicky with the hackneyed response about God saying BANG.

Especially the ones about metamorphosis and noetics.

The OP is the one with the conceptual failure and dragging baggage into it. The dude with the alien astronaut theorist question did not imply that all atheists (whatevs/whoevs) believed in alien creation... That was all you. He was asking about the implications of the fact that a few/some/many atheists believe that. His question was more about a "God Impulse" that might be innate to humanity than him pointing a finger at you and shooting insults. You imposed that on him.

PS. I am utterly fucked up but I am not a theist so DON"T JUDGE ME UNFAIRLY LIKE YOU DID THOSE CHRISTERS!

That metamorphosis Q is awesome btw.

Shit. I was impressed. I thought those were thoughtful, generous and impressive responses

So "evolution" now = sub-speciation change within any given population?

Nice.

I don't know when this started happening but more and more the Cultural Left and their useful idiots deploy the technique of the "moving definition" sometimes it's super super narrow and technical and then other times it's broooooaaaaaad as hell...

bennyonesix wrote:So "evolution" now = sub-speciation change within any given population?
Nice.

What do you mean, "now"? I always thought "evolution" = "change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations", or as the For Dummies web page puts it "descent with modification". So sure, that includes sub-speciation change (if it's stabled, heritable change), along with speciation and extinction. Why not?

I still don't get why it should be one or another.

If Evolution doesn't describe speciation what use is it?

Neolithic man and his dogs knew about evolution if that is the definition.

-edit-

Evolution is the explanation for biodiversity, no?

bennyonesix wrote:Evolution is the explanation for biodiversity, no?

How'd we get to that from the Doonesbury cartoon? Or are you replying to something else?

bennyonesix wrote: Evolution is the explanation for biodiversity, no?

I think of evolution as the culling mechanism. Reading up on DNA and RNA and proteins and stuff, seems pretty clear that mutations and re combinations through sex are always generating new molecules (and therefore creatures) and fitness testing is always culling them.

JimZipCode wrote:

bennyonesix wrote:Evolution is the explanation for biodiversity, no?

How'd we get to that from the Doonesbury cartoon? Or are you replying to something else?

Oh yeah, from the cartoon. The guy (look I get it comedy blah blah) sets up the conflict as follows: "creationism" = biodiversity is static for all time and "evolution" = any change in biodiversity even sub=speciation.

I think that is bullshit. No one since the domestication of animals thinks that there is no change in nature. Also, it uses "evolution" in the same way people use "racism" and "poverty" etc... It gets defined down until meaningless.

What does evolution mean at this point?

PS. I hate that I need to say this but to avoid assumptions: I am not a Christian or Theist.

I used to think creationism was stupid, but this has swayed me:

https://www.icr.org/article/6623/372

What about devolution?

Clearly Homo sapiens named himself. Why we don't consider that we might be a soon forgotten evolutionary Cul de Sac instead of the apex of evolution? Homo arrogans might be a better name if G_d or other creatures named us.

odin wrote:I used to think creationism was stupid, but this has swayed me:

https://www.icr.org/article/6623/372

That article made me laugh