NinSheetMusic Forums

Finally started a Debate Topic.

Rules:
- No Flaming.
- Keep Debates Cool.
- Be Thoughtful of others feelings.
- Most Importantly, follow the Forum Rules.


Current Debate:
nothing currently.

This should be good.

Ok. So here's what gets me:
Kids are taught that life can evolve if given enough time. This, in my opinion, is false.
Time doesnt make impossible things possible. Example: a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet, After 35 trillion attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly.
What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve give the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 configurations all in the correct places?? Never in Eternity could this happen!

Quote from: Olimar12345 on October 21, 2014, 10:22:57 AMThis should be good.

Haha :)

I'm gonna leave this topic alone all day--haven't even read the first three posts--and then later I'm going to sit down and read the entire thing with some popcorn.

Where is BDS with his chair gif!

Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 21, 2014, 10:24:21 AMI'm gonna leave this topic alone all day--haven't even read the first three posts--and then later I'm going to sit down and read the entire thing with some popcorn.

Should we change this to "The Entertaining Slow Topic"? lol :)

Quote from: Olimar12345 on October 21, 2014, 10:25:52 AMWhere is BDS with his chair gif!

Right here

(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.threadbombing.com%2Fdata%2Fmedia%2F2%2FTHISGONBGUD.gif&hash=83aa4157ebbad4d99df46219963f8f241ff0cd14)

[close]

Reposting here for convenience:

warning, no TL;DR

I told myself I wasn't going to debate this
I really did

Quote from: maelstrom. on October 21, 2014, 09:56:24 AMI don't necessarily agree with evolution. Neither Creation nor Evolution can be proven without a doubt or disproven completely. That is why debates are endless. There are much better things to debate.

This is true for evolution only in the sense that nothing can truly be proven. From an epistemological standpoint, everything that we know or remember has the potential of being fabricated, an illusion. Our mental tools that we use to remember what we ate for dinner last night are just as potentially fallible as the tools we use to discern what organisms lived when in our past, and how they developed over time. There are only two main differences. The first is that the claim that I ate mac and cheese last night challenges nobody's religious beliefs (that I know of). The second is that scientists are required to take their observations in stride, and so are only able to say what is likeliest, based on what we observe. Based on what I observe, it is likeliest that I ate mac and cheese last night, as that is what I remember. Even though it's theoretically possible that everything I remember is part of an elaborate simulation that started at this very moment, and even though I could potentially have a severe memory disorder, these are not things I can question, as I will very likely never have an answer affirming or denying these things. Therefore, I can say "I ate mac and cheese for dinner last night."

Evolution, however, has the potential to be falsified. That is, according to almost the entire scientific community, a definitive property of science. If there is no discovery that could be made, in our natural, observable world, to disprove an idea, it is not science. There are, theoretically, discoveries that could be made to disprove or alter our current understanding of evolution. They have not been made, and so we consider evolution to be fact until proven otherwise. Creationism cannot be considered on this plane, because it cannot be disproven. We can never make an observation proving it to be false, because its entire premise is that things happen beyond our perception. And it could be true! Just as much as Pastafarianism, the belief that everything was created by a giant spaghetti monster in the sky, can be considered objectively true. Within this plane of existence, though, we can make no observations affirming or denying either of these ideas, whereas we can for evolution. Therefore, it's a false equivalence to say that both evolutionary theory and creationism cannot

Quote from: maelstrom. on October 21, 2014, 09:56:24 AMbe proven without a doubt or disproven completely.

Because while this is TECHNICALLY true, it's based on the same premise as the statement "I may or may not have eaten mac and cheese last night". We should not doubt our senses, as they are the one thing that we can trust more than anything else.

Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 21, 2014, 10:15:13 AMEvolution is all but a concrete fact of nature at this point; it's not really something you can choose to believe or disbelieve. But there's no point arguing about these things since nobody ever really changes their mind about it XD

I've actually convinced somebody of evolution before. Granted, it was in conjunction with a biology course leading to him actually understanding evolution, but he changed his mind nonetheless.

Quote from: maelstrom. on October 21, 2014, 10:03:58 AMSomething more based on opinions and less based on worldviews.

First of all, aren't the two kind of the same thing? I'd suggest replacing "worldviews" with "observable facts", but that'd require you to accept that this debate is, and should be, entirely based upon observable facts. Second, if opinions and worldviews can truly be considered separate, then I feel fairly confident in saying that mine are independent from one another in this case. I am a confirmed Methodist Christian. I go to church on a regular basis, have thoroughly read much of the Bible, and plan to give my children the same options in their upbringing as my parents have given me. My non-literal interpretation of the Bible can still be considered Christian just as much as different sects' interpretations can still be considered so. I do not have an "anti-religion" worldview, as some would designate my side of the discussion. I just refuse to argue for fact what can never be represented as so.

I realize that this may not be what you meant by the distinction between opinion and worldview, but it's a false sentiment that's constantly perpetuated by creationists, and I just wanted to get that rant off of my chest.

Quote from: mariolegofan on October 21, 2014, 09:58:28 AMOk....what is evolution then my friend?

According to our current understanding, it is a long and gradual process involving a series of "microevolutions", as you describe them, in which organisms, whose randomly acquired traits (through both mutations and genetic recombination) are most suited to allow them to survive and reproduce in their environment, do so. Those with traits less suited to do so, die without reproducing. The two of these things happen on a constant basis, with each generation of each species, until a population becomes so phenotypically different from its ancestors that it is now considered a different species (this, by the way, is not always all that different). It is not, as you imply, a magical process by which organisms of vastly different traits are rapidly changed into one another. We do not argue that we descended from monkeys, nor from cats, nor from frogs, nor from amoebas for that matter (there are many other varieties of single-cellular organisms that exist/have existed!). We did, however, at some point within the long, long history of our world (significantly longer than 6,000 years!) share a common ancestor with each of these organisms, some more recently than others. Any further questions you have about the actual workings of evolution, I would have you direct to your biology teacher as soon as you are lucky enough to have one. Hopefully in this class, you will gain a great enough understanding of evolution to accept it as the best explanation we currently have for why and how organisms came to be the way they are. If not, I can only hope that the trait of willful ignorance is selected out of our population sooner, rather than later.

[close]

Also:

Quote from: mariolegofan on October 21, 2014, 10:23:28 AMOk. So here's what gets me:
Kids are taught that life can evolve if given enough time. This, in my opinion, is false.
Time doesnt make impossible things possible. Example: a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet, After 35 trillion attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly.
What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve give the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 configurations all in the correct places?? Never in Eternity could this happen!

What you just described is not an impossible situation. It is merely an unlikely situation. The distinction between these two things is critical. It is already a miracle of nature that our planet has been able to sustain life. Literally every other planet that we have observed, out of a shitton of planets, has not been shown to do that. Chalk that up to what you will, be it God preferring us over the rest of this infinite expanse of stuff he's created, or just the statistical fact that, given a near-infinite amount of occurrences within just as many conditions, an untrained monkey could type out Shakespearean plays, word for word, on a typewriter. We are already a metaphorical alphabet among a sea of failed letters. Now, this pre-existing alphabet is what has allowed for the development of our language or dictionary of species. Is it likely that things would have panned out exactly the way that they did? Well, no. It could have gone down so many other ways, but as "time" tends to work out, one of those ways has to end up happening, eventually. The fact that we have evolution at all, however, was (and is) actually a very likely occurrence based on the conditions in which it began (and persists)! Just as random objects placed into a blender will either stay (relatively) intact or be destroyed depending on their physical properties, so too did random living things either survive/reproduce (and therefore pass on their genes, along with whatever products of mutation/genetic recombination led to their success) or die before reproduction, forever exiling their uniqueness from the gene pool.

Quote from: mariolegofan on October 21, 2014, 10:23:28 AMExample

If there is a time limit, this might be the case, but the world doesn't work like that.

quick change the topic before Fierce posts more walls of text

ok

is it OK to punch pregnant people?????

thatsnotwhatImeant

Quote from: Dude on October 21, 2014, 11:27:47 AMok

is it OK to punch pregnant people?????

I knew a girl in my high school that would punch her stomach after having sex as a method of birth control.

it didn't work for some reason

wait it seriously doesn't work?

D:

Well I bet if the baby is like mostly formed and stuff it'll kill it... So it probably will force an abortion

Quote from: K-NiGhT on October 21, 2014, 11:28:36 AMI knew a girl in my high school that would punch her stomach after having sex as a method of birth control.

it didn't work for some reason

youve got to punch harder for it to work

Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on October 21, 2014, 11:33:30 AMyouve got to punch harder for it to work

Falcon Punch.

Quote from: FierceDeity on October 21, 2014, 11:17:46 AMReposting here for convenience:

warning, no TL;DR

I told myself I wasn't going to debate this
I really did

This is true for evolution only in the sense that nothing can truly be proven. From an epistemological standpoint, everything that we know or remember has the potential of being fabricated, an illusion. Our mental tools that we use to remember what we ate for dinner last night are just as potentially fallible as the tools we use to discern what organisms lived when in our past, and how they developed over time. There are only two main differences. The first is that the claim that I ate mac and cheese last night challenges nobody's religious beliefs (that I know of). The second is that scientists are required to take their observations in stride, and so are only able to say what is likeliest, based on what we observe. Based on what I observe, it is likeliest that I ate mac and cheese last night, as that is what I remember. Even though it's theoretically possible that everything I remember is part of an elaborate simulation that started at this very moment, and even though I could potentially have a severe memory disorder, these are not things I can question, as I will very likely never have an answer affirming or denying these things. Therefore, I can say "I ate mac and cheese for dinner last night."

Evolution, however, has the potential to be falsified. That is, according to almost the entire scientific community, a definitive property of science. If there is no discovery that could be made, in our natural, observable world, to disprove an idea, it is not science. There are, theoretically, discoveries that could be made to disprove or alter our current understanding of evolution. They have not been made, and so we consider evolution to be fact until proven otherwise. Creationism cannot be considered on this plane, because it cannot be disproven. We can never make an observation proving it to be false, because its entire premise is that things happen beyond our perception. And it could be true! Just as much as Pastafarianism, the belief that everything was created by a giant spaghetti monster in the sky, can be considered objectively true. Within this plane of existence, though, we can make no observations affirming or denying either of these ideas, whereas we can for evolution. Therefore, it's a false equivalence to say that both evolutionary theory and creationism cannotBecause while this is TECHNICALLY true, it's based on the same premise as the statement "I may or may not have eaten mac and cheese last night". We should not doubt our senses, as they are the one thing that we can trust more than anything else.

I've actually convinced somebody of evolution before. Granted, it was in conjunction with a biology course leading to him actually understanding evolution, but he changed his mind nonetheless.

First of all, aren't the two kind of the same thing? I'd suggest replacing "worldviews" with "observable facts", but that'd require you to accept that this debate is, and should be, entirely based upon observable facts. Second, if opinions and worldviews can truly be considered separate, then I feel fairly confident in saying that mine are independent from one another in this case. I am a confirmed Methodist Christian. I go to church on a regular basis, have thoroughly read much of the Bible, and plan to give my children the same options in their upbringing as my parents have given me. My non-literal interpretation of the Bible can still be considered Christian just as much as different sects' interpretations can still be considered so. I do not have an "anti-religion" worldview, as some would designate my side of the discussion. I just refuse to argue for fact what can never be represented as so.

I realize that this may not be what you meant by the distinction between opinion and worldview, but it's a false sentiment that's constantly perpetuated by creationists, and I just wanted to get that rant off of my chest.

According to our current understanding, it is a long and gradual process involving a series of "microevolutions", as you describe them, in which organisms, whose randomly acquired traits (through both mutations and genetic recombination) are most suited to allow them to survive and reproduce in their environment, do so. Those with traits less suited to do so, die without reproducing. The two of these things happen on a constant basis, with each generation of each species, until a population becomes so phenotypically different from its ancestors that it is now considered a different species (this, by the way, is not always all that different). It is not, as you imply, a magical process by which organisms of vastly different traits are rapidly changed into one another. We do not argue that we descended from monkeys, nor from cats, nor from frogs, nor from amoebas for that matter (there are many other varieties of single-cellular organisms that exist/have existed!). We did, however, at some point within the long, long history of our world (significantly longer than 6,000 years!) share a common ancestor with each of these organisms, some more recently than others. Any further questions you have about the actual workings of evolution, I would have you direct to your biology teacher as soon as you are lucky enough to have one. Hopefully in this class, you will gain a great enough understanding of evolution to accept it as the best explanation we currently have for why and how organisms came to be the way they are. If not, I can only hope that the trait of willful ignorance is selected out of our population sooner, rather than later.

[close]

Also:
What you just described is not an impossible situation. It is merely an unlikely situation. The distinction between these two things is critical. It is already a miracle of nature that our planet has been able to sustain life. Literally every other planet that we have observed, out of a shitton of planets, has not been shown to do that. Chalk that up to what you will, be it God preferring us over the rest of this infinite expanse of stuff he's created, or just the statistical fact that, given a near-infinite amount of occurrences within just as many conditions, an untrained monkey could type out Shakespearean plays, word for word, on a typewriter. We are already a metaphorical alphabet among a sea of failed letters. Now, this pre-existing alphabet is what has allowed for the development of our language or dictionary of species. Is it likely that things would have panned out exactly the way that they did? Well, no. It could have gone down so many other ways, but as "time" tends to work out, one of those ways has to end up happening, eventually. The fact that we have evolution at all, however, was (and is) actually a very likely occurrence based on the conditions in which it began (and persists)! Just as random objects placed into a blender will either stay (relatively) intact or be destroyed depending on their physical properties, so too did random living things either survive/reproduce (and therefore pass on their genes, along with whatever products of mutation/genetic recombination led to their success) or die before reproduction, forever exiling their uniqueness from the gene pool.

Wow....you outta be a journalist or something. :)
About the age of the Earth, which I think is around 6,000 years, could NOT even scientifically be in the millions. Ok so the Sun is getting about 5 feet smaller every hour. Using that reasoning, Just a few million years ago the sun would of been so big that the Earth would of been burned to a crisp and all Life erraticated. Same principle can apply to the Moon. The Moon is very slowly moving away from the Earth (I forget how slow.....) Again if you turn back the clock about a few million years, the Moon would have been to close to the Earth and the Moon's Gravity being to great that the Earth would be swallowed up by water from the giant waves the gravity produced.

Quote from: maelstrom. on October 21, 2014, 11:34:18 AMFalcon Punch.

lol

So how long until the mods with actual power step in?

I don't know where you get your info. The main problem with a young earth scenario is the radiocarbon dating. Granted, it's not that accurate, and the numbers may be inflated, but they point to an earth older than 6,000 years. You don't really have a rebuttal to that, at least, not yet.

Quote from: MaestroUGC on October 21, 2014, 12:15:16 PMSo how long until the mods with actual power step in?

When disaster happens. The derail was successful until mlf ruined it.....

Quote from: maelstrom. on October 21, 2014, 12:16:22 PMWhen disaster happens. The derail was successful until mlf ruined it.....

Yes, I dont want this locked....


Any ideas for a more interesting debate?
I was thinking what you said earlier maelstrom was good. Any ideas for the poll?

Quote from: mariolegofan on October 21, 2014, 12:24:33 PMI was thinking what you said earlier maelstrom was good. Any ideas for the poll?

You don't need to plan for debates. They just happen.

Topic: Metroid Prime is the only good FPS.

Quote from: maelstrom. on October 21, 2014, 12:27:44 PMYou don't need to plan for debates. They just happen.

Topic: Metroid Prime is the only good FPS.

True.....but Im still putting a poll.
Forgive me.....but whats FPS?

Quote from: mariolegofan on October 21, 2014, 12:29:11 PMbut whats FPS?

First Person Shooter right?

Yes, first person shooter. Or frames per second.

Ugfjfjfjfuufhfjfufj

Quote from: Dude on October 21, 2014, 01:27:30 PMUgfjfjfjfuufhfjfufj

Huh?

The whole situation was so "ugh" it needed a new sound.

How about only people who actually know how to properly format a debate get to post in a debate topic

Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on October 21, 2014, 06:30:07 PMHow about only people who actually know how to properly format a debate get to post in a debate topic

Whatever.....I dont really think anyone is even interested in doing debates anyway.

I'm right and everyone else is wrong.

I win.

-Maestro

Pride goeth before a fall

-mariolegofan

Let's make one of those stupid comment threads

-Nocturne

"witty remark 39 not found."

-Olimar12345

lol

-mariolegofan

New debate: Is Maestro a genius or a super genius.

Go.

srsly guys are we going to debate actual topics or is this thread going to be locked

Most likely the latter.

I mean I'm all for friendly debates, but more than half the posts in this thread have been pure spam.

Quote from: blueflower999 on October 21, 2014, 06:36:33 PMsrsly guys are we going to debate actual topics or is this thread going to be locked

I agree.
We should debate actual topics. I was waiting for some suggestions 'till these clowns came...

Mine was a legitimate and controversial topic.

Quote from: Dude on October 21, 2014, 11:29:36 AMWell I bet if the baby is like mostly formed and stuff it'll kill it... So it probably will force an abortion

Probably. (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101223074422AA4sXwn)

Lol Lucas Mum has some wisdom right there

Quote from: MaestroUGC on October 21, 2014, 06:44:45 PMMine was a legitimate and controversial topic.

I'm leaning toward genius, myself. After all, only a select few can be labeled super genius, right? I have yet to see evidence that Maestro is up there with the likes of super geniuses like Einstein, Newton, and Stunfisk.

Oh boy....dont get me started on abortion  ;)

...I most certainly won't XD

Haha :)

How about this one:
Do you think there is life/Intelligent Beings on others planets in the Universe?

There could be I guess. There is a planet about 20 lightyears away that isn't to close or to far from its sun...

It's highly probable.

Well, my consciousness is spread throughout the cosmos, odds are some of it has also gained corporeal form on some planets and have single handedly started a chain of self propagation that would/has inevitably led to other, higher life forms on other planets.

I doubt it. I mean, if it has any intelligence, it will hide the best it can. Look what we did to our own planet.

Idk, but I'm scared for this topic.

Quote from: zoroark1264 on October 21, 2014, 08:13:33 PMIdk, but I'm scared for this topic.

You should be. Terrible things will happen before it is all over.....

Quote from: maelstrom. on October 21, 2014, 08:21:17 PMYou should be. Terrible things will happen before it is all over.....

Haha..

Quote from: maelstrom. on October 21, 2014, 07:35:06 PMI doubt it. I mean, if it has any intelligence, it will hide the best it can. Look what we did to our own planet.

What do you mean? Are so called planet is trying to find aliens ::)

Quote from: mariolegofan on October 21, 2014, 08:33:52 PMWhat do you mean? Are so called planet is trying to find aliens ::)

Do you think any alien species would want to suffer from deforestation, overpopulation, and global warming?

Quote from: maelstrom. on October 22, 2014, 05:37:40 AMDo you think any alien species would want to suffer from deforestation, overpopulation, and global warming?

The 3 examples you just gave are all untrue. We have a TON of trees, they want you to think the Earth is overpopulated so people have abortions, and Global Warming will change to Global Cooling after a while  ;)

Quote from: mariolegofan on October 22, 2014, 06:32:15 AMThe 3 examples you just gave are all untrue. We have a TON of trees, they want you to think the Earth is overpopulated so people have abortions, and Global Warming will change to Global Cooling after a while  ;)

We used to have a ton more, it used to be a ton less, who is "they", nobody wants anybody to have abortions, and I haven't looked into global warming at all

why am I even posting here

Quote from: mariolegofan on October 22, 2014, 06:32:15 AMThe 3 examples you just gave are all untrue. We have a TON of trees, they want you to think the Earth is overpopulated so people have abortions, and Global Warming will change to Global Cooling after a while  ;)

I...I can't even...

I severely hope you are joking, because if you're not, I'm going to find you and castrate you so you can't breed.

This is your topic, MLF? Lol, seems odd...

Quote from: Clanker37 on October 22, 2014, 06:40:35 AMI...I can't even...

I severely hope you are joking, because if you're not, I'm going to find you and castrate you so you can't breed.

Late reply.....yes, I am obviously joking haha.



Anywho, I would like to get this topic back up and running but with some major changes. We our going to have formal debates here only and focus on 1 topic at a time. This will keep it professional, safe, and most of all, flame warless. We will hopefully get started sometime soon.
Could I get a mod to delete all the posts in this topic (except the OP) so we can have a fresh and realistic start? When I originally made this, it was more of a joke so it is best to start over.

Quote from: ThatGamer on August 20, 2015, 09:30:36 PMThis is your topic, MLF? Lol, seems odd...

Yes, this used to be an odd and stupid thread but after I'm through with shaping it up, we will be all set!

Do you believe that the number 42 has significant existential and scientific meaning

Yes, of course. It is the answer to life, the universe, and everything.

A fictional book said it, so it must be true  ;)
Question: Do you accept evolution? If not, why don't you, especially considering most modern scientists in their fields have long since accepted it as near fact?

Not entirely.
The adaptation and natural selection parts are scientifically confirmed and observed, but I disagree with the adding entirely new genetic code part. It's just the whole idea of something from nothing and the fact that they can only come from random mutations, which are extremely unlikely in the first place, and have such a low chance of actually helping an organism.

Quote from: Maelstrom on August 21, 2015, 06:18:07 AMNot entirely.
The adaptation and natural selection parts are scientifically confirmed and observed, but I disagree with the adding entirely new genetic code part. It's just the whole idea of something from nothing and the fact that they can only come from random mutations, which are extremely unlikely in the first place, and have such a low chance of actually helping an organism.

I agree.

Good job so far guys! Let's try to keep this chill as possible.

Quote from: mariolegofan on August 20, 2015, 09:34:23 PMAnywho, I would like to get this topic back up and running but with some major changes. We our going to have formal debates here only and focus on 1 topic at a time. This will keep it professional, safe, and most of all, flame warless. We will hopefully get started sometime soon.
Could I get a mod to delete all the posts in this topic (except the OP) so we can have a fresh and realistic start? When I originally made this, it was more of a joke so it is best to start over.

Instead of doing that just make a new thread and I'll lock this one.

Y'all using the "I'm denying it because science can't explain it" argument especially even though you're in the christian faith so it seems pretty hypocritical to be denying the chance for knowledge

ninja'd

Quote from: Waddle Bro on August 21, 2015, 08:20:37 AMY'all using the "I'm denying it because science can't explain it" argument especially even though you're in the christian faith so it seems pretty hypocritical to be denying the chance for knowledge

ninja'd

Science didn't deny the mutation thing though: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html One of the mutations that happen during DNA replication is actually inserting a base pair. It would take a lot to produce something noticeable, but the magic of breeding/replicating like crazy...>_> and a few trillion cells multiplying in each human of course.

Whole index (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/)

Quote from: MaestroUGC on August 21, 2015, 08:05:08 AMInstead of doing that just make a new thread and I'll lock this one.

That's ok. We will just use this one I guess

The main problem with the theory of evolution is that at the core of the theory is the assumption that an animal can mutate to the point where it becomes its own species. This, by the natural selection argument, could never be possible. Two animals of different species can never produce fertile offspring. Mules and ligers, for example, can never have baby mules or baby ligers because they are hybrid animals. So, if an animal did get to the point where it mutated into its own species, it would no longer be able to produce fertile offspring. But according to natural selection, only good mutations should pass on. Not being able to reproduce seems like a pretty terrible mutation, don't you think? The mutant would then die off, and no species changes would ever take place, leaving a world full of one species of animal.

Of course, we know that's not the case.

Quote from: Dudeman on August 21, 2015, 09:33:04 AMThe main problem with the theory of evolution is that at the core of the theory is the assumption that an animal can mutate to the point where it becomes its own species. This, by the natural selection argument, could never be possible. Two animals of different species can never produce fertile offspring. Mules and ligers, for example, can never have baby mules or baby ligers because they are hybrid animals. So, if an animal did get to the point where it mutated into its own species, it would no longer be able to produce fertile offspring. But according to natural selection, only good mutations should pass on. Not being able to reproduce seems like a pretty terrible mutation, don't you think? The mutant would then die off, and no species changes would ever take place, leaving a world full of one species of animal.

Of course, we know that's not the case.

You make the mistake of assuming that evolution happens instantly. That's wrong. It's a slow process. An animal doesn't just suddenly mutate into a new species.

For example, let's assume a species that has grey fur. Two groups of said species move to different environments. The first group moves to an environment that is entirely white. The other moves to an environment that is black. Eventually one of the animals in the white environment has a mutation that causes its fur to become slightly lighter. Now, being able to hide in their environment is an advantage for an animal. And as it turns out, this animal does not get eaten because it is more difficult to detect in the environment. This happy fellow then lives and reproduces, with this advantageous mutation being passed on to the next generation. Then in the next generation another specimen develops even lighter fur. And so on.

Fast-forward several generations and you have one group of animals with black fur and another with white. Now this is not limited to just the color of the fur, there are other advantageous mutations occurring in the species as well. The two groups do not mate with each other so the new genes are only propagating within one group. Eventually the two groups are genetically so different that they can no longer reproduce. If the required advantages in the two environments differ, you end up with two completely different kinds of animals.

When it comes to the life on earth, we are talking about millions of years here. That is a damn long time for random mutations to occur and cause species to diverge from each other.

That is a superb example of microevolution, not macroevolution.
I know it takes "a long time" to get anything beyond fur color, but nothing beyond that ever seems to be discussed.
Despite those two groups of species looking different and further differentiating themselves from each other, wouldn't they still have the same number of chromosomes? (correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't taken bio in some time)

Quote from: Ruto on August 21, 2015, 08:46:27 AMScience didn't deny the mutation thing though: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html One of the mutations that happen during DNA replication is actually inserting a base pair. It would take a lot to produce something noticeable, but the magic of breeding/replicating like crazy...>_> and a few trillion cells multiplying in each human of course.

Whole index (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/)

Yeah fren but I never said anything about that science didn't deny that, just that they did

Animals can't turn into other animals, they are made to just walk the earth as a single species unless you are a turtle in which case you could become a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle

Quote from: Maelstrom on August 21, 2015, 11:02:38 AMThat is a superb example of microevolution, not macroevolution.
I know it takes "a long time" to get anything beyond fur color, but nothing beyond that ever seems to be discussed.
Despite those two groups of species looking different and further differentiating themselves from each other, wouldn't they still have the same number of chromosomes? (correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't taken bio in some time)

Chromosomes can split or merge. In many cases this is fatal or results in infertility but sometimes the specimen can actually reproduce. That change can also propagate in the species and eventually become prevalent.

An important factor to keep in mind that not every mutation has to be beneficial. It could have no practical effect on the specimen and still propagate by chance. Thus diverging the two groups even further. Again, time scale of thousands or millions of years.

Also, don't focus just on the fur color but the many changes that can occur. Maybe there are different sources of food in the two environments and adapting to a specific diet gives the species bigger chance of survival. Maybe one group lives near water and changes that improve swimming become beneficial. What is something "beyond the fur color" you are referring to?

Quote from: Jamaha on August 21, 2015, 11:44:45 AMChromosomes can split or merge. In many cases this is fatal or results in infertility but sometimes the specimen can actually reproduce. That change can also propagate in the species and eventually become prevalent.

Thank you for that.

Anyway, I'm referring to the more hyperspecialized animals that need multiple mutations simultaneously. Like, say, for example, the woodpecker.

Again, I never said anything about natural selection being false. On the contrary, I quite agree with it. It's just the "where does all this ridiculously specialized DNA come from" thing, if that makes any sense.

Why don't you all follow an animal around and observe it to see if it changes? Science!

Quote from: Waddle Bro on August 21, 2015, 11:11:29 AMYeah fren but I never said anything about that science didn't deny that, just that they did

Yeah I figured you wouldn't have missed that detail, but just in case! <3 Also, a way to plug include that site. Woooo!

Uh oh, Jamaha said something and he's right as usual. But it takes about a thousand generations for a species to accumulate enough mutations to appear different. I heard that with fruit flies in the lab. That's a lot of breeding. The oldest recorded family tree started at 2,500 years ago and there are about 80 generations only. So 80 generations since the 5th century BCE. Not enough breeding for noticeable mutations.

Also, humans have 1-4% of Neandertal DNA so yes, humans have had some strange breeding attempts that ended up being successful.

Did anyone read the stuff on that site? The explanations are all cited and stuff.

I've never heard anyone in the department use micro/macroevolution, btw.

Quote from: ThatGamer on August 21, 2015, 11:55:08 AMWhy don't you all follow an animal around and observe it to see if it changes? Science!

Almost as good as the classic "If humans evolved from monkeys then why do monkeys still exist".

You're welcome to throw six random elements around in a completely disorganized and random manner and somehow make a unicellular organism.
But whatever you do you're not allowed to make the process happen because that would be playing God.

"Six random elements" makes life sound so simple that it could actually come together at random.

CHNOPS, you know?

Bombadier beetle. How in the heck did that thing evolve without blowing itself up?

Also, microevolution never translates into macroevolution. When those gray creatures separated, they were the same species. As their fur color changed, they were still the same species. As other adaptations appeared, they were still the same species. There has to be a point where suddenly one of those groups produced an animal that wasn't the same species as the other group. But then it wouldn't have been able to reproduce with its own kind successfully. So it would have died off.

Yay! Jamaha is here to chap!

Quote from: Dudeman on August 21, 2015, 04:06:40 PMBombadier beetle. How in the heck did that thing evolve without blowing itself up?

Have you been reading this site? They answer the beetle question directly (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310_1.html):

Claim CB310.1:

The bombardier beetle would explode if the hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone that produce their ejecta were mixed without a chemical inhibitor. Such a combination of chemicals could not have evolved.
Source:

Gish, Duane T., 1977. Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards. El Cajon, CA: Master Book, pp. 51-52.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, p. 68.
AIG, 1990. The amazing bombardier beetle. Creation Ex Nihilo 12(1): 29.

Response:

1) That description of bombardier beetles' physiology is inaccurate. It is based on a sloppy translation of a 1961 German article by Schildknecht and Holoubek (Kofahl 1981). Hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone do not explode when mixed (Dawkins 1986, 86-87). What actually happens is this: Secretory cells produce a mixture of hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide (and perhaps other chemicals), which collects in a reservoir. To produce the blast, the beetle releases some of this mixture into a reaction chamber, where catalases and peroxidases cause the mixture to oxidize in chemical reactions that generate enough heat to vaporize about a fifth of the mixture. The pressure of the released gasses causes the heated mixture to be expelled explosively from the beetle's abdomen (Aneshansley and Eisner 1969; Aneshansley et al. 1983; Eisner et al. 1989).

2) There is no reason to consider the evolution of bombardier beetles implausible. See Bombardier Beetle Evolution.

3) The bombardier beetle is often used as an example of evidence for design. How can such arguments be taken seriously when the people making them do not even know how their example works?

Here is the answer to "there is no mate for the first of the species" question. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB610.html)

1) This objection falsely assumes that speciation must happen suddenly when one individual gives rise to an individual of another species. In fact, populations, not individuals, evolve, and most speciation occurs gradually. In one common mode of speciation ("allopatric" speciation), two populations of the same species are split apart geographically. Small changes accumulate in both populations, causing them to be more and more different from each other. Eventually, the differences are great enough that the two populations cannot interbreed when they do get together (Otte and Endler 1989).

It is also possible for speciation to occur without the geographical separation (sympatric speciation; see Diekmann and Doebeli 1999; Kondrashov and Kondrashov 1999; Otte and Endler 1989), but the process is still gradual.

2) Sometimes new species can form suddenly, but this occurs with species that are asexual or hermaphroditic and do not need to find mates.

Sure, populations may evolve together, but they still have to evolve. This doesn't change the fact that there is a point where a population's species changes from another's. Simply saying that they eventually were incompatible does not explain how they became that way. One population still has to produce a mutant that is not the same species as the other population, which is the same species as the first population. One population does not suddenly turn into a different species due to adaptation. Even if they are aesthetically different, unless one population has generated a different species at some point, they will still breed.

Take dogs, for example. There are almost 340 different breeds of dogs. That's a lot of diversity. Many are separated significantly geographically. If you compare a pug to a golden retriever, an uninformed observer would probably think they are different species. But every breed of dog can breed with every other breed of dog. By the argument you're presenting, that doesn't make any sense. They should be different species. And a lot of dog breeds have been guided by intelligence (read:humans). Surely that would make it even more likely for those dogs to evolve into different species. But they haven't.

And as for the beetle: thanks for informing me about the chemicals. I now see that, on their own, the chemicals serve no purpose and need those catalysts in place to create the explosion. So no, the beetle wouldn't explode. It would, however, need to evolve all those chemicals and all those catalysts at the same time in order for them to be useful. At any point, if the beetle evolved the ability to secrete even one of those chemicals without the others, it would serve no purpose. The mutation would not be beneficial and, thus, it would not survive according to natural selection.

hahaha dogs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCv10_WvGxo

Dudeman, instead of using not understanding something as evidence, learn about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation)

Quote from: Dudeman on August 21, 2015, 07:00:38 PMSure, populations may evolve together, but they still have to evolve. This doesn't change the fact that there is a point where a population's species changes from another's. Simply saying that they eventually were incompatible does not explain how they became that way. One population still has to produce a mutant that is not the same species as the other population, which is the same species as the first population. One population does not suddenly turn into a different species due to adaptation. Even if they are aesthetically different, unless one population has generated a different species at some point, they will still breed.

Say you have two green flashlights that slowly change frequencies. Flashlight A is slowly increasing while Flashlight B is slowly decreasing, thus logically it'll reach a point in time where they are different. So with your logic, you'd say that because there is an arbitrary point where they change classifications, this simply cannot happen?

QuoteTake dogs, for example. There are almost 340 different breeds of dogs. That's a lot of diversity. Many are separated significantly geographically. If you compare a pug to a golden retriever, an uninformed observer would probably think they are different species. But every breed of dog can breed with every other breed of dog. By the argument you're presenting, that doesn't make any sense. They should be different species. And a lot of dog breeds have been guided by intelligence (read:humans). Surely that would make it even more likely for those dogs to evolve into different species. But they haven't.

You mean the artificial selection of domesticated dogs in a relatively short time frame? The majority of dog breeds today are only a few centuries old, that would be pretty impressive if they became new species so quickly.

QuoteAnd as for the beetle: thanks for informing me about the chemicals. I now see that, on their own, the chemicals serve no purpose and need those catalysts in place to create the explosion. So no, the beetle wouldn't explode. It would, however, need to evolve all those chemicals and all those catalysts at the same time in order for them to be useful. At any point, if the beetle evolved the ability to secrete even one of those chemicals without the others, it would serve no purpose. The mutation would not be beneficial and, thus, it would not survive according to natural selection.

If producing the chemical had no negative effect then it would not be selected against.

Quote from: FireArrow on August 22, 2015, 12:31:41 AMSay you have two green flashlights that slowly change frequencies. Flashlight A is slowly increasing while Flashlight B is slowly decreasing, thus logically it'll reach a point in time where they are different. So with your logic, you'd say that because there is an arbitrary point where they change classifications, this simply cannot happen?

You can't compare this to the evolution of animals. An animal does not "gradually" change its species. There is absolutely no evidence for this. Speciation has not occurred in recorded history. No animal is no longer able to breed today with something today that it was able to breed with a few thousand years ago.
Unless you'd like to show me an animal that is currently undergoing speciation, in which case, be my guest.
And last time I checked, flashlights don't produce offspring.

QuoteYou mean the artificial selection of domesticated dogs in a relatively short time frame? The majority of dog breeds today are only a few centuries old, that would be pretty impressive if they became new species so quickly.

So, a few centuries isn't enough time for an animal's species to have changed in even the slightest bit when specifically guided by intelligence to have changes in its genetics, while several million years guided by purely random mutations (which, by a vast majority, produce bad results) is enough to create thousands upon thousands of different species?

QuoteIf producing the chemical had no negative effect then it would not be selected against.

But it would not necessarily be selected, either. It serves no purpose until every single other chemical, catalyst, chamber, and process has evolved in the beetle, and it has to know what the heck this stuff is and how to use it. As ar as I know, you can't evolve instinct.

EDIT: I read through the speciation article. I must say, it was a fascinating read on the different forms of microevolution. The assumption that microevolution turns into macroevolution is fallacious. There is no evidence for it. None.

It's 2015 and I understand if people feel like they don't need to defend a theory fundamental to biology. No one debates gravity, after all.

Quote from: Dudeman on August 22, 2015, 09:15:19 AMYou can't compare this to the evolution of animals. An animal does not "gradually" change its species. There is absolutely no evidence for this. Speciation has not occurred in recorded history. No animal is no longer able to breed today with something today that it was able to breed with a few thousand years ago.

There is a LOT of evidence that you've chosen to ignore. I've said and even Jub's video said that there isn't enough time/generations for something like mammal species to differentiate. It took scientists 1000 generations of fruitflies to see a physical change in the species, and there hasn't even been CLOSE to 1000 generations of humans since Socrates/Confucius (only about 80). One thousand years isn't enough time. If you were to use dogs as an example...let's say it takes 3 years for it to reach maturity and reproduce. Then it needs 3000 years for 1000 generations. How many years since Victorian England? 200? Reread the speciation article, or better yet, the site I keep linking.

QuoteUnless you'd like to show me an animal that is currently undergoing speciation, in which case, be my guest.

It would be ridiculous to demand to see this happening, as all changes within a person's genes are already decided when they're born. You'd have to go into the time when the sperm meets the egg and the DNA stuff happens there.

QuoteSo, a few centuries isn't enough time for an animal's species to have changed in even the slightest bit when specifically guided by intelligence to have changes in its genetics

Yes, we have said that over and over again about needing more time. Dog breeding isn't a good example of intelligence after all, imo. After all, no one thinks inbreeding is intelligent, just incredibly selfish. The inbred humans they mentioned in that fun video brings me to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain (The Habsburg ruler of Spain)

QuoteCharles II's genome was actually more homozygous than that of a child whose parents are siblings.[6] He was born physically and mentally disabled, and disfigured. Possibly through affliction with mandibular prognathism, he was barely able to chew.[6] His tongue was so large that his speech could barely be understood, and he frequently drooled.[6] It has been suggested that he suffered from the endocrine disease acromegaly, or his inbred lineage may have led to a combination of rare genetic disorders such as combined pituitary hormone deficiency and distal renal tubular acidosis.[6]

The physician who practiced [Charles II's] autopsy stated that his body "did not contain a single drop of blood; his heart was the size of a peppercorn; his lungs corroded; his intestines rotten and gangrenous; he had a single testicle, black as coal, and his head was full of water."[12]
American historians Will and Ariel Durant described Charles II as "short, lame, epileptic, senile, and completely bald before 35, he was always on the verge of death, but repeatedly baffled Christendom by continuing to live."[10]

[/i]

Quotewhile several million years guided by purely random mutations (which, by a vast majority, produce bad results) is enough to create thousands upon thousands of different species?But it would not necessarily be selected, either..

While mutations can be random, remember that certain traits are selected. The ones that favor the animal's survival get passed on.

QuoteIt serves no purpose until every single other chemical, catalyst, chamber, and process has evolved in the beetle, and it has to know what the heck this stuff is and how to use it

Oh look, it's the "too complex to have evolved" argument.  (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html) It's been answered at least once on the site.

"This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).

-photosensitive cell
-aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
-an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
-pigment cells forming a small depression
-pigment cells forming a deeper depression
-the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
-muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system."

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

QuoteEDIT: I read through the speciation article. I must say, it was a fascinating read on the different forms of microevolution. The assumption that microevolution turns into macroevolution is fallacious. There is no evidence for it. None.

Read the article again. Or better yet, something on evolution as a whole.

@Jubby's video
Hahaha I didn't know that much about dog breeding. My sister was talking about those annoying little dogs popular with women, and I asked whether owners need to get them fixed in case they start mounting each other in the park. She said the dog was sterile and I thought that was pretty cruel. But it's great business for the pet store owner, since no one can breed the dogs he sells (by accident).

So...basically you're saying that we need more time and any evidence there may be is too far back in the past to observe.


That doesn't sound like science to me.

EDIT:

Quote from: Ruto on August 22, 2015, 01:25:24 PMNo one debates gravity, after all.

We can observe gravity in action. We cannot observe evolution in action.

You argument seems to rely  solely on "I cannot see it, so it can't happen".

That's kind of ironic considering the fundamentals of any religion.

That's what I was thinking too. Why not have faith in evolution and not religion? XD

you know, i actually regret getting involved. I'm going to avoid this topic from now on. It makes me upset and kind of negative.

For some reason the first thing that popped into my imagination was Dude saying something like "PDS agrees with me therefore I'm wrong".

No, that's not it at all. I just have been pretty positive about NSM for the first time in a while and I'm worried these conversations are making everyone here (including me) more negative about one another.

Quote from: SlowPokemon on August 22, 2015, 01:49:47 PMyou know, i actually regret getting involved. I'm going to avoid this topic from now on. It makes me upset and kind of negative.

QuoteYou can't compare this to the evolution of animals. An animal does not "gradually" change its species. There is absolutely no evidence for this. Speciation has not occurred in recorded history. No animal is no longer able to breed today with something today that it was able to breed with a few thousand years ago.
Unless you'd like to show me an animal that is currently undergoing speciation, in which case, be my guest.
And last time I checked, flashlights don't produce offspring.

Yes, it does gradually change its species, saying it doesn't shows you don't understand how evolution works on a large time scale. Also, we have plenty of genetic evidence that speciation has occurred. Is the idea of common ancestors so absurd that saying "god, for an undeclared reason, decided to create another species that shares 99% of our DNA" makes more sense to you? If he created something evidently so similar to us, wouldn't he at least make note of it in the bible, but I digress.

Quote from: Dudeman on August 22, 2015, 01:29:21 PMSo...basically you're saying that we need more time and any evidence there may be is too far back in the past to observe.


That doesn't sound like science to me.

EDIT:We can observe gravity in action. We cannot observe evolution in action.

But we can observe things that suggest evolution exists. Sure, we can't recreate speciation of mammals in a lab nor do we entirely understand every in and out of evolution, but it literally explains everything we know about biology near perfectly. Maybe new evidence will lead us to a new theory, but that's extremely unlikely at this point.

Compare that to creationism, which has no observable evidence whatsoever. Just whatever religious text you choose to believe in. Why should you chose the latter over the former?

Quote from: Dudeman on August 22, 2015, 01:29:21 PMSo...basically you're saying that we need more time and any evidence there may be is too far back in the past to observe.


That doesn't sound like science to me.

EDIT:We can observe gravity in action. We cannot observe evolution in action.

For the third time, FRUIT FLIES. And pretty much any fast-reproducing insect. Don't lecture scientists (who wrote the page) about science. (And me, to some extent).

Quote from: SlowPokemon on August 22, 2015, 01:49:47 PMyou know, i actually regret getting involved. I'm going to avoid this topic from now on. It makes me upset and kind of negative.

I also don't see the point of typing detailed responses at all, because it's in one ear and out the other. There are so many good sources and readings everywhere online these days and people just want to read the ones that agree with them. That's not counting how people think they can debate science.

Science has honestly become the religion of today in more ways than one, but especially in the sense that if you question it you'll be attacked by the inquisition.

Have the fruit flies changed species? Have they? No. They have not. Microevolution absolutely exists. Adaptation absolutely exists. Natural Selection, in terms of animals with superior genetics surviving and passing those genes on, absolutely exists. I have not denied that. What you are failing to see is that those adaptations, however major, do not affect the animal's species in the slightest. Macroevolution does not exist. Period. There is no evidence that adaptations cause an animal to change its species. What the heck does "gradually changing species" even mean? Is there a type of animal that is simultaneously two different species? When an animal reproduces, does it ever give birth to something that isn't its own species? If not, how the hell do "gradual" species changes take place? Does a population wake up one morning to discover that its species has changed? And you can't treat a population like a single organism. That's ridiculous. An organism mutates. An entire population does not.

And saying that my not seeing=not believing is ridiculous backfires, because that's the definition of science. Science, as defined by the Oxford American Dictionary, is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." I cannot see gravity. I cannot see the wind. I cannot see individual atoms. But I can run experiments and take measurable observations to determine that these things exist. You cannot do that with evolution. You cannot observe it. You cannot run an experiment to prove it exists. That's what scientists have been doing with the fruit flies for generations. And guess what? No new species of fruit fly. It takes more faith to believe that evolution occurred than to believe in intelligent design. That's it. That's all there is to it. And unless someone presents to me an observed instance of macroevolution, which is measurable and repeatable in a controlled setting, no one will convince me otherwise. *mic drop*

@Blue
If you provide scientists with good evidence suggesting evolution is wrong, they'll be estatic. Science wants to know how the world works, so if evolution is a flawed theory, the scientific community would want to know. The rejection of any contrary evidence/viewpoint is unique to religion.

Quote from: Dudeman on August 22, 2015, 06:39:02 PMThat's all there is to it. And unless someone presents to me an observed instance of macroevolution, which is measurable and repeatable in a controlled setting, no one will convince me otherwise. *mic drop*

Is that really the reason evolution isn't convincing to you? Let's find out!

Sheep can no longer breed with mouflons, the species they were derived from via artificial selection and selective breeding.

The fruitflies are an example of speciation in process. As in, while still being able to produce viable offspring, a species becomes sexually isolated or the hybrid offspring cannot survive due to natural selection. If given enough time, yes, they will speciate. This is where my analogy of flashlights come in, just because there's an arbitrary point where classifications change does not mean that the change is sudden.

That's the thing, there isn't one "single point" where something stops being Species A and starts being Species B, because that is not how evolution is described to work. Others have gone in depth at how evolution actually works, but you seem to be obsessed with notion that "dogs were always dogs because they couldn't have gathered million of successive genetic traits that would've lent them to become said dogs."

Evolution is the cumulative effects of these mutations that render certain sub-set of species to be incompatible with one another, so instead of "Group A" just turning into "Group B" in a purely isolated environment, which Earth is not, it's more like:

"Group A" has a mouth that can eat.
-One particular creature (A-001) in "Group A" has mutated a bigger mouth to eat more food. It survives.
-A-001 reproduces and bear 5 offspring with big mouths and 3 with small mouths. The small ones can't eat as much food, so they reproduce less than the ones with big mouths. Big Mouth gene passes on.
-Small mouths reproduce and one has a mutation that helps it swim faster. Faster movement means it can cover greater ground, more food it can find and eat. It bears offspring. Big mouths continue to reproduce, but don't need the ability to move faster.
-SM-FS (Small Mouth-Fast Swimmers) find they can eat better in packs, and their small size (let's assume 6 inches in length) allows them to swim relatively undetected by bigger creatures. BM-SS (Big Mouth-Slow Swimmers) Stay single hunters. As a result Group A starts a subtle division in eating habits. They continue to reproduce.
-The SM-FS keep the evolutionary trait of small size-big speed, as the environment allows them to do so, so they continue to evolve various traits that cater to that. The BM-SS behave similarly, and gradually grow bigger in size and traits that allow them to eat bigger food. Group A effectively splits into Group B (small and fast) and Group C (big and slow) since the two developed eating/hunting habits that are not alike.
-The two groups keep reproducing, further developing their respective advantageous traits. Group B stays relatively small, keep moving fast in the water and eat tiny things; Group C keep growing and take on bigger prey as time goes on, further increasing their size. The two Groups keep drifting apart on the food chain.
-Eventually Group C gains a predator that favors the smaller, leaner of the group, so the keep traits that keeps them big and bulky. Group B keeps doing its thing.
-The smaller members of Group C find they have a better chance at survival in deeper, darker waters, so they stay down there. However, due to the limited light, the ones who can see better tend to survive and pass on the trait of being able to see in low light. The larger members of Group C keep on their path and grow bigger. Group B keeps doing its thing.
-This carries as Group C begins to divide as half the group stays in the dark water and develop traits not advantageous to higher waters. The low light makes it harder to hunt, but some of the sub-group can attract pray because its skin is more reflective of the minimal light, attracting prey. Such reflective skin only attracts predators in higher waters, so Group C splits into Group D and Group E; with the former on the same evolutionary path of overwhelming size, the latter favoring the darkness. Group B keeps doing its thing.
-Note: This is still all taking place in the same environment; underwater.
-Group B and Group D have essentially found a winning formula for survival but they have some wild differences. Group B has stayed around the same size (6 in), perhaps even gotten smaller as that's a favorable trait for their survival; as such they'd likely be bottom feeders and eat the smallest of sea life. Group D has favored bulk and kept growing over the generations; as such they'd either need to eat subsequently bigger prey, or eat large amounts of smaller prey constantly. These differences alone would render them in separate classes on the food chain, and the sheer logistics would render mating between the two highly improbable, if not outright impossible. On top of that the two would have genetic traits that are not useful for the other, and biological instinct would prevent them from even trying to mate with each other. In addition to that their genetic code is likely too different to make mating successful in the first place.
-Meanwhile, if any species from Group A survived all this time, it would be an evolutionary relic having none of the advantages gained over the millennia from the other groups and would likely make it only compatible with Group B, it's closest relative. The most likely out come is it would have died off.
-Group E, on the other hand, has moved to an entirely new environment, out of the bright shallow waters and into the dark depths. It's likely to never interact with Groups B and D, and as such is set on an entirely different evolutionary path from them.

That is how evolution works. It's several changes that happen in concert that drive groups of species apart from one another. The above was only dealing with dietary habits. That doesn't take into account: the ability to see prey/predators, distinct hunting/gathering methods, the ability to manipulate the environment for survival purposes, problem solving skills, defensive capabilities, environmental adaptions, locomotion.

Evolution isn't "one thing turning into another" it's "the world entire adapting to its own changes." Evolution isn't a single focus of one species at a time, it's everything changing alongside each other at all times. And it goes beyond animals and extends into plant life as well. Plants don't want to be eaten, they're living things and most living things want to keep living. Trees are tall and wide so they can both take in more light and not get eating be ground-bound animals. Certain mushrooms are poisonous due to chemical evolution resulting in certain groups surviving because they weren't eaten, while other animals built up a tolerance to said poison. So it went since the first photosynthetic single celled organisms and so it will continue until life leaves this rock or everything dies out due to the Sun being a dick and burning everything.

The world is probably enough evidence for a God to exist yet people decide to ignore that evidence
why can't I ignore your holy textbooks

wat

Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on August 22, 2015, 09:38:36 PMThe world is probably enough evidence for a God to exist yet people decide to ignore that evidence
why can't I ignore your holy textbooks

Not really. There are plenty of explanations of how things existed- the bit we haven't figured out yet is where it all came from.
Saying God did it only leaves a bigger question- where this "God", whether it's the God of Catholicism or of Islam, himself came from. And saying he's always been there doesn't explain it. That's a cop out.
Furthermore, while you can make a semi decent case for a god existing somewhere, you still have to explain why you pick (presumably) Christianity over any of the other thousands of religions or just ancient texts that tell the same stories.
For example, the Epic of Gilgamesh. This book far predates the Bible, and tells basically the same story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

Guys this is off topic. Let's finish our lovely evolution tea party before we do john cena vs. christians round 2.

Lots of good answers here, but I'm going to keep linking THIS SITE until I'm sure someone learns something. Here is the answer to macroevolution. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html)

Of course, there's the good old Campbell Biology text. Now for $19.95+shipping! (http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0321543254/ref=sr_1_4_twi_har_1_olp?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1440322275&sr=1-4&keywords=campbell+biology+8th+edition) Lots of knowledge for less than 2 movie tickets!

The other facts I remember about fruit flies. Scientists have been breeding them in labs since about 1950 for experiments. They show physical differences from fruit flies (in color, wings) found flying in your house, near rotten carrots you forgot to throw out. It took ~1000 generations for that to happen. (hey, we are observing fruitflies changing in the lab!) Insects are pretty complex even if they're small, since they can fly, see with compound eyes and can listen with their antennae and legs, so they are definitely what you call "macro."

We couldn't see atoms back during Dalton's time, so does that mean that atomic theory was baloney until we could take pictures of it? No. I think you're the one who's a little confused here. Lol the faith statement is in the talkorigins index too. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html) But no one can convince you if you deny ALL evidence. I mean, even if I had a DNA cam for Wolverine from X-men growing in utero, you'd still deny it. Because you like to deny evidence for no reason other than "MY BELIEF" or "MY IGNORANCE."

Does anyone know that squid and mollusks have a common ancestor with a shell? While clams still have a real shell, the one in the squid has been reduced to this feather shaped thing in its body because it doesn't need it for predators. Evolution.

Also, this video. The guy holding the banana thinks he should be teaching creationism to impressionable kids because that's what the alternative is to evolution in this country. The guy with his hand too close to his crotch doesn't understand evolution one bit, so he's backing him up.


DON'T read the comments unless you want to see the thousands of comments about "guess what else is made/shaped for my hands"

Quote from: blueflower999 on August 22, 2015, 05:58:55 PMScience has honestly become the religion of today in more ways than one, but especially in the sense that if you question it you'll be attacked by the inquisition.

I don't think you're really sure what science means if you're calling science a religion. Science doesn't tell or ask you to believe in anything, so you can't call it a religion in any sense .-.

Quote from: Dudeman on August 22, 2015, 06:39:02 PMAnd saying that my not seeing=not believing is ridiculous backfires, because that's the definition of science. Science, as defined by the Oxford American Dictionary, is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." I cannot see gravity. I cannot see the wind. I cannot see individual atoms. But I can run experiments and take measurable observations to determine that these things exist. You cannot do that with evolution. You cannot observe it. You cannot run an experiment to prove it exists. That's what scientists have been doing with the fruit flies for generations. And guess what? No new species of fruit fly. It takes more faith to believe that evolution occurred than to believe in intelligent design. That's it. That's all there is to it. And unless someone presents to me an observed instance of macroevolution, which is measurable and repeatable in a controlled setting, no one will convince me otherwise. *mic drop*

bro you dropped your mic a bit early there better pick it back up because I bet you're still gonna keep replying to this topic
first of all "seeing" never actually meant literally seeing in this case, but observing. and you can sense the movement of the air, the atoms and the effects of gravity.
unlike religion, science doesn't tell you to believe in anything. in fact you're believing in the world that you're "living" in right now, since you can't know if it's for example a dream or something else(for example, the Matrix). even though according to epistemology, the knowledge we get is enough to explain the world, there is no such thing as "absolute truth" that guarantees how what we observe is reality. cogito ergo sum guarantees my existence tho

Quote"It takes more faith to believe that evolution occurred than to believe in intelligent design. That's it. That's all there is to it. And unless someone presents to me an observed instance of macroevolution, which is measurable and repeatable in a controlled setting, no one will convince me otherwise."

please do share how have you been able to define the amount of faith it takes to believe in anything, do you measure it with teaspoons or like with a ruler?
all sass aside, lack of evidence can't be considered as evidence, so you can't use that to back your stubborn claims.

Quote from: Ruto on August 23, 2015, 03:10:02 AMDON'T read the comments unless you want to see the thousands of comments about "guess what else is made/shaped for my hands"

Hey, it's true...

Responding to Noc's post earlier here, instead of the relationship topic, to keep from derailing the latter.

Quotefor someone who's so smart, you sure make a lot of common grammar errors

When did I claim to be smart? Also, yes, I forgot commas. Thank you, it has been noted.

Quoteanyway, a lot of people on this site are pretty dumb when it comes to important topics

There's a difference between uneducated and people who have differing views. I won't put words in Blue's mouth, but I sense that many things that you find laughable are positions that can be defending intelligently.
 

Quoteand blue was sick of trying to explain to these certain people exactly what they were doing wrong (hint: calling people bigots for standing up for their beliefs is not a cool thing to do)

It's not necessary a "cool" thing to do, but it's justifiable if their viewpoint is bigoted.
Take for example, the KKK. I think everyone on this forum can concede that all active members of the KKK who join of their own free will, agree with the ideology, etc. are racist bigots.
Now, toning it down to where Blueflower stands/stood (which, as I understand it, was against gay marriage), what are the arguments against gay marriage?
1) Personal religious beliefs
2) . . . . . . .
Well I guess there's the "it's bad for society" but that's just stupid. 1) Believe it or not, gay marriage was legalized and the US didn't implode upon itself. It was really quite a shocking incident, the whole "not imploding" thing. 2) If you honestly believe that giving people equal rights when they didn't have them because of their sexual preferences is harmful in any way,
welp,
Here's the definition of "bigot" from Merriam Webster:
"a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc"
And if you believe that giving gays equal marriage rights is morally harmful, you fit right into that definition, friend.
 

QuoteSo it wasn't those 2 threads that caused problems, it was the people ridiculing him for his personal ideology

....which happened almost exclusively in those two threads, save for when it came up in a topic like the Rant topic and Thought of the Moment, and were inevitably moved into the two topics.
Also, here's a thing. Ideas don't inherently deserve respect. They deserve acknowledgement. We acknowledge the beliefs of the KKK, and then we realize Hey, you're hating this person because of literally how much a certain pigment (melanin) is in their skin. That's f***ing stupid and bigoted.
It's the same deal with those opposed to the legalization of gay marriage (on principle, I mean, as obviously it won't be reversed); if you don't want someone to have equal rights because of how they express themselves sexually (read: something that has no effect on your being or life), you fit the definition of a bigot.

QuoteAlso why even post 16 days late about something that doesn't even have to do with the topic
PDS pls

Yeah, I s'pose it is a bit of a topic bump, 2.3 weeks and all (or whatever the decimal is). And it's somewhat related; there seems to be this myth going around that Blueflower was secretly chased out with pitchforks and torches. Not the case. That said, I'll do my best to avoid unnecessary bumps in the future. Happy?

Summary of conversation:

PDS: Contrary to popular belief, I do not believe that blue left as a childish way to run away from opposing opinions and/or as a martyr for his beliefs.
Noc: Nah, he left because everyone is an idiot and everyone that disagrees with me is an idiot!
Ruto: Idiot.
Modman: As you can see, no one has done anything wrong as of yet.
Dude: lol

I wouldn't waste my time arguing with a bunch of people stuck in their tiny little worlds because of their lack of education and life experiences. I'd rather talk to manio. Yesterday he tried to cook a fish.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone to be nice. Debates and arguments are essential for a healthy democracy, but sunshine and butterflies keep the meadow bright. Let's try and prevent the cloud of toxicity from descending again?

Why does anyone care about the blue thing, he left so there's no point in arguing about why he did it, it doesn't involve us or doesn't have any effect on anything?

Quote from: Dudeman on January 01, 2016, 08:56:04 PMNo one's been insultingly burned yet. Let's keep it that way.

I get that it's your first day on the job but you shouldn't let convos get out of hand like:

Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on January 01, 2016, 08:38:47 PMhope you know you're one of those people  ::)

Quote from: when literally the first section of the rules says- No attacks on other users in the form of trolling, flaming, etc.

I never bothered to look at this thread because I'd assumed that everyone would be mature enough to handle calm debates. However, that doesn't seem to be the case--keeping my eye on this thread.
Calling someone an idiot =/= debating. Take that stuff sonewhere else.

Read this throughly and Sootopolis said everything well but I need to point out

Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on January 01, 2016, 11:32:24 PMAlso, here's a thing. Ideas don't inherently deserve respect. They deserve acknowledgement. We acknowledge the beliefs of the KKK, and then we realize Hey, you're hating this person because of literally how much a certain pigment (melanin) is in their skin. That's f***ing stupid and bigoted.

that actually all ideas do deserve your respect, as long as those ideas are rational and respectful to other ideas. That's why no one can demand people to respect beliefs, because beliefs ignore other ideas since beliefs try to tell us how things are, ignoring the fact that they could be wrong. For example, Christianity doesn't respect love between people of same gender or the chance of a god not existing. You can respect beliefs if you want, like Christians do, but no one is required to respect those ideas.

Ideas deserve respect only if they are tolerant of other ideas and haw valid points to be made. We don't "respect" the idea that 2+2=22, it simply isn't true. Also, what is the standard for an idea being rational? Purely hypothetical question.

Quote from: FireArrow on January 02, 2016, 12:00:42 AMSummary of conversation:

PDS: Contrary to popular belief, I do not believe that blue left as a childish way to run away from opposing opinions and/or as a martyr for his beliefs.
Noc: Nah, he left because everyone is an idiot and everyone that disagrees with me is an idiot!
Ruto: Idiot.
Modman: Y'all are a few steps away from action being taken, but knocking you guys down a few pegs for simply calling each other idiots is an irrational and abusive use of power. Which I would be hounded just as strongly for.
Dude: lol

ftfy

God damnit we were so close to being over it.

Quote from: Dudeman on January 02, 2016, 01:22:01 PMftfy

That's really not how your post came across to me. I'm mostly just bitter that NO one in partiCular is allowed to run around being blatantly degrading and inflammatory to other members without even a warning. Then slow comes by and makes one rude post and the mods arise out of nowhere. The bitterness and tension NSM has isn't going to go away by "I'm watching you" and "Don't take this any further" unless you keep your promises and doll out punishments if it happens again.

Quote from: FireArrow on January 02, 2016, 02:43:18 PMThat's really not how your post came across to me. I'm mostly just bitter that NO one in partiCular is allowed to run around being blatantly degrading and inflammatory to other members without even a warning. Then slow comes by and makes one rude post and the mods arise out of nowhere. The bitterness and tension NSM has isn't going to go away by "I'm watching you" and "Don't take this any further" unless you keep your promises and doll out punishments if it happens again.

wait I'm not denying the possibility that I made a rude post but what on earth are you talking about in particular (I'm actually confused haha)

Also this is not me being a dick but it should be "dole" not "doll"  8)

Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on January 02, 2016, 12:03:06 PMIdeas deserve respect only if they are tolerant of other ideas and haw valid points to be made. We don't "respect" the idea that 2+2=22, it simply isn't true. Also, what is the standard for an idea being rational? Purely hypothetical question.

can't tell if you're agreeing or trying to bring out my point more clearly or not xD
The 2+2=22 is a great example though. You respect 2+2=4 because it's a standard math equation that's globally used. But what really separates 2+2=4 and 2+2=22? You only believe 2+2=4 is true because people around the Earth have used numbers like that universally, but how was it originally decided? Someone or some people just decided to invent the idea of a number, but the numbers or the idea of how to count aren't based on anything substantial. So the idea of 2+2=4 is relative to us, and not objective knowledge. You don't have to respect the idea of 2+2=22, but if it was the universal standard on how to count on our planet, I think you'd respect it like you do 2+2=4. So respecting it is relative.

On the standard for an idea being rational though, first of all, there's the Deus Deceptor argument on what if the world you observe is the way it is because someone is in control of everything you observe, like a malicious demon or a god. That's why true knowledge can only come from pure reason. -plato
Cogito ergo sum("I think, therefore I am", meaning since you can think, there has to be a thinker to do it, meaning I have to exist) is the one confirmed piece of true knowledge so I think the idea of my existence can be considered as the standard of a rational idea. It's also one of the core notions of rationalism.
On a more conventional note, an idea that acknowledges its possibility to be wrong can also be rational, but for example most religions don't tend to acknowledge that chance. That's actually why I like Buddhism since it's willing to change if something about it is proven wrong. But science is also like that, since it's also based on logic and reason.

Someone being in control of everything? What about weather, tectonic plate shiftings?
And actually I agree with you on this Waddle, I just wanted to be more specific XD
Science though is an interesting case; it simultaneously is open to being wrong and is fundamentally opposed to it.
Take, for instance, gravity. Nobody debates gravity, we know it to be true for all the reasons described by modern science.
However, if someone took an extreme hypothetical gravity question (make one up for all it matters) and could only come to a conclusion by changing the theory of gravity, then as long as it is scientifically sound and passes all the checks and stuff it would be welcomed.

Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on January 02, 2016, 04:51:14 PMSomeone being in control of everything? What about weather, tectonic plate shiftings?

It's a relevant theory when it comes to metaphysics and epistemology. Deus deceptor doesn't really mean it would be in control of everything, just that we would observe only the things the malicious demon would want us to observe, in order to manipulate us and play with our beliefs. It could be all-powerful and stuff like that could be done even if it seemed complex to us.

I don't question the chance of a higher entity like that or a god existing, denying that chance would also be up to faith.

Quote from: Waddle Bro on January 02, 2016, 05:06:21 PMI don't question the chance of a higher entity like that or a god existing, denying that chance would also be up to faith.

I agree that there's definitely a chance. However, that doesn't automatically make it equally as likely that a God does exist (much less the gods of any religion we've had on Earth).
But then to actually weigh the chances of there being a God is purely speculation.

Quote from: SlowPokemon on January 02, 2016, 04:11:28 PMwait I'm not denying the possibility that I made a rude post but what on earth are you talking about in particular (I'm actually confused haha)

Also this is not me being a dick but it should be "dole" not "doll"  8)

I've never seen it spelled out so yeh  8)

Mostly talking about kefka being a binacle and that whole noc gay marriage thing that dude got all pissed off about.

Quote from: FireArrow on January 02, 2016, 02:43:18 PMThat's really not how your post came across to me. I'm mostly just bitter that NO one in partiCular is allowed to run around being blatantly degrading and inflammatory to other members without even a warning. Then slow comes by and makes one rude post and the mods arise out of nowhere. The bitterness and tension NSM has isn't going to go away by "I'm watching you" and "Don't take this any further" unless you keep your promises and doll out punishments if it happens again.

If things happen, and you think they are not good, report them.  If something *that* bad is taking place and nothing happens, it's probably because I had no time to read the posts in the first place.

Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on January 02, 2016, 05:16:06 PMI agree that there's definitely a chance. However, that doesn't automatically make it equally as likely that a God does exist (much less the gods of any religion we've had on Earth).

Atheism isn't more or less likelier than theism

Quote from: Waddle Bro on January 02, 2016, 06:44:35 PMAtheism isn't more or less likelier than theism

I'm very curious how you came to that conclusion, given that it's extremely hard to speculate on things we know little about...

Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on January 02, 2016, 07:12:35 PMI'm very curious how you came to that conclusion, given that it's extremely hard to speculate on things we know little about...

I read Timaeus and Plato seems to have some idea using only philosophy (deductive and inductive reasoning, etc) It doesn't describe the kosmos detailed enough for it to be considered science or for one to claim that it influenced science (don't do this for philosophical works), but still.

Not that many of you would study Greek philosophy, but I bothered to.

Quote from: FireArrow on January 02, 2016, 05:40:54 PMMostly talking about kefka being a binacle and that whole noc gay marriage thing that dude got all pissed off about.

omfg I totally forgot about that.

Watching that was fun.

but your avatar tells a whole 'nother story

Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on January 02, 2016, 04:51:14 PMTake, for instance, gravity. Nobody debates gravity, we know it to be true for all the reasons described by modern science.

I believe that gravity is only a result of the universe and everything therein moving upwards as they are given room by things being "up in the air". You guys are all bigots.

*In case it wasn't clear, I don't actually believe that. It was a joke.

It's amazing to me how people in this time period set up a false difference between science and religion. The role of science is to explain how things happen. The role of religion is to explain why things happen.

WHY
 Usages as an Adverb
For what purpose? For example, Why didn't he behave well?
Usages as Conjunctions
For what cause or purpose? For example, Nobody knows why she is going away.
 On which account? For example, The condition why he did not go is not known.
 Certain reasons for which, for example, That is the reason why she returned.


How
 Usage as an Adverb
By what manner? For example, How did it happen?
 To what degree? For example, How hurt is he?
 In what condition? For example, How is she?
 What is the meaning or effect? For example, How should he understand her actions?
 The way to use a name or title. For example, How should one address the queen?
 The price or the quantity. For example, How much are the apples? How do you sell bananas? (By numbers or by weight?)
Usages as Conjunctions
The manner in which, for example, She could not understand how to do it.



This therefore means that science does NOT contradict the existence of a god.

late but

Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on January 02, 2016, 07:12:35 PMI'm very curious how you came to that conclusion, given that it's extremely hard to speculate on things we know little about...

there's no odds on whether a metaphysical being exists or not, it's not based on any statistics

Quote from: BoywithoutaFairy on January 20, 2016, 10:16:37 AMIt's amazing to me how people in this time period set up a false difference between science and religion. The role of science is to explain how things happen. The role of religion is to explain why things happen.

Isn't science also trying to explain why things happen with the cause and effect and all that jazz? Science is based on empirical information but you still need faith to believe that the world actually is what you observe it as(see deus deceptor, dream argument).

cause and effect is a method in which things occur. Therefore it is a "how"

Science is based upon observable facts whereas religion focuses on the purpose.

Quote from: BoywithoutaFairy on January 20, 2016, 10:16:37 AM~snip~

Except religon doesn't just stick to the "why." For example, Garden of Eden is a "how" and is contradicted by science. The earth being 6,000 years old is contradicted by science.

1) Explain to me just how garden of eden is a "how"
2) If you're following the Christian God then you must then take in all aspects of the Christian faith which therefore includes the fact that God is all-powerful. I see no reason why God could have not decided to make the Earth look however old he wanted it to. Also based on this there is no scientific evidence to disprove this. Also the Christian Bible states that the Garden of Eden was destroyed in the Great Flood which science has proven to be a real life event.

erm, I wasn't going to get into this, but the great flood actually has not yet been proven.  There have been a couple hoaxes involving petrified wood but that's about it
that is all

Quote from: BoywithoutaFairy on January 20, 2016, 01:30:58 PM1) Explain to me just how garden of eden is a "how"
2) If you're following the Christian God then you must then take in all aspects of the Christian faith which therefore includes the fact that God is all-powerful. I see no reason why God could have not decided to make the Earth look however old he wanted it to. Also based on this there is no scientific evidence to disprove this. Also the Christian Bible states that the Garden of Eden was destroyed in the Great Flood which science has proven to be a real life event.

The genesis story tells you the Christian story on how the world was created.

um sort of. The Christian Bible tells you the tells you that God said some words and they became so. It does NOT however say what occurred as these events were coming to be so. The best example of something like this i can think of is in the Inheritance cycle when Eragon talks about creating fires using magic. He states that he could start the fire by using a lightning strike, creating intense friction, heating the air etc. This can also relate to the story of creation. The Bible only says that God spoke and what he spoke came to pass. It does not explain the exact processes in how these events came to pass. For all we know both the Christian Bible and the big bang theory can be simultaneously correct. God could have caused the big bang to create the universe.

No Christian worth his salt reads the Noah and the Ark story literally lol

Well I know Christians who have read the entire bible

Quote from: SlowPokemon on January 20, 2016, 01:55:22 PMNo Christian worth his salt reads the Noah and the Ark story literally lol

I beg to differ, personally. But hey. It's me. Go figure.

Quote from: BoywithoutaFairy on January 20, 2016, 01:57:22 PMWell I know Christians who have read the entire bible

That, um...doesn't really make any sense in context to what Slow said.

considering how that story is in the bible...yes it does

I don't follow. It seems you're equating reading the whole Bible with reading the story of Noah's ark literally. Literally, as opposed to metaphorically. Was that where the confusion was?

Possibly. I have a tendency to take things literally (especially if I can't hear the tone it was meant to be said with)

Ah. Slow was distinguishing between reading the story as about an old man who built a really really big boat and filled it with two of every animal on earth and rode out a very large flood, versus reading the story as an explanation for a possible very large flood.

No I meant reading it as a metaphor. I'm sorry for saying "lol" and "no" tho I didn't mean it to come off like that. Just that most religious intellectuals who study and interpret the bible don't take that story literally from what I understand

Quote from: SlowPokemon on January 20, 2016, 01:55:22 PMNo Christian worth his salt reads the Noah and the Ark story literally lol

Quote from: SlowPokemon on January 20, 2016, 01:55:22 PMChristian worth his salt

QuoteSodom and Gomorrah

Quote from: SlowPokemon on January 20, 2016, 01:55:22 PMsalt

ayy

Quote from: BoywithoutaFairy on January 20, 2016, 01:51:56 PMum sort of. The Christian Bible tells you the tells you that God said some words and they became so. It does NOT however say what occurred as these events were coming to be so. The best example of something like this i can think of is in the Inheritance cycle when Eragon talks about creating fires using magic. He states that he could start the fire by using a lightning strike, creating intense friction, heating the air etc. This can also relate to the story of creation. The Bible only says that God spoke and what he spoke came to pass. It does not explain the exact processes in how these events came to pass. For all we know both the Christian Bible and the big bang theory can be simultaneously correct. God could have caused the big bang to create the universe.

Your point is a little unclear, so you agree that both religion and science try to explain how things are or were? You seem to be directing the conversation off the rails because you're not focusing on the actual points. what are you contradicting?
Faith can't give you a rational reason on why things are the way they are, you need to use reason for that. You can't have knowledge without a stable foundation. Science, empirical information or religion can't provide you that.

Quote from: BoywithoutaFairy on January 20, 2016, 01:30:58 PM1) Explain to me just how garden of eden is a "how"
2) If you're following the Christian God then you must then take in all aspects of the Christian faith which therefore includes the fact that God is all-powerful. I see no reason why God could have not decided to make the Earth look however old he wanted it to. Also based on this there is no scientific evidence to disprove this. Also the Christian Bible states that the Garden of Eden was destroyed in the Great Flood which science has proven to be a real life event.

1) "How were humans created." Science says humans came about through evolution, the bible states otherwise. I don't see how you can claim that this is somehow not a contradiction.
2) Show me this "proof." If you can link me to something actually scientific, then kudos, you win the debate. Also, why the hell would god go "I'm gonna make a planet for my creations to live on, but let me make it look like it's billions of years old first!" The only purpose that would serve is to give people a reason to believe he doesn't exist, which I'm assuming would be undesirable for him?

Alright, here goes.
If religion only stayed at trying to explain the purpose of things there wouldn't be an issue. But that's not the case with most religions.
Christianity, the Garden of Eden, Satan as a fallen angel.. When interpreted literally, these are the given biblical explanations for how the world came about, given that the people who wrote it were desert dwellers, most of whom were illiterate (the writing of the book of Genesis is usually attributed to Moses). They didn't have the scientific knowledge we have, so it's not unreasonable to postulate that the stories in the Torah and the OT of the Bible are attempts to explain the natural world before the people of the time understood it.
And their ignorance shows. Snakes don't have vocal cords, so they can't talk. Even if you believe that Satan disguised himself as a snake that could somehow break this rule, that would be separate from the "explanation of the world" interpretation.
In a similar impossibility, the calculations for Noah's Ark are also impossible for the time. God spells out the dimensions of the Ark; he says it's to be 520 ft (+8 inches) long, by 86 ft (+9.3 inches) wide, by 56 feet tall. This results in just over 2.5 million cubic feet. This would be nearly impossible; wooden hulls past a certain capacity were known to twist apart in the water (due to water pressure IIRC, but I could be wrong about that bit), at which point when larger ships were built they used steel (see the titanic).
God "could" have done just about anything, in terms of deceiving us. But why would he have to do that? To hide from the species he created "in his image"? Hardly seems like the paragon of love and wisdom the Bible (the New Testament, at least) makes him out to be.
God is also hardly a nice guy. He's supposed to be all knowing, first off. This means he knows all that will happen. So, he created the humans. The humans turned to sin when they went into the Garden of Eden.
Since God is all knowing, he should have been able to see this. But in any case, he punishes not only Adam and Eve, but also the entire rest of humanity with them.
(Fun fact, menstruation's common explanation was the sin of Eve, but now we know exactly why that isn't the case)
Continuing on, humanity slowly goes down a sinful path (possibly because, y'know, they were cursed with it).
Then we reach Noah's Ark. Let's drop the skepticism for now, and just assume the story to be true.
This means that God created humans knowing that they would sin, cursed them forever, and then when they became even more sinful because he cursed them with original sin, he chose to drown the entire world with a giant flood, killing everyone but an old guy. Even had Noah tried to save everyone; if some old guy came to your house and said that the world would flood for 40 days and 40 nights, and the only way to not die was to get in a giant wooden boat with him and some thousands of animals, wouldn't he seem a little cooky?
Now we continue on to Christ. God has decided to give all of humanity the opportunity to redeem itself. And God is a reasonable person, so he's making it easy; he's sending down his son (which is simultaneously himself and the Holy Spirit according to many) to teach and heal the sick for roughly 33 years, but now must be tortured and executed for your sins.
"But what sins," You ask? Oh, you know, just the original sin from Adam and Eve.
The sin that you had no part in.
Anyways, he dies, and then he's resurrected by God. Funny how after the invention of recording there hasn't been any recorded cases of someone being resurrected by anything other than modern medicine.
So he's sent up to Heaven, and God has given the final verdict; you all must worship this man who came and died for you because the initial humans fucked up long ago.

well you know if someone wanted to make up a religion they could just say that all they had to do to get to heaven was to eat a million donuts. I could be long-winded here and use reasoning to prove that there is a god (i am not talking about the christian god but just a monotheistic deity) Christianity is too inconvenient and it spells out exact moral values while also retelling a large portion of history. Also the Christian God is all-powerful. He does not follow the rules of science. Also if you want to question his purposes then please explain to me the passage "My ways are higher than your ways. My thoughts are higher than your thoughts." It seems to me that while we may not see a purpose there may still be one we don't know about.

If you don't mind, would you mind actually using your solid logic/reasoning to say that there is a god? Because I can't think of any sort of reasoning that would make me believe that that belief is incontrovertible.

One cannot truly believe something they are not convinced of. You couldn't truly believe the sky was green no matter how hard you try.
Christianity isn't the only religion to spell out exact moral values; Judaism does this, as does Buddhism (which is more of a philosophy than a religion), as does Islam, and as have thousands of religions before Christianity that tell similar stories.
The passage you cited was written by man in a holy book. As for an actual argument, it's a cop out; it basically says "God isn't wrong because he's God, and he's right by definition".

Pianist, most of your logic is faulty on the basis that not all religions believe the same thing.  Half the stuff you said is just false

In the long wall of text I was speaking of Christianity. If you are referring to my earlier post, that isn't a fallacy.

Quote from: BoywithoutaFairy on January 20, 2016, 08:00:30 PMChristianity is too inconvenient and it spells out exact moral values

This is what I was commenting on. Whatever Christianity being "too inconvenient" means.
He said that it spells out exact moral values when I pointed out that there are plenty of religions come and gone that were regarded with esteem equal to or greater than the 3 big Abrahamic religions of today

for the reasoning proving the existence of a monotheistic god read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. He starts out the book by talking about why there must be a god to begin with and then talks about what is belief are (I guess were since he's dead) and why he believes them. This book proves that there must be a single god. It does not prove that it is the Christian God, although he is the main one talked about.

If I told you to pick up a biology text book would you consider that adequate proof of evolution?

Actually evolution is still considered a theory. However for the sake of your question i would still read it.

EDIT: I always take into consideration every possibility

EDIT 2: Also whether or not it is "adequate proof" depends on how accurate and how in depth the text book goes

EDIT 3: Either way, you may still have valid points but so does CS Lewis. His book made perfect sense to me and btw I was an atheist when i read it.

You're confusing "theory" with "scientific theory":

noun 
1. a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation

There are some things that are theories, however that is mainly that there is debate in how they occur, not whether or not they have occurred.  The entire civilized world and scientific community has accepted such things.  Examples:  evolution, climate change, gravity

Meaningful debates occur when discussing the extent, methodology, origins, and finer details of the lot.

I'm not gonna comment on the theory statement as Kefka and Maestro covered it much better than I could. I did look up your book however and:

"Lewis, an Anglican, intended to describe the Christian common ground. In Mere Christianity, he aims at avoiding controversies to explain fundamental teachings of Christianity, for the sake of those basically educated as well as the intellectuals of his generation, for whom the jargon of formal Christian theology did not retain its original meaning."
-wiki

I don't see how this book can be used as proof of gods existence in the first place nor do I see how you can claim someone's philosophy about theology is even remotely comparable to scientific research.

Pfft even for originality, the Bible gets a 2/10. If you've ever read Plato's dialogues, you'll see that there's a similar creation myth described in Timaeus. I still think the Greeks had the best creation myths as long as there's Zeus involved.

I think science is perfectly good at explaining why things happen! Science explained how AND why the planets moved, didn't it? I recall Cicero and even the Bible inaccurately describing how the sun and planets moved. Let's also throw in the geocentric theory which can now be proven to be totally wrong.

I was really lucky to have a discussion with Waddle about Greek philosophy back in Finland last week hahaha. We talked about another dialogue though.

gravity is a theory

lern2scince

The story of the flood, the ark, and a snake disrupting paradise are also found in one of my favorite novels, the Epic of Gilgamesh, dated around 2700 BC, and considered to be the world's first work of great literature. It attempts to explain creation just as most stories did of the time, and did so by god-ifying, for lack of a better word, a Sumerian king by the name of Gilgamesh. Give it a read, it's a lovely work.

There's a few things I wanted to reply to in the rant thread and this was the closest topic for it I guess (Honestly it was just as home there than anywhere else. Using the religion, politics, and debate thread as prisoner islands for touchy subjects to protect sensitive people is... meh.)

Quote from: Waddle Bro on March 20, 2016, 01:07:02 PMSo let's start by assuming free will exists. Homosexuality is then a concept that you personally agree with and one makes it a part of one's essence, everything you include in your essence is up to your own decisions to include them. One is also able to change that part of one if at some point one doesn't agree with it anymore. One is the moral agent and every decision they make is up to nothing/nobody but one themselves. (=indeterminism, cause and effect are outside the moral agent) The problem with indeterminism is the relationship between reasons and moral decisions, does one really choose their decisions?

No, it's not a choice. If you ever chose your sexuality then you're bi and in denial. We've found genes that increase the odds of someone being gay and it could potential be affects by environmental factors before puberty. An individual has no choice in any of that.

Fun fact, people that disagree with same sex relationships can still be 100% gay. They just tend to marry the opposite sex anyways and be all like "I'm resisting the temptations of satan" or whatever. I mean, humans are pretty amazing at lying to themselves - but that doesn't make them not gay, it just makes them miserable and/or confused.

Quote from: Olimar12345 on March 20, 2016, 02:46:36 PMThat first sentence should have stood out. "But that part about the accepting gay ppl doesnt maek sense! Religion doesnt do thattt!" bion, they do. In fact, no religion advocates hating or discriminating others. You only really hear about this because 1) ppl who understand the basic principles of their religion have the decency to not verbally violate and shit on those of opposing beliefs, and 2) the media only shows us the shit b/c ratings and the sort.

Conclusion: is homosexuality "wrong?" You decide, and keep it to yourself. Also wtf does "wrong" even mean, and to what standards are you holding it to?

I know that you're religious. I also think you do a very good job of respecting other people and treating them equally. Where you're wrong is assuming that all religious people are like you. The news media isn't wrong when telling stories about it - that shit exists and is quite common. please don't pretend the problems doesn't exist/down play it to protect your religion just because you in particular aren't an asshole. A much better response than nocturne's "religious people are super accepting and you guys are just dramatic" would be "those people are dicks and don't represent what Christianity stands for." Now you're defending your beliefs without telling people that their problems don't exist.

I can confirm. I tried to be attracted to women. If I had a choice of being attracted to women or guys I would have chosen women.

Quote from: FireArrow on March 20, 2016, 05:33:02 PMFun fact, people that disagree with same sex relationships can still be 100% gay. They just tend to marry the opposite sex anyways and be all like "I'm resisting the temptations of satan" or whatever. I mean, humans are pretty amazing at lying to themselves - but that doesn't make them not gay, it just makes them miserable and/or confused.

Not going to bother with everything else but LOL

It really sounds like you said that those (self)-haters who are labeling homosexuality as a sin, are actually disgusted with themselves and how they're "sinning"* themselves? I don't think most people think of themselves as walking, sinning...beings that are condemned to XYZ for simply existing.

video not for kiddies

[close]

*stayin' in the closet

I can't tell if you're disagreeing with me or not...

Quote from: Ruto on March 20, 2016, 06:08:34 PMIt really sounds like you said that those (self)-haters who are labeling homosexuality as a sin, are actually disgusted with themselves and how they're "sinning"* themselves? I don't think most people think of themselves as walking, sinning...beings that are condemned to XYZ for simply existing.

Uh, no. I'm saying that people who disagree with "the gay lifestyle" aren't immune to being gay themselves since waddle was trying to say that your opinion on the matter affects your sexuality, which isn't true. Homophobes who do turn out to be gay just tend to keep quiet about it or make ridiculous claims that they've chosen to be straight despite being attracted to men or something.

Quote from: FireArrow on March 20, 2016, 05:33:02 PMThe news media isn't wrong when telling stories about it - that shit exists and is quite common. please don't pretend the problems doesn't exist/down play it to protect your religion just because you in particular aren't an asshole. A much better response than nocturne's "religious people are super accepting and you guys are just dramatic" would be "those people are dicks and don't represent what Christianity stands for." Now you're defending your beliefs without telling people that their problems don't exist.

Very well put! Like you said, there are crazy people who do crazy things for "religious" causes. That shit never gets old apparently. I think I said what I said in that way because, while shit is constantly happening and problems do exist (which we should not ignore), I personally try not to dwell on the negative things more than I absolutely need to. I (not not unlike others) live a very stressful life and can't afford to be constantly thinking about all of the shit going on-no one can. By no means am I "playing it down," or "disregarding" shit just because religion is good whoopie!

And by no means do the terrible actions of individuals or small organizations define entire religious groups. I'm sure we all are educated enough to know about the reprocussions of that kind of mentality.

Oh man idk if I'm still on track wtf

Quote from: FireArrow on March 20, 2016, 08:03:58 PMI can't tell if you're disagreeing with me or not...

Uh, no. I'm saying that people who disagree with "the gay lifestyle" aren't immune to being gay themselves since waddle was trying to say that your opinion on the matter affects your sexuality, which isn't true. Homophobes who do turn out to be gay just tend to keep quiet about it or make ridiculous claims that they've chosen to be straight despite being attracted to men or something.

Heheh I didn't read the whole thing. But then I recall the clip and what that gay converter said. While watching it, I thought "this guy is in denial." That's all, not really trying to make any argument here.

Quote from: Olimar12345 on March 20, 2016, 08:33:24 PMI personally try not to dwell on the negative things more than I absolutely need to. I (not not unlike others) live a very stressful life and can't afford to be constantly thinking about all of the shit going on-no one can. By no means am I "playing it down," or "disregarding" shit just because religion is good whoopie!

Yeah, sorry for misunderstanding your point. You said some interesting things that got me thinking, but my short term memory sucks and I immediately forgot what I wanted to say (I need more sleep...)

Quote from: Ruto on March 20, 2016, 08:41:14 PMHeheh I didn't read the whole thing. But then I recall the clip and what that gay converter said. While watching it, I thought "this guy is in denial." That's all, not really trying to make any argument here.

Nah just making sure. I worded it pretty poorly anyways. On the subject of people like that though, while I don't feel like digging up the story, I remember something about some guy who opened up a correction facility as compensation for his same sex attractions. He made a public apology and closed down his business when he came to terms with it.

bringing this here too, gonna write the replies on homosexuality and dude(/-man) thing on some other post

---

Ah shit Olimar I never meant say anything like you'd apparently be homophobic D: Terribly sorry if I came across attacking!!

Quote from: Waddle Bro on March 20, 2016, 01:07:02 PMNot all beliefs are knowledge, so we should be ready to change the way we think if we receive knowledge that shows how you are or can be wrong.

Quote from: Olimar12345 on March 20, 2016, 02:46:36 PMThis part I get.

I'm glad because it's a vital for my point!!

Quote from: Waddle Bro on March 20, 2016, 01:07:02 PMIf there's even a chance you can be wrong, you have no right to force your ways on anyone else.

Quote from: Olimar12345 on March 20, 2016, 02:46:36 PMLogically, this can make sense from the standpoint of not wanting to sound like a hypocrite, but runs the risk of being way too fucking broad. Also, this is a double-edged sword, and your following sentence contradicts that by forcing your beliefs on how to behave upon others:

It was more about the importance of having justified opinions through knowledge. If one's beliefs have potential to be harmful to anyone else, one can't treat them as if they are knowledge, since one doesn't have it. Nobody else has to carry the responsibility that comes with one's beliefs/decisions. Also Olimar, a key thing to note is how knowledge can also start from understanding how one's beliefs have no basis. We need to be able to question our beliefs, suspect them and strive for knowledge, so we can either confirm or invalidate our beliefs. The problem is that if one is not admitting this when voicing one's beliefs(see theistic religions), they can't be based on knowledge and therefore their beliefs are unjustified and shouldn't be forced on others.

Quote from: Waddle Bro on March 20, 2016, 01:07:02 PMThat includes even claiming how being gay is immoral out loud, instead you should show acceptance or not give a fuck whether or not someone's gay.

Quote from: Olimar12345 on March 20, 2016, 02:46:36 PMSo now I'm saying being gay is wrong? I guess so, in the form of playing devils advocate. If you're confused, re-read this part from the perspective of a religious person (one who's beliefs are ones who forbid same-sex relations) toward someone of opposing beliefs:

Again I'm terribly sorry if I gave the impression of assuming you're homophobic!!! I was speaking about "you" as people in general, but it's completely my mistake for coming across wrong!! I've been trying to transition to using "one" instead of "you" but I forget about it sometimes, sorry Olimar :(
fuck these english pronouns

Quote from: Waddle Bro on March 20, 2016, 01:07:02 PMinstead you should show acceptance or not give a fuck whether or not someone's gay.

You claim I'm forcing my beliefs on others, but aren't one's natural rights(f.e. in this case freedom of identity and self-expression) completely justified, as long as they don't interfere with other natural rights and other people's rights? What unjustified belief could possibly justify taking away those rights? Equality can't happen in a society that ignores the intrinsic value of the people, natural rights and natural freedom of the people.

Quote from: Waddle Bro on March 20, 2016, 01:07:02 PMIf there's even a chance you can be wrong, you have no right to force your ways on anyone else. That includes even claiming how being gay is immoral out loud, instead you should show acceptance or not give a fuck whether or not someone's gay. Expressing beliefs that consider someone else inferior to one is never justified, those are based on nothing but preconceptions.

Quote from: Olimar12345 on March 20, 2016, 02:46:36 PMThat first sentence should have stood out. "But that part about the accepting gay ppl doesnt maek sense! Religion doesnt do thattt!" bion, they do. In fact, no religion advocates hating or discriminating others. You only really hear about this because 1) ppl who understand the basic principles of their religion have the decency to not verbally violate and shit on those of opposing beliefs, and 2) the media only shows us the shit b/c ratings and the sort.

I think I already covered well how if you are able to admit to your belief being wrong and able to accept different views, you have justified beliefs and you should be able to express them to others. It's about having those justified beliefs, not about analyzing all your beliefs in thesis-level depth and having to come to a rational conclusion about them. If you don't have the knowledge, you can still justify your beliefs by admitting how it's possible you can be wrong. I hope you understand where I'm coming from!! I know people believe in and relate to the same things differently, that's why critical thinking when explaining your subjective view to others is necessary!!

Quote from: Olimar12345 on March 20, 2016, 02:46:36 PMConclusion: is homosexuality "wrong?" You decide, and keep it to yourself. Also wtf does "wrong" even mean, and to what standards are you holding it to?

completely agree with your conclusion :] tho you should still thrive to find out if your beliefs are correct or not, otherwise you're building your essence on quicksand
also in my posts I was talking about wrong in epistemological sense and ethically wrong(=something shouldn't be, fe. in theistic religions it's defined by authority, but does the authority know what wrong means?) shoutouts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-question_argument
finally I just want to say how previously it's my fault for not making a detailed enough of a post, I shouldn't assume you instantly know anything I say, meaning I should do a better job at explaining myself!! sorry fam

Quote from: Waddle Bro on March 21, 2016, 09:51:19 AMAh shit Olimar I never meant say anything like you'd apparently be homophobic D: Terribly sorry if I came across attacking!!

wait wat

Quote from: Waddle Bro on March 21, 2016, 09:51:19 AMThe problem is that if one is not admitting this when voicing one's beliefs(see theistic religions), they can't be based on knowledge and therefore their beliefs are unjustified and shouldn't be forced on others.

Justifying beliefs in this manner is silly, and forcing them upon others is even sillier. A "belief" is centered around an acceptance that something is true or that something exists, not so much the actual process of providing cold hard evidence, that's why you're BELIEVING it to be the truth, lol. The "justification" comes from within. The "forcing" comes from the either unintelligent or ignorant individuals and is a problem, I agree. The forcing of religion onto an unwanting individual is not only a fruitless endeavor, but actually causes more harm than healing. So tying this all back together; People should never force their beliefs upon others, but rather invite willing individuals to experience their joy if they are curious or so desire. I feel that the picking apart for cold hard evidence is more of a defense mechanism, often as a result of a negative experience.

Quote from: Waddle Bro on March 21, 2016, 09:51:19 AM

QuoteThat includes even claiming how being gay is immoral out loud, instead you should show acceptance or not give a fuck whether or not someone's gay.

QuoteSo now I'm saying being gay is wrong? I guess so, in the form of playing devils advocate. If you're confused, re-read this part from the perspective of a religious person (one who's beliefs are ones who forbid same-sex relations) toward someone of opposing beliefs:

Again I'm terribly sorry if I gave the impression of assuming you're homophobic!!! I was speaking about "you" as people in general, but it's completely my mistake for coming across wrong!! I've been trying to transition to using "one" instead of "you" but I forget about it sometimes, sorry Olimar :(
fuck these english pronouns

Whoops, that was actually a clarification error on my end! I wrote that under the "you" as a "one," coming across as you intended it to. That "so now I'm saying..." part from me was me contradicting myself from earlier within my own post, to solidify my message there. Sorry for the confusion!

Quote from: Waddle Bro on March 21, 2016, 09:51:19 AMYou claim I'm forcing my beliefs on others, but aren't one's natural rights(f.e. in this case freedom of identity and self-expression) completely justified, as long as they don't interfere with other natural rights and other people's rights? What unjustified belief could possibly justify taking away those rights? Equality can't happen in a society that ignores the intrinsic value of the people, natural rights and natural freedom of the people.

You believe that these are natural rights, and that a society should abide by them for equality's sake. I didn't say these were bad things (they aren't), but merely that these are beliefs.

Quote from: Waddle Bro on March 21, 2016, 09:51:19 AMcompletely agree with your conclusion :] tho you should still thrive to find out if your beliefs are correct or not, otherwise you're building your essence on quicksand

Glad you agree, but see this:

Quote from: Olimar12345 on March 21, 2016, 11:36:27 AMJustifying beliefs in this manner is silly, and forcing them upon others is even sillier. A "belief" is centered around an acceptance that something is true or that something exists, not so much the actual process of providing cold hard evidence, that's why you're BELIEVING it to be the truth, lol. The "justification" comes from within. The "forcing" comes from the either unintelligent or ignorant individuals and is a problem, I agree. The forcing of religion onto an unwanting individual is not only a fruitless endeavor, but actually causes more harm than healing. So tying this all back together; People should never force their beliefs upon others, but rather invite willing individuals to experience their joy if they are curious or so desire. I feel that the picking apart for cold hard evidence is more of a defense mechanism, often as a result of a negative experience.

brb changing 1000's of years of history by proving religion is true lmao

I thought of a good debate! Was the US justified in dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki back in WWII? Keep things clean & considerate, and cite your sources! I'm interested in hearing your rationale!

is this for a school project because if it is you should figure it out yourself

honestly I do believe that at the time it was necessary However, the US government did not realize the long-lasting effects of using a weapon so deadly. I firmly believe that US should in some way compensate for the additional unintentional damage and harm that Japan had to suffer through.

The U.S. kind of helped Japan by giving it a Democratic government. The bomb really was justified in my eyes. Think about it, The bomb ended the war, which would have gone on much longer had we not dropped it. A few civilian deaths would be better than millions of soldiers deaths. Someone was going to die either way. We made the best call.

the US actually dropped warning pamphlets over the city multiple times, but the emperor of Japan didn't believe they could make such a destructive weapon

-My dad, the smartest person I've ever met so

Quote from: BrainyLucario on April 12, 2016, 07:41:07 AMThe U.S. kind of helped Japan by giving it a Democratic government.

elaborate por favor

edit: also for the record i don't believe that one civilian life is directly equal/proportional to one military life so i dont necessarily think "a few" civilians is really worth killing over "millions" of soldiers (debatable numbers)

Quote from: Altissimo on April 12, 2016, 07:51:15 AMedit: also for the record i don't believe that one civilian life is directly equal/proportional to one military life so i dont necessarily think "a few" civilians is really worth killing over "millions" of soldiers (debatable numbers)

Excellent point.

Quote from: BrainyLucario on April 12, 2016, 07:41:07 AMThe U.S. kind of helped Japan by giving it a Democratic government. The bomb really was justified in my eyes. Think about it, The bomb ended the war, which would have gone on much longer had we not dropped it. A few civilian deaths would be better than millions of soldiers deaths. Someone was going to die either way. We made the best call.

You're looking for the schoolwork help thread.

I think America also didn't quite realize the full destructive power of nuclear bombs, either.  When Einstein first did whatever with nuclear fission, he said he expected the blast to be able to destroy an entire harbor, not an entire city

^Didn't they test the bomb before they used it?

The full text of Hiroshima is free: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1946/08/31/hiroshima

QuoteThe U.S. kind of helped Japan by giving it a Democratic government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden

I think that if Japan managed to modernize and go to war after a relatively short time, they didn't need any help with ANYTHING.

QuoteThe bomb really was justified in my eyes. Think about it, The bomb ended the war, which would have gone on much longer had we not dropped it. A few civilian deaths would be better than millions of soldiers deaths. Someone was going to die either way. We made the best call.

What does "a few" mean? Might want to rephrase that because you sound like you think some people's lives are worth more.

If you need to cite me, use the link to this post, my username, and date accessed as 4/12/16.

Just wrote a research paper on this lol. Apparently there was a lot of pushing for the "saving lives" of the hundred of thousands of soldiers (both Jap and Am) that would be killed if the war continued and the us had to send additional troops over there. But the SU had agreed to also send in their own troops, and it was estimated that the war would really only last a few weeks after that and not nearly reach the formerly predicted death number. Japan was willing to surrender except for one little thing (allowing power to stay in their gov?? idr) but the us wanted a full and complete surrender so they could prevent their government from starting shit all over again.

Both sides make sense and after doing all the research I'm still neutral lol. The US thought they were mostly just at the time and had no way of predicting the long lasting effects, and it DID end the war. At least it hopefully set an example to stop something like that from happening again in the future

We could of just dropped one tbh, or dropped it somewhere unpopulated as a warning. Obviously pamphlets saying "surrender or face utter annihilation" without any details isn't gonna convince any one during war time, it's just flexing.

#flexxordie

completely irrelevant but my grandpa was in Nagasaki after the bomb dropped
he also wrote a book (I'm not advertising I promise) called Combat Marine at Seventeen.  It's actually pretty interesting
http://www.amazon.com/Combat-Marine-Seventeen-Jardine-Ph-D/dp/0989674509
(I swear I'm still not advertising)

Quote from: FireArrow on April 12, 2016, 12:25:15 PMWe could of just dropped one tbh, or dropped it somewhere unpopulated as a warning. Obviously pamphlets saying "surrender or face utter annihilation" without any details isn't gonna convince any one during war time, it's just flexing.

Oh no definitely we should have kept it at one or away from actual innocents lol. I think it was illegal for citizens to pick up those pamphlets too, and even if they did who would believe it?? The final decision was prob just taking the easy way out/wanting to use the bombs they spent billions on because they couldn't bomb Germany anymore

The second bomb was dropped because the Emperor just didn't want to surrender the first time, and initially exasperated by early reports of the bombing being interpreted as rumor. It really just boiled down to becoming the first case of "nuclear chicken", and Japan lost. They had time to examine the destruction for themselves, and during the three-day period between bombings they gave four conditions of their surrender, but the Allies wanted them to surrender on their terms. It basically boiled down to the first example of "nuclear chicken", which Japan ultimately lost. Should Truman have waited a few extra days? Maybe, but it's likely Japan would've still resisted a full surrender. If they hadn't surrendered after the second bombing then the USSR would engage them directly, they formally declared war on Japan the same day of the Nagasaki bombing, which Japan was in no condition to face. They were already losing ground on the Pacific and could not afford taking on another front, nor the risk of future bombings by the U.S., which may have likely done irreparable damage to the global environment in the long-term, and likely completely obliterate the nation of Japan.

Whether or not we should've dropped any atomic bombs in the first place is a different debate. We had no way of knowing the actual long-term effects of doing so at the time; while we could create reasonable estimates of lasting damage and fallout, at the time we couldn't predict the long-term health hazards such a device would cause. The effects of radiation exposure were only just recently becoming understood by the scientific community at the time; the earliest known case of any sort of radiation poisoning was attributed to Wilhelm Röntgen in 1895, who at the time misattributed his symptoms to ozone. The first well known case would've been the Radium Girls in 1917, from their exposure through the paints they used on radios. It normally takes decades of active study to understand long-term medical effects of anything, and nothing to the scale of the atomic bombing was even possible at the time; so the scientists at the time had a very limited understanding of the results outside of their pure destructive power.

Another factor to consider is that Truman had no idea the bombs were even being tested while serving as Vice President. When he became President after Roosevelt died, Truman was told two weeks after taking office that the bombs even existed, and were ready to use. Even Stalin knew about them before he did, thanks to his network of spies within the U.S. government. His first priority after taking office was overseeing the final surrender of Germany, and his advisors estimated about another year of fighting with Japan still lay ahead. Given the monumental costs another year of the war would cost; financially, spiritually, and the ever rising mortality rate, he had to weigh the potential loses on both sides of the war. You also need to realize that neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were purely civilian cities; they were major military targets for either logistics or supplies of the Japanese military. While they both had relatively sizable populations at the time, they weren't regarded as dense metropolitan zones, nor any sort of center of Japanese infrastructure; Nagasaki itself was even bombed a few times during the war, as were other similar cities on both sides of the war. While the immense destruction they suffered from the bombings is seemingly high due to how concentrated it was, it was ultimately less than choosing other appealing targets like Tokyo, the capital, where the casualties of such an attack would've been eight times the total of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, or by continuing the war, which would've seen casualty rates increase due to the USSR joining the fight.

The argument about "lost cost" from making the bombs in the first place is also a frivolous one. Everybody spent unfathomable amounts of money on the war, developing new weapons to use on each other; and the U.S. itself spent billions on various projects that either never saw action or were just outright unfinished or abandoned by the end of WWII. In fact, dropping the bombs (or more specifically, the second one) saved the Allies billions they would've spent on the continuing war effort had Japan not have surrendered. Sure, the U.S. really wanted to use it on Germany first, but it was mostly because it was a race between the two to get a working bomb first. The decision to drop the second bomb wasn't an attempt to recoup investment costs, because they more or less did that once Germany surrendered, both in terms of actually money and the moral victory that resulted. The tactical decision behind using the atomic bombs was sound, the moral decision is less cut-and-dry. However, it was also a war, so nothing that was decided was ever going to be a perfect solution, so Truman banked on having less casualties overall when making the final choice.

[citation needed]

Quote from: Altissimo on April 12, 2016, 04:27:20 PM[citation needed]

Just check Wikipedia

guys I broke it up into sentences on Google and nothing came up so I think he might have made it himself??

Maybe it's translated

Quote from: Olimar12345 on April 12, 2016, 04:35:44 PMJust check Wikipedia

I died

It passed a plagiarism checker with 100%.

I didn't know it was possible to get 100% on those.

Quote from: FireArrow on April 12, 2016, 07:49:44 PMIt passed a plagiarism checker with 100%.

I didn't know it was possible to get 100% on those.

Are you telling me that Maestro actually had an original thought for once?

It's not even about music, though, go figure

Quote from: FireArrow on April 12, 2016, 07:49:44 PMIt passed a plagiarism checker with 100%.

I didn't know it was possible to get 100% on those.

It is. Says me and my paper on Mayan astronomy/astrology back in sophmore year. (+ some other papers on Greek/Roman stuff). That's after I took off the works I quoted ofc...Obviously I don't have access to the codices and I can't translate the language so eh.

Should let the kid do his own homework, if he copies it verbatim and a google post brings it back to here, what use is that? What about academic integrity?

wow you guys are harsh
It's clear that maestro only uses Wikipedia for subjects which he considers himself inferior.  Also reading through it I didn't notice any grammar errors, which is likely cause of how fast I read it, and as far as I know he doesn't make grammar errors?  Lol but yeah glancing at it looks like a copy paste but when you read it you can hear a voice so it doesn't seem like wikipedia

Aight guys c'mon now. It was fun while it lasted, and it's a funny gag now, but stuff like

Quote from: Altissimo on April 12, 2016, 08:09:43 PMAre you telling me that Maestro actually had an original thought for once?

It's not even about music, though, go figure

doesn't really help anyone and at this point is just being a dick. YES, we all know about the contents of the classical discussion thread. But we need to be able to let things go for the most part. Nothing wrong with making the occasional joke or whatever but 7 or 8 posts is a bit much IMO.
At the same time, many of us are trying to encourage mods (Maestro and the others) to be more impartial. The best thing we can do to help garner that response is to not be dicks.

Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on April 12, 2016, 09:06:42 PMAlso reading through it I didn't notice any grammar errors, which is likely cause of how fast I read it, and as far as I know he doesn't make grammar errors?

Yeah, you might wanna read slower next time. Maestro has a pattern of some grammatical errors in long stuff. This one's no different. But it was a good explanation. I liked it.

Quote from: Ruto on April 12, 2016, 08:36:56 PMIt is. Says me and my paper on Mayan astronomy/astrology back in sophmore year. (+ some other papers on Greek/Roman stuff). That's after I took off the works I quoted ofc...Obviously I don't have access to the codices and I can't translate the language so eh.

Should let the kid do his own homework, if he copies it verbatim and a google post brings it back to here, what use is that? What about academic integrity?

I can vouch for E. Gaddd and say this has nothing to do with homework. It's just a topic to debate about.

Yeah, we covered this in AP World, and I actually thought it would be interesting to hear peoples' opinions (which I'll be posting my own in a bit).

Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on April 12, 2016, 09:55:48 PMAight guys c'mon now. It was fun while it lasted, and it's a funny gag now, but stuff like

doesn't really help anyone and at this point is just being a dick. YES, we all know about the contents of the classical discussion thread. But we need to be able to let things go for the most part. Nothing wrong with making the occasional joke or whatever but 7 or 8 posts is a bit much IMO.
At the same time, many of us are trying to encourage mods (Maestro and the others) to be more impartial. The best thing we can do to help garner that response is to not be dicks.

nah i just do it because i dont feel like acknowledging giant text walls

i'll keep what you said in mind though and just ignore them entirely next time!

(no seriously, i don't want to be a dick. so i'll just ignore it)

it's easy to use textbooks and notes help you out when writing a text, can vouch for that. especially in history since you don't need to apply that to anything new. and just because a text uses a lot of terms, doesn't mean it's straight copy-paste.

also reasons that pushed united states to use the atomic bomb
-pearl harbour
-avoiding the opponent's landing to the main islands
-the kamikaze attacks
-it served as a warning to the red army
-the military and scientific interest
-truman's desire to be written down in the history books as the president who ended the war

in a nutshell.

Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on April 13, 2016, 04:59:37 AMYeah, we covered this in AP World, and I actually thought it would be interesting to hear peoples' opinions (which I'll be posting my own in a bit).

Quote from: BrainyLucario on April 13, 2016, 03:44:52 AMI can vouch for E. Gaddd and say this has nothing to do with homework. It's just a topic to debate about.

Sure, so it *was* homework?

It's not a debate yet if you don't defend yourself...

clearly it wasn't homework

Intellectual property is fantasy.

Quote from: TooFarGann on April 13, 2016, 04:58:34 PMIntellectual property is fantasy.

Hm, news to me. The only thing I knew about it was that it's a legit legal thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_intellectual_property).

How can somebody own something that does not physically exist?

how can any one man own the land?  The land is there for all of us to share equally.

Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on April 13, 2016, 07:49:41 PMhow can any one man own the land?  The land is there for all of us to share equally.

That is what we call Communism. I'm from America it's apart of our ideal to own land. We got that from (I think) Locke :life liberty pursuit of property.

Quote from: TooFarGann on April 13, 2016, 07:47:44 PMHow can somebody own something that does not physically exist?

Pretty sure IP becomes physical when patented or otherwise trademarked.

actually pretty sure that's just native American philosophy

Quote from: Dudeman on April 13, 2016, 07:58:50 PMPretty sure IP becomes physical when patented or otherwise trademarked.

I would to see proof of something like that ever happening, if you don't mind.

Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on April 13, 2016, 07:59:31 PMactually pretty sure that's just native American philosophy

yeaaah this predates communism by like
thousands of years

also: it's interesting that you think IP is not a thing but also disagree with the idea of owning land, it seems like two sides of the same coin to me tbh

Quote from: TooFarGann on April 13, 2016, 08:04:20 PMI would to see proof of something like that ever happening, if you don't mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
"Some common types of intellectual property rights (IPR) are trademarks, copyright, patents, industrial design rights, and in some jurisdictions trade secrets: all these cover music, literature, and other artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs."
IPR's are what you use to own your IP. Sure, you can't really own a thought (not in a legal sense), but you can own an image or brand that resulted from a thought.

Quote from: Dudeman on April 13, 2016, 08:08:00 PM" Sure, you can't really own a thought..."

Cool! I think were are done here.
As for the whole Native American thing the whole abolition of property is still the first plank of Communism.

You didn't let him finish his sentence, lmao.
If intellectual property doesn't exist, I take it that Beethoven's 9 symphonies and 32 piano sonatas only exist in the physical scores in which they are represented? If that's the case, might as well take the opening line of the 5th symphony (ba ba ba bum!) and call it your own.
Try this, call a lawyer, and let me know how it goes for ya.
@Communism yeah, abolition of property was a Marxist thing, but Marx wasn't entirely original either. Marx took a lot from Hegelian philosophy, as well as having studied numerous cultures (seeing as he was an economist, journalist, and historian).

Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on April 13, 2016, 08:46:48 PMIf intellectual property doesn't exist, I take it that Beethoven's 9 symphonies and 32 piano sonatas only exist in the physical scores in which they are represented? If that's the case, might as well take the opening line of the 5th symphony (ba ba ba bum!) and call it your own.
Try this, call a lawyer, and let me know how it goes for ya.

Thats not a good example because all of his music is in the public domain, even if it wasn't , you still could. Look at weird Al he gives exactly 0 royalties for everything he does.

Quote from: TooFarGann on April 13, 2016, 09:01:03 PMThats not a good example because all of his music is in the public domain, even if it wasn't , you still could.

"Even if it wasn't, you still could"?! Yeah, you still could in theory. It would also be plagiarism because someone wrote it on paper and published it first.

Quote from: TooFarGann on April 13, 2016, 09:01:03 PMLook at weird Al he gives exactly 0 royalties for everything he does.

My turn to point out a poor example. Weird Al always contacts the creators of the songs he parodies before parodying them to get full permissions. He is within copyright law because he gets permission before using someone else's work.

Quote from: Dudeman on April 13, 2016, 09:08:29 PMHe is within copyright law because he gets permission before using someone else's work.

He doesn't even need permission. Parodies are exempt from permission from what I know. He does it to be nice.

anyway i must say TooFarGann you seem to have a beef with communism, care to elaborate? :p

Quote from: Dudeman on April 13, 2016, 09:08:29 PM"Weird Al always contacts the creators of the songs he parodies before parodying them to get full permissions. He is within copyright law because he gets permission before using someone else's work.

You're right but he legally does not have to. Have you ever heard of "Dumb Starbucks" it was a legit business, again no royalties etc.

Quote from: Altissimo on April 13, 2016, 09:18:18 PManyway i must say TooFarGann you seem to have a beef with communism, care to elaborate? :p

I mean, it's literally impossible to pull off, that's a good reason to hate it

If you really don't think intellectual property exists, I'm surprised that your idea hasn't bested all the world's lawyers who are dedicated to the cause..

Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on April 13, 2016, 09:20:55 PMI mean, it's literally impossible to pull off, that's a good reason to hate it

i disagree but that's also not quite my point, i'm talking more along the lines of "how can you have a beef with communism and its land ideology when claiming IP doesn't exist"

Quote from: Altissimo on April 13, 2016, 09:18:18 PManyway i must say TooFarGann you seem to have a beef with communism, care to elaborate? :p

Yes. It's not a very good idea. In Communism the government owns you. When in reality mankind has created the government; the government answers to man not the other way around.

that's socialism
communism has no government

Quote from: TooFarGann on April 13, 2016, 09:26:31 PMYes. It's not a very good idea. In Communism the government owns you. When in reality mankind has created the government; the government answers to man not the other way around.

In Communism there is no state. In fact, Communism has no state, class, money, or private property.
Marx was a huge believer in such small gov't that there isn't one: he often parroted Rousseau, who famously said something like "Man is born free, but is chained everywhere". The system you're thinking about is Authoritarianism, which historically has been paired with Communism, but is actually counter intuitive to Marxist theory.

It's important to differentiate between "only works in theory" and "hasn't been done successfully yet". IMO Communism is great if you can keep human beings perfect, but throughout its history it's distorted by people who take power to establish a Communist state but never give it up (see Lenin, Stalin, & his successors until the dissolution of the Soviet Union).
What I'd be curious to see is how Trotsky would've run the Soviet Union had he not been assassinated and had he taken Stalin's place.

yeah communism works if people are perfect, but people aren't perfect and that makes murica better

Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on April 13, 2016, 09:30:09 PMIMO Communism is great if you can keep human beings perfect, but throughout its history it's distorted by people who take power to establish a Communist state but never give it up (see Lenin, Stalin, & his successors until the dissolution of the Soviet Union).

I couldn't agree with this more. Communism is amazing on paper, but put humans into the mix, who are notorious for usually making poor decisions and being greedy to an extent, and everything falls apart.

ninja'd by Noc with less words and more patriotism

The thing that bugs me is that most of the time what people think of when they hear "Communism" is actually far left authoritarianism, which is COMPLETELY different than Communism, but again has been historically paired with it so, helped along via Red Scare tactics, has become interchangeable.

Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on April 13, 2016, 09:30:09 PMIn Communism there is no state.

I believe you mean anarchy where as there are no leaders or chiefs.

No, I mean Communism. Please learn political science terms before you try to correct people and invariably come off as a know-it-all. Thanks :D

Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on April 13, 2016, 09:36:10 PMThe thing that bugs me is that most of the time what people think of when they hear "Communism" is actually far left authoritarianism, which is COMPLETELY different than Communism, but again has been historically paired with it so, helped along via Red Scare tactics, has become interchangeable.

I think the reason this occurs is that historically, Communism has almost always dissolved into authoritarianism (if you've got any good counterexamples, I'd love to hear them). I personally don't think that's gonna change any time soon, as patterns are pretty good indicators. But who knows. I'm waiting on a benevolent Communist nation to rise up and save the world any day now.

Quote from: TooFarGann on April 13, 2016, 09:36:47 PMI believe you mean anarchy where as there are no leaders or chiefs.

n... no

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society

this is as Marxism dictates, notice "A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access to the articles of consumption and is classless and stateless[...]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society

"A stateless society is a society that is not governed by a state, or, especially in common American English, has no government. In stateless societies, there is little concentration of authority; most positions of authority that do exist are very limited in power and are generally not permanently-held positions; and social bodies that resolve disputes through predefined rules tend to be small."

Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on April 13, 2016, 09:37:26 PMNo, I mean Communism. Please learn political science terms before you try to correct people and invariably come off as a know-it-all. Thanks :D

Sorry, I did not mean to come off like that. I seriously think you have the definitions confused is all and I truly don't mean to be personal.

To clarify further, the difference between a lack of government and anarchy is the attitude of the people. I think. In anarchy, the people actively rebel against authority and resist any establishment of a state because "I can do what I want and no one can stop me." In Communism, ideally, no one cares about a lack of government because everyone should be concerned with everyone else's well-being.

...right? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm sorry friend, but you're simply wrong if you think that.
You could argue that the anarchism is therefore PART of Communism, but there is far more to Communism than just the lack of a state; namely, common ownership of all means of production and thereby abolition of private property.

Quote from: Dudeman on April 13, 2016, 09:43:40 PMTo clarify further, the difference between a lack of government and anarchy is the attitude of the people. I think. In anarchy, the people actively rebel against authority and resist any establishment of a state because "I can do what I want and no one can stop me." In Communism, ideally, no one cares about a lack of government because everyone should be concerned with everyone else's well-being.

...right? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Sort of; anarchism is simply the lack of gov't, similar to how Atheism is a lack of religion (sorry).
There are so many different forms and flavors of Anarchism though it's nearly impossible to define. Noam Chomsky has a really good essay on it IIRC.

Quote from: Dudeman on April 13, 2016, 09:38:55 PMI think the reason this occurs is that historically, Communism has almost always dissolved into authoritarianism (if you've got any good counterexamples, I'd love to hear them). I personally don't think that's gonna change any time soon, as patterns are pretty good indicators. But who knows. I'm waiting on a benevolent Communist nation to rise up and save the world any day now.

Well, there are really 3 non 3rd world countries that are communistic; these being Cuba, China, and North Korea. I think we can all agree North Korea is out of the question. China, while somewhat lightening up on the press and protesters in the last couple of decades, is still very much authoritarian and is ironically turning somewhat capitalistic in their economy (and is seeing a huge boom as a result, along with a lot of industrialization due to companies like Nike outsourcing their jobs there), thereby going against a truly Marxist state.
Cuba, unfortunately, I cannot speak about, as I'm not educated on. But my hunch is that the Castro brothers haven't loosened any kind of grip they've had.

I am convinced the further left you go on a two dimensional political spectrum (cartesian plane) the closer you get to a purely collectivist economy, or Communist economy, passing socialism of course.

Political spectrums aren't two dimensional, though. You can't associate liberal/conservative with libertarian/authoritarian, hence why most political compass markings will essentially look like a graph.
The placement of Communism and Fascism is also a tricky one, since they have more to do with the second spectrum than the first, and can happen under both extreme left and extreme right ideologies. Nazi Germany, for example, was a National Socialist (Fascist) regime, which was fairly far right but also at the same time provided things like universal healthcare and education for the "pure" race.

Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on April 13, 2016, 09:56:06 PMPolitical spectrums aren't two dimensional, though. You can't associate liberal/conservative with libertarian/authoritarian, hence why most political compass markings will essentially look like a graph.
The placement of Communism and Fascism is also a tricky one, since they have more to do with the second spectrum than the first, and can happen under both extreme left and extreme right ideologies. Nazi Germany, for example, was a National Socialist (Fascist) regime, which was fairly far right but also at the same time provided things like universal healthcare and education for the "pure" race.

Socialism and Fascism are two different things: Socialism is Collectivism (economic ideology)  whereas fascism is authoritarianism (social ideology).

Quote from: Dudeman on April 13, 2016, 09:38:55 PMI think the reason this occurs is that historically, Communism has almost always dissolved into authoritarianism (if you've got any good counterexamples, I'd love to hear them). I personally don't think that's gonna change any time soon, as patterns are pretty good indicators. But who knows. I'm waiting on a benevolent Communist nation to rise up and save the world any day now.

There's a small successful communist society somewhere in nocal iirc. It works out though because it's a small population, I don't think you could get people to cooperate in something as vast as a nation.

anarchy is collapse of government

Quote from: TooFarGann on April 13, 2016, 10:09:53 PMSocialism and Fascism are two different things: Socialism is Collectivism (economic ideology)  whereas fascism is authoritarianism (social ideology).

Once again, my friend, you're labeling things completely inaccurately.

Definition of socialism:
"a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole"
IE It's not a yes or no answer as to "are we a socialist nation". The question is, "to what extent?". We already have social programs like Social Security, Medicaid, NASA, etc..
"the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it."
Pretty self explanatory.

Fascism is closer to authoritarianism, but you forget that fascism is also typically paired with extreme nationalism, as we see in places like Nazi Germany.

Ok, here are my thoughts (expect typos, I'm using a faulty keyboard. -_-) on the A-bomb thing:

No, America was not justified in using the Atomic Bomb. It wasn't worth killing millions of lives, and forcing some populations to still deal with the effects of radiation. One of the biggest reasons America dropped it was to scare/impress the USSR. Truman was meeting with Stalin during the time to sign a treaty, and when he heard about the bombs being dropped, he upped the terms of said treaty in favor of America. He claimed hat I gave him more confidence. So, aside from USSR, why else did Truman decide to go ahead and drop the atomic bomb? Well, the Manhattan project was extremely costly, and so to avoid ridicule & being accused of wasting finances, Truman was more than willing to use them instead of keeping them stored away (for when they actually might've needed to be used). Also, what about the weapon itself? Why was the atomic bomb chosen? This is a simple, yet overlooked truth. Einstein didn't have the best idea. Tesla began his career actually working for Einstein, but when Tesla broke away and started to work solo, this angered Einstein. Tesla was tired of having his ideas taken and used to give Einstein glory, and that's what pushed him over the edge: the lack of recognition/honor/whatever you want o call it. Since Tesla had left Einstein, he decided to try and overpower him in status (similarly to how big companies will bully small businesses out of an area). During the time of WWII, Tesla had heard how the US (along with other nations) needed a weapon of (essentially) mass destruction, and so he set to work on the Death Ray, a device that shot a concentrated, charged stream of air at a target, and this would vaporize the target instantly. But this weapon had something more over the atomic bomb: the ability to be focused on a target. This alone should have sold the death ray over the atomic bomb. That, and they were reusable. As opposed to having only 2 A-bombs, the Death Ray could be shot repeatedly (after recharging, of course). Still, with Einstein seeking to destroy Tesla's career, he bullied him & his Death Ray to the point that his A-bomb seemed a much better weapon of mass destruction, and ultimately, brought about the downfall of Tesla. Had people listened to Tesla and not Einstein, that particular attack would have been radically different, and maybe even nonexistent.

Citation 1 (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7706-hiroshima-bomb-may-have-carried-hidden-agenda/>)
Citation 2 (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tesla/esp_tesla_2.htm>)

First of all, Tesla worked for Thomas Edison, not Einstein. Second of all, Tesla's work on his "death ray" predate WWII entirely. He reportedly began discussing such a device in the mid 30's. I'm also pretty sure he never actually worked on it, or at least never committed the idea to paper.

First of all, Tesla worked for Thomas Edison, not Einstein. Second of all, Tesla's work on his "death ray" predate WWII entirely. He reportedly began discussing such a device in the mid 30's. I'm also pretty sure he never actually worked on it, or at least never committed the idea to paper.

OK OK we get it, you don't need to post it twice.

OK OK we get it, you don't need to post it twice.

i lol'd

i lol'd

Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on April 15, 2016, 07:49:41 AMOk, here are my thoughts (expect typos, I'm using a faulty keyboard. -_-) on the A-bomb thing:

No, America was not justified in using the Atomic Bomb. It wasn't worth killing millions of lives, and forcing some populations to still deal with the effects of radiation. One of the biggest reasons America dropped it was to scare/impress the USSR.

Except the USSR was actually our ally during WW2 (further nullifying your claim that Truman was going to sign a treaty with Stalin; the Cold War didn't really take off until about 1947, almost 2 years after Hitler's death).
 

Quote. Einstein didn't have the best idea. Tesla began his career actually working for Einstein, but when Tesla broke away and started to work solo, this angered Einstein.

Not sure what you're talking about, given that Tesla was born in 1857 and Einstein in 1879.

QuoteTesla was tired of having his ideas taken and used to give Einstein glory, and that's what pushed him over the edge: the lack of recognition/honor/whatever you want o call it. Since Tesla had left Einstein, he decided to try and overpower him in status (similarly to how big companies will bully small businesses out of an area). During the time of WWII, Tesla had heard how the US (along with other nations) needed a weapon of (essentially) mass destruction, and so he set to work on the Death Ray, a device that shot a concentrated, charged stream of air at a target, and this would vaporize the target instantly.

Two things; as Maestro pointed out, Tesla worked for Edison, and the reason Tesla left Edison is because he felt he had been screwed over after a business deal.
Secondly, Tesla's "death ray" was only ever really written about. He wrote a treatise on it, but never dared to actually put the idea on paper, due to his fear of it being stolen.

QuoteBut this weapon had something more over the atomic bomb: the ability to be focused on a target. This alone should have sold the death ray over the atomic bomb. That, and they were reusable. As opposed to having only 2 A-bombs, the Death Ray could be shot repeatedly (after recharging, of course). Still, with Einstein seeking to destroy Tesla's career, he bullied him & his Death Ray to the point that his A-bomb seemed a much better weapon of mass destruction, and ultimately, brought about the downfall of Tesla. Had people listened to Tesla and not Einstein, that particular attack would have been radically different, and maybe even nonexistent.

Given that Tesla's weapon was A) never built  B) would most likely only fire pellets made of tungsten anyways, which would've been hard to manage at the time C) conceived AFTER Edison's death (the treatise was written in 1937, and Edison died in 1931), it's hard to verify your statement at all.

The last couple of posts:

..........


Hope you didn't turn that in -.-

Quote from: Ruto on April 15, 2016, 06:57:14 PMHope you didn't turn that in -.-

oh my goodness ruto it wasn't homework

Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on April 16, 2016, 12:57:40 PMoh my goodness ruto it wasn't homework

Yes, everyone should be glad it wasn't.

Everyone should vote for a third party candidate just to get rid of this stupid 2 party system in America.
Discuss.

what makes the 2 party system stupid

I say we have a government system called "governmentism" (I came up with it just now, you like?). It's where the government is led by actually competent people. And the candidates we elect are competent candidates that actually care about keeping that nation alive.

Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on July 05, 2016, 04:43:13 PMwhat makes the 2 party system stupid

The fact that both parties are completely corrupt. Candidates on both sides' respective establishments take tons of corporate money and Wall Street money. They answer to their donors, not the American people.

Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on July 05, 2016, 04:44:32 PMI say we have a government system called "governmentism" (I came up with it just now, you like?). It's where the government is led by actually competent people. And the candidates we elect are competent candidates that actually care about keeping that nation alive.

me like
In the words of George Carlin, "Let's replace all the gov't officials with mentally handicapped individuals, and sit back and watch things slowly improve."

Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on July 05, 2016, 04:44:32 PMI say we have a government system called "governmentism" (I came up with it just now, you like?). It's where the government is led by actually competent people. And the candidates we elect are competent candidates that actually care about keeping that nation alive.

I get the sentiment but that's wayyyy too simplistic a view

Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on July 05, 2016, 05:13:44 PMThe fact that both parties are completely corrupt. Candidates on both sides' respective establishments take tons of corporate money and Wall Street money. They answer to their donors, not the American people.

Is there any way we can just have a complete political purge and elect completely new people? :P People who are actually willing to change things to make it easier to crack down on corruption?

this dichotomy between "the people" and "the government" doesn't exist.

Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on July 05, 2016, 05:43:09 PMIs there any way we can just have a complete political purge and elect completely new people? :P People who are actually willing to change things to make it easier to crack down on corruption?

Yes; if we get an amendment either in the national constitution or in all the states' constitutions for publicly funded elections, thereby taking private interests out of the equation.

Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on July 05, 2016, 05:44:23 PMthis dichotomy between "the people" and "the government" doesn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Except it does. When the SCOTUS ruled that it was not only legal but an expression of the first amendment for corporations to be able to donate as much as they want to political campaigns, it was the nail in the coffin of our already corrupt government.
Tell me, if you're a politician, is Exxon Mobile going to give you several hundreds of thousands of dollars because they like your stance on abortion, or gun laws? No, they're doing it because it's an inherent "you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-yours" system.
Why else would someone like Hillary Clinton just happen to be for fracking, an inherently anti liberal idea, when that's the base she needs to appeal to desperately? Why else would she have voted for repealing Glass Stegall? It's simple; she's taken major money from the fossil fuel industry and Wall Street, respectively.
This is not a partisan issue; both sides are equally guilty when it comes to these kinds of things. This is why we haven't really had a liberal president for a long time. Bill Clinton was the start of a new kind of democrat; the centrist, pro corporate, pro establishment democrat.