That Metal Show & Religion/Morals Discussion

For me it is kind of a slippery slope to a very liberal and metaphorical view of the bible. Like if I don't accept Adam and Eve as a literal story (which I don't) I'm not going to be accepting a lot of the other things as literal stories either (definitely not the flood). I don't really know where to draw the line. I suppose if I was to be a Christian I would believe that it is basically saying we all come into the world with natural evil inclinations and that our goal should be to go past them and do good things. Is heaven or hell real? I don't know but I suppose it wouldn't really matter...just live the good life and see what happens.

im gonna back out. this got way to confusing.

Axeforhire wrote:

I disagree with that completely. How does it completely disprove anything? So creatures have evolved. But total evolution hasn't been proven. Only microevolution. And that is a perfect explanation of how man came to be

How has total evolution not been proven?

It hasn't been proven, but the evidence is so strong that most people believe it anyways.

It's easier for you to say how it has been proven than for me to list all of the ways it hasn't been proven

There's no way to prove a theory completely. All the scientific method states is that a theory is "proven" as long as the evidence for it outweighs the evidence for any conflicting explanations, which, in evolution's case, it does. The evidence for evolution far outweighs the evidence supporting creationism (of which there is none).

I mean technically, the theory of gravity is still a theory. The theories governing nuclear reactions are still theories, even though in each case, they're universally accepted by those who have the understanding to comment on them.

oooh tough argument portrait......
i agree.

PortraitOfSanity wrote:

There's no way to prove a theory completely. All the scientific method states is that a theory is "proven" as long as the evidence for it outweighs the evidence for any conflicting explanations, which, in evolution's case, it does. The evidence for evolution far outweighs the evidence supporting creationism (of which there is none).

I mean technically, the theory of gravity is still a theory. The theories governing nuclear reactions are still theories, even though in each case, they're universally accepted by those who have the understanding to comment on them.

Creationism only states that there is a God that created people and other living things. You cannot disprove that. But you can prove evolution, at least on a micro scale, which has been done. I disagree that there is proof that every living creature has evolved from one, single celled organism. Which is the theory

a theory which has considerable evidence for it rather than against it, thus going along with portraits original statment

Proving microevolution, but macroevolution remains a theory with next to no supporting evidence other than the fact that microevolution has been proven. And there is no reason to assume that there is a correation between micro and macro evolution, since micro evoluton could be a result of passed on traits that came to be because of mutation. A fish isn't going to spontaneously mutate into a monkey. So since there is no proof for that, that cannot b justified

Axeforhire wrote:

PortraitOfSanity wrote:

There's no way to prove a theory completely. All the scientific method states is that a theory is "proven" as long as the evidence for it outweighs the evidence for any conflicting explanations, which, in evolution's case, it does. The evidence for evolution far outweighs the evidence supporting creationism (of which there is none).

I mean technically, the theory of gravity is still a theory. The theories governing nuclear reactions are still theories, even though in each case, they're universally accepted by those who have the understanding to comment on them.

Creationism only states that there is a God that created people and other living things. You cannot disprove that. But you can prove evolution, at least on a micro scale, which has been done. I disagree that there is proof that every living creature has evolved from one, single celled organism. Which is the theory

No. See this is what I mean. Creationism, in the Christian sense, states that God created the universe, the Earth and then mankind in "7 days". You can interpret "7 days" to mean whatever you want to, but the fact remains that creationism, at least in the Christian sense, does not hold water. There is absolutely nothing in the fossil record that would support this idea. There's even people who still maintain that dinosaurs went extinct because they couldn't fit onto Noah's Ark. You can twist it to mean whatever you want, but that's exactly what I'm talking about. If Christians interpret the Bible in a different way than the Church did 200 years ago, they're twisting their own beliefs to conform with, and not be disproved by modern science.

Axeforhire wrote:

A fish isn't going to spontaneously mutate into a monkey.

Besides the fact that evolution suggests nothing even close to this statement, there's plenty of evidence to support one species slowly, over a period of millions of years evolving into something completely different. Evidence have been found that the latest dinosaurs, including velociraptors (spelling?) and especially flying dinosaurs had feathers, and evolved into birds. Whales still have appendages near their tail supporting that they evolved from land mammals. I can go on and on here.

I'm interested in knowing where you get your facts, because the theory of evolution states that we all evolved from one, single celled organism. This shows that if we indeed came from a single celled organism, that there must have been a point where the cells reproduced two different cells. That's pretty much a microcosm of a fish giving birth to another fish and a monkey

South Park wishes to enter this conversation...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu45NZPMnNk

Axeforhire wrote:

I'm interested in knowing where you get your facts, because the theory of evolution states that we all evolved from one, single celled organism. This shows that if we indeed came from a single celled organism, that there must have been a point where the cells reproduced two different cells. That's pretty much a microcosm of a fish giving birth to another fish and a monkey

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?db=Books&rid=cell.section.61

That explains it better than I can.

We have a lot in common with other animals, more than you may think, and this happened over a huge period of time. We can adapt to our surroundings. No, a fish didn't randomly bore out a monkey.

Example: Giraffes have long necks because of trying to reach food high in trees.

Over generations a species changes slightly due to mutations and genetic mixing (sex). The direction of the changes over a long period of time is guided by natural selection. This is how changes in a species occur. How new species form involves the original species being separated into two or more groups in some way (there are many examples, a simple one being environmental separation). Say for example there were some animals that lived off of grass but competition for grass became very difficult so a small number found an area off a little ways where they could live on trees. They would not be adapted to this environment and so slowly natural selection would direct their mutations and genetic mixing and they would adapt.

Here is a really rough made-up example to show how something might work out.
Let's say we have an animal X. We'll hazardously slice the population into black and white, "good and bad" members. A more accurate example would use bell curves.
THE FACTS
Population is at 100%
Good Members: 51% chance of surviving and passing on their genetics.
Bad Members: 50% chance of surviving and passing on their genetics.
(We'll say part of our population ran off into a foreign environment because of all the competition in the regular environment. Also the trait here is something like size or neck length or something, not a brand new complex function. Those take far longer.)
10% good members, 90% bad members
First a test...
0.1 x 0.5 = 0.05
0.9 x 0.5 = 0.045
0.05 / 0.045 = 0.10 or 10%
Good, it makes sense. Now...
GENERATION 2:
0.1 x 0.51 = 0.051
0.9 x 0.5 = 0.45
0.051 / 0.045 = 0.11 or 11% (rounded)
88.666...% vs. 11.333...% (good vs. bad populations)

...

GENERATION 5:
76.09676548...% vs. 23.90323452...%

This is a horribly rough example but hopefully it paints the concept. If each generation lasts 20 years we'll say our good population doubles every 100 years (until the older members are completely gone of course.) It'll take we'll just say ~250 years (actually less) for our good members to take over. Remember they aren't THAT much better...just a measly ~2% better chance of being successful in passing genetics. Upon this change new ones will come. To give an idea...1,000,000 years / 250 years = 4000. And this is just a million years. We have different races in our species from separations that have haven't been in roll for very long at all, yet we are very noticeably different (not just in skin color...).

I'd like to point out that my rough example might even paint the picture too fast, but it's not really that important. Whether it is 250 years or 1000 years it's still a lot going on.

Also, a big part of evolution is, if we see species A evolve into species B, species C evolve into species D and so forth through the fossil record, we can assume that species X evolved from an unknown species Y, even though we may not have found remains of species Y, we can assume it existed at some point. If evolution from one species to another has been proven, you can assume that other species evolved as well, including when you don't understand how that evolution occurred, or from what.

How did this topic go from That Metal Show to Species A evolving into species b?

Cause we are awesome like that ^_^

True Dat, True Dat

Well I definitely agree and support evolution, but I am very skeptical of macroevolution. I think the fact that Giraffes have long necks is an evolutionary process, but I don't think there is any way we have come from single celled organisms, which turned into mutlicellular oganisms, which became swimming sea creatures, which became the HUGE abundance of diverse life that we have on earth. I think a species can adapt and evolve, but I don't think it could ever evolve, with any amount of time, into a new species altogether.

One example I, as well as many others, like to use is the monkey/man example. If we evolved, why is there still many types of primitive apes? Wouldn't they have, over time, evolved into something more intelligent and advanced?

Another big thing that prevents me from believing macroevolution is the fact that we are the dominant species. I mean, no other species haseven come close to being as intelligent as humans are. Humans do so much with society and invent things, and other creatures just use the small amount of things in their surroundings, like using a tree as shelter. Why is it that no other species has invented anything. Something to think about, I'd say

Stick a guy with a knife in a ring with a tiger and we'll see who the dominant species is. Other than intelligence, we're actually quite poorly evolved.

Axeforhire wrote:

One example I, as well as many others, like to use is the monkey/man example. If we evolved, why is there still many types of primitive apes? Wouldn't they have, over time, evolved into something more intelligent and advanced?

As real estate agents would say: location, location, location. They were adapted to their environment well enough to stay alive. There are different of species of monkeys, also.

Here is something that will make us know that some of us haven't evolved far from monkeys.

http://jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/evolution_is_stupid.htm

You're missing the point though. There are an abundance of people in Africa and an abundance of monkeys. Now granted much of the people there aren't very advanced, but they still look completely different and have much more intelligence.


Also, I'm not talking about physically. Physically humans are weaker than most animal species, but we are smarter and can develop weapons. Animals can't

Axeforhire wrote:

You're missing the point though. There are an abundance of people in Africa and an abundance of monkeys. Now granted much of the people there aren't very advanced, but they still look completely different and have much more intelligence.

Not much. It's a common stereotype, the black man who looks like the monkey.

Why do you think they're black, anyways?

Really I'd like to answer the question but it's just not a reasonable question. I'd have to make you virtually omniscient. You'd have to know the story of every single organism to know why X /didn't/ happen. A far more reasonable approach is to ask why it /did/ happen in our case, and then just take other cases one by one and you'll see each has a reason why it wasn't necessary.

And also there are cases of primates making and using tools.

Master Cthulhu wrote:

Axeforhire wrote:

You're missing the point though. There are an abundance of people in Africa and an abundance of monkeys. Now granted much of the people there aren't very advanced, but they still look completely different and have much more intelligence.

Not much. It's a common stereotype, the black man who looks like the monkey.

Why do you think they're black, anyways?

Ok, then why is there white man? Further more, how did a much more advanced white European man evolve from a black primitive man?

So that is kinda like saying black people were the first people, even though they were - and are - primitive. Since they never developed any form of travel and still live in a tribe based society, how did a large group of them go to europe, or asia? They certainly didn't swim there, become white, and then learn about stuff.

You understand the complete flaw with that? And I no you didn't say they were the first, but by saying they are the closest humans to the monkeys then they MUST be the first humans that evolved from monkeys, and that doesn't make sense

People were nomadic then. They walked because of the food they needed for survival.

I don't mean to be discouraging but really you can't approach evolution like this. If you have so many questions you can always study it for the rest of your life and get 10% of the details down. The fact remains there are millions of facts that affirm evolution and none that disprove it. There are no serious questions left, just details to be filled. If you have a specific question look around and someone will probably have a specific answer. For the details that haven't been worked out there are usually reasons why they haven't been worked out. You can figure out what those reasons are too. Evolution is like a program, not a database of supposed facts. It's something that is developed and confirmed with each new observation. If there was a big gaping question to be answered that would be one thing, but a lot of this is just details you can look up online or details we don't know yet but simply because of "technical" challenges, and I could be specific about what I mean by that (ex: punctuated equilibrium and the fossil record).

So you're saying nomadic africans were the first people, and they decided that they wanted to walk to Europe?

I mean it's possible, over thousands of years, but history shows us that the africans were not nomadic. Only those who lived in northen africa were nomadic because they lived in the desert, but I don't see how they just went to europe and became white

Ok, then here is my question. How did the universe start? There must have been a first something.

The first "something" is the last bit of the puzzle, really.

Yeah, we haven't found that out yet.

Furthurmore, what created God, if he created the universe? Yeah, yeah, I know. He's been here forever.

The whole thing is just an unending cycle of what created what.

See that's thing. There is no theory, that's why I think intelligent design is the way to go. I mean, it can't be proved or disproved, but I don't think aliens came down from a different universe and made the first single celled organism.

Plus, the way I believe it, is if there is a God he is the beginning and the end. For me, that means he stared everything, in a way we cannot comprehend

Okay I can say what I know about that.

Could have been God.

Could have been a void that split into positive and negative energy due to uncertainty. Mathematically speaking it would be like...
-x + x = 0
It's very abstract.

It might have been something to do with a different take on cause and effect. I've entertained the idea that cause and effect are the manifestation of limits on possibilities (our universe being a place with very limited possibilities on the macro level, and for good reason, life can't exist in chaos, but chaos can exist on the quantum level and not bother us).

And probably the most common answer: I don't know.

Now you're just being a damn fool. I'm not saying it's factual, but I'm saying it's plausible. Just like a flying spaghetti monster is plausible. You'd be a fool like that Richard Dawkins piece of shit if you tried to disprove it

And here is food for thought:
Who created God?
No one, God was eternal.
So why does God exist?
He just does.

Who created the universe?
No one, it just is.

I don't find either of these very satisfactory though.

Also there is no answer to the question of fine tuning currently, but God and the multiverse are possible answers (both would work). Another possible answer is that things are fine tuned for some fundamental reason (that they have to be the way they are).

If i'm a fool for believing in God then I'm a fool

I'm just saying that just because one theory is unproven, it doesn't make another one right.

There are deniers of God and questioners of God. I'm just questioning and putting out all the pros and cons I know of.

I'm not saying mine is right, I'm saying all of those douchebag scientists with no friends who try to disprove religion are all wasting their time because it can't be done. Instead, those asswipes should be trying to learn more about the evolutionary process rather than making sensible people who would kick their ass hate them, since they're old f***ing twig-boys who got their ass kicked on the playground as children

And just so you know I'm not talking about you guys, I respect you guys fully, but man those scientists like Dawkins are f***ing nutcases. I watched this fantastic interview with him and his theory was seriously "aliens came to earth and created animals". "Well who created the aliens?". "Well, other aliens created those aliens."

He would rather sound lik a f***ing moron that admit that God could exist

I honestly think you might be getting the wrong idea. That movie is a piece of propaganda whether one agrees with the message or not. I'm sure Dawkins was talking about meteorites colliding with the early earth. You might not like him and what he has to say but he studied evolution for a very long time. No one really spends there life at something and then misunderstands something a one year biology student knows about. I disagree personally with Dawkins about some of his statements and approaches to issues but that movie isn't a good source for anything really.

How is it propoganda? You don't even know the movie I'm talking about sir.

It's called "Ben Stein Expelled", and he seriously sits down with Richard Dawkins and asked him how the universe began, and he theorized that we came from aliens. I want to see a movie in support of total evolution so I can compare them, but he looked like a damn fool. Another scientist, his name escapes me, theorized tht somehow a crystal or something had a single celled bacteria on it or something and it somehow mutated into a creature. I didn't understand his theory at all. But the film was basically abut how anyone who mentions intelligent design as a possible way the universe was created gets fired from their jobs at major universities. I don't see how that's propoganda, considering it's not from the government or spreading any lies at all

Lets take a look at religious extremists. They are no better than scientists being douchebags.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/
http://www.godhatesfags.com/

And those are just the Christian ones. The Muslims are ten times worse.

^I would probably believe the aliens before I believed that an almighty being that said we should be created, and were.

Yes, but I'm not supporting the religious extremists. I'm suppoting myself and the real religious people who aren't asswipes.

You seem to be supporting these scientist, all though I'm not sure. Either way you cannot disprove religion and there is no reason intelligent design should not be taught as a possibility. I mean it's basically just mentioning to students that science can go hand in hand with religion.

And trust me, I've taken numerous science courses and I understand what I am talking about

To sum it up:

Science can't be proven, religion can't be proven, and they can go hand-in-hand.

/thread

Yeah I saw the movie and I remember the interview with Dawkins specifically. It's propaganda because it omits tons of details and it was so void of substance that a large amount of the video was specifically focused on social darwinism which is...which is...

And as for the people who were fired...
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth