/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12883187]

>Evolution is real
>Therefore, God isn't real

How can anyone listen to such a shortsighted fool? There's no reason god couldn't confer evolution on things he created.

[Anonymous No.12883204]

>>12883187
I see someone watched lauren chen's stream.

[Anonymous No.12883206]

He's a moron. What kills God is relativity, not evolution.

[Anonymous No.12883394]

>>12883187
Has Dawkins read Aquinas?

[Anonymous No.12883400]

>>12883187
God, can only be understood as an absolute necessary being, the ground and precondition of all being, it cannot be disproved in this manner. We exist. Therefore God, Holy Ghost and the Son (Jesus) exist.

[Anonymous No.12883413]

>>12883187
>no reason
Terrible reason

[Anonymous No.12883429]

>>12883187
>*pwns u*

[Anonymous No.12883430]

>>12883206
>what kills god is relativity

Do you know what relativity is?

Let me help you, relativity was the discovery that all matter affects all other matter depending on its position in space, therefore if you move an object it will change because it is affected by other sources of matter.

This does not affect God, God can continue to exist regardless. Or not exist depending on what you believe.

[Anonymous No.12883460]

>>12883400
There is a guarded,
malicious little rumour-mongering and whispering from every nook and
cranny. I think people are telling lies; a sugary mildness clings to every
sound. Lies are turning weakness into an accomplishment, no doubt about
it – it’s just as you said.’ –
– Go on!
– ‘and impotence which doesn’t retaliate is being turned into “goodness”; timid baseness is being turned into “humility”; submission to
people one hates is being turned into “obedience” (actually towards
someone who, they say, orders this submission – they call him God). The
27
First essay
inoffensiveness of the weakling, the very cowardice with which he is richly
endowed, his standing-by-the-door, his inevitable position of having to
wait, are all given good names such as “patience”, also known as the virtue;
not-being-able-to-take-revenge is called not-wanting-to-take-revenge, it
might even be forgiveness (“for they know not what they do – but we know
what they are doing!”).33 They are also talking about “loving your
enemies” – and sweating while they do it.’
– Go on!
– ‘They are miserable, without a doubt, all these rumour-mongers and
clandestine forgers, even if they do crouch close together for warmth –
but they tell me that their misery means they are God’s chosen and select,
after all, people beat the dogs they love best; perhaps this misery is just a
preparation, a test, a training, it might be even more than that – something that will one day be balanced up and paid back with enormous interest in gold, no! in happiness. They call that “bliss”.’
– Go on!
– ‘They are now informing me that not only are they better than the
powerful, the masters of the world whose spittle they have to lick (not
from fear, not at all from fear! but because God orders them to honour
those in authority)34 – not only are they better, but they have a “better
time”, or at least will have a better time one day. But enough! enough! I
can’t bear it any longer. Bad air! Bad air! This workshop where ideals are
fabricated – it seems to me just to stink of lies.’
– No! Wait a moment! You haven’t said anything yet about the masterpieces of those black magicians who can turn anything black into whiteness, milk and innocence: – haven’t you noticed their perfect raffinement,
their boldest, subtlest, most ingenious and mendacious stunt? Pay attention! These cellar rats full of revenge and hatred – what do they turn
revenge and hatred into? Have you ever heard these words? Would you
suspect, if you just went by what they said, that the men around you were
nothing but men of ressentiment? . . .

[Anonymous No.12883473]

>>12883187
Pretty sure the Vatican already takes that position

[Anonymous No.12883482]

>>12883394
I think he did, and failed miserably on an attempt to refute Aquinas. I could be thinking of someone else, but I'm fairly certain it was him

[Anonymous No.12883813]

>>12883187
One of the worst books I have read.

[Anonymous No.12883827]

>>12883187
Blame American fundamentalist retards that deny evolution

[Anonymous No.12883834]

I seriously don't understand why people try to separate science and theology. when I was still religious, learning about evolution, the big bang, and the age of the universe didn't affect my faith in the slightest; there's no reason not to believe that a deity inspired everything that science says has happened

[Anonymous No.12883845]

>>12883827
What? You are aware that not every scientist is even in agreement on evolution, right? It's still just a theory. It has a lot of issues to work through before it's considered a fact; and those issues are quite serious, might I add.

[Anonymous No.12883849]

>>12883187
It's been a long ass time since I've read that book but I don't remember him saying that at all.

[Anonymous No.12883850]

>>12883845
That's just straight up not true.

[Anonymous No.12883861]

>>12883849
I didn't read it. I just made that shit up and assumed he said it. You think I'm really going to waste my time actually reading a book just to insult it on the internet?

[Anonymous No.12883863]

>>12883845
>it's just a theory
Scientists don't use the word "theory" with the meaning of "hypothesis" the way people casually use it.

>In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that scientific tests should be able to provide empirical support for, or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[3] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which in formal terms is better characterized by the word hypothesis).[4]

[Anonymous No.12883866]

>>12883863
I never implied that they did. Certainly evolution has gone through quite an extensive process towards proof, but to say that it has without a doubt been proven, and that everyone is in unanimous agreement, would be false.

[Anonymous No.12883867]

>>12883845
gravity is also just a theory

[Anonymous No.12883871]

>>12883866
>it has without a doubt been proven, and that everyone is in unanimous agreement, would be false.
That's true of all of science. Evolution is not special in that regard.

[Anonymous No.12883878]

>>12883845
Ok so 99.9999% of scientists agree that evolution exists; saying "not every scientist agrees" means absolute dogshit.
It's been proven as much as the "theory of gravity" has been proven, scientifically speaking.

[Anonymous No.12883880]

>>12883878
Ah, yes; Just how 99.999% of scientists agree with global warming, right? Except that we know that it's nowhere close to that in actuality.

[Anonymous No.12883883]

>>12883827
This 100%

Modern anglophone atheism is a direct result of american protestantism. The mega-church cult of morons who are so illiterate in genuine understanding of spiritual, ontological, and theological systems it is a moral affront. Pea-brained bible-thumpers who use terms like "this pastor is really SPIRIT LED" (whatever the fuck that means) or "<enter named of shitty "worship" rock band> REALLY shares the GOSPEL and they truly have an ANOINTING." "Our church put the monthly tithes on the big screen (yes, protestants actually have projector screens in their church and 90% of the service takes place on it) and I was so impressed with how LED BY THE SPIRIT the congregation seemed to be due to how much money they gave" Shouting out "YES, LORD JESUS" after every fucking sentence when they say "grace" before a meal. These are all actually things I have heard the people I was raised around say.

I am disgusted by these people far more than any atheists. I have been at a loss for words at nearly every encounter with them. The banality of their worldview. The barefaced materialism. The anthropomorphizing of all divinity. The hostility to the sciences. The puerility of their spiritual understanding. The total absence of any philosophic finesse and the outright scorn for all tradition. It is disgusting beyond words. Then you have to add on top of this the bizarre cognitive dissonance of a flagrant superiority complex merged with a perpetual martyr-complex. It's unreal. The fucking people who watch "GOD'S NOT DEAD: 2" and actually consider it a legitimate theological statement or commentary WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY SCORNING THE WHOLE CORPUS OF THE CAPPADOCIAN FATHERS (that is of course, after you explain to them who the church fathers were and what they wrote).

They are spiritual impotence made manifest. They are hypocrisy in the nude. It really angers me to no end. God I hate them.

[Anonymous No.12883885]

>>12883880
Im going to assume you also believe that the earth is flat and vaccines cause autism, am i wrong?

[Anonymous No.12883886]

>>12883880
pack it up everyone, it's bait, no need to continue this discussion

[Anonymous No.12883888]

>>12883187
Only fedora tippers

[Anonymous No.12883892]

>>12883885
Are either of those even fundamentalist standpoints? You might be disappointed in my finding of both of those ridiculous

[Anonymous No.12883895]

>>12883880
What makes someone be like you? It's some sort of delusion? Do you always feel the need to think you know some secret knowledge and everyone else is being fooled?

[Anonymous No.12883913]

>>12883895
Secret knowledge? Definitely not. I probably know far less than a lot of people on this board when it comes to some topics. I'm just a little apprehensive when it comes to mainstream narratives, and actually do some research to try to find out what's actually going on, as everyone should

[Anonymous No.12883926]

>>12883913
Ah yes. The kind of research that involves buying in to obvious propaganda, just like anti-vaccine mothers.

[Anonymous No.12883929]

>>12883926
>im le rite because authority
kek

[Anonymous No.12883934]

>>12883880
Based

[Anonymous No.12883935]

>>12883929
I'm not saying that independent research can't disprove established facts, just that you're not smart enough to do it. The type you are is obvious.

[Anonymous No.12883940]

>>12883895
Imagine believing humans can actually effect the temperature lmao

[Anonymous No.12883951]

>>12883834
If omnipotent being really exists, who's to say that it couldn't have created the universe only <world's age according to Bible> years ago and set it up so it looks older?
Nothing can disprove the existence of a higher being. (Yeah I know it's a truism, but so many idiots simply don't get it.)

[Anonymous No.12883962]

>>12883940
why not? Also why the fuck do you people care so much about this? Why are some jebediahs so suspicious about this stuff? It's so weird.

If people treat it as true and it isn't. Well, nothing bad happens
if people treat it as false and it's true we are fucked.

[Anonymous No.12883984]

>>12883962
>Also why the fuck do you people care so much about this?
Because a small group of people have manipulated them to care

[Anonymous No.12883998]

>>12883962
You'd be right to be suspicious about something perpetuated for the purpose of having you live in fear. Especially if the people pushing the narrative are making billions off said fear.

"While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease" -Genesis 8:22 KJV

You have nothing to be afraid of.

[Anonymous No.12883999]

Evolution may be real, but the whole " man came from apes" part of evolution is pseudoscience at best.

[Anonymous No.12884003]

>>12883999
Man didn't come from apes, man is a form of ape. That's not pseudoscience, that's fact.

[Anonymous No.12884019]

>>12884003
Call us whatever you like. Just know that there's a damn reason why we developed tools, spears, clothing, jewelry and can grow long hair, and it's not because of "evolution".

[Anonymous No.12884023]

>>12884019
It's because we developed complex language and are able to transmit knowledge across long distances and down through many generations.

[Anonymous No.12884041]

>>12884023
How did man develop way faster than any other animal? Our intelligence is unmatched by every other species

[Anonymous No.12884050]

>>12884041
At least part of the reason we developed complex language was our very large brain for our body size. Once it developed our knowledge began to increase exponentially due to our increased ability to transmit it, through which we were able to create ways to even better codify and transmit knowledge, allowing us to speed up the process and discover better ways to codify and transmit knowledge quicker and so on and so on.

[Anonymous No.12884086]

>>12883845
Ironic you mention that considering evolution is the subject most scientists agree upon, even more than vaccines even though it should be higher considering its consequences.
https://www.pewinternet.org/interactives/public-scientists-opinion-gap/
Go ask any scientist or researcher you can find and almost all of them will agree upon evolution, and the only retards who deny it (like you) won't have a single proven argument on why they're right. Keep believing your own bullshit, brainlet.
Besides, explain why white people who lived in areas with less sun exposition have less melatonin compared to black people who were constantly exposed to it? Pretty convenient, huh?

>>12883834
Because science follows the scientific method, something you clearly missed while "studying" those subjects. Science doesn't disproves any god, but neither it proves their existence, therefore they're irrelevant and should not be considered while doing real science. *fedora tips*


>>12883998
Humankind has always fear illness and death, yet I don't see anyone making up conspiracy theories about death and illn... oh wait, they do, why do you faggots even waste your precious lives being so pathetic?
>"While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease" -Genesis 8:22 KJV
>What is an ice age?

>>12883999
Thanks to fire and the advantages it brought with it, even the greeks knew how relevant the fire was to humankind, plus what >>12884023 said.

[Anonymous No.12884092]

>>12883913
Does that research involve you writing a dissertation of some 100 pages on said subject? No? You only read wikipedia articles and news headlines from illegitimate sources? Have you ever read a textbook on the subject matter? While you're probably baiting, the people you're larping as should all get slapped simultaneously and told to shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.12884095]

>>12884041
Humans greatest advantage over most animals is that we transmit knowledge, humans still have primitive attributes such as classical conditioning and fight or flight responses, put a human with no prior knowledge in the wild, and he won't be so impressive.

[Anonymous No.12884105]

>>12884086
>explain why white people...
It's a minor form of evolution which is something altogether different from the unproven theory that humans descended from non-sentient creatures.

[Anonymous No.12884107]

>>12884105
I'm going to assume this post is bait and that someone that unironically dumb wouldn't frequent this board.

[Anonymous No.12884110]

>>12884107
That fedora is apparently blocking some of your vision.

[Anonymous No.12884111]

>>12884110

[Anonymous No.12884125]

>>12884111

[Anonymous No.12884126]

>>12884105
Retard
Evolution is all about small changes over a span of thousands to millions of years, my question wasn't inferring that this characteristic proves evolution, but rather that adaptation can still occur in complex being such as humans, color is not the only one, height, metabolism, genes, etc. are part of it. Racial differences are a fact and they're related to the ecosystem where they inhabited, proving you retards wrong on how evolution is wrong cuz "zmAl ShAng3s Cnt hApn in coMpEx b3iNgz"
Most animals are sentient, retard, humans are just on a whole new level thanks to fire and our communication skills. Animals such as apes can even show certain levels of emphaty and even Shakespearean levels of disdain.

[Anonymous No.12884171]

>>12884126
>Most animals are sentient
Animals will never band together and wage war, they will never invent philosophies or write books, or wear bones in their noses and ears, they will never evolve to know the wheel or carve the runes, or to skin another beast for its fur, they can only feel what they feel but will never know anything beyond something more complex than "I do this ------> I get fed". Some have higher capacities than others, yes, like how that stray cat likes to press against my leg for its own emotional reason despite the fact that there is nothing comfortable about my leg when compared to it. However, there is a line that no flesh and blood being other than humans has ever known to cross. But you may speculate the future of animals (as far as evolution is concerned) all you like, since it hasn't yet come.

[Anonymous No.12884178]

>>12884171
>Animals will never band together and wage war
Chimpanzees have done this though.

>will never know anything beyond something more complex than "I do this ------> I get fed"
Dolphins and Great Apes pass knowledge down through generations like humans do, just less efficiently.

[Anonymous No.12884194]

>>12884095
Other animals transmit knowledge aswell, this is not a valid point

[Anonymous No.12884196]

>>12883861
Imagine critiquing a book when you haven't even bothered to read it, fucking brainlet.

[Anonymous No.12884199]

>>12884178
>Chimpanzees
I'm aware that they, lions, wolves, and maybe ants are "pack" animals, this isn't comparable to human diplomacy, resentment, and tactical strikes beyond seeing the prey turn a blind eye.

>Dolphins and Great Apes pass...
Like what, where the food is? Where to migrate? How to attract females?

[Anonymous No.12884202]

>>12884199
>Like what, where the food is? Where to migrate? How to attract females?
Hunting techniques, how to use tools, language.

[Anonymous No.12884208]

>>12884202
Define "tools".
I know beavers make dams and birds weave nests. What do apes make? Or, okay, if they've been tested to use human tools, what have they done with them?

[Anonymous No.12884214]

>>12884208
How about you just go watch some animal documentaries? If you want interesting tool usage and complex communication dolphins are fascinating.

[Anonymous No.12884235]

Why would you need God or evolution? We have transcended both.

[Anonymous No.12884239]

>>12884171
Except that all that you just mentioned is basically a highly developed sentient
Why animals won't wage war? Or write books? Because we already beat them at that, only one creature can be as extremely sentient as humans, and we won that race already, i don't know what's your point with your post.
"They can only feel what they feel" Wrong, as I've already mentioned, there are several levels of how sentient a being can be, something you clearly are unaware of, human babies for the first months of their life can't comprehend that once an object is out of their sight of line, that object still exist, some animals don't have this abilities for the rest of their lives, some do.
You said that humans, according to your completely wrong idea of evolution, comes from non sentient beings, but later admit that animals have several levels of awareness, are you retarded or just baiting? Do you even comprehend what a sentient being is?

>>12884194
Not at the same level though, as I mentioned earlier, I'm aware some apes use tools to pick ants out of their nests, thus not invalidating my point, but actually proving how apes aren't so far from us. As I already mentioned, transferring knowledge is what gave us adavantage over other animals, not because we had this ability, but because fire enhanced this ability into a new level. This is why I said that greeks knew how important fire is to humankind, transferring knowledge alone is not enough for a species to advance as we did.

[Anonymous No.12884269]

>>12884239
>You said that humans, according to your completely wrong idea of evolution, comes from non sentient beings
No, I said at >>12884105 that this is an unproven theory. I absolutely do NOT believe that humans came from non-sentient creatures. Perhaps you're insinuating that I don't know the technicalities of what qualifies as textbook definition of "sentience" and we can get into that for a brief time, but there is a fundamental lack of awareness and logic in all beings other than humans that keeps them from ever accomplishing what a human has.

>fire
and even if animals knew how to make fire, they wouldn't know what to do with it.

[Anonymous No.12884273]

>>12883998
>using KJV
its clear you are completely uninformed

[Anonymous No.12884293]

>>12884239
Also my point with that post is that the huge gap between humans and animals is proof aplenty that there is no "descendancy" between us and apes. You or someone else had argued that "humans are a form of ape" and I expressed that I couldn't care less what he calls humans, but as soon as you say there is a biological descendancy between us and apes, that's where I laugh at you because there has never been any proof of that, and the enormous difference in progress between even mudhut-dwelling black people and apes is testament to the contrary.

[Anonymous No.12884643]

>>12883430
I was talking about relativity in philosophy (or more precisely, relativism—a distinction that's kind of pointless).

[Anonymous No.12885106]

>>12884095
we also have sweating(running long distance), exceptional throwing ability, great rhythm. we are exceptional in the wild too

[Anonymous No.12885111]

Well his take on organized religion is 100% correct though. Justify believing in your God and not another religion's God/s.

[Anonymous No.12885244]

Imagine falling for the biggest globalist meme. Kek.

>>12884293
Based.
>b-but muh piltdown man

[Anonymous No.12885303]

>>12884003
It is not a fact, if I can say so humbly. Lloyd Pye dispels it well in his Intervention Theory speeches and books. I'd suggest you to look into them, if you're open to new notions. The gist of it is that Genesis actually details the story of an extraterrestrial species coming to Earth and seeding humanity here by combining their own genetic material with the pre-existent ape species that were already here. Humanity, therefore, is a hybrid of a purely humanoid and purely ape species. I'm no scientist, but his science made sense to me at a basic level, and it was coherent in terms of connecting many scriptural and archeological details I researched on my own. Again, I might be wrong for thinking him correct - but please check out his work for yourself and form your opinions from there.

[Anonymous No.12885408]

>>12885303
Holy, based and Annunakipilled

[Anonymous No.12885423]

>>12885303
This is the only sane way to believe in evolution. His notion of the "Terraformers" can also account for the Cambrian Explosion, which is the biggest hole in a completely Darwinian view of reality. We're still left with the obvious question though, namely, if we were created, and everything else engineered and brought here from which evolution then did the rest: what is the nature of the Terraformers/Creators? Who made them? But it's pointless to even ask, given we know nothing about them. And they might be of higher-dimensions or something, given how long they've been at this project. Holy, this stuff is just mind-boggling.

[Anonymous No.12885456]

>>12883187
Watching Christians appeal not to Deism, but THEISM, to explain the emergence of all life on Earth, like the Cambrian Explosion, is the very worst part. They try to fit into their theology anything they can, regardless of whether it can gel with it or not. It just ruins the discourse at every level. You believe God created 100% of species, and let 99% of them go extinct, but also has supreme love for one kind, the human beings, who he similarly has never intervened to help when we were going through near-extinction events, and actually tried to extinct Himself through the Flood? Okay, makes sense. Yes, yes, we're part of a Divine Plan, I get it. I'm sure we just have to have faith, and wait it out.

[Anonymous No.12885472]

>>12885423
I am liking where this conversation is going, friends.

[Anonymous No.12885486]

>>12885303
I only recently learnt of it, but it's quite interesting to say the least.

[Anonymous No.12885493]

>>12885111
This is always where the worst, most short-sighted answers come out.

[Anonymous No.12885496]

They are trying to disprove a Protestant conception of God and the Bible, it's truly sad.

[Anonymous No.12885560]

>>12885496
Elaborate.

[Anonymous No.12885588]

>>12885456
Christian apologetics is quite difficult to watch. You end up feeling sympathy for them, more than anything else. They are thoroughly bound to their existing worldview, with seemingly no hope of moving beyond it regardless of what kind of evidence might appear in front of them.

[Anonymous No.12885682]

>>12883187
What percentage of biologists are estimated as Christian-creationists? Asking just for personal knowledge.

[Anonymous No.12887092]

>>12883482
Nah, you're right.

[Anonymous No.12887449]

>>12884643
Well it isn't pointless, seeing as there is a strong association between the theory of relativity and "relativity" instead of "relativism."

[Anonymous No.12887550]

>>12887092
>If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent.
Poor Dawkins. It must suck to read through the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and completely miss the glowy display of God's character in it.

[Anonymous No.12887697]

>>12887550
That's not really the crux of his argument, it's literally just an aside, and a well explored paradox in the christian mythology.

I don't see why you'd lean on the old testament god as some kind of counterpoint to that either. Not only does the story of sodom and gomorrah have nothing to do with a debate of god's all omniscience or omnipotence, but would actively disprove it. There's no point in an omniscient being sending its henchmen to search a city for a single good person other than as some kind of prank at their expense. God in the old testament is frequently written as a less than all knowing, and a frequently capricious and tempermental entity, far more resembling the gods of older cults the stories were taken from than the all mighty god of modern christianity.

[Anonymous No.12887830]

>>12887697
>the story of sodom and gomorrah have nothing to do with a debate of omniscience or omnipotence,
But it does. Before Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, Abraham asked God to spare the cities for the sake of a number of people living there. As God says "Okay" and Abraham keeps praying, he keeps lowering that number down. God rolled with this to show him what kind of character he is. Dawkins missed that by saying "But that means he can't change his mind", like God's some kind of robot that just does things because he appears to show confirmation on something. In reality, God is a "plans within plans within plans" being.

[Anonymous No.12887995]

>>12887092
Wow, Dawkins is an absolute hack. How do so many people take this guy seriously?

[Anonymous No.12888215]

>>12883400
Why

[Anonymous No.12888230]

>>12883430
>relativity was the discovery that all matter affects all other matter depending on its position in space,
retard

[Anonymous No.12888990]

>>12883187
>There's no reason god couldn't confer evolution on things he created.
It would be completely superfluous. It's like saying, after you understand how earthquakes are caused naturally, that God could be causing earthquakes. He could, sure, but there's no longer any reason to think so.

[Anonymous No.12889143]

>>12883187
Yesterday there was a thread about evolution here and there were so many people who neither understood nor believed in it. I thought /lit/ was smart, but you are just another kind of one sided pseudo-intellectuals who stare at shadows in a cave.

[Anonymous No.12889151]

>>12889143
Hmmmm. I think artificial selection is real and verifiable, I think natural selection is far from verifiable.

We all know academia has a bias, what if this atheistic bias is inherently based on falsehoods? I think this is the worry here.

[Anonymous No.12889162]

>>12883935
the established fact is that man made global warming does not exist
even nasa models show this
don't you mean climate change btw bub?

[Anonymous No.12889176]

Here is a pro tip: anyone making a claim in any direction with regards to god is a sensationalist looking for attention (or low IQ). It’s the oldest question since the dawn of consciousness...it will probably never be answered

[Anonymous No.12889181]

>>12889151
The theory wasn't developed by atheists. And it has been observed many times and it is consistent with genetic analyses and fossil findings.

But I am not here to prove one of the most basic theories of science that enabled most of modern medicine. I am here to complain about /lit/ being pseud. And thanks for making my point.

[Anonymous No.12889182]

>>12889181
Ah yes a moth will change colours and a bird will grow different shaped beaks.
But can a chimp write Shakespeare?
kys

[Anonymous No.12889187]

>>12889182
But seriously, get an education. If you are this uninformed about biology how bad must your education be in other fields of human knowledge?

[Anonymous No.12889204]

>>12889181
>most basic theories of science that enabled most of modern medicine
Heh.

No? The theory of natural selection has not helped modern medicine in the slightest. Learn the difference between artificial selection and natural selection please.

[Anonymous No.12889214]

>>12889204
>artificial selection and natural selection
You are using these words, but I don't think you know what they mean.

[Anonymous No.12889219]

>>12889214
Oh but I do. I've read the Origin of Species. Have you just read Richard Dawkins?

[Anonymous No.12889225]

>>12889219
Explain the significance of artificial selection in modern medicine.

[Anonymous No.12889229]

>>12889225
Ah, you first ;)

You explain the how the theory of NATURAL selection aids modern medicine then I will explain artificial selection. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.12889243]

>>12889182
yikes, that IQ

[Anonymous No.12889250]

It's curious how religious people conveniently retreat and use the unassuming definition "creator of the universe" when discussing god when the main issue with religion is all of the man made rules and assumptions for day to day life that they ascribe to this hypothetical being or energy

[Anonymous No.12889261]

>>12889229
I wanted to see you make a fool of yourself though.

The entire field of microbiology is based around the fact that organisms adapt to their environment. For instance the prediction of antibiotic resistance (which could not happen without natural selection) is based on the observation of evolution by natural selection in a lab environment which is used to develop models that then reflect what we see in the field.

[Anonymous No.12889277]

>>12889261
All of those things are artificial selection

>organisms adapt to their environment

This particularly is artificial selection if the environmental change is introduced by men.

For instance the 'black peppered moth' idea is completely artificial selection. It's misused frequently as an example of natural selection though.

Natural selection is more of an area of natural philosophy, as it were. It takes thousands of years, at least, under Charles Darwin's ideas. You should read his book, On the Origin of Species, because if you're going to be championing his ideas you should really know what they mean.

[Anonymous No.12889291]

I thought the worst thing about fedora atheists was fedora atheists. But then they spawned fedora Christians. And they converge in threads and real life. Painfully uncomfortable.

[Anonymous No.12889292]

>>12889277
We did not change the environment to cause those changes. Artificial selection is about causing changes that you want to see by artificially selecting for expressions that are closer to your preset end-goal.

Nobody decided to cause widespread smog to make the peppered moth change its natural camouflage coloration. Statements like this show me that you don't know what the terms mean that you are using.

And there is no reason why human made changes in the environment would have some magical property that causes changes in DNA while naturally occurring changes in the environment don't cause changes.

And I read the book, but I doubt you did. And if you did then I suggest picking up a book about the subject that was written in this century.

[Anonymous No.12889300]

>>12889292
>Nobody decided to cause widespread smog
I don't think the decision matters. It was introduced by humans, therefore not natural.

The idea of natural evolution just simply put is NOT observable. What you are describing is something entirely different, genetic eugenics or something of that nature. It may not be on a psychologically cognitive level, but society is collectively making the decision to spew gas into the air that kills the lifeforms.

It's like the Dodo. No one wanted to make the Dodo extinct, but would you really call what happened to them natural selection?

[Anonymous No.12889307]

>>12889300
>genetic eugenics
kek, you're so close, yet so far

[Anonymous No.12889324]

>>12889307
No it's right on the noggin.

And just think, if we are cultivating a foul atmosphere we are killing off all lifeforms that are sensitive to these changes and keeping alive the brutes. What message will this send to posterity. What message does this send to life in general?

See I think this whole artificial selection thing is very real. Down to the minutest details, we changed a vibrant moth into a colorless one, with the black peppered moth. We are looking at the wrong observational results. We are breeding color and life out of existence. Not even within our own race, but other animal's.

[Anonymous No.12889330]

>>12889324
It's how nature works you mong. The best adapted ones survive and outbreed the less adapted ones. And the most poorly adapted ones just die before they can reproduce.

[Anonymous No.12889333]

>>12889330
Of course, yes. And if they can't survive our smog-infested air that's their fault.

Thank god for 'nature'. I honestly cannot believe you are this retarded. There is a difference between factitious things and natural things.

[Anonymous No.12889346]

>>12889333
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/gene-found-controls-beak-size-darwins-finches

[Anonymous No.12889357]

>>12889187
not an argument
keep hurling insults, community c9llege drop out

[Anonymous No.12889385]

>>12889300
Are humans not a part of nature?

[Anonymous No.12889399]

>>12889385
Say your mom began excreting large amounts of methane gas from her rectum due to the insane amounts of anal sex she participates in.

Would we blame the planet's demise on your mother? Or would we blame the planet's demise on 'nature'?

[Anonymous No.12890023]

>>12887092
This pic causes so much butthurt and yet no one actually explains why it is actually wrong.

[Anonymous No.12890116]

>>12884105
Animals are sentient though. Have you ever interacted with a dog? Do you honestly think that they're just some automata?

[Anonymous No.12890140]

I first thought half the thread was baiting, then I realized I was on /lit/ and that you fucking mongoloids were actually serious.

[Anonymous No.12890281]

>>12885456
Well-put. Discovering the Cambrian Explosion made me a Deist, personally. Seeing Christians use it to justify their God is simply depressing, at this point.

[Anonymous No.12890305]

>>12883863
>responding to poor baits

[Anonymous No.12890311]

>>12885456
When you enter a domain with your conceptions already laid out for you, the conclusions you end up at will naturally be quite biased. And this applies to scientists as well, who still cling to the concept of "undesigned, blindly-evolved, etc" types of ideas when the Cambrian Explosion and our own genome show much to the contrary. I side with Pye too, like the earlier anons. Earth might just be some kind of cosmic zoo, as bizarre as that is to think.

[Anonymous No.12890459]

>>12883187
either evolution is true or the bible is true.

[Anonymous No.12890495]

>>12889300
Yes, you would call what happened to the Dodo natural selection. No reason not to.

[Anonymous No.12890502]

Determinism refutes all religion

[Anonymous No.12890571]

>>12884041
Your misconception is that there is an end goal to evolution. A species that lives now isn't necessarily "better" than a species that lived millions of years ago. A lot of species that died out due to drastic changes in the environment would probably do splendidly if you revived them today.

The human evolutionary line just happened to stumble onto a series of specializations that gave us a huge advantage over every other animal that lives today. But that doesn't mean we are the ultimate life form. Physically we are pretty weak for instance. Our ability to share and maintain knowledge and organize labor in big groups just blows everything else out of the water that nature has come up with. At least in the animal kingdom.

[Anonymous No.12890617]

>>12890502
No. Retard.

[Anonymous No.12890633]

>>12883400
>it just so happens that my particular strain of deity is the formless, nameless absolute ground of being

[Anonymous No.12890691]

>>12890571
>Physically we are pretty weak for instance.
There is not a single better endurance hunter on land than man.
I agree with your overall point but please use correct examples.

[Anonymous No.12890748]

>>12890691
I meant fast twitch muscle strength in particular, but okay you're not wrong.

[Anonymous No.12890894]

>>12885456
Deism is the only sensible option. Kind of pointless to "believe" in though, since we can't proceed any further with it.

[Anonymous No.12891116]

The Theory of Evolution itself is a strange one.
>The fastest prey get to live and reproduce thus making the next generation faster
>The strongest prey eat more and thus reproduce more.
Yet this doesn't account for somethings. Like how did organs evolve. Did some creature at some point develop a heart over time? Without a fully functioning system to support it, early evolutions of various organs would be useless and thus have no effect on survival of the fittest.
>Evolution supports instinct. Animals with the best instinct will live longer, nurture better young, or reproduce more.
And this means to say that instinct, a set of preprogrammed neurons hidden in the subconscious, was made through evolution? As in, all sentient life was eventually precoded down to the genetic level with nothing more than 4 chemicals mixed and matched to have advanced survival instincts?
>Mutations cause change in biology which leads to creatures surviving more or less, with the good mutations being passed on.
And yet all of these mutations are just convenient enough for survival, right? Yet none of these mutations can cause anything more than what's necessary for survival. Human sentience was a byproduct of evolutionary survival but what benefits could such sentience grant that this is the path the human evolutionary line took? The same one where hair suddenly starts to disappear because its not needed even if it proved beneficial to survival? The one where higher concepts like logical, reason, and kindness appeared despite just killing competition is more beneficial to survival at that evolutionary stage?

With how intricate, meticulously crafted, and intuitive existence is, nobody can convince me that divine design isn't real. There are delusions involved in religion, but Dawkins himself is deluded into thinking there isn't so much more to life than chance and happenstance. Whether heaven or hell are real is a separate debate, but evolution only reaffirms my belief in God.

[Anonymous No.12891135]

>>12891116
lol

[Anonymous No.12891141]

>>12891135
thx fampai

[Anonymous No.12891172]

>>12891116
Organs likely evolved out of different organelles that themselves likely evolved out of simpler structures that each served a purpose in giving the particular organism an edge in survival.

If it's capable of responding to its environment, it's capable of processing and potentially storing information. Organisms that respond better to their environment are more likely to survive. As organisms grow more complex, so too does the information present in them.

You're making a very common mistake in understanding evolution, which is putting it into teleological terms. These mutations aren't there to benefit the organism, they're just there and sometimes benefit the organism. Sometimes completely unnecessary, or even detrimental mutations can wind up passed on even though they had no benefit to the organism's survival.

I don't dispute that the divine is involved in nature, but the intricacy you observe is a product of a universe of laws progressing in a deterministic fashion, rather than the determined hand of a creator. You look at evolution's successes, but don't ask yourself about all of its failures; the countless bloodlines that died out for whatever reason.

Hell, consider cancer. One of the most fundamental processes of complex life, cell division, sometimes goes awry and causes the organism to die a horrible, painful death, sometimes very early in the lifespan of the organism. That doesn't speak to me of a perfect designer at all.

[Anonymous No.12891176]

This thread was moved to >>>/his/6416083