/sci/ - Science & Math

Firstly, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. That's called abiogenesis. The ToE talks about how already existing lifeforms change under the influence of (primarily) natural selection.

>>>/b/388968849

Original thread in /b/

OP bump with art

The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life, it does not have anything to do with the origin of life. (Some theists are perfectly happy to conclude that some sort of God started life, and then evolution took its course and the animals and plants diversified)
Despite what most people think, the theory of Evolution and a Belief in God are not mutually incompatible.
You can accept both.

The truth is that we are not completely sure how life originated, but you might find this interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

>>4502659

The theory of evolution has been scientifically observed among flies and bacteria. Richard Lenski started with pure colonies of E. Coli, and through continued multiplication, mutation, and environmental forces one strain of the E. Coli was able to utilise citrate as a nutrient, out-performing all other bacteria and eventually replacing them.

>>4502659
Abiogenesis has never been proven - and does not seem logical to me. Let me clarify that I believe in microevolution in species but have never seen one example of chromosomal transitions or "macro evolution" examples. And I believe they are related because I want a dialogue that extends beyond one theory - I wan't to leave this thread, hopefully, with a new paradigm on life. And natural selection does not seem fully logical, though I will affirm it's partially logical. I don't believe the genetic material of tissue could produce the kind's of highly intricate anatomies it's produced with such an arbitrary "cop out" card as "natural selection". I believe their is another dimension to the processes our species has yet to realize because we are still in our infancy in terms of collective development

>>4502676
Macro evolution is just micro evolution over a far longer timescale.

>Let me clarify that I believe in microevolution in species but have never seen one example of chromosomal transitions or "macro evolution" examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy-number_variation
It even happens in humans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisomy

>>4502676

>>4502662
Yeah I suppose you could say I'm deistic in the sense that I believe their is a higher consciousness that is intertwined with the deepest most elementary aspects of the universe but beyond that I reserve a stance.
So what about Darwinian Evolution? can anyone give me a single example of chromosomal transitions? I would really like to know.

>>4502676

"Let me clarify that I believe in microevolution in species but have never seen one example of chromosomal transitions or "macro evolution" examples."

Microevolution and macroevolution work by the same mechanisms. It's like saying you believe in the "microgrowth" of trees, but don't believe an acorn can grow into an oak.

And as for the macro evolution, in the Richard Lenski experiment, E. Coli can be partially identified by the nutrients they absorb. When the new mutation that allowed the bacteria to absorb citrate appeared, technically they weren't actually E. Coli anymore. Would that count as macroevolution?

>>4502697
this is not an accurate depiction and thats my problem with it. microevolution cannot eventually accumulate to become a macroevolutionary leap because of the fact that chromosomes are set in place, like a genetic source code. the whole issue is with chromosome count and how a count of say 42 could leap to 44 (disregarding genetic damage like XXX syndrome in humans or down syndrome)

>>4502704
the mechanics are similar but how do you account for chromosome count and the fact that they do not change. you can't have 45 & 1/16th chromosomes. It's not as fluid or subtle as microevolution. It is not accurate to say that microevolution eventually is macroevolution.

>>4502711
Did you read my links?
Chromosome nummber is not 'set in place' there can be variation.
Chromosomal number is free to mutate just like the information in the chromosomes can mutate. It is not magically immune from mutation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication

Sometimes a gene will duplicate, and then these 2 identical genes sometimes evolve independently and provide a new function. In this way new 'information' can be added to a species genome, which explains how increased complexity can arise.

>>4502715
>It is not accurate to say that microevolution eventually is macroevolution.
If you accept that microevolution is possible (small changes to the genome resulting in small changes in a species behaviour or aesthetics) Then surely you must understand that if small changes can happen in a small amount of time, over millions of years there is goingto be a lot of change, and what you end up with is going to be very very different from its ancestor millions of years ago.
This would be seen to be macroevolution.
The mechanism is exactly the same.
The difference is timescale.

>>4502733
hmmm Im about ready to accept it right now but still I must pry - what then is the specific underlying process that fluidly pushes chromosome count to rise? I get that the timeline is the key factor to account for but still there must be an example - a CONCLUSIVE example of some underlying protein or some underlying code that changes chromosomes. now I understand what you said and I agree - Im just asking - is their a split second when the chromosome rises in a newly born member of a "new species" or am I wrong about chromosomes and can you actually have a 44 and 1/4th chromosome?

bump.

>>4502740
You can not have a fraction of a chromosome, (they are all whole chromosomes but they can be different lengths)
Chromosome count is free to mutate, it happens quite rarely, and in most cases the mutation will not have an affect (you might end up with 2 copies of the same gene, the second copy is redundant, but harmless) But this provides a means for the extra gene to be able to mutate without losing the other copy and harming the individual, leading to the potential for a new function, and added complexity.
Keep in mind that a high number of chromosomes does not always mean that the species is more complex.
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while a particular fern has over 1000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophioglossum

>>4502750
It seems like the rationale for macroevolutionary development is based in this assumptions that spontaneous changes in DNA rarely occur - as opposed to some systemized process where the "goal" was to develop even further. this is just as logical as natural selection - only this seems less directionless. I don't believe life is as directionless as the affirmation of random genetic events proposes. thoughts?

>>4502765
Im sorry that was a little vague. what I mean to say is that it seems as if the basis for this is not even in some system or systematic process (which science seeks to illuminate and infers it's existence, in the interest of logic) but rather in the affirmation of chaos and randomness, which is illogical. It basically proposes that something so intricate, so systemized as the development of life is based on the directionless and unreliable occurence of genetic damage. I've even heard the pathetic "radiaton" argument used seriously. possibly some form electromagnetic wave sparked something down on earth, but there has been little evidence for that. I need a better basis than chaotic genetic damage occurs

>>4502765
It is not directionless.
Natural selection means that the animals that are best equipped to survive and breed are the ones that pass on their DNA.
If an individual is born with a severe mutation, and is born blind, then they will be less likely to survive (without help, at least) because they will not be able to avoid predators, or find food.
Mutations that cause a negative effect are bred out, because they negative affect directly causes the individual to be far less likely to breed.
Similarly, advantageous affects are likely to be passed on, because you will be more likely to breed.
So if you evolve to be very strong, and a good survivor, and also have mutated to be more attractive to the opposite sex than your predecessors, your chances of surviving and reproducing massively increase, and the genes that caused these advantages to manifest are what is passed on, so your children also have this advantage, and the 'good genes' spread, while the bad ones die.

>>4502765

All mutations are directionless. Here is how it works: (In simple terms)

> Mutation
> Interacts with environment
> Harmful?
> If yes, dead. If no, continue down.
> No real change?
> If yes, reproduce and spread the benign mutation (which will eventually mutate again.) If no, continue down.
> Beneficial change?
> Reproduce that shit everywhere.

first learn babby physics and chemistry, then take an ochem class and biochem class

self replicating molecules aren't too complex and its almost spooky how from fundamental physics these molecules piece themselves together and can then replicate. once you have self replicating molecules all bets are off, given billions of years you will get evolution.

>>4502775
>>4502772
haha good answers, but the fact that their are two opposing positions STILL is why im unsure. and I view natural selection as a directionless entity.
>>4502783

1. I still believe their are higher processes that are more intelligent than a loose system based in the arbitrary continuance of body after body, life after life, sex and death.
2. Now I dont mean to go all esoteric on you but - how, within the context of physical evolution, do we understand the more cerebral or spiritual dimensions of our being?

>>4502802

We may not understand their processes, but we understand the need for them.

For instance, love is a way of protecting your siblings/parents, and your siblings and parents share half your genetic payload each.

>>4502802
Regardless of how "directionless" natural selection is, it's exemplified everywhere. "Strong" beings are less likely to die and more likely to fuck each others brains out than "weak" beings, which ideally won't breed and accordingly not be involved in the gene pool any further.

@ Bro who is wondering about chromosome counts. I was wondering this too given that we generally think of altered chromosomes as retards or terminated sometime during term.

The thing is when you think of that, you're generally thinking of a -full- extra copy or -full- lack of a chromosome, which yeah, is bad news bears.

The way chromosome numbers can change by avoiding that is by having an error somewhere along the chromosome that makes it split at a point. All the 'files' are still there in right amount, they're just sorted slightly differently. Generally your body can still use it, but you have a different count overall, possibly with fertility problems when breeding with people with normal chromosomes. Now what happens when this error happens to survive in a population. The 'new' type has fertility problems with the 'old' type, but actually breeds fine with other 'new' types that have the same error. Follow this train of thought far enough and you get speciation.

>>4502802
> but the fact that their are two opposing positions STILL is why im unsure. and I view natural selection as a directionless entity.

Evolution truly is a scientific fact. Anyone who takes the time to learn about it in depth will very easily be able to convince themselves of its veracity.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=observed+instances+of+speciation

Unfortunately, the reason there is still 2 sides to this is simple ignorance.
Those who do not know about evolution, and usually do not have the will to research it because they have already made up their minds, and do not wish to research the evidence.

>>4502802

all your bullshit about "higher" processes breaks down when you look at the order of animals that live today. is there a soul in an insect? a dog? a jellyfish? it's stupid.

>>4502831
you have a misconception about my opinion. I believe in a fluid reality. I said higher processes because of rational rejections of things I find incoherent. and I believe their is a conscious essence in even the energetic frequencies around us. this is not bullshit, it's an opinion based on my own observations. you dont have to agree with me.

>>4502829

>>4502866
...Something you wanted to say?

>>4502829
Then I will be joining you soon. I just wanted to be sure rather than jumping on either the -
anti-evolution bandwagon, or the pro-evolution bandwagon
just want to go where the truth takes me

>>4502866
>this is not bullshit
of course it is

>>4502873
Tell me why. your claim is just an emotional stance your taking on it. it's a rational belief

>>4502871
Clearly you have the will to research it, and you are keeping an open mind, asking for evidence, and not jumping to any conclusions.
This is a very good way of thinking, and separates you from people like creationists who are close minded and unwilling to learn.
:)

>>4502875
It's not rational, it's just belief

>>4502866
>and I believe their is a conscious essence in even the energetic frequencies around us.

Please elaborate.

>>4502882
Please, don't

>>4502882
I believe all life is a vessel of a basic consciousness that exists in all things. I believe when we die, we rise into something more. your right it is just a belief. It's not something I spread because I couldnt win in a debate because it deals with issues to far beyond our species tools to analyze. I base this belief in my own contemplation and perceptions of reality itself. I reject the notion that our brains, our intellects are the producers of consciousness, but rather the transmitters of it. Our personalities are kind of the result of physical vessels interfacing with and housing a basic being. Also I've accepted this because of some bizzarre experiences I've had which confirmed that it's not as crazy as it sounds. Once I was nihilistic and believed in some incoherent affirmations like that true chaos exists and things like this but I have sinced learned otherwise.

>>4502890
I am tempted to link this to /v/ just to harvest reaction images.

>>4502897
Do it. why is /v/ notorious for disagreeing with shit like that haha

>>4502903
my opinion > your opinion

Essentially. And while I don't agree with you, it's un-falsifiable, as you say. So I can't do anything about it.

Also why is Harriet being helpful today? Usually seems a little annoyed.

>>4502909
Harriet has anti periods. While normal women get pissed as shit once a month Harriet get's mildly happy once a month.

>>4502910
hahahahah

>>4502909
>Also why is Harriet being helpful today? Usually seems a little annoyed.
Actually I usually never get annoyed, I am extremely easy going. Seeing as all you see is the text I write, you interpret the tone yourself, perhaps you get it wrong.

I sometimes sage unscientific threads, but the sage does not imply that I am annoyed, it just means that I do not think the thread should be there and it does not deserve a bump.

>>4502890
> like that true chaos exists
Even in simple mathematical systems (systems of nonlinear differential equations) describing biological and chemical processes chaos can arise quite readily. Showing that this is relevant in the real world is another point however.

>>4502923
Yeah it is the tone. And sage doesn't really work on boards as slow as /sci/. Not that I can stop you. It's just that this board is too far gone for proper 'etiquette'. We get a decent thread maybe every few weeks, and even then it's likely ALIENS. Or some fool/troll links an article about weed or race or IQ from the Daily Mail and everyone gets mad.
It's a shame that the inhabitants of this board generally have a very specialised range of knowledge. The lack of overlap makes discussion so difficult without proper reading. Kinda flies in the face of the casual discussion aspect of the site.
Damn shame.

I read in sime previous posts that abiogenesis is not proven. But this is only in part true.

Abiogenesis is high likely and most probable. Early earth was a perfect bioreactor, a perfect uterus.

>>4502927
>>4502927
I disagree. science is based in logic. Science and math infers reason and logic. It is self affirming. Science is based in the basic affirmation that their is order in the universe. Any affirmation that believes in a lack of a structure, either affirms lack of existence or is an unscientific concept to begin with, which means it is an incoherent concept. True chaos is incoherent. even the messiest, most highly complex systems are coherent and have design. everything is bound by these rules, they are the fundamentals of reality. And mathematics, though rational, is only reflective of human understanding, not reality. I would argue that any example of chaos in mathematics is simply a gap of understanding, where it delves into a system so complex, it has yet to be analyzed and explained.

>>4502950
>Science is based in the basic affirmation that their is order in the universe.

What sort of order are you talking about?

>>4502950
>True chaos is incoherent. even the messiest, most highly complex systems are coherent and have design. everything is bound by these rules, they are the fundamentals of reality. And mathematics, though rational, is only reflective of human understanding, not reality.
I don't think you know what chaos is. I won't go into the deep mathematical definition, but practically it comes down to this: very small changes in begin conditions of simulations of nonlinear systems result in very large changes in outcome. If you repeat your calculations the same outcome arises (which is different from the popular definition of chaos).

>I would argue that any example of chaos in mathematics is simply a gap of understanding, where it delves into a system so complex, it has yet to be analyzed and explained.
Not really, we know a lot about chaos and why it arises in these systems.

Science isn't absolutist. Scientists assume that everything is predictable and explainable by mathematics, but that doesn't mean it's within our reach. This is also visible in quantum mechanics, which heavily relies on probability.

>>4502982
which affirms my position that scientific constructs, though reflective of reality, will always be incorrect to some degree. probability is an excellent tool but existentially, I know it's not the mechanism that ACTUALLY occurs. which is where people get confused. some people really believe probability is the actual force that exists as if it were demonstrated accurately. It is an accurate tool, but not a force. a tool to get around our own ignorance to the function as best we can

>>4502982
>
>I would argue that any example of chaos in mathematics is simply a gap of understanding, where it delves into a system so complex, it has yet to be analyzed and explained.

I think what he was referring to was the inability of us to predict emergence from complex systems because of our limited understand of the variables of the initial conditions, which leads to an eventual display of "chaotic information"

>>4503003
So I am. I concede. I was under the impression of the traditional definition of "chaos" not mathematical "chaos" which is based in imperceptible mathematical order.

>>4503008
however I don't concede the point about natural selection. I find plausiable, but highly incomplete. and I doubt abiogenesis based on lack of conclusive evidence. I dont reject it because it's making a stance on an ignorance of mine, but I doubt it highly. seeding makes more sense honestly.

>>4502890

>some bizzarre experiences I've had which confirmed that it's not as crazy as it sounds

Could you elaborate on these?

>>4503030
What about natural selection are you doubting? Are you doubting that it occurs? Or are you doubting that this is intentional?

>>4503030
>seeding
Sorry, but what is "seeding" in this context?

>>4503047
I think he means some higher order made life and allowed it to diversify or some such.

Evolution really is quite simple. See if you agree with these findings.

1. Members of a species differ from each other.

2. Different qualities imply different success in producing offspring (or fitness is based on the qualities of the individual).

3. Qualities are hereditary. (and new qualities can arise through random mutations)

From these it follows that some qualities (those that raise fitness) will become more common and some will not. Also species adapt through random mutations, as is now known.

If you accept all of these points, congratulations, you accept evolution. (Modern theory of evolution is much more complex than this though, but the basic principle is the same).

>>4503047
"seeding" as in evolution took place elsewhere in the universe, with a complete fossil record, and then somehow, via conscious implantation or by a comet or something, life migrated to earth. at least human life. again it's just a stupid theory. who the fuck knows
>>4503046
I doubt that it is the sole driver of evolution or development. It seems to directionless, and arbitrary. I feel as if maybe radiation from celestial bodies, or some design to nature we're overlooking also interacts with it. that's all. not evidence I'm debating - just some aspects to the position being taken. I think if anything natural selection is apart of a more coherent process
>>4503040
I dont advocate my belief because I dont care if its believed by anyone but me. however, you asked so i'll tell you why I do. I've experimented with certain metaphysical/cerebral/chi based things and have proven to myself, based on experience, and my own circumstantial evidence that I had to accept the existence of such forces. I reject all dogma surrounding it though, I believe many paradigms are partially correct about these things, but none are fully correct. I also had a woman I met once predict the death and suicide of a family friend to the night of its occurrence and the circumstances of my sister's birth. again I know I'll get shit for typing this but this is actually why I say this. I aknowledge it's all unprovable. and that circumstantial evidence is not conclusive evidence, but I am not so stupid as to reject personal experience and amount it to nothing. but you can disregard this if you want. we will also disagree

>>4503052
>I don't know the origin of life.
>Clearly, life is the origin of life.
wat

>>4502997
>probability is an excellent tool but existentially, I know it's not the mechanism that ACTUALLY occurs. which is where people get confused.
Let's take an electron in a molecule. It has positions were it is more likely to be (near a more electronegative nucleus for example), but it is IMPOSSIBLE to predict where it is at one time. It could be very close to the molecule, but it could theoretically be millions of kilometers away, even though that has very a very very very low probability. Whether it is at one position at one time is something that can be argued for and against, physics doesn't give the answer.

Have you looked into the heisenberg uncertainty principle?

>>4503003
Exactly.

>>4503030
You are free to believe in spirits and whatnot, but that's not science. Science can give lots of explanations for natural selection.

You could see evolution like this:
1. Through reactiveness of molecules a self-replicating ("living") entity that is closed off from the environment arises (a cell). Possibly using RNA (there is still a lot of research in this field) as both the genetic material and as catalyst (RNA enzymes).
2. Due to mistakes in the copying of RNA new RNA enzymes arise that are capable of the manufacture of proteins, which gives benefit to the cell because proteins are far more versatile (especially in their enzymatic functionality).
3. Proteins more and more dominate cells and soon protein enzymes arise that create a DNA based mechanism, which gives benefit to the cell, because DNA is a more stable carrier of genetic information than RNA.
4. Multi-cellular organisms arise through again added benefit.
5. New multi-cellular organisms arise through genetic mutation, some stay alive because of added benefit, some die because of a lack of benefit in their mutations.

>>4502890
>I believe all life is a vessel of a basic consciousness that exists in all things.
Why?
>I believe when we die, we rise into something more.
Why?
>It's not something I spread because I couldnt win in a debate because it deals with issues to far beyond our species tools to analyze.
Or it's rediculous and there's no reason to think it's anything but silly.
>I base this belief in my own contemplation and perceptions of reality itself.
You're the only person that must be able to perceive reality as it truly is, then. Surely, your genius and novel ability to contemplate the universe has yielded, through understandable and conveyable transitions of thought - some measure of how things really are.
>I reject the notion that our brains, our intellects are the producers of consciousness, but rather the transmitters of it.
Astounding. Please, share with us the means by which you arrive at this miraculous underpinning of the foundation of our perception of ourselves! What implications does this have for our understanding of the universe we inhabit?
>Our personalities are kind of the result of physical vessels interfacing with and housing a basic being.
Please tell us the source of this being, and how that "basic being"s nature is changed, or changes the physical shell that it inhabits!
>Also I've accepted this because of some bizzarre experiences I've had which confirmed that it's not as crazy as it sounds.
Excellent! As soon as these experiences are shared, we can start applying them to scientific rigor to prove your theory is not "as crazy as it sounds".
>Once I was nihilistic and believed in some incoherent affirmations like that true chaos exists and things like this but I have sinced learned otherwise.
I'm eager, myself, to move beyond such petty concepts as an illusory consciousness arising from electro-chemical components!

>>4503063
yeah that theory's got some wholes in it too.
but still who knows.

>>4503062
>I doubt that it is the sole driver of evolution or development. It seems to directionless, and arbitrary.
This all happened on a scale of 100's of millions of years. Don't forget that.

>>4503062
>I doubt that it is the sole driver of evolution or development.
Do you have reasons for your doubt beyond personal feelings?

>It seems to directionless, and arbitrary
Why does natural direction seem directionless and arbitrary to you?

Just curious.

>>4503062

>"seeding" as in evolution took place elsewhere in the universe, with a complete fossil record, and then somehow, via conscious implantation or by a comet or something, life migrated to earth. at least human life. again it's just a stupid theory. who the fuck knows

But that's strictly, mathematically less likely than life just originating on Earth.

P(Abiogenesis on Eath ∧ Earth is hospitable to early life) < P((Abiogenesis on foreign comet/planet ∧ Foreign comet/planet is hospitable to early life) ∧ Life survives on comet ∧ Life survives entry into Earth's atmosphere ∧ Earth is hospitable to early life)

>>4503075
>abiogenesis is unlikely, based on my limited understanding of biological mutation and the timeframes involved
>life must have been seeded by some other lifeforms
>which themselves were the products of seeding
Elephants all the way down, much?

>>4503079
Whatever you're doing there, it's not mathematics.

>>4503087

Why not? Life develops on Earth is more likely than life developing elsewhere and surviving here.

>>4503087
>doesn't understand basic math

>>4503075
*holes. sorry monitoring 2 threads back and forth here
>>4503074
yeah thanks. actually that mockery is not accurate at all. I'm not some prometheus like you pretend I said. these aren't even my original theories. These are accepted by many cultures and groups. and I explained how lack of evidence is not evidence of absence and how their is no way to prove any of this using our tools so we must be free to accept whatever experiences we see fit to personally choose what we regard as truth = freedom of thought. your post was funny, but distortive. also the reason I reject that consciousness is produced by the brain is because all the tissue we observe is responsible for layers of the intellect, the personality, and consciousness, but the basic condition of being conscious cannot be explained in the paradigm that is cognitive dualism - and I reject the belief that consciousness is an illusion. you clearly are pissed off at something that isnt this post

>>4503074
Pwnage.

May your massive balls grow even further, good Sir.

>>4503089
>>4503090
Your opinion or belief on what is more likely does not represent scientific fact. You cannot even specify a probability distribution.

>>4503089
it shouldnt matter how likely abiogenesis is so long as it is possilble.

considering how large the universe is the chances of abiogenesis occuring on any planet in the universe is probably quite high. that planet just so happened to be earth.

>>4503099

Whatever can be asserted without proof can also be dismissed without proof.

>>4503104

how do i into basic logic

P(A ∧ B) <= P(A)

>>4503099

>These are accepted by many cultures and groups.

do I even need to explain why this is fallacious

>lack of evidence is not evidence of absence

Actually yes it is. It's not proof of absense of course, but lack of evidence is perfectly legitimate evidence of absence.

>>4503099
Not pissed off, just trying to point out that if you had somehow arrived at some greater universal truth, you should be able to convince others of its actuality.
Hiding behind "you can't prove me wrong" doesn't justify your belief in ridiculous things.
If you want to understand how consciousness can arise from disparate parts, go read Godel, Esher, Bach. Stop trying to justify rejecting materialism by saying that what we've observed about the mind doesn't fit into dualism, when monism is clearly the superior theory.

>>4503110
What if P(B) is greater than one

>>4503110
That's not what he posted. His statement was not mathematical at all.

First of all you have to define a probability space and have to specify your random variables. Since you claim to describe an aspect of reality, you also have to justify your decision by providing evidence.

>>4503084
I dont believe it, I just explained the theory that is believed by some

>>4503078

>>4503077

what I mean is that it seems as if our development has no function. and I have this innate tendency to seek a function beyond the arbitrary continuance of the system. so yeah just my own personal stance. no evidence. natural selection is probably right, or possibly, in some future society, it will be branded incomplete and be reassigned as being apart of a grander paradigm with more complex understandings of things

>>4503099

>no way to prove any of this using our tools so we must be free to accept whatever experiences we see fit to personally choose what we regard as truth

No this is wrong as well. When the evidence allows for multiple hypotheses, you go with the least complex one, and "least complex" is not subjective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity

>>4503118
Impossible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_axioms

>>4503117
I'll be sure to check that out. thanks for the recommendations.

>>4503115
>lack of evidence is perfectly legitimate evidence
derp

>>4503127
I'm insulted that you'd take that seriously.

>>4503122
no Im allowed to accept whatever the hell I want based on things I see fit, if they are rational. If I see a deer in a forest, and it disappears with no trace, and i live in a society where there are no tools to test for the deer's presence at any time, do I reject what I saw in place of this collective devotion to the tools we've made?

>>4503129
>look at your crotch
>lack of evidence for balls
>isn't justified in saying you have no balls
Really?

>>4503135
I correct blatant errrors. Nowhere did you state that it was not be taken serious.

>>4503138
YES!
The human brain hallucinates all the fucking time! Most of our memories are constructed from nothing but imagination!
If you can't prove you saw a deer, nobody else can prove they've seen a deer, and there's no way of testing whether you did, in fact, see a deer - then you probably did not see a deer.

>>4503138

No.

No you're really not.

You're not allowed to just make up whatever thing you like to fit the data.

If I see a body on the floor, and it isn't breathing, and there's no pulse, and isn't responding to any stimulus, I can state the following things that both fit the data:

The body is dead
The body is alive, and ignoring my attempts to wake them, and is holding their breath, and is pressing an object into their upper arm so that there is no pulse on the wrist.

Which belief is justified is left as an exercise to the reader.

>>4503146
the memory quip is not true. I've heard the same thing recently from fucking cracked.com. it's a myth.
the brain does hallucinate, but I trust my senses and can distinguish between a dream and reality. or at least I trust that I can. If I were to follow your logic, and reject my senses, then I must also reject your tools. I use my senses to analyze the findings of our tools. My senses interface with the tools. The mind cannot supersede the tools of science without evidence, in the same way the tools of science cannot supersede the mind without evidence.

>>4503149
I never said that. I said that I am allowed to make jumps in my own personal belief systems if it is logical, and in the direction of the evidence FOR MYSELF. I am not advocating the development of a NASA space program on a "hunch" I have. do you get it? Im not a corporate entity and will not behave like one philosophically. I am allowed to. I am not making things up, I am accepting things that are probably true, in accordance with the paradigms I've accepted based one evidence. which is why I emphasize my silence on the matter usually because I dont care to preach anything, just be left alone.

>>4503157
>I trust my senses

Your risk to take. A foolish one, at that.

>I have this innate tendency to seek a function beyond the arbitrary continuance of the system.

So you're biased. There are certain conclusions that you would find more attractive than others, even though they are less sensible.

>>4503157

>cracked.com says something
>it must be false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

also no, the way the brain deceives itself is well documented, especially in regard to memory:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

http://vlp.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/pdf/lit32472_Hi.pdf

>>4503164

If you're emphasising your silence why postulate dualism?

>>4503157
>my senses have told me something that is incompatible with what is known
>I think I'll trust my senses without trying to gather more data in favor of my hypthesis, even though I hallucinate vividly each night, and there are many examples of people being crazy
Nice.

>>4503167
yes well your risk to take is to trust in your senses and accept the findings of the tools you trust. I could say the same for you.
and I suppose I am biased in that regard, but intellectually biased - in the sense that I have come to believe that systems have functions, so why not the meta-system - of life itself? again unprovable and just an abstraction to contemplate. I am not emotionally biased in the sense that certain things make me feel better then others. Only that some things make more sense than others in my view

>>4503164
>it doesn't matter if I'm wrong
>stop trying to tell me to improve the accuracy of my beliefs
>my beliefs don't influence my behavior at all
Holy shit, really?

>>4503175
Not incompatible. thats actually the basis for my whole reasoning. It is compatible. I never contradicted any evidence in accordance to anything. thats the point
>>4503173
Silence in public. im on 4chan

>>4503176
I literally just chimed in and didn't read the thread.
>in the sense that I have come to believe that systems have functions, so why not the meta-system - of life itself?
And why do you think this does not apply to evolution orabiogenesis?
(sorry if you already wrote about that)

>>4503176
Right, because no system of belief has ever been influenced by emotion. And we should trust that your theory isn't, because unlike all these emotionally-informed theories that aren't true, you've SAID it isn't. Instead of simply giving your reasons for believing what you do.
I really hope you don't plan on pursing science with this mindset - you won't go very far.

>>4502662
I think that depends on what you mean by "Belief in God". I don't know about other religions but in Christianity the creation story and original sin happen at the same time. You can throw out a creation story while still keeping the message of the Bible in tact... but you can't throw out original sin.

>>4502676
OP stinks of a classic concern troll. Even if he's not, OP is CLEARLY, evident from this post and later ones, accepting of a reality where supernatural things happen. The very idea of the supernatural is illogical yet the OP is asking everyone in this thread to present a flawless logical basis for evolution and abiogenesis . It's obvious to me that the OP is determined to maintain that supernatural things happen and the purpose of this thread is to try to fit evolution in to his or her supernatural view of the world.

>WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE in the theory of Evolution as it was presented by Darwin?

This is a joke, right? You are willing to carelessly apply supernatural explanations to nature yet you are genuinely seeking to understand evolution? BULLSHIT

OP is just looking for holes so he or she can feel better about his or her supernatural view of the world.

>>4503176

If you're judging things by how they intuitively "make sense" that's still your biases talking.

Quantum mechanics doesn't make sense but that doesn't make it not true, or even strange. It just means that humans are bad at quantum mechanics.

>>4503185
>I really hope you don't plan on pursing science with this mindset - you won't go very far.
This.

>>4503178
thats not what I said either. Im saying because we are all intellectually imperfect, we must be content with discussing without controlling each other philosophically. Its just the advocation against some kind of intellectual judge and jury made of men who disagree with you although both sides have rational arguments that can span infinitely in debate. and Im being accepting of the condition of intellectual limitation. Im not going to restrict my thought to popular positions. so long as it is in sync with the evidence.

>>4503182
>Not incompatible.
I was implying through that line of thinking that I thought you were choosing to remain deluded, by not questioning the veracity of your senses.

>>4503189

THIS.

It also reminds me of something

>when thinking about an attractive argument, one says "does the evidence ALLOW me to believe this?
>when thinking about an unattractive argument, one says "does the evidence FORCE me to believe this?

>>4503189
>OP is just looking for holes

>>4503189
no just accepting of a reality where unexplainable things are still apart of nature.
>>4503191
thats highly arrogant of you to say. these beliefs have existed in scientific successes before. It is no less rational than what you propose. And this would not affect how I can create, reason, and conceive in terms of mechanical designs or physical structures. You act as if all men who have contributed to science think like you do.

>>4503194
I have questioned it. and come to a conclusion. questioning is not necessarily rejecting.

>>4503198
This really pisses me off. almost as much as your cheerleader's praise of it.
>>4503198
let me start by explaining that not once did I claim any supernatural explanation to anything. you didnt even read half of this did you? and yes I like to research the gaping holes in theories that have them so I can find out why we have incomplete theories, or faulty assumptions. this is scientific in essence.

>>4503204

Just because Newton was a devout Christian doesn't mean that Christianity is true. It just means that clever people can still believe stupid things.

Just because successes have been made with suboptimal modes of thinking, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for even greater succeses with more optimal thinking.

As for these beliefs not influencing how you "create, reason and conceive", I'm sorry but that's wrong as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring

>>4503204
>It is no less rational than what you propose.
It is likely you have me mixed up with other posts. I believe >>4503191 just from how this "discussion" has played out. You seem to follow a very unscientific discipline in choosing your beliefs.

>>4503204
>unexplainable

Which is the same thing as supernatural. Are you so delusional that you are capable of fooling yourself or did you actually think you were going to confound everyone in this thread by coming up with a new word for it?

Please, this thread should only be for ridiculing OP's delusional behavior of rejecting all evidence that contradicts his belief system, rather than rejecting evidence that contradicts nature. Don't bother explaining anything, you are talking to a brick wall.

>>4503229
which is true. I may or may not be correct. but this has nothing to do with my capabilities scientifically. I believe Newton made a great mistake in buying into christianity.

>>4503204
Science works by REPEATED OBSERVATION and collection of data THROUGH EXPERIMENTATION. This DATA is used to CONVINCE OTHERS that the claims of the scientist are correct. When FLAWS are pointed out in the scientist's experiment, the scientist either creates a new experiment, fixes his old one, or responds to the criticism.
You're trying to convince us by telling us your hypothesis is informed by APPARENTLY NON-REPEATABLE REVELATION. You have NO EXPERIMENT, NO DATA, and the flaws that have been pointed out (which have been screwed up experiments in the past - anyone remember that cathode ray tube experiment?) have all been rejected out of hand as not applying to you for various reasons. You actively embrace views for which there is NO EVIDENCE, and justify those beliefs by saying that YOU'VE SEEN SOME SHIT.
In other words, you come across as a CRAZY HOMELESS DUDE. I hope you enjoyed this episode of CAPITALIZED KEYWORDS.

>>4503247
>I hope you enjoyed this episode of CAPITALIZED KEYWORDS.
I did. Is there a sequel?

>>4503239

>but this has nothing to do with my capabilities scientifically.

It has everything to do with it.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/gv/outside_the_laboratory/

tl;dr if you still entertain the supernatural while claiming to be scientific you're like an economist that buys lottery tickets.

>>4503238
yeah it appears I am talking to brick wall. good to know we agree on that. and when I said unexplainable I was talking about a very specific issue, not nature as a whole. I was discussing the very fallible nature of probability, yet its necessity as an approximate tool for human minds. I was also asserting my conviction that humans should allow for many different belief systems, because some, based in evidence, or at the very least, not in contradiction to it, can wage war forever without a conclusion. - NOTE- I DID NOT MEAN MY BELIEF SYSTEMS - I was defending a position on intellectual liberty - which is inversive to "thought crimes" - any deviation from someone else's system of thought to be penalized or suppressed. we dont have to agree. thats the point. but dont act like a child here and resort to half assed psychoanalysis and petty mockery.

>>4503254
no it doesnt. like we said before. Newton was a christian. does this affirm christianity? no. does it devalue his accomplisments? absolutely not. Einstien was deistic.

>>4503238
>>4503255
>yeah it appears I am talking to brick wall.

>>4502765
Frankly? I think you're being stupid by letting your opinions get in the way of the facts that you're taking in.

>>4503254
Okay please read the thread. I DID NOT EVER AFFIRM "the supernatural". "unexplained" phenomena was in reference to currently unexplained processes in nature, that I , nor anyone else on planet earth have any intimate knowledge about - WITHIN NATURE.

>>4503265
there is no fact saying that natural selection is complete. I am saying that it is my position that natural selection is accurate, but incomplete. this is not getting in the way of any evidence, on the contrary - IT IS SEEKING FOR MORE EVIDENCE.

>>4503266

>I DID NOT EVER AFFIRM "the supernatural"

>I believe all life is a vessel of a basic consciousness that exists in all things. I believe when we die, we rise into something more. your right it is just a belief. It's not something I spread because I couldnt win in a debate because it deals with issues to far beyond our species tools to analyze. I base this belief in my own contemplation and perceptions of reality itself. I reject the notion that our brains, our intellects are the producers of consciousness, but rather the transmitters of it. Our personalities are kind of the result of physical vessels interfacing with and housing a basic being. Also I've accepted this because of some bizzarre experiences I've had which confirmed that it's not as crazy as it sounds. Once I was nihilistic and believed in some incoherent affirmations like that true chaos exists and things like this but I have sinced learned otherwise.

If that isn't supernatural thinking then I don't know what is.

>>4503272
all beliefs of things within nature. "The Holy Trinity" or "Miracles" would be supernatural. I believe their is nothing outside of nature - the universe - the everything

>I don't believe the genetic material of tissue could produce the kind's of highly intricate anatomies it's produced with such an arbitrary "cop out" card as "natural selection".

What the fuck does this even mean? I don't give a fuck what you believe moron, evidence says no.

>>4503280
it means that natural selection was based in evidence, but assumed to be fully complete driver of evolution by Darwin. and I dont give a fuck what you believe either, so lets just agree to disagree

>>4503277
If you believe in a non-material universe, I don't see how you can call yourself a naturalist.

>>4503277

LEARN TO SPELL

>>4503277

So if souls aren't outside nature, why can't we observe them?

>>4503268
What do you even mean by complete? It's a complete theory, and it exists regardless of the evidence.

If you're saying that it doesn't fully describe what it claims to, can you point out where and how?

>>4503289
I apologize. please devalue everything I said because I mistyped. thanks. I'm responding to alot of people at once

>>4503286

What are you even saying? First you fucking reference genetic material, then Darwin.

>Evidence says no

>>4503286
>your belief does not fit what the evidence says
>"Let's agree to disagree."
That's not how it works. If you ignore the evidence, and try to call yourself rational, you get called unscientific and self-delusional. We aren't trying to make you think like us, we're just letting you know you're being retarded.

>any deviation from someone else's system of thought to be penalized or suppressed. we dont have to agree. thats the point. but dont act like a child here and resort to half assed psychoanalysis and petty mockery

NO!!! YOU'RE WRONG!!!! REALITY IS NOT SUBJECTIVE!!! YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU WANT ABOUT REALITY!!! YOU DESERVE TO BE RIDICULED IF YOU DO!!! I DO NOT HAVE TO PSYCHOANALYZE YOU TO KNOW THAT YOUR DELUSIONAL BELIEF THAT REALITY IS SUBJECTIVE IS DESERVING OF RIDICULE!!!!! REALITY DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR PERCEIVED INTELLECTUAL LIBERTY!!! YOU CAN VIEW REALITY AS FLEXIBLE ALL YOU WANT WHILE DRIVING DOWN THE HIGHWAY AT 90 MPH RIGHT UP UNTIL THE MOMENT THAT YOUR INTELLECTUAL LIBERTY ENDS UP AS A BRIGHT RED STAIN ON THE PAVEMENT!!! I HOPE YOU HAVE ENJOYED THIS EPISODE OF ALL CAPS1!

>>4503290
He says it's because we lack the tools to gain knowledge of these "spiritual aspects of reality".
And yet he claims to have knowledge of these facets of the otherwise unobservable universe.

>>4503277
Just STOP. This whole discussion is ridiculous. If you truly came here to learn ANYTHING, fucking LISTEN to everything that has been spat at you. You've done a terrific job of pointing out how you love some remarkably unscientific shit, for equally unscientific reasons. If you want to learn science, quit arguing here, because you're losing it unbelievably well. I'm going to entertain the possibility that you're just incredibly bad at presenting your opinions, and that you aren't an idiot. But if that's true, I advise you start soaking up the wisdom of everyone on here and quit defending your past arguments.

>>4503294
>>4503288
I believe our definition of material is flawed. for example - are dimensions material? in a way. they are apart of the natural universe. I believe thoughts and consciousness are apart of the natural universe as well. all natural, and coherent.
>>4503290
If you mean the Catholic definition of "souls" it's because they don't exist. If you mean consciousness, the phenomena which I expressed belief in previously? I believe this is because it is possibly sub-quantum and highly subtle. not as visible as the sun, but maybe less visible than the electromagnetism it produces.
>>4503294
yeah I agree with the theory I just believe there must be more to it, and that our understanding of genetics is in it's early stage.

Hope I'm being trolled here...

>>4503288
I believe our definition of material is flawed. for example - are dimensions material? in a way. they are apart of the natural universe. I believe thoughts and consciousness are apart of the natural universe as well. all natural, and coherent.
>>4503290
If you mean the Catholic definition of "souls" it's because they don't exist. If you mean consciousness, the phenomena which I expressed belief in previously? I believe this is because it is possibly sub-quantum and highly subtle. not as visible as the sun, but maybe less visible than the electromagnetism it produces.
>>4503294
yeah I agree with the theory I just believe there must be more to it, and that our understanding of genetics is in it's early stage.

>>4503326

>I believe our definition of material is flawed. for example - are dimensions material?

WHAT

DO YOU KNOW WHAT A DIMENSION IS? DO YOU KNOW WHAT MATERIAL IS?

YOUR DEFINITION OF THINGS IS FLAWED, BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAKE THE TIME TO READ A DICTIONARY

>>4503326
>are dimensions material
Can we observe them? Yes. Can we interact with them? Yes. Then they are material.
>I believe thoughts and consciousness are apart of the natural universe as well. all natural, and coherent.
That's true, they are the product of the brain and nothing more.

Souls do exist.
https://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/thread/S4163207

>>4503335
I want you to tell me right now what constitutes matter. then maybe you'll get what Im saying. for example. what is "space". what is "time" the universe is more than simply materials, there are energies, objects, spatial-temporal properties of both, and things in between.

>>4503338
>>4503338
THATS NOT FUCKING TRUE. there is evidence that is cohesive with the view that it is not the producer of consciousness. at least look up the arguments

>>4503330

>subquantum
>highly subtle

You're using these words to add a veneer of science to your garbage, but what they really stand for is a "here be dragons" part of your argument.

aka they can be substituted with "magic" and convey the same information.

>First time I visit /sci/ in about a year
>See this faggotry

>>4503350

Such as?

>>4503344
>Matter
Physical substance, occupying an area of spacetime and with mass.
>Space
3-Dimensional area in which matter resides
>Time
A property of matter that is a function of the speed of light and the matter's velocity relative to other objects. A scalar quantity of the rate at which said matter has.

>>4503301
everything I said is in accordance with evidence, I never made a claim that was OUTSIDE of any evidence. this keeps coming up. EVERYTHING I SAID is not mutually excluded by the evidence. I was defending positions that have not been universally accepted yet. that is all.

>>4503350
There's evidence that your evidence was forged by a conspiring group of unicorns. Cite your claim or retract it.

>>4503363

Not being excluded by the evidence is a necessary but not sufficient condition in order for you to be justified in believing it.

Again, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

>>4503351
No thats not true. Im referring to the existence of the pineal gland, and it's relationship with the brain,

>>4503368

>pineal gland

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gIi7b6JMms

So now, please explain what the pineal gland does and does not do, and how this is evidence for nonmaterial consciousness or whatever.

>>4503363
>I was defending positions which are currently unfalsifiable by my own admittance, and for which I can produce no examples of evidence or chain of reasoning.
>That is all.

here's some sources of arguments and viewpoints based on already established facts in neuroscience, such as the structure of the brain, processes within the brain, assumptions of neuroscience, etc. I know this is not conclusive, which is why we will argue till we die. happy birthday

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/psychology/the-brain-and-consciousness-t19827-20.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16775-consciousness-signature-discovered-spanning-the-brain.ht
ml

http://www.thebigview.com/mind/nonlocal.html

http://www.ukapologetics.net/07/mindandbody.htm

>>4503376
WHICH is why I claim OPINIONS, not facts.

>>4503392

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/you_are_never_e.html

>>4503392
Opinions can be shit, too. I can have the opinion that the vinyl is superior to the compact disc. But if I tried to argue this "opinion", I would be accordingly met with arguments of size, price, sound quality, durability and the ability to copy or write them cheaply in your home. It's an "opinion", but it's a fucking retarded one.

>>4503400
so group thought is what you want, huh?
this is idiotic
you dont understand that some of these issues are being disputed, so who decides who is universally upheld as right and wrong right now? no one. no one is qualified.

>>4503406
thats not retarded, but thats a preference, not an affirmation. I admit I make a loose affirmation, because I claim no absolute fact, I just defend my position. similarly to how many have debated before, only to continue in disagreement with no more knowledge than before

It's funny how scientists today not only separate philosophy from science, as they should, but then go to far and attempt to devalue it permanently. I am entitled to my fucking opinion because no man can be unbiased to choose who thinks what. you believe in a thought crime, then. you call it stupidity, others will label some thoughts as bigotry, and all of a sudden some men have infiltrated the minds of other men

>>4503432
Opinions are all well and good, but you didn't come here for those, did you?

>>4503432
Those who are stubborn will stay stubborn, amirite?

>>4503454
haha yeah I did actually
>>4503455
and yeah on both sides, amIrightamIright?

Remember, this is what the OP actually believes. He doesn't have a problem claiming that formal logic and his personal intuition are the same thing. He thinks that "lack of evidence is not evidence of absence" can be used to support any belief, as long as it is his own. He parrots the worst arguments of Southern intelligent design 'theory' and thinks himself an intellectual for his ability to do so. He's even - get this - a DUALIST. In 2012!

>>4503388
>Some fucking forum.
Internet discussions between unknown persons of unknown expertise is not evidence.
>"Signals from the electrodes seem to show that consciousness arises from the coordinated activity of the entire brain." No spirit necessary.
Why would you post this?
>Author has a history that made me hopeful, but the content is lacking and relies heavily on a deeply flawed analogy that could be used to argue the exact opposite point.
OOBE and NDEs have been found to be hallucination. There are several links to evidence of just that, in the wikipedia article following. Said evidence has been mounting for more than a century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinations_in_the_sane
>ukapologetics, Descartes, near death experiences
lol

>>4503466
>>4503465
well what do you believe. im tired and have fought all I can fight. dump your thoughts in a final post and then im going to bed

>>4503466
In all fairness, it would be perfectly reasonable to cite a conversation between nobodies if they had valid arguments and cited valid evidence. The work of the citizen scientist shouldn't be dismissed out of hand (of course that's not what's going on in this case, and it's apparently a couple of retards spouting off jargon to each other).

>>4503478
It's already been done.
You came with an open mind, but the only conclusion you came to was that you are indeed stubborn.

>>4503478
So you admit that you aren't interested in learning. You aren't interested in changing your beliefs so that you believe what is actually true rather than ignorant pre-existing opinions. You are just interested in a 'fight'. What's the point? Nobody is going to change their beliefs to match yours, because instead of arguing your point rationally you're just whining about how the rest of us disagree with you. I'm sorry, but you are the opposite of a scientist. /x/ is that way -->

>>4503498
Sorry I didnt finish the post. I will reread this with a clear head and am definitly going to change my mind on a few things. I do want to learn. some of this argueing has confirmed my opinions of some issues, and completely deconstructed others.

>>4503478
I believe in what is observable.
It's not a question of whether or not you can believe something without it being proven false - it's a matter of only believing things which you allow yourself to consider being falsified.
If you have a belief that can't be proven false, there's literally no reason to hold onto it - because it CANNOT map to reality. If you believe something, you'd better be able to point out your reasoning and evidence for that belief.
>I believe that I am a consciousness produced by a material body.
This belief consistently makes me uneasy, because I know that the neurons in my brain are constantly forming new connections, decaying, being replaced, etc. But it doesn't change the fact that I seem to have a continuous existence. But wait! Is there any aspect of my existence that is not perception? I perceive my sense modalities, of course, but I also seem to perceive my ideas and thoughts. In a strange way, *I* am an illusion that comes about from an experience of my own idea of myself. It's an odd thought, but it's the best thought I've come across for explaining the self.
>I do not believe in anything that can't be measured or tested scientifically.
Note, this is not to say that I believe that there are not things that cannot be tested - I simply have no reason to believe in such things, and so lack a belief as to their existence. If there were some evidence for these things that was not explainable and readily experimentally verifiable through some function of scientific method on the material realm, I would instantaneously reverse my position.

You can't choose what you believe, only how you believe.

>>4502649
>WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE in the theory of Evolution as it was presented by Darwin?
you are fucking retarded, evolution isnt something to choose to believe in, shithead!
its real scientific fact, get fucking educated you moron!

>>4503531
Your use of the word "fact" is incorrect. What you probably meant to say is that evolution is a scientific theory heavily backed up by evidence.

>>4503531
>retarded
>shithead
>fucking
>moron
please quit being rude on /sci/. you are breaking global rule 6.
>The quality of posts is extremely important to this community. Contributors are encouraged to provide high-quality images and informative comments.

>>4503531
you didnt even read the thread did you....gtfo..just gtfo

>>4503541
i think you'll find its actually the OP who is breaking rule 6, and also rule 3 of /sci/ this fucking inane religious trolling garbage shouldnt even fucking be here!

>>4503546
eat shit you bible bashing little fuckhead! get your retardation out of my fucking /sci/!

Hey guys I want to have a genuine discussion about abiogenesis but guess what the joke's on you because I AM ENTITLED TO MY FUCKING OPINION and you can't change my mind neener neener neener.

>>4503564
Easy there, girl. He's stupid, but not bible bashing.

>>4503574
Congratulations. You recognized the fundamental problem of most /sci/ threads.

>>4503564
>fucking
>fucking
>eat shit
>bible bashing
>little fuckhead
>retardation
>fucking /sci/
you're clearing breaking rule 6.

>>4503531
He does believe in evolution, he was just asking for clarification.
You should read the whole thread before just diving straight in, and try not to be so rude please.

>>4503583
fundamental problem is more confusing opinion and fact, and various other epistemology categories.

>>4503593
>wah wah wah!! swearing on 4chan!

grow up you fucking faggot

>>4503596
well then he should have fucking googled it!
evolution is a well known fact

>>4503598
Yes, that's exactly the problem. People who tend to confuse opinions and facts usually are resistant to any form of correction.

>>4503596
If that were actually the case (and it's not - OP is a wackjob who is paranoid about others infiltrating his brain), the only productive way to move forward would be to read a fucking book about it, not expect all of the answers to come out of a thread on an imageboard. There's a good reason why people take classes at universities to learn this stuff.

>>4503608
"Fact" is not the correct word to use here. It is a scientific theory with lots of evidence.

>>4503600
If someone has a good argument, he can present it in a civilized manner.

>>4503600
Please follow the rules. It is you who needs to grow up.

>>4503616
It is the case, he listened to what we had to say, and understood. See:

>>4502871
>>4502877

>>4503619
i AM following the rules, dickhead! its OP who clearly isnt!

>/sci/ rule 3, no religion vs science threads.

so get the fucking creationism out of my /sci/!

>>4503644
No, you are breaking rule 6.

>>4503663
which is irreleant because this entire fucking religion thread is not science and shouldnt be here!

and fucking sage!

>>4503668
It isn't irrelevant. You are still breaking the rules.

>>4503668
this isnt religious or creationist at all. you took one look at some posts and failed to accurately see what was said. the bible isnt discussed except to assert that it will not be discussed.

>>4503668
Other posters' rule violations do not justify further breaking of rules.