[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 25 KB, 914x421, evolution.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4876341 No.4876341 [Reply] [Original]

how can you believe in evolution if its just a theory (a geuss?)

>> No.4876345

1/10 try to disguise it better next time.

>> No.4876346

Evolution?

You mean le monkey theory.

>> No.4876357

if I came from a monkey then why dont my mother have a tale?

lol stupid evolutionists
USE UR HEAD

>> No.4876373

If evolution is true, why do we still have liberal arts?

Checkmate.

>> No.4876375

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANG7gc6vyEM&feature=plcp

>> No.4876403
File: 34 KB, 680x510, This.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4876403

>>4876373

>> No.4876411

>>4876341
why do you believe that a jewish zombie fed himself to his friends so a rabbit hides eggs in our houses as we sleep. Darwin was a genius fuckhole

>> No.4876412

-100/10
>>4876373
That does not prove evolution theory is wrong.
Better come up with something makes sense next time.

>> No.4876498

I believe in evolution because it puts me, as a white man, at a higher place above the black man. We originated in Africa, moved out, evolved some more, and are now master race.

>> No.4876525

>>4876498

Evolution never makes that comment though.

>> No.4876527

>>4876525
>can't into implications

>> No.4876539

Because there's more evidence towards that theory than some omnipotent sky-king who made everything and watches everything we do.

>> No.4876576

OP, gravity is just a theory..

Science.. Doing the decent thing and not labelling something as 'OMG IT'S THE TROOTH!' just because it's written in a book.

science demands to be questioned and tested until death.

>> No.4876608

>>4876576
except evolution.

>> No.4876619

Think of the greatest being you could possibly imagine.
He is all powerful, he is merciful, he is just and and good.
Now, do you think that the greatest being would be great if he only existed in thought?
No, he would be greater if he existed in reality.
And he has to, because he exists, and this is why there is a God.

>> No.4876669

>>4876619
>he would be greater if he existed in reality
prove it.

>> No.4876674

>>4876619
1. That doesn't mean that this super being would create humans.
2. Things being "good"or "bad" is part of the human culture, a super advanced being probably wouldn't do the same.

>> No.4876677

>>4876669
Something that exists as a whole is greater than something that exists in part.
>>4876674
This is the greatest being that we can possibly think of. Given our definition of greatness, the goodness of God is a matter of necessity. That there could exist other entities which are not as good (as indeed, a similar ontological argument can be made for the devil) is not the point.

>> No.4876681

>>4876677
not necessarily. a partial beating is better than a whole beating. getting out on parole is better than serving your whole sentence. all you did was restate the same thing again.

>> No.4876695

>>4876681
But you're failing to consider that a full beating must be the greatest beating. Or that a full, or an empty sentence must be the greatest sentence. For if the matter of greatness if here not one of enjoyment, but a matter of how thoroughly one thing fulfills its essence.
In a similarly recursive way on partial greatness, one could say that the greatest greatness is partial greatness. But if it were full greatness, it would be greater still. And so, only the fullest greatness fulfills the characteristic of being great to the greatest extent. Likewise for existence. As that which exists at some point but not at another only partially exists, and therefore, does not fully exist. But that which exists in the greatest manner exists in the way that expresses all the facets of existence.

>> No.4876698

>>4876341
In science, theories aren't guesses. Theories are shelving units for facts. If you find a fact later that your shelving can't handle, then you've got some work to do.

>> No.4876703

Evolution theory is correct, but it doesn't involve us humans. Believing that we originate from a monkey is as stupid as any religion.

>> No.4876704

>>4876695
what the fuck am i reading.jpg

>> No.4876708

>>4876346
Oh god my sides

>> No.4876717

>>4876695
but why does a god that exists fulfill its greatness more than one who doesn't. you gave many aspects of greatness. if he is all powerful in reality and all merciful then surely there would be no suffering. to be the greatest in all aspects, he would have to be imaginary. if he was imaginary, he could be all merciful and suffering can still occur. if he was real, suffering occurs and he chooses not to stop it (since he is all powerful) therefore he is less merciful. if his mercy is greater as an imaginary being than as a real entity, then he must be imaginary.

>> No.4876731

>>4876717
In no way would the existence of suffering prevent God's mercifulness to be the greatest in imagination.
For God gave us free will, which is necessary for us to be good. But he is also just. And this is why those who sin suffer.
But the suffering is not sign of a lack of mercy, for god is good, and therefore, he is good to the good, and he is good to the sinful. His merciful nature shines when he punishes the sinful as much as it does when he spares them through his goodness.

>> No.4876732

>>4876731
Not prevent in the first line, I meant cause.

>> No.4876734

Because it's been proven.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

>> No.4876738

>Get on /sci/ to upload omegle trying to figure out the dollar + half it's price thing
>See this as the first part

What are we doing?

>> No.4876751

>>4876731
>For God gave us free will, which is necessary for us to be good
not so. if he took away free will, we would be whatever he wanted us to be. since he is all good, then our robot versions would be all good. surely that is more good than our current selfs.
>But he is also just. And this is why those who sin suffer
but he has to be all merciful, which means forgiving those who sin. what is the point of an all powerful being punishing those who make mistakes, if he is truly all merciful.
>But the suffering is not sign of a lack of mercy, for god is good, and therefore, he is good to the good, and he is good to the sinful
don't know if you mis-wrote this, but it contradicts your previous statement of the sinners suffering. if he causes harm of another, then he is not all good, as with sinners.
>His merciful nature shines when he punishes the sinful as much as it does when he spares them through his goodness
no, because he is punishing them. the merciful forgive.

>> No.4876765

>>4876751
If he took away free will, then surely, all our actions would be just as he would want them, but to be good is not to act well, but to decide to act well, and free will is the only will that can make a decision.

If god absolved every human being to the highest extent from his sins, then he would not be just, for justice requires the punishment of sins. And God is necessarily just, so he cannot let sins go unpunished, just as he does not mislead the good.

The third part is as it was meant to be, just as God is, for God's punishment is by no means something that is not good. It is, for one, just. But more importantly, it exists so that sinner be set onto the right path, and recognize that a good life can only be lived in the light of the lord's goodness. Moreover, God gave us life, and our suffering, as mighty as it is, pales in comparison to the gift of existence. All conditions, every good, from the smallest to the largest, are reasons to praise God. Do not claim that some would rather not be, for what they seek is not non-existence, but peace, and that is an existence.

I believe your fourth point has already been addressed, but let me remind you that mercy cannot exist outside of punishment, for it is the forgiving of an act that ought be punished that makes one merciful, and had God not decided that each ought receive his lot, his mercy would never have come to be in this world, as is of his justice.

>> No.4876785
File: 1 KB, 125x82, Facepalmpic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4876785

I'm just going to assume that all the other post are made by retards, as I am too lazy to read it.
You are asking here how people can believe in a theory... and you, faggot op, you also believe is several theory (unless you are a total retard). Take gravity for example, it is what we consider a law of nature, but it's actually a theory, just that people are not able to prove that it DOESN'T WORK.
That's how scientist work, someone come up with a theory and other people try to test if it can be true, but there is no way of knowing for certain that it's actually true. But if some theory stands up to several tests and seems believable then of course people believe it.
You can look at it in another way, now Mr. Faggot op, I don't know if you religious, but i'm going to assume you are. Then you believe is God, God is something that just like gravity is hard to prove, but it "feels right" if you are a christian (not going to turn this into some stupid religious Vs. science thread btw....

Anyway to my point, OP is a faggot, rest of the posts are made by retards, and close to every damn person alive believe is theory's and most likely so do you OP, unless you are a retard.

>> No.4876787

>>4876785
>flip a coin ten thousand times
>coin lands on heads a thousand times
>rule of nature is coins always fall on heads

>inductive reasoning

>> No.4876790

Hey guys, I've got an idea. What if we auto-banned everyone who used the word "evolution", "religion", "creationism" or "engineer" in their posts?

>> No.4876792
File: 12 KB, 259x194, eminem bakgrund3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4876792

>>4876787
Well, lets look at the chances for that happening, 1/2^1000..... that's a very small number. But of course, just throw the coin until you get something else.... stupid thing to say

>> No.4876793

>>4876787
The difference is that with religion you stop flipping the coin. With science you don't.

>> No.4876797

>>4876792
>>4876793
So, how many times have you tested whether objects on earth accelerate downwards at 9.8m/s² ?

What I'm arguing against is that guy implying that one ought to believe in a theory, when science is not a matter of belief at all despite the fact that Hume claimed that it was.
It is a matter of constant suspicion, and he who reasonably claims that he does not know whether what we call gravity exists or not is not a retard, but a wise person.

>> No.4876798

>>4876765
>but to be good is not to act well, but to decide to act well
but under your premise, real is better than imaginary. a good act is better than thinking of doing a good act. you are also changing the meaning of good to fit your argument. i say good is to do good acts. if we don't agree, then you have to prove me wrong.
>If god absolved every human being to the highest extent from his sins, then he would not be just, for justice requires the punishment of sins
all this shows is that two or more of your premises are incompatible. He cannot be both all just and all merciful, unless he is imaginary. the merciful forgive, even when the offender does not deserve it. and what of the opposite case, when the sinners are not punished. would you say there has never been an evil person who has died happier than a good one? surely this is not maximum justice.
>it exists so that sinner be set onto the right path, and recognize that a good life can only be lived in the light of the lord's goodness
he is omniscient, surely he could come up with a better way to correct behavior than punishment. being omniscient, he should know a way to make a person want to change.
>Do not claim that some would rather not be
because people do not commit suicide? do atheist not commit suicide? given they do not believe, all they could be seeking is the peace of non-existence. do not claim you know another's mind better than they themselves.
>and had God not decided that each ought receive his lot, his mercy would never have come to be in this world, as is of his justice
all you are proving is that the your description is incoherent.

>> No.4876803
File: 25 KB, 460x307, 1341935844678.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4876803

>>4876790
THIS

>> No.4876823

>>4876798
1 For a mere physical act has no more meaning than a rock falling down. For there to be goodness, it is necessary for it to be choice. Goodness is, as you say, real. But it is the transaction of the soul with the real. It is the desire. Surely you are not one to believe that intentions are what makes one good in themselves. But actions also cannot suffice for he who accidentally drops money in front of a beggar can likewise not be called charitable. All virtues emerge from the carrying out of beneficial designs, and not the actions or the designs themselves.
2 That one can die happy is no measure of justice, for justice is performed after this life as well as it is performed inside it. But once again, one must not forget that it is no issue for you to fail to understand, for this God is, as we have stated, the greatest being, and if he is so, than he must be beyond our full comprehension. If he could fully be grasped by weak and limited human minds, he would be far to unimpressive to count as the greatest being.
3 And he surely has, as many a man has realized the wickedness of his actions before any punishment could be perceived from your point of view. The realization of this wickedness is punishment in itself, and you must recognize that evil and punishment are two conjoined ideas, for one necessarily follows the other, and it is precisely the joy of the good man to realize that sin is suffering, and that virtue is the good.

>> No.4876824

>>4876823
4 But precisely, suicide does not seek non existence. It seeks to remedy a troubled life. That atheists commit suicide believing that they will not exist only shows their error, and no believer would commit suicide anyway, given that he knows that it is sinful to destroy god's creation.
No, suicide seeks to remedy life in every turn, and if the suicidal had the power to change his life as he saw fit, he would gladly do so. That he should see non existence as the only sort of peace does not prevent peace from in reality being attainable only in life and in paradise.
5 That mercy hath be brought in this world with punishment is no incoherence but design, for the greatest being created the greatest world. It was seen as fit for mercy to exist, for mercy is good. But this good could never have been brought into being without justice which is also a good. And punishment received from God is but another good, for it is the instruction that drives us from sin. Such that the world that we see is truly a good one. And that it is so because the combination of mercy and justice operated by our God, because it brings both into existence, is the perfect one.

Well, my friend, it's five in the morning and I have an appointment at nine tomorrow, so by the Lord's mercy, I'll show that there was no need to spend so much effort in order to disproof this stupid demonstration of the existence of our Lord and Savior.
Anselm's argument can be routed with simple reductio ad absurdum by taking the statement "Imagine the greatest being" and replacing it with "Imagine the greatest island."
There is no need to even contest the fact that something is greater if it exists in reality, and certainly It's never a good idea to start debating mercy, the good, etc, with religious people, because all these concepts are defined around religion in their minds.

>> No.4876827

>>4876824
>disprove

Seriously, fuck mornings.

>> No.4876853

How can you believe in induction if its just a theory (a gauss)?