Thread: God and DNA

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Why am I not allowed to ask that question? Please enlighten me.

Because the answer is incredibly simple.

If we are randomly mutuated and naturally selected from apes to humans, how do you explain this process suddenly reversing, and we growing a tail again? Is this the process of natural selection and random mutation leading to the growing of tails? How exaclty does regrowing a tail serve us any evolutionary benefit? The idea of the evolution theory is random muations cause changes like these to happen over millions of years, not just in one generation.

This was the real question I was asking. Now give me your incredbly simple answer?

Anyway, I'm done. It's obvious you guys refuse to take me serious. There is no further point in talking to eachother. Let's agree to disagree. Marvo.. Xie.. Bluelines. I'm done.


However, for other people interested in further discussing this topic, I'm still open for debate.

I don't think we should tell you.

You should go watch some videos about evolution, read some books or websites, and ACTUALLY TRY TO UNDERSTAND, and then come back here and explain why your question is retarded.

You realise it is impossible for you to coherently argue against something if you have NO IDEA WHAT IT IS.

Take a chill pill.

If you refuse to tell me, then there is no point in further discussion. You want to discuss, but you don't want to tell me. Contradiction spotted.

If it is impossible to argue against me, stop arguing against me? As simple as that. How hard can that be?

I'm not shouting, I'm trying to get through to you.

Looks like it didn't work. Yet again you've completely ignored the people who are trying to help you.

I don't want this kind of aggressive help. Xei, Marvo, Bluelines. I'd rather have a discussion without insulting. So i'm done with you guys. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

However I'm still open for debate for other people who wish to discuss this topic.

We're not here to teach you, Chayba. There are plenty of sources for you to teach yourself.

However, until you do teach yourself, and are capable of answering the question above, this thread is utterly pointless, because you cannot 'debate' something if you don't know what it is.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

If we are randomly mutuated and naturally selected from apes to humans, how do you explain this process suddenly reversing, and we growing a tail again? Is this the process of natural selection and random mutation leading to the growing of tails? How exaclty does regrowing a tail serve us any evolutionary benefit? The idea of the evolution theory is random muations cause changes like these to happen over millions of years, not just in one generation.

This was the real question I was asking. Now give me your incredbly simple answer?

Originally Posted by Xei

...natural selection does not suggest that a tail should be an advantage.

Hopefully that's clear enough.

Originally Posted by Xei

We're not here to teach you, Chayba. There are plenty of sources for you to teach yourself.

However, until you do teach yourself, and are capable of answering the question above, this thread is utterly pointless, because you cannot 'debate' something if you don't know what it is.

Ok if this thread is pointless just leave already? Why do you keep posting in this "pointless thread"? If you claim this thread is pointless, so are your replies as they are in this thread. So stop spamming this pointless thraed, that is pretty pointless. I am uncapable of understanding your posts anyway.

Either that or close it.

This is just getting ridiclous. Now you want this thread closed? Wtf. Just go away if you don't care? I really fail to see the problem here to be honest...

I'm still posting here because I'm trying to make you see that it is pointless.

Why are you attempting to debate with these vastly more educated people about something you have no knowledge about? I've already proved to you that you have zero knowledge about it, so what reason could you possibly have for continuing your pointless attempts at disproving it?

I don't understand why you don't see that it's inherently ridiculous trying to disprove that 2 + 2 = 4 if you don't know what + means.

Ok I see that it is pointless. Will you go away now? I'll just ignore your next posts.. this is pure off-topic spam. The mod should delete this last page.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

I'll just ignore your next posts

That shouldn't be too hard since you've done it with every other damn post in this thread.

No. Either way you turn, I'll be here; open up your skull, I'll be there; constantly jabbing you with the knowledge that you are wrong: that this is not an argument for God, and when you die it's possible that you will simply cease to exist forever.

In other words I'm doing the job that your brain is supposed to do if you are sane.

Ok stay as long as you want then. Its nice to hear someone cares so much for me. I will read your posts, however I probably won't reply to them as I'm uncapable of understanding them...

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

This was the real question I was asking. Now give me your incredbly simple answer?

Anyway, I'm done. It's obvious you guys refuse to take me serious. There is no further point in talking to eachother. Let's agree to disagree. Marvo.. Xie.. Bluelines. I'm done.


However, for other people interested in further discussing this topic, I'm still open for debate.

ChaybaChayba, the problem is (and I've only skimmed the thread, because it's long as all hell, but this is what I see) you are trying to argue a point that you don't even understand, yourself. You are cherry picking which posts to respond to - based on your understanding of the material, which is limited, to say the least - and you are essentially disregarding the input of those who have proven to be the most qualified to counter your OP.

This thread amounts to:

Chayba - "I think science is ignorant, when it comes to creation. Someone tell me, in detail, why it's not."

Member X - "Well, that's because (enter well-comprised rationale as to why a certain scientific principle opposes the Creationism ideology)."

Chayba - "Well I don't understand all that, but like I was saying, I think science is ignorant, when it comes to creation. Someone tell me, in detail, why it's not."

Rinse, repeat.

You are asking for an answer, and you are getting it, but you are sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'la la la la la" at the answer - either because you don't understand it (which you have said), or because you just choose to ignore it (which I think might have some truth in it, as well).

You are getting frustrated because people aren't taking you seriously, but you are not giving them much to take seriously. If you are going to write-off science, and support creationism, don't be so arrogant in your assessment as to write such an inflammatory OP, when you don't at least grasp a basic understanding of whatever it is you are degrading, or saying is flat-out false.

It's basically as silly as seeing an MMA fight and sayin to your friends "How can you idiots watch this garbage? All they are doing is hugging each other" - having no understanding of (and, seemingly, no interest in trying to understand) what's actually going on.

You cannot debate something you do not understand - especially if you plug your ears at the people who are actually trying to give you some understanding.

If you do not take the ideas of the people you are debating against seriously (or just refuse to understand them - or constantly 'fail' to understand them enough to hold a conversation), then this thread is pointless.

Oneironaut: so wrong. I was debating logical fallacies, it wasn't even about creationism at all. You just made that story all up. And I do understand evolution, you just claim I don't. But I do, ask me any question. If you also think this thread is pointless, just leave please. I never said science was ignorant. It's quite the opposite, if you would be reading my posts , I would be defending science, defending the scientific method, and claiming evolution theory is going against the scientific method.

You think I'm a stereotype creationist Christian, but let me tell you, here in my country, not a single soul believes in creationism. In Belgium we all believe in evolution and that is the only thing we learn in school... Like I have said, so many times, I don't disagree with evolution theory, I disagree with some logical fallacies, which would lead the evolution theory being actually intelligent design. However, I am not arguing against the evidence, I am arguing against the logic that is used to string together the evidence.

Basically Oneironaut, what you just did was make up a story out of nothing that had nothing to do with this thraed whatsoever... the discussion was completely different. You claim I'm the one getting frustrated eventho it's exactly the opposite. People are insulting me! Did you even read this thread? I made this thraed, and I proposed a theory. It is people who ignore my theory, not the other way around. Your reply is so extremely lame, you say the opposite of what actually happened. And the proof of what happened is right here in the posts in this thread. You refuse to read the posts and just come up with a story yourself? Wtf.





Anyway, what you are doing Oneironaut is a very very lame thing indeed. You just made that all up, word by word. If you would just read the thread, that is totally not how things happened. The proof is right under your nose, yet you deny it. How scientific of you.



I think now I start to understand all this commotion, you guys think I'm a Creationist Christian? Lol. I'm a scientist exactly like you guys. There is not much difference in our believes, except that I can link the evolution theory to God. However, I agree with evolution theory. Which I have repeated, many many many times. The only thing I did was point out some logical fallacies showing that evolution theory and God are compatible.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

And I do understand evolution

You can't answer basic questions about it.

You can't answer basic questions about it

You can't answer basic questions about it.

It was me who asked the question, not you Xei. You refused to answer my question. Quote youself and see your own lies.

Basically, the only argument you can come up with is "you do not understand evolution theory". That's it. And you just keep spamming this same argument. Lame.


I could do the same thing to you you know and just say you don't understand evolution theory and that you should go re-educate yourself. However this is not debating this is childish insulting. In Belgium it is impossible to not understand the evolution theory as this is required to graduate from high school.

Maybe in America people exist who don't understand evolution, but in Belgium, this is not the case.

Why does natural selection not imply that a human tail is advantageous?

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

And I do understand evolution, you just claim I don't. But I do, ask me any question.

Actually, you claimed it. More than once. Whether or not you were just being sarcastic is another matter, but it lends credence to the idea that you don't.

And my first inclination at your lack of understanding was when you (first) went on about the basic elements for life being "Earth, Fire, Wind and Water. The second inclination was your depiction of "randomness" as it had to do with creating Shakespere. You said:

Even if you could create Shakespeare, at random, which is the process that is going to test if the random book is in fact, the book you wanted? You do realize, that if you generate a random book, with the goal to arrive at shakespeare, you must already know what shakespear looks like to begin with? I hope you see the huge logical flaw in your argumentation here? There is no way you can randomly generate romea and julia without knowing what romia and julia is going to look like. Say you have your 239029302903 random books, how the hell are you going to know which one is the right one? Smartass...

The creating of Shakespeare, due to a 'random' system has nothing to do with "wanting" the outcome to be Shakespeare, as you seem to think it does. It is simply a statement that, given the conditions that are theorized to have happened randomly, Shakespeare would, inevitably, be written. It has nothing to do with "Wanting" there to be Shakespeare, because Shakespeare, at the point of discussion, would not have been invented yet.

You misunderstood a very simple concept that is one very often perpetuated by Creationists. It is analogous to 'putting the cart before the horse.'

Another example of this was when a creationist vid I once saw was saying that - since the angles/ridges of a banana peel fit perfectly into the human hand, bananas were 'obviously' put on this planet FOR us, by an Intelligent Designer. This completely ignores the, more likely, idea that our hands have so evolved to more easily manipulate the fruit which our evolutionary ancestors have spent so much time eating.

If you also think this thread is pointless, just leave please.

You do understand the basic jobs of a mod, do you not?

I never said science was ignorant. It's quite the opposite, if you would be reading my posts , I would be defending science, defending the scientific method, and claiming evolution theory is going against the scientific method.

If I somehow missed your defense of the scientific method, amongst the point-dodging and gross misinterpretations of others' points, that I have seen in this thread, then I apologize. I will more closely examine the thread before/if I decide to reply again.

You think I'm a stereotype creationist Christian, but let me tell you, here in my country, not a single soul believes in creationism. In Belgium we all believe in evolution and that is the only thing we learn in school.

Now you're making stuff up. I didn't say you were any sort of "stereotypical" anything. I'm talking about your view as being creationist. Period.

Like I have said, so many times, I don't disagree with evolution theory, I disagree with some logical fallacies, which would lead the evolution theory being actually intelligent design. However, I am not arguing against the evidence, I am arguing against the logic that is used to string together the evidence.

I'm not sure I understand this. What would be the difference? I get that the evidence for evolution could, could be interpreted as a process stemming from Intelligent Design, but I must be completely missing your point on how you are making the conclusion that evolution actually stems from intelligent design. It takes a leap of faith that has little to no empirical evidence.

What I have seen, though, is people repeatedly trying to introduce you to basic principles of evolution, and evidence that you just 'haven't gotten it. Like I said, maybe I'm missing something. I'll give you that possibility. But, like I said, from here, it just looks like you're cherry-picking. When I get home tonight, I'll take a little more time to look at the whole thread, more closely.

You might think I'm cherrypicking because it is everyone vs me. It is impossible to answser on all posts. And this thread went from 5 pages to like 11 pages in a very very fast speed. I typed as fast as I could. I didn't do "cherrypicking" on purpose. This thread simply got spammed. Look at the timestamps and see for yourself.

You don't know what natural selection is.