-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- New Star Trek Comic Books Announced To Preorder! November 2024 Edition
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Dave Stern!
- “Star Trek: Lower Decks – Warp Your Own Way” Review by Akotsko.substack.com
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Christie Golden!
- “Star Trek: Voyager: 16 Seven Of Nine” Review by Deepspacespines.com
- Nana Visitor Joins Us to Talk About Her New Book – Star Trek: Open a Channel: A Woman’s Trek!
- Out Today: “Star Trek #26”
- Star Trek Strange New Worlds Asylum Book Review
- John Jackson Miller Books Ranked!
- “Star Trek: The Next Generation: Headlong Flight” Review by Lessaccurategrandmother.blogspot.com
- Movie Related Products
- “Deadpool & Wolverine” Review
- Kevin Smith Is Getting Closer and Closer to Dogma 2
- “The Garfield Movie” Review
- Disney Said to be Considering a Surprising Replacement for Bob Iger: EA CEO Andrew Wilson – IGN
- Amazon Is Shutting Down Freevee, Its Ad-Supported Video Streamer
- “Breathe” Review
- “Transformers One” Review
- Captain America: Brave New World | Official Trailer
- Marvel Studios’ Thunderbolts* | D23 Brazil Special Look | In Theaters May 2, 2025
- Mattel apologizes after mistakenly printing porn site on ‘Wicked’ movie dolls packaging | CNN Business
- Music Video DB
- Bleu Berline – J’te promets [french pop] (2024)
- Twine – Fruit To Ripe [Alternative / Noise Rock / Post-Hardcore] (2024)
- Spirit Ritual – Third Nature [Psychedelic / Indie] (2024)
- TheStarsYouCan’tSee — The Places You’ve Bled [Goth/Rock] (2024)
- Rudy Void – You’ve Got The Mind But Nothing Else To Lose [Post-punk] [2024]
The transition from unicellular organism to fish is a bit… sudden.
Perhaps it’s an attempt to reconcile Evolutionary & Creationist beliefs? “In the beginning, there was nothing. Then God created fish. Which turned into people.”
Actually this isn’t too far off from the bible,even with literal translations. Aquatic creatures were the first to be created. That aside i thought the currently accepted theory is that we are an offshoot of starfish. What a lame animal to evolve from. I mean shit,we should have at least kept the ability to regenerate limbs.
Youre a bit off in your Bible translation. God created creatures of the sea, birds, and other animals… then it specifically says, God created man. It doesnt say God then let the fish become man.
‘and then god pissed about for a few eons, and fish accidentally became man, and god was apathetic and had better things to do, so he let it go on like that’
You do realize that there are hundreds of translations and interpretations of the bible? And that the bible was not supposed to be a scientific text of the world and its creation? Could you imagine going over the minutiae of the development of Eyes alone? Christ scientists have written whole libraries on chemical and electrical synapses alone, let alone the massive amount of data that would be required to adequately explain their development. Books in the bible were written for pre-scientific minds and thus will be overly simplified when it comes to scientific matters. It’s like looking for instructions on how to fly an f-22 in the chapter of your High school physics book that covers aerodynamics.
I’m fine w/ most Christians, those that don’t take the bible literally (e.g. most evangelicals). They always want to argue the bible and I’m not in the least bit interested in doing that.
Well first you need to figure out which translation and version of the bible to debate. Whether to limit it to canonical texts, what way the word was used in its original hebrew context. For example the oldest Book on Christianity (the book of thomas) is not considered canonical scripture.
Meh, fuck the bible. I’d rather get my spiritual enlightenment from the source.
FUCK YOU, STARFISH ARE COOL
We share a common ancestor, but the echinoderms and chordates don’t share more than some similarities in early development and a little DNA. We split off more than 530 mya.
THIS IS WHAT EVOLUTIONISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE
THIS IS WHAT FASCISTS REALLY BELIEVE
srsly, WAT?
close. frames 9 thru 12 show us that a creature from “where the wild things are” turn into asians.
WHERE’S YO’ HEAAAD AAAAAAT?
(WHERE’S YO HEAD AT? WHERE’S YO’ HEAD AT?)
Wait… I never knew Casemods had a tail??!?!!
I’m with evilpenguin. Going from frame 1 to frame 2 seems like a rather big leap. I’m a creationist, but even if I was an evolutionist, I would think that from a scientific point of view like there is quite a few steps missing.
Side Point: To all of you evolutionist out there: For the big bang theory to be correct ask yourself this one question. Where did the atomic particles that form atoms, that form spacedust, that form whatever it was that allegedly made the big bang come from? Or did the neutrons, and electrons just magic themselves into existance and then form atoms out of their own will?
Ooooh god dude, i hope you realize you are opening up a can of atheist rage fuel. Trust me on this, your best bet in face of confrontation will be to agree to disagree. Trust me, the internet is overflowing with angry atheists and to a lesser degree agnostics. That’s not to say all atheists are assholes mind you, most of the ones i know in real life are levelheaded people who are content to let believers believe. I warn you sir. Here there be dragons.
Fair Enough. Just call it food for thought.
He baited the evolutionists and the quantum physicists. Man’s got some casemods in him I think!
Your side point is flawed. You assert that it is unlikely that a subatomic particle can magic itself into existence.
However, your theory is that some supreme being magiced itself into being, and then magiced the subatomic particles into being. Two of said magiccings.
Per Occam’s Razor, the simpler of the two is the more reasonable theory.
I’m happy with the idea that ‘time’ only exists within the universe, and that the universe is somewhat immortal.
“To all of you evolutionist out there: For the big bang theory…”
one of these is not like the others.
one of these just don’t belong!
what the hell does the big bang have to do with evolution?
No Lotus, no need to show rage.
Jon, You do realize that this is closer to what creationists believe than the evidence for evolution suggest. But you are right. There are quite a few steps missing in this image, gaps that science has either filled with evidence or testable hypothesis.
I suggest you spend some time perusing www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
Evolution and Big Bang Theory do not correlate. So that’s just a stupid setup. However, I don’t know what, who, when or anything prior to The Big Bang. I don’t have to answer that question because science doesn’t require everything to have an answer now. We just don’t know and have no need to make up things to explain it. If you want to believe God did it, that’s fine, just remember science has its own rules and God isn’t among them.
ATHEIST RAGE RAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
if you view these in reverse order, the monkey man takes a shit. and this submission gets moar better
Even if you’re an evolutionist, the sequence is still very wrong. For example, man is supposed to be descended from APES. The main physical characteristic of apes is NO TAIL. So the tail they show shrinking was gone LONG before the development into man.
And as others pointed out, there are probably more steps between image 1 and 2 than between all the rest of the stages.
I’d like to point out this is a silly bit of art and not meant to be the complete fossil record leading to humans. Hence, the gaps and inconsistancies.
NoOne, humans and the rest of the apes evolved from a common ancestor. Chimps aren’t our ancestors, they are our cousins.
God is the answer when you stop asking questions. If I don’t know the answer to something, I prefer to wait until an answer is discovered, rather than to simply say “It was MAGIC!!!!”
I respectfully disagree. Saying God did it does not mean you should abandon scientific endeavor and leave it at that. Otherwise you will not grow spiritually and worse yet you will not grow in scientific knowledge. Anyone who seriously claims that we should just leave it as “god did it” is accepting willful ignorance of gods work which in turn leads to scientific ignorance and hinders our progress.
You just described a fair portion of Xian America.
When you say that god did it, and then show that god didn’t do it and natural processes are responsible, god gets smaller and smaller. Its why most of Xian America rejects evolution in favor of creationism. It doesn’t just violate biblical literalism, but it makes YHWH smaller with every discovery.
Honestly, though I consider these people to be my allies in an enemy of my enemy kind of way, paving the way for the surviving godlings dwindle away into the past with Zeus and friends. I don’t want to see religion destroyed, just reduced to the level of respectable hobby, like building model airplanes or knitting.
Of course, in the long run, the enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy. No more, no less.
[quote]When you say that god did it, and then show that god didn’t do it and natural processes are responsible, god gets smaller and smaller. [/quote]
Well Mr Fracked you may be right.
I don’t really think that a “natural” process is indicative of anything other than showing that there is a process at work. Of course this leads off into the Who or what created the univserse arguement and then into the who or what created god argument, neither of which we have a solid answer for. For example showing how a monkey branched off from another monkey and evolved into modern man doesn’t disprove god to me no more than the face of jesus on a piece of bread proves god (what with pareidolia and all) . It just proves that man evolved from monkey. I mean it might prove that the biblical account of creation is either flawed/wrong or like i said earlier it was just simply not written to take such complex mechanisms into account.
Question. For the sake of argument let’s say that there is a god of some sort. We’ll define god as a conscious entity of unknown origin that at some point created or interfered with either the universe’s development and by extension our galaxy, solar system, planet and then life on our planet and possibly others. How would we distinguish between Natural causes or unnatural?
Personally I’ve hypothesized that the interference or modification may appear as natural to us hence why we may not have solid proof or evidence for the aforementioned god.
For example Genetic Scientists in China have successfully created Glow in the Dark pigs that passed their Glowing trait onto their piglets. Let’s say all records of these are destroyed and lost for whatever reason and about 5000 years down the road all of our reasearch data has been wiped out for whatever reason. A new crop of scientists starts doing genetic research on these glow in the dark pigs. How would they determine that the “glowing gene” was artificially inserted? Or would they just assume that it was natural since there is no written record that can definitively state “yes these pigs were modified”
If god is indistinguishable from nature and god’s existence can’t be teased out by asking god to intervene in a double blinded randomized clinical trial on HIV progression or pregnancy rates in fertility treatments, then deism is about as close as we can get and still fit the evidence. I consider the addition of a deity to the mix to be an unnecessary detail. Exclusion of this detail doesn’t negatively affect the universe, except in a sentimental manner.
As for the glow in the dark pigs, let’s say they glow because of the addition of luciferase, a gene found in fruit flies. If both pigs and fireflies are still around 5000 years from now, then we could not only say that no other pigs have this gene or similar genes, suggesting that it was not part of the typical porcine genome. When it is discovered to be the same gene as firefly luciferase, our descendants would have a fair hypothesis that humans made transgenic pigs. Its the same way we track resistance markers in bacteria, and how we discovered endogenous retroviruses in our genome.
Shit, not fruit flies, fireflies. I have fruit flies on the brain as I am in the middle of teaching a non-mendelian genetics chapter.
If god is indistinguishable from nature and god’s existence can’t be teased out by asking god to intervene in a double blinded randomized clinical trial on HIV progression or pregnancy rates in fertility treatments, then deism is about as close as we can get and still fit the evidence.
I think we are in mutual agreement here.
As for my question thank you for the answer. It is nice to get a respectful and informative reply. Plus i enjoy learning. I take it you are a professor much like Reboot?
Also, jesus loves you fracked.
I am. And having seen pics of Jesus, she’s hot.
Lol good response.
The moment I see anything aside from wishful thinking and delusions as evidence of any supreme being’s “work,” then I’ll consider the possibilty. Haven’t seen or heard of a single scrap. Religious belief is a byproduct of our social structure, and it is sad to see otherwise intelligent people believing so fiercely in something that is as real as fairies. We are wired to believe in invisible things, that’s why people fall for scientology, christianity, the force. Christ, have you ever heard of Otherkin? They are just as valid as any of your gods, which means not at all.
But people cling to it because they are keen on that whole eternal life thing, or the heaps of virgins, or the river styx. Sorry lotus, believing a thing, and wishing it were so, does not make it so.
But you’ll never get it, and you’ll just keep worrying about us godless athiests and our empty spiritual lives. And I’ll just keep feeling sorry for you and shaking my head at the absurdity of it all.
I’m sorry i was under the impression we could have a civil discussion about this and at least come to a mutual agreement of some sort. But you are right, there is no empirical evidence (that we know of so far)that can lead us to definitely conclude that there was a creator. Evidence at this point is either anecdotal or philosophical in nature and is not testable in a laboratory or in the field. Yet there is no evidence for the non existence of a creator either. At this point the most rational stance would be agnostic-atheism. Personally for my own reasons i am an agnostic-theist. If you disagree with my stance that is fine, i’m not trying to convince you otherwise, at the most i would be explaining why i RESPECTFULLY Disagree.
Secondly i’m not worried about you. It’s not my job or my place to convert you or even attempt it.I’m not going to tell you that you are going to hell or someother scare tactic. So please, get over yourself, Your soul is not my concern.
I just felt that you were peddling a stereotype and i wanted you to know that there are many of us who not only believe but do not think that “god did it” is an adequate answer. I don’t assume that every atheist that challenges me is actually a hateful godless demon despite the blatant. Again i was hoping we could build some bridges here and that we could at least attempt to break eachothers pre-conceived notions of our respective philosophies. But obviously that was too much to ask.
Nowhere did i state that the universe or the world was definitely created by some creator. Nowhere did i attack atheism and say it was invalid. Do i Personally disagree with it? Yes, but i do not 100% discount it and then go on comparing it to Horton Hears A Who or some old myth or parable.
I only mentioned that belief in creation and god or gods does not equate to nor is it a reason for rejection of scientific endeavor.
I’m not sitting here telling you about why i reject atheism (and quite honestly i have yet to see any evidence either proving or disproving a gods existence, So honestly your stance is as valid to me as a jehovas witness or a scientologists. And had you actually been respectful instead of an intolerant ass i would have explained to you how i am technically an agnostic-theist) and pulling out the common hat arguments accusing you of having had a bad experience at your local church and saying that the only reason you disbelieve in god is wishful thinking and whatever else my emotion filled mind would drag up. If you have not found satisfactory evidence to lead you to believe that there is a creator then that is fine. I’m not trying to convince you otherwise. I was just trying to show that all of us theists are no the same.
I guess it is easier to mock things you do not understand rather than actually sitting down and trying to learn with someone who would try to present it to you with no ulterior motives.
I’m sorry i attempted to be respectful and kind towards you.
its okay if thats the only thing you want to belive.
Lotuseater, if I met you in person we might get along fine. I know lots of lovely religious people. But honestly I find a belief in any god to be absurd. I consider religion ridiculous and it saddens me that mainly sensible people will take an abrupt turn in their usually rational thinking like you do. I have heard the argument that agnosticism is superior to atheism many times, because at least you are open to the possibility. But why would I be open to the possibility of something if nothing, ever, indicated that it existed? It’s like believing I’ll never die. Sure, it would be nice, but since no one ever hasn’t died, well, I would be stupid to expect it, or even to consider it.
I never had a bad experience in church, but I found it painful to pretend I believed any of that ridiculous nonsense. Religions come and go. Most gods who were worshipped have been lost to time. New ones are created regularly. I have no interest in the silly game of making up some supreme being to fit what I want the universe to be. It is a sad attempt by us bald apes to feel important. We are small and insignificant and our lives are meaningless, and that’s just fine with me.
So call me an intolerant ass. You are right. I will never find any validity in your argument, nor will you agree with me. Another example of how religion works to divide us into little discrete groups.
Fracked again, marry me. A civil ceremony, of course.
😀
Based on the definitions I use, agnosticism and atheism are compatible as they define different qualities. Agnostic means you don’t know. Atheist means you don’t believe in gods. So an agnostic atheist doesn’t believe, but doesn’t have certain knowledge. I fit there, as does Dawkins and most of the “new” atheists. Its extremely unlikely, so I might as well be a gnostic atheist, but I’m open to evidence, just not expecting any. The degree of gnosis is a qualifier of a/theism and not a middle ground, except for apatheists.
That degree of hairsplitting sounds too much like religion for me.
I have to look up apatheists. brb.
Wow. There sure are a lot of divisions in non-belief. Wiki says Dawkins is simply an athiest. I have a degree of apatheism in me too, mainly because debating religion versus atheism is always pointless. And yet, sometimes I do it. Even though it wears me out.
Anyone here seen “A History of Lying”? I wonder why that didn’t get picketed by religious groups.
Well i understand where you are coming from. Obviously i disagree but you’ve presented yourself here in a much calmer and respectful manner. For that i thank you. Too each their own i suppose Sir EvilCritter. Things could be worse also, i could be an inquisitor and you could be having your legs beaten into a pulp for not saying god bless you.
That would be Ma’am, actually.
I’ve been told off for not saying “bless you” when people sneeze. Apparently some people still think that’s how evil spirits get in their heads. I guess.
Lotuseater, didn’t you warn jonblaze81 not to get involved in an argument? Funny that you expect reasoned debate here. Casemods lives here!
Anyway, I’m not being mean, I just think faith is dumb. Be offended by that, that’s ok. And you sound remarkably like a friend of mine. You aren’t by any chance an epistomologist, are you? Do you believe tectonic plates are bunk and the Roman empire never existed? He is tiresome to talk to. Self-proclaimed genius. Completely insane. And a paranoid narcassist. You aren’t him, are you?
I wonder how many Battlestar Galactica fans believe in those gods. Do they say their prayers at night and end with “so say we all?”
Well jonblaze was flat out taunting the resident atheists/ “evolutionists” . To me that is not a constructive way to argue. I make no claims of genius. Just claims of differing perspective. I mean i love a good conspiracy theory and all and i do ponder heavily on Epistemology because i find it to be an interesting subject. However i don’t think i would go as far as to claim that the roman empire never existed. Tectonic plates i have never seen so i can’t be 100% sure of their existence but as far as i know that is a theory that has stood up to decades of peer review. I just exist, that much i am certain of, and half the time i’m not even certain of it.
That wasn’t meant to be an insult, Lotuseater. You just argue the same way he does, is all. I doubt you are as out there.