Pinko, I'm far more intelligent than you'll ever be. Far, far more intelligent.

You, on the other hand, are a stupid good for nothing waste of space smacktard.

I don't CARE who the BNP kill, IT DOES NOT JUSTIFY BEING A VIGILANTE.

You're scum. That's all you are, and I honestly hope one of those racist bitches in the BNP kills you, because that's all your deserve.

I feel so sorry for all of you who really feel that evolution is actually a true fact while in reality,there is no evidence to support any theories of evolution. To further support my point, the last few years evolution has taken a beating with the worlds most advanced scientists questioning Darwin's THEORY as a bunch of crap! we can all blame the ACLU for their aggressive agnostic motives and teachings in our public schools for that. Technology is far too advanced to support evolution exspecially when we will see nano technology come into are everyday life in a matter of a few years. With those of you believing in evolution, I can only ask you one question. Why even ponder hope, prosperity,forgiveness, and kindness to our fellow man when there is nothing in the end? Do you actually think that we will evolve as species when there are two forces of good and evil that facilitate all our decisions everyday. America is the only nation in history to contribute financially and help for any other nation that needs assistance. This comes from our founding fathers and the doctrine instilled from the Declaration of Independance and our trust in God and his word. Do you think that Is a coincidence? I think not. In our schools we have replaced the pledge of allegience and the Ten Commandments for condoms. Hows that for advancing our species??!!

Oh ffs. Not another lunatic.

Hey mark77, evolution happened and has been proved. So just get the hell out of here.

Firstly, learn what theory means. Theory means it has undergone scientific testing and has been proven to near certainty. If not, it would be a hypothesis.

Darwins theory was incorrect, yes. It's been vastly modified to include knowledge of things such as DNA and mutations. All of which happen.

Teaching your public schools? You own them now? Well, I guess they'd better apologise for teaching facts, not utter crap like you'd want them to. Here's something else for you:

The bible is a story book. Written by politicians.

I don't ponder hope, prosperity or all the other rubbish you spout. Why do we (in general) go along with it? Because we evolve as a species. We do what we can to help the species. Occasionally people see that there is no reason for it, and that's when dangerous men and women get born, those with the knowledge that everything is worthless, who can happily cause pain and suffering because it "doesn't matter".

It matters while you're alive, you fool. We are alive NOW. When we die, WE ARE DEAD.

There are no forces of good and evil. Only someone completely lacking all intelligence could possibly think in terms of good and evil. Stop making up prospects from two different sides of a story. You ever realised how all the sides you believe in are good?

Because you believe in them, they MUST be good? right?

Wrong. Your ignorance is showing. Good and Evil are merely human perception given to decisions made by people who may see it another way. Hell, Hitler thought he was doing what he was doing for the good of the German people. He was a genocidal maniac, but he thought he was doing the "right thing".

Does that tell you nothing? I suspect not, you're blind to all facts.

And you can shut up about "helping financially". Oh dear. You know what? We, in Britain, FOUGHT A FREAKING WAR for other nations. THIS NATION SENT PEOPLE TO DIE WHILE YOU SOLD US SHIPS. So shut the fuck right up.

Your trust in God is flawed, because your founding fathers were criminals. Do you understand? No, you don't.

Your last statement made me laugh. You're saying we've moved on from rules cast in stone roughly 5000 years ago, and saying that's proof we're backward.

We've evolved, and you shall die out and die alone. And good riddance. God never existed, other than a storybook.

EDIT: Between the religious retards, and the hypocritical assholes, consider this my last post on the gc2 forums.

Quixen,

Terrel Owens proves your point. I agree with what you say, but I would like to change the spin.

It is not because of this time. Study any great empire of the past, and you will see that destruction always came from within before external forces result in the eventual demise.

I'ld Also like to point out that religion and politics are one and the same thing. The reason the US founding fathers separated them was because they wanted to remove all the priviledges of kings to any mandate derived from somrthing other than the people.

Finally, I would claim that politics is the symptom, not the cause. If you track with my original claim that mankind is simultaneously hardwired to compete and cooperate, you come to recognize politics as the mechanism that enables this. So the trick is to improve the process not dicard it. LordPinko and the GNP are a good example of when politics fail, and mumble and I as an example where politics works.

No, evolution is still a theory. Read Smithsonian and theorist lectures. They use the lame phrases "pretty much proven" and practically fact". You don't need those phrases if it is proven. We already have phrases, much shorter, btw, "proven" and "fact". This latest round of theorists against special creation has of late been backed by a bacterial experiment showing the "evolution" of other bacteria when one with a certain genetic disposition was introduced into the culture. Other scientists call this "infection" or, for those inclined to the theory but who still face scientific fact, "inconclusive". The scramble started whe it became obvious that such things as a functional eye for a creature, which by itself contains millions of cells, must all in one go evolve in a generation, succeed, and be passed on in the genetic code. Statiticians give you a higher liklihood of turning blue for no apparent reason. This says nothing of the simple one celled creature randonly developing a multicellular body with a brain that can control myriad functions as well immediately adapt to the spontaneous generation of other organs. Evolution also fails to feasibly place insects in the "march out of the water" conclusion. It also implicitly rebels against the long established scientific principle known as entropy. The universe is in a state of decay and breakdown, where, incidentally, is where we get radio-carbon dating. The universe, and all it's energy and mass, is not building up, advancing, or growing more complex, it is in a massive temporal scale falling apart. Evolution also violates 2 other major laws of physics and this is why so many theorists against evolution are becoming more vocal in universities. While many are indeed atheists, they are forced to conclude that special creation is far more provable (we haven't even touched the intelligent design hypothesis) and evolution a clunky nightmare of disparate circumstantial evidence. I mean, the single greatest evolutionist triumph of "proof" is a bacteria culture. It's like calling cancer evolution in action. We also did not touch the incredible species gaps which compound the evolutionist chore to prove by forcing them to accept that when these evolutionary changes happen, they happen many at a time and spontaneously. Whether one believes in a higher power or not, evolution is unproven. Excepting the bacteria and micro-evolution, such as same-species breeeding. What do you get when you croos a bull dog with a shit-zhu? Evolution.

Well, I think I have a good bit more sympathy for the folks who early on begged for this thread to die. Howver, it is the first thread with some flame-nonsense in it that I've kept reading (I normally bow out at the first sign of name-calling).

Somewhere in his last set of posts, Mumble asked what the state of the chat might have to do with the OP's intent. While I agree that there was almost no methodical discussion of the most accurate term to describe the current state of the US govternments (yes, I mean the plural, we're *federal*), at the bumper sticker level we have seen a vigorous exploration of the basic competing values underlying the flashy film title: America, Freedom or Facism=let's talk about liberty and authority, and in particular how to maximize free speech while retaining a semblance of civil discourse.

Still, I regret that I'm not a stronger writer and thinker, because I think there are some interesting social mechanics themes here that could be worth considering for GCIII. I've been thinking lately about how neat it might be to have some "values" sliders as part of basic race setup--you know, axes like Xenophobic to Xenophilic and Authoritarian to Libertarian (not the party). Giving players some knobs like that to twist around might be able to help with many of the complaints about the AI getting too predictable for those of us who are basically in a strategic rut.

*sigh* As a scientist who works with the results of evolution every day, I don't know where to start (yeah yeah, I probably just shouldn't). Unfortunately, however, the ignorance is flying fast and furious around here and that bothers me. (Please note that "ignorance" is not an insult - ignorance simply implies a lack of knowledge of some facts.)

Evolution is a theory. Gravity is a theory. As far as science is concerned, the fact that I'm sitting on this chair is a theory. That's how science works. Science never says "this is a fact." Not for anything. Scientists may, however, occasionally use that language when trying to convey degrees of certainty to lay people. Unfortunately if they don't, some lay people then turn around and say "Aha! You admit evolution is just a theory!" It's a disconnect between the language as used by scientists and the language as used in everyday communication.

As for evidence in favour of evolution, there is tons. The degree of certainty we have for evolution is on the high end of the overall scale, not the low end. In fact, we understand more about evolution than we do about gravity.

As for the arguments above against evolution, they're the same tired old ones that always get tossed into the fray, despite the fact that they've been proven invalid time and time again. Evolution does not violate a single known scientific law, nor do the criticisms based on statistics hold up. Unfortunately, as with many areas of science, evolution is difficult to fully appreciate as a casual external observer. All most people know of it are sound bites like "survival of the fittest" which really have nothing to do with anything. There is a growing disconnect between what the scientific community knows and what it is able to effectively convey to people outside that community.

There is a beauty and magnificence in the workings of the universe that I find far more profound and inspiring than anything conceived by mankind has ever offered me in my short time on this planet. Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to convey that to someone else without them studying it for themselves. This leads, again, to the disconnect between what's been discovered about the universe by people who study it for a living, and what the average person on the street knows of it. I don't know what the solution to that disconnect is, and in fact I fear there is no practical solution. And that saddens me.

we understand more about evolution than we do about gravity

Cauldyth, I'm one of those awful pseudo-scientists who spent a long time studying government (and got tons of grief from peers for telling them none of us were scientists). But I think that if I'm reading you rightly, this almost-casual aside beutifully illustrates your point.

Gravity[/B] is a necessary condition for [B]biology as we know it, but that doesn't mean we understand it better than we understand skeletal mechanics or cellular chemistry. Layfolk who are not serious "fans" of science often really dislike the fact that most theoretical systems depend on black-box nodes like gravity. (Well, I think there might be some holes getting poked in the box, but AFAIK gravitons are still fiction.)

ShuShu62:

I can agree with most of what you said in your last post, but there is something that I have to take issue with.

I'ld Also like to point out that religion and politics are one and the same thing.

I do not believe that this is the case. There are those who perceive religion as a passing fad, or more to the point "a good story" if you take Marcathonas point of view. (Just an example not meaning any harm sir Marcathonas) Many of the people who fall into this category have very strong political views. I guess you could argue that being non-religious is a religion in and of itself but not in my opinion. You are either religious or you are not.

With that said many who are religious do have strong political views, there are a few in this world however, that have very strong religious back rounds but do not have a political stance in their form of government. They leave everything up to whatever god they worship.

As for the majority of the worlds population, I could agree with you. There are exceptions in my opinion that is why I can not say with certainty that Religion and politics are one and the same.

Quixen, I'd say that both you and ShuShu are correct, at least to the extent that "politics" and "religion" are both very big words that attempt to capture or define one's world view. They are about how things work and what we should do based on how we think about those "facts."

Time for a post calling out subtle distinctions on highly volitile subjects. Guarranteed failure but must try nonetheless.

Faith is an individual need that is hardwired into us. That is a need for meaning. The Jodie Foster character accurately portrays my worldview, except for one scene. When she failed to understand/acknowledge that her belief in science was every bit as much a belief in god as all the other beliefs, she let me down.

The distinction is that Religion is not individual, it is organizational and hence political. Stated another way, religion is another name for a means to politically exploit the human need for purpose. Government is another name for a means to politically exploit the human need for security. Nationalism/Ethnicism is another name for a means to politically exploit the human need for identity. Science is another name for a means to exploit the human need for understanding.

The eveolution debate is not a battle of facts, it is a struggle of influence between two political constructs. One construct focusses on leveraging knowledge to cure disease while the other focuses on convincing folks that the disease is better than the cure. This political process is/has always been present, and governments have always followed the sides winning the political battles, not the other way around. The winning side evolves over time.

Here's a quick warning... this thread has popped up on my radar now.  We haven't decided to lock it or anything yet, but it's already come very close to turning into one big flame-fest.

If you can not discuss topics of religion, politics or other issues of personal opinion, in a civil and mature manner, the thread will be locked, and we will look more harshly upon similar threads in the future.  Personal attacks are not OK, calling someone a moron for believing differently from you is not OK. 

Play nice, or don't post to these threads.

Okay, I see we'll agree to disagree. We have a scientist saying everything is only a theory then saying evolution doesn't break a single LAW (which is untrue, btw). Fine. We can go round and round forever and still not get our carriers and starbase invaders. Let me then state it is my informed opinion, as a former believer in evolution, with the variety and amount of evidence presented from both views (yes, I know that is an overly broad comment, for the sake of simplicity) that life did not spontaneously generate from nonliving mass. The debate over whether it arrived on Earth from bacteria dormant in space rock (such hardy bacteria may exist in meteoric, microscopic fossil remains) would at best still assume it randomly generated elsewhere. Todays unvailing of the "legged" dolphin in Japan (it has small fins on the back half of its body that are not normal on your average dolphin) is widely being hailed as yet "another" proof of evolution. But people with six fingers, Siamese twins, other congenital birth defects aren't. See how I view the convulted evolutionary theory (in oversimplification mode): Life churns out from the sea, developing charateristics to survive on land, and then according to theorists discussing this dolphin, wanted to go back to the water. Yes. I see. All that natural, unexplained genetic effort, just to go back to square one. Just read MSNBC or whatever, you'll see the articles. Whales and dolphin are land creatures that evolved into sea creatures. Right. That makes sense. AND FOR THE FAITH COMMENTS: I expressed no faith, I mentioned others lack thereof who support special creation. But I agree, it is political. You have folks nationwide willing and eager to teahc the one expressly without hard evidence, only it's circumstantial. Of course, you can point out special creation is also circumstantial. Fine. Why then is one favored and preached in our schools and the other dismissed out of hand. There is a reason we teach the sun is the center of our solar system. It's hard to deny the mathematic gravity calculations, the telescope pictures, the in-space probes and video images. It is political when one unproven view is force-fed to the populous without at least equal time given to a no less proven theory. FOR THE SCIENTIST: Are you a scientist of biology/anthropology/paleobiology/geology? I do not dispute your claim, only question the weight with which you toss it. If you are not a scientist degreed in these fields, it is unlikely you then have any more education nor clout than I do to assert a view with that statement as an awe-inducing authority. For example, an astrophysicist, highly intelligent and educated as he/she may be, does not throw that weight around in fields outside their learned specialty. This is why, though I'm sure each of the astrophysicists has their own informed views on say, stem-cell research, they do not cross fields and speak with the same level of authority declaring as an astrophysicist, I know all about it. Again, I'm sure you are a scientist. I'm a linguist. For example, I speak, read, and write Arabic among others. I know 4 of the 47 dialects and can get around in 10 more. I know quite a bit about linguistic theory. This, however, makes me no more qualified in my opinions of the middle-east politically and the myriad issues there than you. Anyway, enough of this right now, I didn't set out to write a novel and I see I did.

Wow, I can't believe that this thread is still going!

I see the topic has "evolved" somewhat to include religion and evolution as well as politics.

I find arguing about creation vs. evolution to be futile, neither can nor will ever be "proven". You can't "prove" God exists and since, in theory, evolution occurs over at least millions, if not tens of millions, of years it's going to be very difficult to "prove" either because of lack of evidence in the fossil record or because our species will not be around in a million years to observe any type of significant evolution of species.

Personally I believe in both creation and evolution. Since I believe God did in fact create everything, who's to say that God didn't "create" evolution? I think there was a "big bang" but what initiated it? So far the only explanation I can come up with is "God". Before anyone goes crazy remember it's a "personal" belief not a theory or anything else.

Furthermore one could make the argument, philosophically speaking, that everything in the entire universe, including you and me, were created a minute ago with all our knowledge and memories in place. How do you prove that it didn't happen that way? I don't believe this but no one can prove that's not how it happend.

Fine. You're right. I will let this thread die. I tried not to be abrasive and it is going in circles. I just get wound up when I see people assume theory for fact and then, albeit gently, sort of mock the theories of others when theirs holds no more water than what they disdain. I should remember this isn't the Justice League, I'm not Aquaman, and it is a very friendly place.

Now we are really tap dancing on a grenade here, but I can't pass up the opportunity...

Proloton I am not sure whether you were addressing me or not. But my post was meant to clearly imply that your statements on evelotuion are definitely more an indication of Religion's political influence on you than an indication of your personal faith.

Whether evolution is a fact of life, or part of god's intelligent design, it is undeniably a useful tool that allows US to shape life, while intelligent design is a tool meant to prevent us from doing so. That is why I believe one tool is something to teach and the other is a matter of faith.

Granted, I have never heard intelligent design predict any behavior, nor from my reading of transcripts, has any judge, but I may be jumping to conclusions.

Please consider the following: Evolution provides a perfect explanation of how taking Aids Patients off of Aids medicine periodically, prolongs their life. Here we have a theory explaining an observation that would otherwise be counter intuitive. I have never recieved an Intelligent Design explanation for this behavior. That doesn't mean Intelligent Design is wrong, just not very usefull.

I consider myself fortunate to be living in a time where the political pull of utility exceeds the pull of docility. It has not always been the case, and surely will not always be the case in the future. Lucky Me.

I see the topic has "evolved" somewhat to include religion and evolution as well as politics.

Furthermore one could make the argument, philosophically speaking, that everything in the entire universe, including you and me, were created a minute ago with all our knowledge and memories in place

You can now officially add metaphysics to the list.

We have a scientist saying everything is only a theory then saying evolution doesn't break a single LAW (which is untrue, btw).

Well, a scientific law itself isn't even claimed as cold hard fact. A scientific law is simply a statement of repeated observation: "Every time conditions X are met, Y is observed, with no reproducible exceptions to that having yet been recorded." Laws are not written in stone. Newton's laws, as he originally conceived them, were simply wrong. They later needed to have conditions imposed on them, as science learned more about the universe.

As for evolution violating the laws of thermodynamics, that's simply not true. The relevant law here is the second, which can be roughly stated as "The entropy of an isolated system will tend to increase over time." The key word is "isolated." In scientific terms, that means that no matter or energy can enter or leave the system. A biological organism (or even the Earth itself) is not an isolated system. The order being created on our planet (or in ourselves) is at the expense of massive overall entropy gain.

Are you a scientist of biology/anthropology/paleobiology/geology?

I received my Ph.D. as a Theoretical Chemist (statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, etc.) and now work in Biochemistry, modelling protein structure and function. Proteins are created in the body by directly translating the organism's DNA sequence (word for word, so to speak). It's possible to follow the mutation in function from one species to the next. As a new species (A) emerges and engages in new and different behaviour, you can see the DNA/protein sequence itself changed slightly from the parent organism - just enough to give an old protein a new function. A completely different, unrelated species (B) which engages in the same behaviour but which descended from different species, will have arrived at that functionality from a completely different path. Thus, while the protein has the exact same function in both species, they are completely different proteins in terms of their sequence. Their sequences bear much more resemblance to their ancestor species than they do to each other.

If someone wants to study the evolution of species over the past few billion years, then they have no choice but to study the external wiggly bits on fossils and try to draw conclusions. However, if they want to study evolution of the species that are around us today, the evidence of it is written into the DNA sequences of the species themselves, just waiting to be read.

Well, go figure, I took so long to type that, several posts were made in the meantime. Feel free to ignore it.

The distinction is that Religion is not individual, it is organizational and hence political.

To me that is like saying Politics is organizational and therefore Religion. I may have misunderstood ShuShu but that is how it is coming across. This of course I must disagree with. Just because there is structure in most faiths does not mean that it draws those who believe in said faith, into a political atmosphere, or that it draws from one political view or another.

Evolution: Not sure what to say here except if the big bang theory is indeed correct, and the entire universe came from a single point of light the size of a pin hole surrounded by nothingness and began in nothingness, how did nothing become a pin hole of light which created the universe? Had to come from somewhere or something did it not?

Proloton: At least for my sake, could you break up your posts just a little. It is very hard to read and I like reading your replies. Thank you kindly sir.

if the big bang theory is indeed correct, and the entire universe came from a single point of light the size of a pin hole surrounded by nothingness and began in nothingness, how did nothing become a pin hole of light which created the universe? Had to come from somewhere or something did it not?

Evolution just attempts to explain how life as we see it today arose on a planet which previously had no life. The whole Big Bang shebang is a much larger question, and beyond simple chemists like myself.

Quixen-

To further add to the question "where did the pinhole of light come from that filled the void of nothingness?" Where did the void of nothingness come from for the pinhole of light to fill?   

Pokerface,

I think that one works more as a Koan than a logical conclusion. It assumes nothing is something, which I think changes the original assumption that there ever was such a concept as nothing. I think you were looking for a new spin on the old saw that if god created the pihole of light, where'd god come from. Or my favorite quote from GEB... 'It's all Turtles from here'

It is sad to see God defended by logic. That battle has long been waged and concluded along the lines of... God created a logical world, but he(she/it) is not constrained by logic. Paraphrased for the masses as 'We cannot understand the misteries of...'

Shushu-

The question is definitely a "koan" (good word by the way, I had to look that one up   ).

It can't be answered but I don't think that means it should be dismissed. As far the use of logic to defend God; if you believe God endowed us with logic it would only make sense that he intended us to use it.

I would definitely not dismiss your question because it does really call out the first poster's assumption that there was ever nothing. I was working on that angle when I realised, as written, your posting is a logical paradox, a good one, but a paradox.

My point about defending god with logic is that you can't. That is why the Hindu's rely so much on Koan's to make their point. Western religions rely on a far less taxing concept... Faith.

I am a little suprised by the second half of your response. I mean you broached the whole topic that you can't prove logic by logic. My faith is logic, although I understand that it is as much a Faith as Faith in god, the only difference is that my faith enables me to do things faith in god does not.

To tie it back to my political train of thought. Why was Islam an inventive religion early on and a regressive one today? Why has Judaism always been inventive. Why has catholicism never been inventive. I think the answer lies in the political influence of the religion relative to the political influence of the government that houses it.

Stepping back now for onslaught of Italian/French scientists to be thrown back at me.