Dude, that's awful. The fact that you don't get life from nowhere in a jar of  ****** peanuts (aka, smashed, ******, cant even grow) isn't enough to disprove evolution. Is he serious? Holy crap!

Exactly. Sorry did i not make that clear in my waffle?

No, you mentioned a chicken-like creature laying an egg containing a chicken. Millions of years prior to that, creatures that were nothing like chickens laid eggs containign other non-chickens. We're still on the same side of the argument, though.

I think the only religious people who believe they have all of the answers are actually the insecure ones.

they worry too much that science might prove their god doesn't exist so they waste valuable time railing again science and engaging in circular arguments such as the one Mel provided.

I love both religion and science, but they each fulfill difference needs in me and do not compete with one another.

There are lots of foolish people in the world and what they say is to be taken with a grain of salt.

No, their response to that is that he knows and just doesn't do anything and either try to come up with some explanation that doesn't make any sense or have no explanation at all.

Bloke, in the video he disproved the approach of saying the chicken came from something else first too.

I watched it all and no he did not. He says ,Something must have created the first organisms and fish comes from fish eggs and not chicken eggs. None of which proves anything. It is known that fish come from chicken eggs and that chicken were never born from fish. Such claims do not show an evolutionist or atheist in poor light but rather shows an ignorance of what the theory of evolution is.

I wouldn't watch the video, but your statement just has to get a reaction: If someone is omniscient like you described, everything happens at the same time (from his POV), so if he wants to change something, he does it at the same time.
Here's Brian Greene's approach summarized:
http://www.philosophyetc.net/2004/08/now-and-forever.html
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=248893

Evolution = a theory supported by facts, hard evidence, observation, science.
Religion is belief supported by belief, or by stories.

Belief in one is not at all the same as belief in the other.

We all know that science, books, numbers, and geometric shapes have a liberal bias.

We all know that science, books, numbers, and geometric shapes have a liberal bias.

lol, very true

btw, as a disclaimer, i want to point out that i love science.

Oh yes, especially octagons!  Damn fools think just because they have three more sides than pentagons, it makes them left wing!  They do not realize that regular polygons are symmetrical!

Evolution is not only a theory. It is a fact. One can observe all manner of things evolving on a daily basis.

False. It's a theory. A theory is compose of bunch of fact. Evolution in itself is nothing but a assembly of millions of fact.

correct if im wrong (im merely musing), but a theory is like a strongly supported pattern of facts. because its a pattern it can help us uncover new facts that we dont know, or explain facts that we dont understand. hypotheses are based on theories- so you have a set of hypotheses based on the theory of evolution, and it defines the approach you take to solve/investigate a problem.

when theories no longer help explain/uncover facts, or another better theory comes along, then the previous theory is scrapped, or set aside. the facts are not scrapped, they remain, but the theory by which they are described may change.

the best theory we have currently to explain variation in nature is the theory of evolution. there are others, but they are either not as popular, not as developed, not as effective, or just plain wrong.

It is relevant, which one came first, as proven in the cartoon linked here.
("Both of you want to buy the last can of dog food ... The question is: who of you was here first?")

(1) Good understanding there.
(2) Not quite. A hypothesis is an idea put forward that may explain phenomena or observations. Every theory, afaik, starts out as a hypothesis. Once enough evidence has been gathered in support of a hypothesis and it has withstood review by other scientists, then it may be considered a theory.
(3) When a theory is shown not to be true then it is scrapped. A new theory can be valid but that does not automatically cancel out previous theories unless it proves the old theory wrong. The wave theory of light, for example, co-exists with the   particle theory of light, which came later.
(4) I don't know of any alternative theories to evolution. That might be interesting to google.

Single felled organisms are the earliest form of what we call "life" that we know of. Viruses are simpler, but we did not descend from those and they are not usually considered to be a life form anyway.

But there are no solid theories to explain the origins of single cell organisms. Not that I am aware of.

I believe that's the commonly accepted theory.

What really came first was a self-replicating molecule (such as RNA). Everything else built up around that.

(2) Agree. I suppose I was describing hypotheses in the context of psychology. Whenever anything to do with the mind is explained, it is explained using a set of hypotheses according to a particular perspective: the evolutionary perspective, the psychobiological perspective, the psychodynamic perspective, the behavioral perspective, etc.

(3) Agree (hence what I said about various explanations for phenomena to do with the mind ^)

(4) An example would be extraterrestrial involvement, among others.

I'll take care of this one. You can report future ones to have the duplicate removed.

I don't even get that sentence- the whole evolution disproving thing. He might as well have said 'pickles are green, and therefore vacuums suck up dirt'. lolwut?

theory: The word theoria, θεωρία, meant "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and referring to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.[1]

Hypotheses are individual empirically testable conjectures; while theories are collections of hypotheses that are logically linked together into a coherent explanation of some aspect of reality and which have individually or jointly received some empirical support.

BTW religion and science are also frequently confused (by both sides). The twain shall not meet between the two. No logical discussion can come of such confusion.

My point was that evolution is not 'only' a theory. It is a fact.
The main confusion is that people think 'evolution' is controversial and denied by creationists. Creationists don't actually deny evolution, although many say they do because they don't understand what they mean. What they actually deny is an entrirely separate theory called 'The Theory of the Origin of Species by Natural Selection'. This holds that new species derive from pre-existing species. The Theory of Evolution merely states that a given species can evolve over generation within its own terms i.e. getting taller, having larger feet, etc

If God was 'lovong', he wouldn't have inveneted suffering, so he wouldn't have to invent something else to lessen it.

you see why im obsessed with philosophy?

i find it interesting that religious rhetoric in the present day is almost entirely absent of unique philosophical thought. on the other end, the foundations of science lay upon philosophy...although i must say that some scientific questions are becoming less and less philosophical in nature as more people who do not know how to think become experimenters...its like the industrial mindset infiltrated science so that people are trained to run experiments and write grammatically correct papers, but they are not trained to think, deduce, and put a multitude of ideas together into a coherent narrative.(relativity theory is a great example of when philosophy and science work together) whats the point of religion or science without philosophy?

2 - Fact support. Not hypothesis.

3- Like 142857 said, contradicting theory can exist.  M and cord theory from what i understand are opposite too.

4- No it wouldn't. There is no fact supporting it, therefor it's an hypothesis, not a theory.

That as been debunk so many time, even in court.

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

I think they deny abiogenesis inside theory of evolution more then anything, but they cant seem to grasp there is a difference between evolution and abiogenesis. But then again, creationist are not knowed for their scientific knowledge.

Natural selection can be observe and even tested.
Darwin came up with it by observing some adaptation. Ring species is a good exemple of natural selection observation. Elephant tusk getting shorter is a good example too.

We can grow "resistant to substance X" bacteria, virus etc.

In the "Origin Of Species" Darwin mde predictions, such as that fossils woul be found linking humans to apes either in Africa or Asia. Of course we not only found a link, but we can trace the evolution of our species from a common ancestor with chimpanzees back around 5 million years. Is that level of accuracy in prediction, and other examples, enough to call it a theory?

2- actually, for the example i was giving in psychology, they are hypotheses. they are testable, and back by facts, but the facts are explained and tested differently depending on the perspective.

4-Some might disagree, there's as much fact supporting it as some archeological suppositions about ancient human societies, etc. And if you believe in conspiracies you would think otherwise.

The foundation of the Buddhist religion is that life is suffering. But I don't think even they believe God "invented" suffering.

I don't know how to explain lives that are entirely pain and deprivation, such as some of our fellow autistics that were warehoused in abusive institutions. My understanding is that we experience everything through cycles of rebirth until we learn balance.

The "suffering" that most of us complain about is a form of entitlement. It is what helps us to grow and define priorities. Maybe "God wants" us to be strong and wise.

But these discussion points are what religion is for, for they cannot really be answered scientifically, which always requires measurements.

4- No. You are making the same mistake as religious people do. I dont and can't believe before evidence as been presented. I cant just believe and then see evidence. There is no evidence to support these hypothesis. None.

All that you name is entitlement suffering to help you grow in wisdom and compassion.  

Eve is an allegory, and males have used it to punish women for far too long. Adam ratted Eve out, the lily livered rat fink.

Pain in childbirth is because we give birth to large craniums not because we are baaad - to give life to someone with the potential to survive without claws, fangs, and fur. . I gave birth to a 10lb baby with no pain meds - does that mean I am an extra good girl??? God loves me the best????

Lol neither can I. But, I give benefit of the doubt to those who believe they have seen evidence. Its always a possibility, although I tend to think of life in terms of a life-force, and therefore [to me] the stars could be considered extraterrestrial life. hence, its quite easy for me to give benefit of doubt to others. their beliefs don't hurt me in anyway, so no use in arguing.

Here is another question. Does God offer compassion and morality in the hearts of men and women?
The Christian answer is "YES"
The REAL answer is by any in depth reading not as cut and dry is it? Why?
A sweet natured Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, Buddhist or what have you, can lead a decent life and be kind and exhibits all the behaviours sought after by God.....except one. They do not worhip God.
Their punishment? eternal damnation and fire and torment for eternity.
A death row killer/rapist. In his years of incarceration "finds" God and accepts him......and is "saved"
The act of salvation gets him an audience and ticket into heaven.
God is not compassionate nor moral by this reading and worse the lynchpin of the faith is not your moral credibility but your unquestioning servitute to the idea of him and your want to blindly accept and worship him aand denouncing all other Gods.
The morality is an add-on at best. Your servitude is what is required. That is not moral.

well suffering is relative, isn't it?

Now days if anyone purports to have talked to God or have seen god, they rightly institutionalise them and give them medications until their voice abate, lest they become a danger to themselves or others. A couple of thousand years ago, they did not have advanced insight into mental disorders.

I am thankful to the advanced work of psychologists and psychology in general. Makes our world safer, don't you think?

err.. depends on who you are, don't you think?

are you serious or are you joking?

i think u just blew my mind. i have no idea how to respond...

No, not in the slightest.
Like my previous example of morality on the face of it, it looks kind of Ok, but dig a little deeper.
We know that mental illness exists and has always existed. Schitzophrania and multiple Personality Disorders and such. They are part of the human condition.
We know this and have accomodated it in modern days society.
Back then the bronze Aged tribal societies simply did not have such an understanding. A label and a way to adequately relate to conditions. "Do not suffer a witch" sounds fine, in theory. But what is a witch. maybe a witch was the person who clung onto pagan rituals. Maybe (and more scarily) a witch was "possessed" with a psychological disorder like the that which I mentioned.
What about a person with suchh a condition with intellelligece and charissma who was highly functional despite their unfortunate condition? What if this person truly did feel that they spoke to God in a delusion episode. A psychotic incident that they found transcendent and transforming (yes the people suffering such incidents DO believe it as real and do get that hormonal transcending feeling)?
What then? If they say "I had a wonderful moment and spoke to God and this is what he said and this is my quest..."
Maybe they are denounced as witches and maybe they are given credibility and a sense of rightness that they do not deserve.
Would be sad wouldn't it? Any fanciful beliefs they foster as a result of their psychosis will be entertained and believed by the others not attuned like we are nowdays as to what denotes "crazy'.
Nowdays a person experiencing a transcending and europhric moment and ascribing it to god talking to them and such is at best dismissed and at worse that are carted. No longer burned to death or stoned and no longer humoured because we have a label that fits this type of imbalance and we medicate it until they get well.
Bronze Aged vs Scientific Age. There is world of difference and as i say, I am very pleased that nutcases hearing voices comanding them to do this or that are not entertained and are seen for what they are and properly looked after.
Think about it

LOL. I am not just a curmudgeon, I am able to think and philosphise on things too.

I agree with this 100%.

Do not forget philosophizers were labeled witches as well. Also, it must be noted that the scariest witches were those who challenged the status quo, or who were capable of seeing beyond to curtain of lies and dogma of the church and kingdom. The history of a "witch" is riddled with contradictions. SOmetimes they had a mental disorder...sometimes...

An "unfortunate condition", such as Asperger's? (thats a trick question). The truth is, culture determines which conditions are unfortunate and which are not. From another perspective some disorders are just seen as inevitable and "normal" enigmas of the human experience...just as there are many enigmas in nature.

I agree that it is a very real experience for people. If you're interested look up 'temporal lobe seizures' (this is not to say seizures are the cause of all such experiences, but its an interesting thing about our brain). Also, we don't generally lock up people because they have epilepsy...

Many people have such experiences everyday and don't ask for any credibility. Again, it is treated according to culture...in the west we tend to have many corrupt religious zealots who gather people around them and sell their ideas. In other cultures, such as some Native cultures in America, one is almost expected to have such an experience to enter adulthood. And it is not a matter of selling your insights- for many, the insights are personal and they would not divulge.

Attuned to what? Again, you are referring to culturally biased cues.

There are a few things quite narrow minded about this statement. First, the idea that you can ascribe one thing to god and another to something not-god is a case of western dualistic thought. In many eastern cultures god is everything- literally. LI-TER-RALL-LY. Also, experience in other cultures is defined by our past actions (karma and reincarnation), and the idea is to transcend the cycle of birth and death. From this perspective, even if a person is crazy, you wouldn't go about carting them off unless they began seriously harming others. Then they would likely be made an outcast, and live on their own in the forest or something...this too would be seen as karma.

I would like to point out that you cannot separate culture, nor politics, from the idea of carting people off. Many native american medicine were institutionalized when they would continue with their practices and not comply with the U.S. gov't. Were they harming anyone? No-- unless you consider their threat to the brainwashing and cultural genocide efforts of the gov't. Same thing occurred across time, I mentioned above that many witches were philosophizers and those who defied the church or gov't, or a social norm.

Also, I would point out that the carting off was ironically politicized by the church, and later businesses who discovered that they could use missionaries and religion to "soften" a native persons defensiveness before they went in to drill for oil or take their land or something.

My mom (who is white) was almost institutionalized for marrying my father (who is black). Thats is not very advanced in my opinion. Same thing for gays and lobotomies. And the general mistreatment of those deemed "crazy", even if they are perfectly harmless. In fact, "normal" people are statistically far FAR more likely to harm others than people with a psychiatric diagnosis, and many with a psychiatric illness are more likely to be afraid of "normal" people, than to harm them.

It is a stereotype that "psychiatric illness" automatically means danger. The truth is, a disorder is more troubling to the person experiencing it than to society...unless you count sick days from work. Then again, I suppose being "ill", and not being able to work 9-5 monotonous job everyday and then go to happy hour after work and happily skip home, is costly to big businesses and therefore a it is problem to be cured, or locked away....

I never thought you were a curmudgeon in the least. Its just that your statement was so vague I didn't know which argument to make first lol.

I'm a princess from Nigeria. I have seen my father the king bank account in your country. It hold 127 837 748 284 041,73$ But i dont have money to pay for the plane ticket, hotel etc to go get it in person. Could you please send me 20 000$ dollars, that i will personnaly reimburse in triple once i get the money out of my dead father account.

Giving the benefit of the doubt is not the same thing as naivety. Its merely letting the other person go along life with their beliefs and not needing to prove them wrong unless it will substantially improve their wellbeing, or it is necessary for the safety of others. For example, if they USE their beliefs to harm others, then they need to be stopped. That said, anyone can use any belief to harm another, but that does not mean all people do/will. Its like religion, you can believe in it. Fine. But if you start using religion to oppress people and wage wars, then you will be stopped. That does not mean that particular religion needs to be wiped out- just means that particular "practice" needs to be stopped...and many practices and lifestyles can stem from the same beliefs.

(and beliefs are not the same as blatant lies, because ppl don't generally believe their own lies...which is what makes them lies).

I do stand by my personal conviction that each individual ought to take the time to seek out truths for themselves, and never take the word of anyone or anything merely because it is a popular opinion/belief/idea, or merely because it was what you were taught.

Thats why I like science and research...investigation is important for everything, and one should be constantly challenging their personal beliefs if possible...and arguing is useless unless its a real exchange of ideas and perspectives, because its silly to think you can speed up the process of personal transformation for other people...

This is one of my favorite quotes of all time:

My statement was not at all vague though....was it?

In fact the statement probably did not need expanding, but I did for you anyhow. So as to your position? Now that is a little vague. Your argument itself is rather vague. lol.
What do I mean?
Now whilst i was talking of Bronze age tribal people who "spoke" and were "commanded" to a Christian God and were the people to hold the belief as ascribe it as "Do not suffer a witch" in their doctrines, you introduce Native American indians,
Whilst I talk about the Schitzophrania and Multiple Disorders, you talk of epilespy and Aspergers.
Whilst I talk about psychology having practical and beneficial implicatications you denounce psychology because of cultural bias and back this with racism inherent in a society.

So with all THOSE vague references thrown into the mix, what is your actual position?
IS it that people hearing and acting on voices is a natural and endearing trait?
That such conditions ought not be psychologically kept in check?
That our modern day understanding and ability to medicate is a bad thing?
That modern societies understanding of the humnan mind is worse than that of ancient people?
That if some one announces to all they are the son of God and have a mission to share with the world, it is a good thing? If so, do you think that the same could be said if they said they were the Son of Sam?

I do not think you actually have a position at all. You accuse me of being vague and yet make no real assertions. All you are really doing here is muddying the waters and naysaying, for what i do not know.
I suspect (and I could be wrong) it is an attempt to do a little misdirection and not to be adding to the dialogue really in a constructive sense to garner admiration for your vagaritities and obscure references, without having to commit to a premise at all.

Am I right? See I am not so vague afterall...lol.

i suppose i thought it was vague because, as someone with a psych degree, i know that there are many areas of psychology which are corrupt and need advancing, as well as areas which do a lot of good, and to state that you are thankful to "the advanced work" (I think, which work?, where, how and with whom) of "psychologists" (Im thinking, which psychologists?, in what field, with what populations) and "psychology in general" (thats like saying and art in general- soooo many different facets...). since I have some mighty passionate criticisms in some areas, and fine applause in others, i could not respond without wondering which areas you were applauding and if you realized how limited the field actually is. dont get me wrong- it HAS developed over the years, but there are some major issues still at hand. it is also a baby science with a lot of well-defined and un-defined branches, which makes "psychology" a rather vague reference, at least for someone like me.

if you can see where im coming from, you may see why i can't be quick to agree with being "thankful" for all psychologist and psychology. with some more specific references i can make a better judgment and agree with you. ..like many, i am a psychology major because i want to help advance the field, not because i think its already advanced, so i found your statement about "advanced" work rather amusing.

im not ungrateful either, which is probably why my response sounded vague to you. broadly speaking, i am thankful for the field because I have a major, and i know many fine psychologists with many fine research labs and practices, but i cannot turn a blind eye to its many faults, and the fact that it has harmed some people nearly as much as it has helped others.

Way too many religions create God in their own image for social control, and way too many people follow mindlessly.  Religion is an effective way to define "normal" and reject those who deviate from it. None of this has anything to do with God or spirituality.

Heaven is not a cloud dead people go to for harp lessons if they have been a good girl or boy. "The kingdom of God is within you (Luke 17:21)." It is equally accessible to Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Buddhists, Christians, and ex-killers/rapists who can find the way to their own goodness.

Definately and we can of course state that even in the medical fields that people have serious symptoms overlooked for reasons of the patient being 'fat", female, autistic and a number of other things. In fact we have a thread running somewhere identifying this too. It is not a matter though of throwing the baby out with the bathwater when we say, despite this, that the advancement of medicine and surgery is far more advanced and more beneficial by and large than that of the practices around in Bronze Age Tribal societies.
Hell much of Psychology I see as abstarct guesswork. Whilst we applaud Sigmund Freud's insight and development of treating shell shock victims most people do not take seriously or at least appreciate only in very genralised terms the Penis envy and Oedipus complex trains of thought.
It doesn't mean taht as a whole that society is worse off for the advances that are made, irrespective of such things.
Society is better off.

As for the pointedness of my post. I was in a *** mood last night for unrelated stuff and I was perhaps a little more agressive than I ought to be so my apologies there.
Sometimes I can be a bit over the top.

Yes Man is not created in God's image, but visa versa

I can agree with that...i get a little worked up though when i think of the "wrongs" which have been committed. I suppose the real question is, how advanced does one feel society as a whole is?

and no offense taken to the pointedness- get in a bad mood sometimes too.