|
|
Post by Oily on Sept 2, 2004 15:00:17 GMT -5
Because we shouldn't change topics. This debate is continued from the topic "The Da Vinci Code" and what I'm replying to can be found there. We studied that in RE – the theory of the earth being created old. I don't buy that either. But neither do I see the point in creating a whole world so you can make fossil fuels – a world which then becomes "void and without form" and has to be remade, complete with fossil fuels that also became nothing at some point. Why not just create a world, and pump a lot of created oil into it? Hmm, interesting. Thank you, Stal. However, one of those sites seemed rather biased and the other ones said that while that experiment may be rather void, there were other experiments that showed evolution in action. I would look into it further, but both books and the Internet are untrustworthy. I shall prod my Biology teacher when I go back to school. However, I find it hard to find evidence or trust in anything because I find everything to be biased in some way or another. I guess I'll have to try it myself one day, or find a reputable scientist to talk to face-to-face some time. No, but I can use it as a reason as to why I doubt. The refurbishment example – it concentrates solely on the refurbishment. It is the main theme of the piece. But Genesis is meant to be of the creation of the world. I don't see why there would be detailed sections of the second beginning of the world, how you should live, the history of the second world and all its momentous occasions, and how this second world ends, without even a single line on how the first world was created and then became void. Especially when it could stop so many doubting. Hehe. Enough trouble with people extrapolating way too much out of something? The way I see it, a line about dinosaurs could have saved you doing exactly that to the bit of Genesis. Dinosaurs aren't important in the grand scheme of things. Not much more important than the flying creatures or the animals that crawl on the earth. But they were mentioned  I am looking forward to it ^^ It would actually be really cool if it did happen. Don't get me all excited Well, yes, if we got a lot more hair, then we'd be too hot, so we'd need less. If you stretch it out over millions of years, perhaps all our body hair will eventually disappear. But I believe more in that Nature has a "If ain't broke, don't fix it." approach. More effective things aren't needed, because we don't freeze to death on a regular basis. For instance, I could really do with evolving an extra pair of hands. But I am not in an environment that demands that for my survival, so I won't get any. I believe survival is kind of the key. All things are driven by this need to survive, and keep their species surviving. We are perfectly adapted for survival, and not much more. Though mankind has come to dominate  But if we were created, then I find it far too inefficient. So many bits of organs and stuff can go wrong. If we were created, I would like an extra pair of hands. I would like to get rid of these long complicated ways of breaking down a tiny molecule of food. I would have thought a created body to be more…efficient. Especially if designed by someone perfect ^^ If you know anything by now, it's that I never let go of anything I question every answer, and I answer every question Sorry, that really doesn't hold up. God could have told them, explained it to them, opened up new ways of thinking and saved humans a lot of work trying to figure it all out. I don't think it made sense for Newton to confuse everyone else with gravity People didn't know about gravity for ages, then it was discovered and the knowledge spread. You can't use the fact that people don't know something to stop anyone ever finding anything out. If you see what I'm saying. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2004 15:54:23 GMT -5
Ok, this one paragraph tells me that you don't know as much about Biology as you claim. All dogs are of one species. But you're right, that's not evolution, because it's just like how humans have different traits. That's natural selection, the changing of genes due to changes in the environment. Still, though, that's not proof that evolution is false.
For the last time, evolution DOES have evidence! I don't know how many times I've mentioned NATURAL SELECTION, which you yourself have agreed happens, whether or not you stated it.
How can you proove that detail is proof of creationism? That's circumstantial! It's like saying someone killed someone else, just because the first person was the last one to have reportedly been with the second person. For all anyone knows, the second person could've been taken by home by the first person, then killed by a third person when he was all alone.
And just because it's improbable for chance to make thing intricate, it doesn't mean that it's impossible. Why would God make fleas? There's no reason, because no other creature depends on a diet of fleas. It's more logical that fleas developed through natural selection, which is a proven part of evolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ikkin on Sept 2, 2004 16:20:26 GMT -5
No, but I can use it as a reason as to why I doubt. The refurbishment example – it concentrates solely on the refurbishment. It is the main theme of the piece. But Genesis is meant to be of the creation of the world. I don't see why there would be detailed sections of the second beginning of the world, how you should live, the history of the second world and all its momentous occasions, and how this second world ends, without even a single line on how the first world was created and then became void. Especially when it could stop so many doubting. Actually, it would make sense for the Book of Genesis to solely concentrate on the 'refurbishment.' The Bible is not attempting to give a scientific record, though some science is mentioned in passing. The creation story in Genesis was played down as it was. The entire creation of the Earth and all its inhabitants was given one chapter out of 50 in Genesis, the only book that deals with the subject at all. If only one chapter is devoted to the creation of the world as it is, why would any time be wasted describing a world that no longer matters? The Bible was not written to be scientific. It was written to teach people important moral lessons, and to proclaim the salvation of the world. As the world of the dinosaurs was not involved in the salvation of the current world, and there were no lessons that could be learned from it that couldn't be learned otherwise, it wasn't mentioned. It's that simple. There are examples of this in other places in the Bible, of course. The first and second chapters of Genesis are an example of this. One verse was given to the creation of the Earth itself, and only one chapter to the creation of animals and such, while the creation of man is given a whole chapter. Why? Because the creation of man was much more important to the salvation of the world and had more important lessons for man! Another example of this, fitting with the idea of spans of time, would be the Gospels. Jesus' first 30 years are hardly mentioned at all, given only a few chapters throughout all four gospels, while his last week was given many chapters. Why? Because they were more important to what the Bible was trying to teach! The Bible was written in ancient times, so we can't expect its authors to have written in today's style. The current animals are important simply because they are current. There's nothing more ineffectual than a dead dinosaur. Besides, the people who don't believe simply because of dinosaurs wouldn't believe if dinosaurs were mentioned. They'd just explain it away. If a line about dinosaurs could have saved anyone, it would have been put in. If it wouldn't have saved anyone, it wouldn't have, and I don't see any reason why a single line about dinosaurs would save anyone. How do we know that the way we are now is the way Adam was created? Few people would argue against the so-called "microevolution," tiny changes such as you see in dog species. What's to say that there weren't some changes since Adam was created that were simply unnecessary? Loosing immortality slowly but surely (Adam lived 900-something years, Abraham lived around 170 or something years) seems to be a big enough change to be able to accept a theory like this... That's not the way He works. If He was going to do something like that, he might as well just come down out of the clouds and make the announcement, "Believe in me or die!" He wants faith, though not blind faith, but faith strengthened by experience and knowledge. Besides, gravity was completely irrelevent to the lesson he was trying to teach. Going into a speech about gravity would be completely unnecessary. Newton's purpose was to learn and teach science, God's purpose was not. Your analogy doesn't hold up. |
|
|
|
Post by Ikkin on Sept 2, 2004 17:08:49 GMT -5
Ok, this one paragraph tells me that you don't know as much about Biology as you claim. All dogs are of one species. But you're right, that's not evolution, because it's just like how humans have different traits. That's natural selection, the changing of genes due to changes in the environment. Still, though, that's not proof that evolution is false. He probably just messed up the phrasing- I'm sure he knows that dogs are one species. Anyways, I just want to ask what exactly determines a species? It can't be just the fact that the animals can't breed- wolf-dogs aren't uncommon, and there have been Ligers, Tigons, and Leopons. (Tiger/Lion for the first two and Lion/Leopard for the third) It can't be entirely physical traits, either, since a German Shepard and a wolf look a lot closer than a German Shepard and a Chihuahua.
Besides, the Bible does not say that all the SPECIES were created at once...closer to all the PHYLA, a word similar to the word used in Greek for kind when the animals were to "reproduce after their kind." In the rocks for the Cambrian Era is a record of what is known as the "Cambrian Explosion," a relatively short period in time when almost all of the phyla (minus one) are found, FULLY FORMED. Put two and two together, perhaps?
Natural selection is not proof of evolution. There is much diversity within dogs, like the German Shepard and the Chihuahua, but they are still dogs. There has yet to be any proof that natural selection can form anything other than new, very similar species differing only in their reluctance to interbreed. No evidence of a new phyla being created by evolution has been found- in fact, the phyla have remained basically unchanged since 570 million years ago! Besides, there are natural restrictions on mutation- this isn't a case of 1+1+1+1..., its more like (((1+1+1)/2 +1)/2) etc.
We can prove that creationism is true as long because the detail of this universe restricts naturalistic theories. To restrict naturalistic theories, of course, we would need to prove that there is less than an infintessimal chance that naturalistic causes could create the universe as we have it. And there is! The possibility of a protein being randomly created and the possibility of the universe supporting life are above 1060, and 1060 is a statistical impossibility (If I remember the numbers right, but I know they're both beyond the statistical impossibility limit) Basically, they are so unlikely that even in a hundred million universes they would never show up on their own. A life fostering universe and a protein molecule are not necessitated by anything, so there is no way beyond intellegence to come up with these things.
It is more likely for a tornado to blow through a junk yard and create a fully functional 747, or for a hundred thousand monkeys on a hundred thousand keyboards typing nonstop to come up with a copy of the Bible with no errors whatsoever in spelling, phrasing, and grammar, all pages written in a row. With intellegence, a copy of the Bible and a 747 are possible, but without it, they are statistical impossibilities.
Read above about statistical impossibilities. It is possible for you to win the lottery, though unlikely, because someone has to win. In a universe without a higher power, life did not have to happen. Besides, the odds are a lot higher, anyways, probably somewhere close to the odds that you would win the lottery then immediately get struck by lightning thirty times and surviving, then your money spontaneously bursting into flames after surviving the lightning, then going to play cards and getting all four Aces every time you start a new game. If something like that happened to you, would you say it was chance? Or would you think that a person may have been involved? |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Sept 2, 2004 17:14:28 GMT -5
Ok, this one paragraph tells me that you don't know as much about Biology as you claim. All dogs are of one species. But you're right, that's not evolution, because it's just like how humans have different traits. That's natural selection, the changing of genes due to changes in the environment. Still, though, that's not proof that evolution is false. For the last time, evolution DOES have evidence! I don't know how many times I've mentioned NATURAL SELECTION, which you yourself have agreed happens, whether or not you stated it. How can you proove that detail is proof of creationism? That's circumstantial! It's like saying someone killed someone else, just because the first person was the last one to have reportedly been with the second person. For all anyone knows, the second person could've been taken by home by the first person, then killed by a third person when he was all alone. And just because it's improbable for chance to make thing intricate, it doesn't mean that it's impossible. Why would God make fleas? There's no reason, because no other creature depends on a diet of fleas. It's more logical that fleas developed through natural selection, which is a proven part of evolution. Comedian, you provide the evidence that you claim evolution to have. I've said before, "Natural Selection" or the passing of some genes on to others to have those traits it fine. But it's not evolution. Evolving is where you take one creature and change it into a totally different creature. Natural Selection may have a part in the evolution theory, but it is not evolution itself. For another, I do know what I was talking about with dogs. I said species, big deal, I couldn't think of the proper term. But those changes are not brought about because of the environment, they were brought about because of "Selective Breeding". The presentation of these many types of dogs is not one that came through evolution, but through one of man's own manipulation of breeding traits into dogs. Anyway, as for your last point, I'll reiterate what I said at the beginning. EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE. And that's something even the scientists will admit when their biases and own pride allow them to. Evolution has a lack of evidence and no proof at all. The intrinsic design of everything is not just improbable, Comedian. You ignored Ikkin's earlier post which compared theory to law. It's a scientific law and fact that anything with a certain mathematical chance of happening is impossible. The chances that things evolved, and referring to a just one aspect and not the grand scheme of things, is so minute, that is falls well well within the boundaries of impossibility by this law of science. If evolution is true, the disproves their own law, now doesn't it? But things are a law because they're true. After all, things like tectonic plates are still theories. Because it can't be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Laws can. Scientific laws contradict evolution. Don't believe me? Look it up. I'll get my own sources, but I'm sure you'll be much more at ease to see it yourself. So don't go preaching about how evolution has proof and evidence if you can't provide any. Now onto Oily's post.... Oily, it seems we've once more reached a point where we're at a stalemate. You ask questions to which I can outright say "I don't know" and I've provided things that make you reconsider your point. And the things I could answer, Ikkin beat me to. But even then, it's one of those things that brings it to a moot point. But one thing I can provide an explanation for...God has his plans for humanity. You can see that by looking through prophecy. He has plans for us to develop at a certain pace, and to only be at such a point in time in our technological advancement when all things come to a head and Jesus returns. Why? Probably so we don't kill ourselves, and so forth. But He has His reasons. Really, think about it, we could've been 400 years further along in our technology if it hadn't been for the dark ages. Which, for all intents and purposes, shouldn't have happened. But it did. I think that was one of God's ways of holding us back from our rapid development and growth potential that we have. Which is also why I'm a believer that Atlantis existed.  Anyway, Oily, once more I must thank you. Of all the people on the NTWF, it's you I find the most enjoyable to debate with and have a discussion. I don't know what it is, but it's much more fun...and civil and and stuff than any of my others.... |
|
|
|
Post by Jessica Coconut on Sept 2, 2004 20:16:05 GMT -5
I suggest you read a bit of the thread on this board entitled "Don't know what to think - Outrageous reli. site"
There's quite a bit of creationism bashing there.
Evolutionism works out because the way I see it, it starts with location.
If you're an animal, and you live in a certain part of the world, and then were moved away somewhere else, you'd find different climates and foods. There, you either adapt or die. Plain and simple.
For those that adapt, they might grow a thicker coat to adapt to colder climates. Other animals change because of what they eat. Like flamingos. If you take them out of the water that they live in, and move them somewhere where they can't find any food with karatin in it (stuff exists in carrots and shrimp and things) they'll lose their pink colour. Eventually, they may end up looking white.
Other animals change because of the parts of their bodies they use. If you're a manatie, you live mostly in the water. But what if for some reason, you and a lot of other manaties were put on land? You'd either die from not being able to move away from dangers because of your fins, or you'd work at moving with your fins, and like humans get muscles from excersizing, their muscles would eventually start conforming to be able to move on land better, because they were forced to. They just developed that way. Then, after a few thousand years, you have, Voila, a walrus, or maybe seal!
Some people even think that someday, humans will have evolved to have only 4 toes. The second and third might merge together.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Sept 2, 2004 20:49:12 GMT -5
I suggest you read a bit of the thread on this board entitled "Don't know what to think - Outrageous reli. site" There's quite a bit of creationism bashing there. Evolutionism works out because the way I see it, it starts with location. If you're an animal, and you live in a certain part of the world, and then were moved away somewhere else, you'd find different climates and foods. There, you either adapt or die. Plain and simple. For those that adapt, they might grow a thicker coat to adapt to colder climates. Other animals change because of what they eat. Like flamingos. If you take them out of the water that they live in, and move them somewhere where they can't find any food with karatin in it (stuff exists in carrots and shrimp and things) they'll lose their pink colour. Eventually, they may end up looking white. Other animals change because of the parts of their bodies they use. If you're a manatie, you live mostly in the water. But what if for some reason, you and a lot of other manaties were put on land? You'd either die from not being able to move away from dangers because of your fins, or you'd work at moving with your fins, and like humans get muscles from excersizing, their muscles would eventually start conforming to be able to move on land better, because they were forced to. They just developed that way. Then, after a few thousand years, you have, Voila, a walrus, or maybe seal! Some people even think that someday, humans will have evolved to have only 4 toes. The second and third might merge together. Couple problems....for that manatire example to work, you'd have to assume A) they'd sruvive any and all predators from the time they got on land to the point where their muscles developed B) Their food source would have to come from the land. If it came from water only, then they can go back to the water and viola, no need to live on land and adapt C) The DNA of the young would not change to adapt to the new environment in birth. They'd remain the same species but the muscles would get larger. That's like assuming since a body-builder works out a lot his son will have big muscles as well. Or that because I go down to live in Africa and get a really really good tan that my child will be born tan. Doesn't happen. D) Their young would then have to survive on land in all the same ways as above. It's all impossible. Your first post...what's the comment about creationism bashing supposed to do? say "Oh, these people bash it so it must not be right?", say "only stupid people believe in creationism"? What was the point of that comment? And finally...Jessica, as I've said to all others, if you believe evolution works go and get your proof. Actual evidence and proof that it's happening and works. |
|
|
|
Post by Jessica Coconut on Sept 2, 2004 21:53:20 GMT -5
No, when I say "creationism bashing", I mean, really good arguments against it. Not just "your wrong" or whatever else.
|
|
|
|
Post by althechia on Sept 2, 2004 23:23:57 GMT -5
Look at the rainforest. Look at the diversity of life. New species being discovered every day.
Look at dogs. Look at the variations. In such a short time, how man was able to manipulate them so well! Same with lifestock and cattle. Lab mice have been bred to have THOUSANDS of varients in their DNA. Their environments change, and the animal changes dramatically!
How we were so perfectly honed and sculpted was a result of a mere variation, like that of the dogs. It took a very long time, but man, like a great peice of art, was chiseled from the primates and became, arguably, the masters of the planet.
I don't know about anyone else, but I tend to rely more on scientific data than religious. Something about science is so much more rational to me; it explains things in such simple and yet such complex terms that one can barely grasp.
Must be like God.
(Oooooh, I'm so PROFOUND, ain't I? *glow glow glow* ;D *shot*)
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Sept 2, 2004 23:36:46 GMT -5
Look at the rainforest. Look at the diversity of life. New species being discovered every day. Look at dogs. Look at the variations. In such a short time, how man was able to manipulate them so well! Same with lifestock and cattle. Lab mice have been bred to have THOUSANDS of varients in their DNA. Their environments change, and the animal changes dramatically! How we were so perfectly honed and sculpted was a result of a mere variation, like that of the dogs. It took a very long time, but man, like a great peice of art, was chiseled from the primates and became, arguably, the masters of the planet. I don't know about anyone else, but I tend to rely more on scientific data than religious. Something about science is so much more rational to me; it explains things in such simple and yet such complex terms that one can barely grasp. Must be like God. (Oooooh, I'm so PROFOUND, ain't I? *glow glow glow* ;D *shot*) I actually use the diversity of life as further evidence of creationism. It's insane for me to even think that if evolution occured that the variety of life we have today would be the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Jessica Coconut on Sept 3, 2004 1:06:10 GMT -5
Well, what about this? I find this PROOF of actual evolutionism, before our very eyes.
I'm sorry, I don't have a source, but if i have time, I will try to find it again.
There is only ONE of this animal in the world, and it's counterpart.
It's called a Liger, I believe. (That's what I remember, but I could be wrong) As in "Lion Tiger". Humans bred this animal, from a Female Lion, and Male Tiger. It has a few traits of both. It's counterpart is a Male Lion and Female Tiger.
See? That animal NEVER existed before. Now it does, and I assume, if it was to mate with a tiger, it's child would be more tiger-like than it, and therefore, yet again, a totally new species.
Nextly, think about this.
Creationism. You guys believe that Adam named ALL the animals? Think about this.
A Kangaroo's current name is, duh, Kangaroo.
It means "I don't understand you."
When a European Explorer came to Australia, he asked a native what was this strange hopping animal with another in a pouch. They replied "Kangaroo". So, they took it as the name.
Now, I don't think that's ACTUALLY what the aboriginal people called it...
And I don't think Adam would name an animal "I don't understand you".
|
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Sept 3, 2004 1:55:32 GMT -5
Natural selection is not proof of evolution. There is much diversity within dogs, like the German Shepard and the Chihuahua, but they are still dogs. There has yet to be any proof that natural selection can form anything other than new, very similar species differing only in their reluctance to interbreed. No evidence of a new phyla being created by evolution has been found- in fact, the phyla have remained basically unchanged since 570 million years ago! We can prove that creationism is true as long because the detail of this universe restricts naturalistic theories. Two things I have to point out. First I will deal with the second statement because it takes less time. You cannot prove it like that, you can only stop it from being disproved. Disproving an opposing theory is not proving your own. Fundamental rule of science. Most theories of this magnitude will never be proven. The amount of proof that would be needed to take this from being a theory is larger than humans are really capable of. When it's finally proven, it would be a law, not a theory. I personally don't think it's possible to prove the existance of God and/or his master plan. That would erode a faith based worship system. It would no longer be an act of faith to believe, but a matter of course. Like paying your taxes. Even if we were to be able to get a whiff of a celestial master plan, we wouldn't understand it. We're too stupid. We can barely wrap our head around "Killing others bad. Ugh." I would also like to address the "It's a theory, so why are they teaching it in school!? It's not proven." I would like to point out that relativity is a theory still. PLATE TECHTONICS is still a theory! It's almost universally excepted and it's still a theory. If we can't make a law out of plate techtonics, don't expect either evolution or creationism to be proven. Ever. The burden of proof is too great. In science, as in a court of law, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Moving on. Evolution exists. Evolution is a gradual change over time. Let's look at the fossil record of horses. Unlike humans we have a pretty well complete record of a horse's evolution from the common ancestor Hyracotherium. This little sucker started out very small, had a bunch of toes, etc. Here are photos of some of the fossils along the evolutionary line of this animal. You can see the changes, one skeleton and the one that follows it are similar, but overall it is a change from one very different looking animal into another. chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htmThis is 55 million years of horsies. We haven't seen much change in.. say, the domesticated dog, because we've only been fiddling with them for a few thousand years. I present this question. Evolution is change over time of a species. Can you deny that species have changed over time? Evolution isn't a change of something into something totally different. It is not at it's core a question of 'Are we monkies?' It's a question of 'Have we changed from what we were? Have other species changed?' That in itself is pretty easy to show. We see it happen all around us. Oh my my; Stall "Evolving is where you take one creature and change it into a totally different creature" You're arguing against something you have a fundamental misunderstanding of. Oxford Dictionary (And my science books, and most dictionaries) define evolution thusly; Evolution n. 1 The process by which different kinds of living organisms develop from earlier forms. 2. gradual development.You are opperating under the (common) assumption that it has to be drastic to be evolution. It doesn't. It just has to be the changing of a species into something else. Even if it's slight, even if it takes a thousand years, it's still evolution. Every human being has the mathmatical odds to have two genetic mutations, be them ever so slight, in their body. If you manage to pass on one of these mutations to your offspring you have changed the human geonome into something it never was before. You've evolved it. Evolution doesn't even have to be positive or useful to be evolution. You apendix doesn't work. It probably did. Even more concrete; many humans now adays are being born without eye teeth, and they can pass this trait on. It's been recently aquired. Cave dwelling animals are a great example. a lizard or newt ends up in an underground stream, now many years down the road you have blind, pigementless newsts, crickets, spiders. They have changed over time to better suit their enviroment. Also... dare I say it? Darwin's finches, baby. They changed, they adapted, they evolved.No wonder you have such a problem with evolution, if that's what you think it is! If someone says to me 'We evolved from apes' I'll say "BS, prove it." If someone says 'We have evolved' I'll say "Yup." The average height of a human being has increased over the last 3,000 years. The skeletal record for this time is easy to find, has many examples, and is complete. We've on average, gotten taller. We've changed. The debate shouldn't be 'Have we evolved." Of course we have! We are not exactally the same species that we were a hundred, a thousand years ago. The real question is what we have evolved from. A common primate ancestor? A modern human God put on Earth? (Now don't tell me we wouldn't change because God made us perfect! God made the world, and it changes. Look at the Grand Canyon, look at the Sahara! we're 'perfect' in that we can change and adapt. I'll put this in a theological slant; God loves us and wants us to prosper, and made us so we can adapt to a world that is going to change. Evolution is genetic change! Did you know there may have been a gene that allowed many people to not succomb to the Black Death, and that it may now be related to AIDS immunity? It was a genetic mutation, passed on because those who had it survived the worst pandemic ever known. Evolution is not always dramatic. Maybe you are at odds with it because you have that misconception. Ask yourself what it is about evolution that you disagree with. How much of it is really evolution? I think too many people confuse evolution with the 'Origins of man' debate. |
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Sept 3, 2004 4:58:20 GMT -5
No wonder you have such a problem with evolution, if that's what you think it is! If someone says to me 'We evolved from apes' I'll say "BS, prove it." If someone says 'We have evolved' I'll say "Yup." The average height of a human being has increased over the last 3,000 years. The skeletal record for this time is easy to find, has many examples, and is complete. We've on average, gotten taller. We've changed. The debate shouldn't be 'Have we evolved." Of course we have! We are not exactally the same species that we were a hundred, a thousand years ago. The real question is what we have evolved from. A common primate ancestor? A modern human God put on Earth? (Now don't tell me we wouldn't change because God made us perfect! God made the world, and it changes. Look at the Grand Canyon, look at the Sahara! we're 'perfect' in that we can change and adapt. I'll put this in a theological slant; God loves us and wants us to prosper, and made us so we can adapt to a world that is going to change. Evolution is genetic change! Did you know there may have been a gene that allowed many people to not succomb to the Black Death, and that it may now be related to AIDS immunity? It was a genetic mutation, passed on because those who had it survived the worst pandemic ever known. Evolution is not always dramatic. Maybe you are at odds with it because you have that misconception. Ask yourself what it is about evolution that you disagree with. How much of it is really evolution? I think too many people confuse evolution with the 'Origins of man' debate. That's what evolution is? Wait... I'm confused now... if that's what evolution is, then what was the ape to man theory? (I'm not being sacarstic here, just genuinely confused) Oily, I think your quote at the top of the page just stretched my screen quite a lot.... Oh. And a URL Tdyans PMed to me. www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/Go ahead. Say it's biased. You know you want to. ;D And then I'm going to ask you to provide me with a website that ISN'T biased in some form or another. ^^ That's probably just as impossible as life - and a conscience, and a soul, and feelings - being created from electricity and some random chemicals. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Sept 3, 2004 8:47:44 GMT -5
Two things I have to point out. First I will deal with the second statement because it takes less time. You cannot prove it like that, you can only stop it from being disproved. Disproving an opposing theory is not proving your own. Fundamental rule of science. Most theories of this magnitude will never be proven. The amount of proof that would be needed to take this from being a theory is larger than humans are really capable of. When it's finally proven, it would be a law, not a theory. I personally don't think it's possible to prove the existance of God and/or his master plan. That would erode a faith based worship system. It would no longer be an act of faith to believe, but a matter of course. Like paying your taxes. Even if we were to be able to get a whiff of a celestial master plan, we wouldn't understand it. We're too stupid. We can barely wrap our head around "Killing others bad. Ugh." I would also like to address the "It's a theory, so why are they teaching it in school!? It's not proven." I would like to point out that relativity is a theory still. PLATE TECHTONICS is still a theory! It's almost universally excepted and it's still a theory. If we can't make a law out of plate techtonics, don't expect either evolution or creationism to be proven. Ever. The burden of proof is too great. In science, as in a court of law, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Moving on. Evolution exists. Evolution is a gradual change over time. Let's look at the fossil record of horses. Unlike humans we have a pretty well complete record of a horse's evolution from the common ancestor Hyracotherium. This little sucker started out very small, had a bunch of toes, etc. Here are photos of some of the fossils along the evolutionary line of this animal. You can see the changes, one skeleton and the one that follows it are similar, but overall it is a change from one very different looking animal into another. chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htmThis is 55 million years of horsies. We haven't seen much change in.. say, the domesticated dog, because we've only been fiddling with them for a few thousand years. I present this question. Evolution is change over time of a species. Can you deny that species have changed over time? Evolution isn't a change of something into something totally different. It is not at it's core a question of 'Are we monkies?' It's a question of 'Have we changed from what we were? Have other species changed?' That in itself is pretty easy to show. We see it happen all around us. Oh my my; Stall "Evolving is where you take one creature and change it into a totally different creature" You're arguing against something you have a fundamental misunderstanding of. Oxford Dictionary (And my science books, and most dictionaries) define evolution thusly; Evolution n. 1 The process by which different kinds of living organisms develop from earlier forms. 2. gradual development.You are opperating under the (common) assumption that it has to be drastic to be evolution. It doesn't. It just has to be the changing of a species into something else. Even if it's slight, even if it takes a thousand years, it's still evolution. Every human being has the mathmatical odds to have two genetic mutations, be them ever so slight, in their body. If you manage to pass on one of these mutations to your offspring you have changed the human geonome into something it never was before. You've evolved it. Evolution doesn't even have to be positive or useful to be evolution. You apendix doesn't work. It probably did. Even more concrete; many humans now adays are being born without eye teeth, and they can pass this trait on. It's been recently aquired. Cave dwelling animals are a great example. a lizard or newt ends up in an underground stream, now many years down the road you have blind, pigementless newsts, crickets, spiders. They have changed over time to better suit their enviroment. Also... dare I say it? Darwin's finches, baby. They changed, they adapted, they evolved.No wonder you have such a problem with evolution, if that's what you think it is! If someone says to me 'We evolved from apes' I'll say "BS, prove it." If someone says 'We have evolved' I'll say "Yup." The average height of a human being has increased over the last 3,000 years. The skeletal record for this time is easy to find, has many examples, and is complete. We've on average, gotten taller. We've changed. The debate shouldn't be 'Have we evolved." Of course we have! We are not exactally the same species that we were a hundred, a thousand years ago. The real question is what we have evolved from. A common primate ancestor? A modern human God put on Earth? (Now don't tell me we wouldn't change because God made us perfect! God made the world, and it changes. Look at the Grand Canyon, look at the Sahara! we're 'perfect' in that we can change and adapt. I'll put this in a theological slant; God loves us and wants us to prosper, and made us so we can adapt to a world that is going to change. Evolution is genetic change! Did you know there may have been a gene that allowed many people to not succomb to the Black Death, and that it may now be related to AIDS immunity? It was a genetic mutation, passed on because those who had it survived the worst pandemic ever known. Evolution is not always dramatic. Maybe you are at odds with it because you have that misconception. Ask yourself what it is about evolution that you disagree with. How much of it is really evolution? I think too many people confuse evolution with the 'Origins of man' debate. You missed the point of what I'm saying. Yeah. It's a gradual change. DUH. But it's still a change from one type of animal to the other. TEoW, you've done nothing but rehash things all ready dealt with earlier in the thread. You've not come any closer of convincing me of this theory than the others have. You didn't even provide any evidence. Just your own meandering ideas. Jessica: Liger was mentioned all ready. Humans using selective breeding doesn't count as evolution itself because this was forced and not something "natural". Just as with the different types of dogs. And it's amazing. You say it yourself..."Oh, but Kangaroo isn't the aboriginal name for it...do you think that Kangaroo is what Adam named it?" That is one of the most illogical arguments on the subject I've seen. Tower of Babel. Languages got mixed up and no longer just one language across the Earth. And just because Adam named the animals doesn't mean those names are still with us today. You have to think about things like that and what the other side will say before you post. It doesn't do much good for your own side. Rework it some if you want to use that again. |
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Sept 3, 2004 9:44:03 GMT -5
TEoW, you've done nothing but rehash things all ready dealt with earlier in the thread. You've not come any closer of convincing me of this theory than the others have. You didn't even provide any evidence. Just your own meandering ideas.  Okay, don't bother arguing my individual points. Dismiss the whole post, so you don't have to deal with things that might go against your view. So Stal, what is evolution? What exactly is the part of evolution that you are oposed to? |
|
Okay, don't bother arguing my individual points. Dismiss the whole post, so you don't have to deal with things that might go against your view.