|
|
Post by Smiley on Oct 5, 2004 17:25:21 GMT -5
No need to be so testy...
Anyway, apes evolved from simpler animals that evolved from even simpler animals... go all the way back, and they started out as single-celled organisms.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tahu on Oct 5, 2004 17:29:25 GMT -5
No need to be so testy... Anyway, apes evolved from simpler animals that evolved from even simpler animals... go all the way back, and they started out as single-celled organisms. (And they came from random combonations of amino acids) |
|
|
|
Post by irishdragonlord on Oct 5, 2004 18:12:17 GMT -5
(And they came from random combonations of amino acids) Is it just me or was that not disproved in the 1980's and the likelyhood of that in the Scientific Law-realm of impossibility? "Evolution" - the actual changing of animals - is different from the actual creation. I believe in micro-evolution - weasel to otter - but not weasel to horse. And, are you trying to disprove evolution or the theory of life that involved said amino acids and primordial soup? |
|
|
|
Post by Rider on Oct 5, 2004 18:23:24 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]Say it's dissing God all you want, but I believe in evolution. Over a period of millions of years, IDL's weasel-like mammals that lived alongside the dinosaurs had to become my dear and beloved horse friends.  I find it really hard to disbelieve science. And there are so much scientific proof in evolution that I'd be willing to put my money there. And the Bible is a tool, like a hammer. You can build with it, build faith or build a house. But you can also destroy with it. When people take the Bible literally, it can be dangerous. God was behind evolution, I believe. It's all part of His plan. (That wasn't short, sorry.)[/glow] |
|
|
|
Post by The Angry Artist on Oct 5, 2004 19:23:45 GMT -5
Is it just me or was that not disproved in the 1980's and the likelyhood of that in the Scientific Law-realm of impossibility? "Evolution" - the actual changing of animals - is different from the actual creation. I believe in micro-evolution - weasel to otter - but not weasel to horse. And, are you trying to disprove evolution or the theory of life that involved said amino acids and primordial soup? If it were disproved, why do schools still teach evolution? And besides, who disproved it? Who told you it was disproved? It has not been 100% proven/disproven, and the liklihood is that no one will be able to completely prove/disprove it. Frankly, I believe in evolution as a long process with specific steps that happend in a specific way. I don't like arguments that point to God because we can't explain something. |
|
|
|
Post by Bacon on Oct 5, 2004 20:10:03 GMT -5
No need to be so testy... Anyway, apes evolved from simpler animals that evolved from even simpler animals... go all the way back, and they started out as single-celled organisms. This is getting really annoying when I ask for one person to respond and I get 5! Anyways, then where did those single-celled organisms come from? ONLY ONE RESPONSE, PLEASE!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Bacon on Oct 5, 2004 20:12:59 GMT -5
And, are you trying to disprove evolution or the theory of life that involved said amino acids and primordial soup? Primordial soup?! HA! I don't see a need to prove that wrong!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2004 20:20:12 GMT -5
Meh, that whole "amino acids" theory really depresses me. So one day a bunch of chemicals just happened to join together and BOOM! Here we are? And this happened by chance? So if we're here by accident, what's the point of life? How can there be a point to something that wasn't meant to be?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sock on Oct 5, 2004 20:24:09 GMT -5
[glow=brown,2,300]Oh dear, not this again  Well, I'll slip into the evolution converstation here. I might slip out if I get frustrated.
Now, evolution is very likely to happen. Last time we discussed this you said "a dog cannot give birth to a kitten". Yes, this is true, but evolution is not so. Evolution is the slow process of an animal changing, not just that animal giving birth to another. Evolution can be very handy for animals to survive. And I believe evolution is much more believeable then Adam and Eve. And please don't flame me again. Remember that everyone has their own opinion, and yes, I understand that you don't believe it and respect that. Feel free to discuss this with me, just keep yelling and stuff to a minimum.
And Seduphe, don't you think you're being a bit harsh? People can believe in what they want to, not what you force them to. As I said, I understand that you don't believe evolution, but does that mean you have to force people to think your way? No. That is just childish. Though I understand this is a discussion/debate, there is no need to prove evolution wrong, nor is there to prove the other theories wrong.[/glow]
|
|
|
|
Post by Tahu on Oct 5, 2004 20:26:24 GMT -5
Primordial soup?! HA! I don't see a need to prove that wrong!!! Erm... why not. That is like me saying "Ha, I don't see a need to prove creationism wrong" |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2004 20:29:56 GMT -5
Meh, that whole "amino acids" theory really depresses me. So one day a bunch of chemicals just happened to join together and BOOM! Here we are? And this happened by chance? So if we're here by accident, what's the point of life? How can there be a point to something that wasn't meant to be? The amino acids thing is not part of evolution, and therefore I do not believe that it should be considered in this argument. Biological evolution is the development of a new species or trait from an old species or trait. Most of its hypotheses (natural selection, for example) have been proven true. For evolution to be true, it does not need a scientific reason for the creation of the first cell. As for the point of life, if God had no part in it? Then there simply isn't one. Which is a really scary thing to think about. And you could argue the same about the universe. What's the point of it?#nosmileys |
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Oct 6, 2004 0:27:25 GMT -5
As for the point of life, if God had no part in it? Then there simply isn't one. Which is a really scary thing to think about. And you could argue the same about the universe. What's the point of it? Am I the only person who's not scared of the thought that we are here by accident? Even if we were made without a purpose in mind (the validity of such a statement I'm not venturing to discuss) That doesn't mean being here is pointless. We can make a purpose for ourselves. I personally believe that I am here to see what I can make of myself, to become the best person that I can be. That's enough for me, I don't need to think that I was put here for a reason, the thing is that I *am* here, so now what am I going to do with it? My birth wasn't planned. In fact, I'm seven years younger then my older sister. My parents simply thought they weren't able to have more children, they didn't expect me. A happy little accident. This doesn't bother me in the slightest. Seduphe- I think it's pretty immature that you want people to get in line while you try and cut down what they believe, and you don't want anyone else interjecting. With more than one person responding, you get stronger arguments because people can help find information to support it, or weed out any inaccuracies. Or are you too afraid that you couldn't 'shoot down' or 'disprove' a better laid out theory? It is not possible to prove/disprove creationism or evolution. There are many reasons for this. Scientifically it's because of the 'burden of proof'. Religously it's, I think, because of the nature of God. From a religious standpoint, God wants humans to have free will, to choose to worship and believe or not. Humans must make a leap of faith. If God were to prove his/her self or to allow his/her self to be proved, it would stop being a matter of faith and start being a matter of fact. The whole point is taking the risk of believeing in something that is unprovable, and you have to wait until you die to find out what's what. Something VERY, VERY important to a religous or a scientific debate is this statement; "Absense of proof is not proof of absense". Not being able to prove something doesn't automatically disprove it. Besides, you're not on that often and if we can only reply or discuss when you say so, this isn't going to go anywhere. Then we'll just make a new thread and go there. Back to an earlier point; I support evolution but I think trying to disprove religion, any religion, is silly and pointless. I have similar thoughts with creationism, and prefer to favor 'Evolution under guidance' this basically means that evolution and creationism aren't incompatible, but parts of the same thing. I'm not really bothered by a seeming inablility to match up parts of evolution with the story of creation. I think it'll work itself out as we gain understanding. So yeah, I'm arguing for evolution but I'm not arguing against creationism because I don't see a need for them to be mutually exclusive. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2004 5:35:30 GMT -5
Am I the only person who's not scared of the thought that we are here by accident? Even if we were made without a purpose in mind (the validity of such a statement I'm not venturing to discuss) That doesn't mean being here is pointless. We can make a purpose for ourselves. I personally believe that I am here to see what I can make of myself, to become the best person that I can be. That's enough for me, I don't need to think that I was put here for a reason, the thing is that I *am* here, so now what am I going to do with it? My birth wasn't planned. In fact, I'm seven years younger then my older sister. My parents simply thought they weren't able to have more children, they didn't expect me. A happy little accident. This doesn't bother me in the slightest. Seduphe- I think it's pretty immature that you want people to get in line while you try and cut down what they believe, and you don't want anyone else interjecting. With more than one person responding, you get stronger arguments because people can help find information to support it, or weed out any inaccuracies. Or are you too afraid that you couldn't 'shoot down' or 'disprove' a better laid out theory? It is not possible to prove/disprove creationism or evolution. There are many reasons for this. Scientifically it's because of the 'burden of proof'. Religously it's, I think, because of the nature of God. From a religious standpoint, God wants humans to have free will, to choose to worship and believe or not. Humans must make a leap of faith. If God were to prove his/her self or to allow his/her self to be proved, it would stop being a matter of faith and start being a matter of fact. The whole point is taking the risk of believeing in something that is unprovable, and you have to wait until you die to find out what's what. Something VERY, VERY important to a religous or a scientific debate is this statement; "Absense of proof is not proof of absense". Not being able to prove something doesn't automatically disprove it. Besides, you're not on that often and if we can only reply or discuss when you say so, this isn't going to go anywhere. Then we'll just make a new thread and go there. Back to an earlier point; I support evolution but I think trying to disprove religion, any religion, is silly and pointless. I have similar thoughts with creationism, and prefer to favor 'Evolution under guidance' this basically means that evolution and creationism aren't incompatible, but parts of the same thing. I'm not really bothered by a seeming inablility to match up parts of evolution with the story of creation. I think it'll work itself out as we gain understanding. So yeah, I'm arguing for evolution but I'm not arguing against creationism because I don't see a need for them to be mutually exclusive. My thoughts exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by Shadyy on Oct 6, 2004 11:05:29 GMT -5
honest answer: I simply don't know, nor can anyone be sure for 100%. Don't believe in a god or religious explenation; Big bang seems a bit unlikely too. |
|
|
|
Post by Kiddo on Oct 6, 2004 14:54:38 GMT -5
In my geology class we're having evolution shoved down our throats. The materials we're reading waste no opportunities to diss religion - in specific, creationism.
However, I'm still wondering why.
One of the experts proclaimed, in regards to the Burghess Shale fossils, that if life were to happen all over again the chances of this turning out to be the end result are for all respects - nothing. Therefore, because humanity was such a slim and remote chance, God didn't create life.
Whaaaaat? Wouldn't that be MORE reason to believe in a divine being that created life? Or have they revised the definition of omnipotent?
I don't believe we are here by accident. I believe that God is so great and all-knowing and that it is completely within his abilities to create this world and the conditions that would lead to this as the final result. He created man in his image - he molded evolution and the 'random chance' so that we would come into existance.
Evolution and creationism can co-exist. I don't understand why people believe that one has to negate the other.
And if it's that whole "omg we can't have evolved from apes" business, well, my response to that is look at what we have that the apes don't. We have knowledge of good and evil. And who ate the dang apple? We did. That's what sets us apart from the animals and I personally don't think something like that could come from evolution. So yes, we evolved, but God was the ultimate creator of our current existance.
Not to mention it's pretty dang arrogant of us to assume that God must conform to our ideas and theories. Honestly.
Whateva. People need to stop getting hung up over this nonsense.
|
|
Well, I'll slip into the evolution converstation here. I might slip out if I get frustrated. 
