Tyrion Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 Just to make it clear,the pope is catholic,not christian. So that's a moot point,since Christians(or at least some) think that Catholicsm is,well, a perverted twisted belief of Christianity. (Note that the perverted twisted stuff came from someone else's mouth,not mine...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katarn07 Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 Evolution does indeed exist, but to the point that they can become so smart and all? The universe was designed. But over the years, yes, animals have evolved, as humans have. ie Appendix is no longer used.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psydan Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 Ok, once again we're making this a religious question which could go on forever because everyone has different opinions. The question was EVOLUTION or INTELLIGENT DESIGN. I think the main point was that evolution ( by that I mean that all life today came from an original "accidental" life form) is such an impossible thing that there must be something out there that is seperated from our constraints of physics and is able to create life. It doesn't have to be a debate over religion, and Cjais you are the one who keeps saying that a good argument isn't about disproving your opponents veiw, well you are the one who keeps trying to prove a belief in Creationism wrong, and bringing religion into it. There must be something wrong with evolutionary theories right now or else we wouldn't be debating over it. (BTW, I know you're thinking "well doesn't that make Creationists wrong too?" well, there is no direct physical evidence of Intelligent design that isn't circumstantial, but it isn't a science, it's a belief. Evolution is science, so it should be able to be proven without a doubt by direct physical evidence, so go ahead and tell me that they've proven without a doubt that humans are decendants of some ancient one-celled organism that was given life through random chance. I believe in gravity beause they can prove it without a doubt, and prove it as a given constant.) Furthermore, if all life came from an accident, and evolved completely through more accidents and natural selection, where did differentsexes come in? I mean there are a lot of complex things that seperate male from female, and while all of those were being perfected, who were these mutant males/females mating with to pass on this new trait? Also, how does evolution explain the bombardier beetle?(look it up if you dont know, or I will explain it later)there are just too many reasons to not believe in evolution. But that's just my opinion, and Im not trying to make anyone angry over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted January 18, 2003 Share Posted January 18, 2003 Originally posted by Cjais And what exactly is a "sugar beet"? Ooooo, ooooooo I know this one! Sugar beets are the beets that are used to make sugar. I'm not sure of the exact processes that they go through.....but they're brown, beet-shaped, and approximately as big as a football. Yes, i know, my knowledge astounds you all...... Actually we have a sugar beet factory in my town......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 19, 2003 Share Posted January 19, 2003 Originally posted by Rogue_Ace Can you tell me where it gets the energy to explode every time. If it collapses in on itself every time then does it not signify the loss energy. Where does it fill its preverbal gas tank. Check http://www.sciam.com. If you're lucky you can find an article on it. If not, you get a veiw of REAL science, for a change. Originally posted by Rogue_Ace And as for life evolving on earth over billions of years look at this. If the earth is as old as you say then it still wouldn't be able to support life until recently. Dont believe me then go to any website about the decay of the magnetic field that surronds earth. Tsk, tsk, tsk, never heard about polar turns? Originally posted by Rogue_Ace Even if the speed of deacy is slowing down (like the speed of light) the earth would not have been able to support life for more then 10,000 years (give or take a couple thousand). When did the nondecaying speed of light begin to decay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 19, 2003 Share Posted January 19, 2003 Originally posted by Psydan Ok, once again we're making this a religious question which could go on forever because everyone has different opinions. This is not a religious debate. Look at the mud-slinging between "Christians" and Catholics - that's a religious debate. This is not about opinions. This is not about getting you to see our side of things. This is about getting you to realize facts. The question was EVOLUTION or INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Intelligent design is the same as Creationism, which, in the Christian sense of it, is the Genesis. I think the main point was that evolution ( by that I mean that all life today came from an original "accidental" life form) NO. Abiogenesis is the science of explaining how we got here in the first place - IE bacteria, God or whatnot. Evolution is about explaining how we evolved after we got here. According to Darwin, he did not try to refute the Bible - he believed that it was still possible God created life in the original forms. The only thing he cared for was how we evolved from then on. and Cjais you are the one who keeps saying that a good argument isn't about disproving your opponents veiw, I never said that. Quote me, please. well you are the one who keeps trying to prove a belief in Creationism wrong, and bringing religion into it. Religion is what makes you believe the Genesis is fact. Religion is what makes you convinced that evolution isn't fact. Religion is the central point of this debate. There must be something wrong with evolutionary theories right now or else we wouldn't be debating over it. False assumption. Just as I can claim that I'm able to fly and thus defy the laws of gravity, this does not mean that there are somehow "holes" in the law of gravity. What we have here are facts, and people who don't accept them. If you think there are some weird holes in evolution, why don't you go ahead and tell us exactly where they are? This debate is about you, the Christian people. so go ahead and tell me that they've proven without a doubt that humans are decendants of some ancient one-celled organism that was given life through random chance. Again, this is not evolution you wish proved. This is abiogenesis. While we currently do not know with 100% certainty how the first cells formed, we do have a pretty plausible theory, which is more than can be said about your Genesis. Furthermore, if all life came from an accident, and evolved completely through more accidents and natural selection, where did differentsexes come in? Abiogenesis, yet again. The difference between sexes are not complicated on a molecular level. All it takes is one cell to be different from the other. From an evolutionary point of view, it's a benefit that the offspring is different from the parents (opposite of asexual breeding = cloning) - it'd have more new traits to put to the test and thus improve the species a lot faster. Also, how does evolution explain the bombardier beetle? Explain, if you will. But know that this is not a hole in the evolutionary theory, or that it has anything to do God, whatever you're going to state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 19, 2003 Share Posted January 19, 2003 Originally posted by Psydan Ok, once again we're making this a religious question which could go on forever because everyone has different opinions. You confuse opinion and fact. In a democracy you have to yield to cold, hard fact, or said democracy would collapse with the first demagouge to stick out his head. Originally posted by Psydan The question was EVOLUTION or INTELLIGENT DESIGN. I think the main point was that evolution ( by that I mean that all life today came from an original "accidental" life form) is such an impossible thing that there must be something out there that is seperated from our constraints of physics and is able to create life. Do you know anything about the Theory of Evolution? At all. Evolution does not cover what happened before life appeared. Only what life did after. Of course rationalists will often hold a scientific view of both, but that doesn't make them the same. Apart from that, I haven't seen any probability calculation that showed that creation by chance is impossible. Originally posted by Psydan It doesn't have to be a debate over religion, and Cjais you are the one who keeps saying that a good argument isn't about disproving your opponents veiw, well you are the one who keeps trying to prove a belief in Creationism wrong, and bringing religion into it. It becomes a debate over religion when you start denouncing facts like evolution. Originally posted by Psydan There must be something wrong with evolutionary theories right now or else we wouldn't be debating over it. Either that, or you know too little about it. In some African banana republics it is debated whether HIV is a sexually transmitted disease. Does that mean the the theory that HIV is sexually transmitted is faulty, or that some Presidentes don't like the prospect of having to found safe-sex programs? Originally posted by Psydan Evolution is science, so it should be able to be proven without a doubt by direct physical evidence, so go ahead and tell me that they've proven without a doubt that humans are decendants of some ancient one-celled organism that was given life through random chance. The first living organism didn't appear by random chance. As I explained above, nature favors certain chemical reactions. Luckily for us, some of them produced life. So let me say this in no uncertain terms: NEVER, EVER, CLAIM THAT EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE TO BE CREATED BY "RANDOM CHANCE" AGAIN! Unless, of course, you wish to make fun of yourself... Originally posted by Psydan I believe in gravity beause they can prove it without a doubt, and prove it as a given constant.) Then you do not believe. You must learn to make the distinction between belief and fact. Originally posted by Psydan Furthermore, if all life came from an accident, and evolved completely through more accidents and natural selection, where did differentsexes come in? That "missing link" is no longer missing. On Iceland (I think) a one-celled organism was found that habitually engieered its own DNA sequence. The step to gender-based reproduction is not great from that point. Originally posted by Psydan I mean there are a lot of complex things that seperate male from female, and while all of those were being perfected, who were these mutant males/females mating with to pass on this new trait? The distinction between genders needs not to be complex. Malaria uses both genderbased and nongenderbased breeding in different phases of its lifecycle, for example. And Malaria is a simple organism. And several deep-sea organisms can reproduce both sexually and asexually. This method of breeding could be a cross-form. Originally posted by Psydan Also, how does evolution explain the bombardier beetle?(look it up if you dont know, or I will explain it later) I know what the Bombardier Beetle is, but I don't see in what way it disproves evolution. Originally posted by Psydan there are just too many reasons to not believe in evolution. But that's just my opinion, and Im not trying to make anyone angry over it. There are many reasons not to believe in evolution. Chiefly: You don't need to believe in something that you can see with your own two eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psydan Posted January 19, 2003 Share Posted January 19, 2003 First of all: Believe v. tr. 1.To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories? 2.To credit with veracity: I believe you. 3.To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly. So, yah i think that accepting evolution, even if it has been "proven", is believing in it. Next: Creationism n. 1.Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible. But Master_Keralys specifically said as the topic beginner: Quote by Master_Keralys : "On the other hand, there are those who tell us that the universe was designed, and it doesn't necessarily matter who designed it; the point is that it was designed." So, this isn't a debate over creationism, it is about Intelligent design vs. Evolution Evolution in this debate would be the veiwpoint that: Quote byMaster_Keralys: "life and the planets and everything else are just byproducts of mere chance" If you believe that some being put us here intelligently then you are for intelligent design. If you believe that everything was created through natural events, whatever they may be, but that no intelligent life helped life began, then you are on the "evolutionist" side. You could be in the middle, but then what do you believe, and are you just trying to argue? And: Abiogenesis n : a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter. How does this relate to male/female formation? Quote by Cjais:"I never said that. Quote me, please." Quote by Cjais:"Yes. You do that. And while you're at it, present some proof of your theory as well. Trying to disprove mine won't make you look any better in the end, unless you have substantial, empirical proof of your own as well." I interpreted if that as you saying that we should be backing up our own side, not attacking the other side. Please excuse me if I interpreted it incorrectly. Quote by ShadowTemplar:"The distinction between genders needs not to be complex. Malaria uses both genderbased and nongenderbased breeding in different phases of its lifecycle, for example. And Malaria is a simple organism. And several deep-sea organisms can reproduce both sexually and asexually. This method of breeding could be a cross-form." Quote by Cjais:"Abiogenesis, yet again. The difference between sexes are not complicated on a molecular level. All it takes is one cell to be different from the other. From an evolutionary point of view, it's a benefit that the offspring is different from the parents (opposite of asexual breeding = cloning) - it'd have more new traits to put to the test and thus improve the species a lot faster." Well, I wasn't saying that the actual organism had to be complex, just that the distinction between genders, look at even the simplest sexually-reproducing species, there are major differences in even the organisms charecteristics that seperate male and female. And, aren't sex cells a type of cell? So wouldn't it have to be a multi-cellular organism to have a gender? What I'm saying is that if the first female is born, is it really possible that there will be a male that is perfectly programmed (using the word programmed as a loose term) to reproduce with that female? Also, isn't cloning a type of asexual reproduction, not the opposite of it? Quote by ShadowTemplar: "I know what the Bombardier Beetle is, but I don't see in what way it disproves evolution." Well, the bombadier beetle uses a special type of self-defense. It's able to spray a stream of steaming hot liquid, that makes a loud popping noise, and that blinds and can burn the predator. It sprays hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide out of seperate sacs, and when they mix they combine to form a chemical reaction. Now how could evolution produce this? Could it be possible that a creator made this special function? How would these particular chemicals naturally be made into the beetle, and how would it adapt to create these chemicals, how would the beetle know that these chemicals would be a good defense mechanism?But, you could go ahead and say whatever you want, because really you'll never believe anything that I say.(speaking of which, it's kind of dumb in my opinion to be arguing about the use of words like believe, but thats just my opinion) And, "evolution" (species adapting to the environment, which by the way is one of the characteristics that all things must have to be considered "living")has been proven, many times, so it is a fact, and I'm not doubting it, but I do doubt "evolution" as it relates to this post topic (being the alternative to ID. The theory that no intelligent being(s) formed life on Earth). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 19, 2003 Share Posted January 19, 2003 Originally posted by Psydan First of all: Believe v. tr. 1.To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories? 2.To credit with veracity: I believe you. 3.To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly. So, yah i think that accepting evolution, even if it has been "proven", is believing in it. Keywords: Accept, credit, and expect or suppose. All are subjective. Useless crap. Cold, hard facts are not subjective. Usefull tools. See what I'm getting at? If you hold something to be applicable because that is what empirical evidence suggests, then you are beyond faith. That is sense (percieved by the senses). So, you could believe evolution, but there would be no point to it, because it is proven fact, so there is no need to believe in it anymore. Originally posted by Psydan Quote byMaster_Keralys: "life and the planets and everything else are just byproducts of mere chance" This is a demagougic argument. Evolution doesn't claim that everything happens according to chance. See above (I could repeat myself, but I'm too lazy for that). Originally posted by Psydan If you believe that some being put us here intelligently then you are for intelligent design. If you believe that everything was created through natural events, whatever they may be, but that no intelligent life helped life began, then you are on the "evolutionist" side. Yes. What's the news in that? Oh, and it's still wrong to say that you "believe" that no intelligent life helped. It's not belief, its fact. Originally posted by Psydan And: Abiogenesis n : a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter. How does this relate to male/female formation? I didn't relate the two, did I? Gee I'm too tired for this. Originally posted by Psydan Quote by Cjais:"I never said that. Quote me, please." Quote by Cjais:"Yes. You do that. And while you're at it, present some proof of your theory as well. Trying to disprove mine won't make you look any better in the end, unless you have substantial, empirical proof of your own as well." I interpreted if that as you saying that we should be backing up our own side, not attacking the other side. Please excuse me if I interpreted it incorrectly. What he said was that you cannot prove the positive by proving the negative. And you also can't prove the negative, so you are basically wasting your time trying. In short: Prove the positive. If this excludes some other hypothesises, tough. But dispelling such faulty hypothesises would belong after you have proved the positive. Originally posted by Psydan Quote by ShadowTemplar:"The distinction between genders needs not to be complex. [...] Well, I wasn't saying that the actual organism had to be complex, just that the distinction between genders, look at even the simplest sexually-reproducing species, there are major differences in even the organisms charecteristics that seperate male and female. No. Again I turn to my beloved marine creatures. There are many creatures that are natural hermafrodites. A marked example is a marine creature that fights to aviod bearing the young. The male sexual organ of the winner will impregnate the loser. This means that the winner can impregnate another specimen and so on, until it loses. It is actually (I think) the same creature that I mentioned above as being able to breed asexually as well. This gives it a flexibility that is seen in few other places. Originally posted by Psydan And, aren't sex cells a type of cell? So wouldn't it have to be a multi-cellular organism to have a gender? No. Sexual reproduction signifies a mixing of genes between the parents. You don't need specialized sex cells. *calls in the residential Biology expert (C'Jais) to back me up* Originally posted by Psydan What I'm saying is that if the first female is born, is it really possible that there will be a male that is perfectly programmed (using the word programmed as a loose term) to reproduce with that female? As I have proven with the above example, it wouldn't be neccesary. And, besides, the "first female" wouldn't just appear out of nowhere among a whole group of specimens that reproduced asexually. There is a sliding transfer. Originally posted by Psydan Also, isn't cloning a type of asexual reproduction, not the opposite of it? WOOT? Of course it is asexual reproduction. What did I miss out here? Originally posted by Psydan Quote by ShadowTemplar: "I know what the Bombardier Beetle is, but I don't see in what way it disproves evolution." Well, the bombadier beetle uses a special type of self-defense. It's able to spray a stream of steaming hot liquid, that makes a loud popping noise, and that blinds and can burn the predator. It sprays hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide out of seperate sacs, and when they mix they combine to form a chemical reaction. Now how could evolution produce this? If, and I'm not saying that that's how it happened ('cause then I'd have to read up on it), if a beetle species began to produce some unpleasant liquid, then predators would be less inclined to eat it = greater survivability. Then the rest is fine-tuning. For more Q&A to "whole-greater-than-the-sum-of-the-parts-nonsense" go to http://www.sciam.com and search on "15 answers". You'll find an article called "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense". Therein lie all the answers you need. BTW: What is the structure formula for hydroquinone? Not that I think that you're lying, I just want to see if I can put it to some use, or make a model of the reaction or something. Originally posted by Psydan because really you'll never believe anything that I say.(speaking of which, it's kind of dumb in my opinion to be arguing about the use of words like believe, but thats just my opinion) I'll never believe anything. If you have to believe it, then I for one find it too far out. Originally posted by Psydan And, "evolution" (species adapting to the environment, which by the way is one of the characteristics that all things must have to be considered "living")has been proven, many times, so it is a fact, and I'm not doubting it, but I do doubt "evolution" as it relates to this post topic (being the alternative to ID. The theory that no intelligent being(s) formed life on Earth). Big, fat, glaring why. Why would the model not be applicable to life as a whole, when it so exellently describes the life that we see now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted January 19, 2003 Share Posted January 19, 2003 Evolution, a relatively new term, or supposedly new anyway. Let's clear up where we are as a race first. We, in the 21st Century are not that advanced. We should not consider the Ancient Greek or Egyptian civilisations less intelligent, since they were around a long time ago. Along the way, as we fought and razed buildings to the ground, the winners wrote history, the losers were absorbed. Archimedes, Socrates, Plato ARE amongst some of the most intelligent thinkers to grace this Earth EVER. BUT once the Athenaen way of life was no more, what civilisation would really want to promote the ideas of a race they had just conquered? The only reason people believe the Pyramids were made by slaves, is that it may, not sure haven't read it, the Bible states that it was the case. Now with currently excavation at the site surrounding the pyramids shows a more affluent kind of people were working on them, due to the kind of everyday items they had. All of a sudden going from a bunch of rank amatuers creating monoliths that have stood for over 4000 years, to having the ancient equivalent of a trained construction company doing the work. In the last 10-20 years, it has been found that the current line of thinking, due to acts of war, amongst other things, makes the current western world not as intelligent as everyone would believe. How many Greek texts, amongst others, were lost when the great library in Alexandria was burnt to the ground, removing traces of great thinkers like Archimedes.... Not even Da Vinci, one of the modern times most outstanding thinkers, could create the odometer that Archimedes had created for the Roman empire, due to some incorrect assumptions. There are lot of things that may be a lot further advanced and developed if not for the ravages of war that made most of the Hellenistic ideas lost to the world. Over time, mans thinking, or intelligence have evolved and devolved according to whoever took control. Not until the last 50 or 60 years has the world started to think in a relatively uniform way, that will help us understand a lot more things. It has taken us over 2000 years to catch up, in a relative sense, to where the Greeks were all that time ago. In realistic terms, the Theory of Evolution is relatively young in the terms of time and thinking. So, to find holes in something that tries to describe how we have changed since life arrived on Earth isn't going to be that hard. The fact that about 80 years after the events, the Bible was being written, in that day and ages, was about three generations away from people who had seen any of it directly. It's like asking your grandchildren to write in about 120 years from now what it was like today, not a great deal of accuracy.... The fact that it took one Pope in the Middle Ages to declare the Bible as a literal statement of fact. That was about 1000 years after the book had been taught as a metaphorical text, in line with the people who wrote it. Why didn't all the other Popes before him make this declaration, OR did they not believe it to be literal? There are scientists out there that say Evolution and Creation can go hand in hand. That the six days of creation, are describing the different times of the world that it took to arrive at a point where humans now roamed it. How do we even know the King of Kings was actually Jesus, Emmanuel in other languages, and not some, what is now in modern Turkey, a man who through his family trees joined two seperate lines of kings from two dynasties. It seems as if that story in the Bible is a "chinese whisper" of this event. The events of the Bible may speak the truth to things that have happened, but are not in themselves totally irrefutable. I'd believe something written by Archimedes over the Bible, even if they are of the same age. We are nowhere near the stage of "If it hasn't been explained, therefore it's unexplainable" We know more about the moon and outer space that we do about the ocean floor. We don't totally understand our own planet, yet have a complete knowledge of our closest satellite.... Current Western thinking is relatively new after the Dark Ages, so consider us on 500 years into the new way of thinking, and not try to make it a total life sum of everything ever known on this earth. It just doesn't work like that, just because the Romans and the Greeks were advanced, does not make for a straight line of developed thinking from them. The Greeks lost their fight for freedom, their ideas were lost to the world, the Romans lost too, so plenty of their ideas were thrown away as well..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandalorian54 Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 The only reason people believe the Pyramids were made by slaves, is that it may, not sure haven't read it, the Bible states that it was the case. Now with currently excavation at the site surrounding the pyramids shows a more affluent kind of people were working on them, due to the kind of everyday items they had. All of a sudden going from a bunch of rank amatuers creating monoliths that have stood for over 4000 years, to having the ancient equivalent of a trained construction company doing the work. acctually the slaves only hauled the blocks of clay or whatever pyramids are made of. the slaves also made the clay and straw blocks, but they were directed by the egyptians. Do you think that our construction workers design the bricks and model things. No they use the bricks, carpenters are a different story. Also there are historical records to support it, and egyptian hiroglifacs or however it's spelt. The fact that about 80 years after the events, the Bible was being written, in that day and ages, was about three generations away from people who had seen any of it directly. It's like asking your grandchildren to write in about 120 years from now what it was like today, not a great deal of accuracy.... according to historical documents it is exactly accurate. The fact that it took one Pope in the Middle Ages to declare the Bible as a literal statement of fact. That was about 1000 years after the book had been taught as a metaphorical text, in line with the people who wrote it. Why didn't all the other Popes before him make this declaration, OR did they not believe it to be literal? You need to get your facts straight. Many people then believed it as many of us do now, some of the Bible is literal and some is metaphorical. That is why so many people study it. And thats why we have pastors at churches, to study and teach the congragation. And Constantine had done that before any Pope existed, by the way, the Pope is Catholic and the Catholic Bible has two added books to it, so the Bible he was talking about was a bit faulty. ---------------------- okay I don't have time to re-read evry post and point out all your mistakes. Evolution is not a FACT!!!!!!!!!!! it can not be proven!!!!!!!!!!! God was not created! He reated Time! GOD has no beginging and will have no end. Is that so hard to imagine? so tell me cjas, where do you think the first cell come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Originally posted by Mandolorian54 acctually the slaves only hauled the blocks of clay or whatever pyramids are made of. the slaves also made the clay and straw blocks, but they were directed by the egyptians. Do you think that our construction workers design the bricks and model things. No they use the bricks, carpenters are a different story. Also there are historical records to support it, and egyptian hiroglifacs or however it's spelt. Firstly, the blocks weren't made of clay, but some kind of stone (sandstone or something). Also, there is nothing that indicates that there was slaves who built the monuments, workers yes, but why should it be slaves? I quote a website: "The pyramids of Egypt – believe it or not – were built by the Egyptians." http://www.nunki.net/PerDud/TheWorks/Express/WhoBuiltPyrimads.html Evolution is not a FACT!!!!!!!!!!! it can not be proven!!!!!!!!!!! Most people thinks that bacterias evolving resistance against antibiotics it evidence enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 "The story so far: In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. Many races belive that it was created by some kind of god, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI belive that the entire universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. The Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the time they call The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief, are small blue creatures with more than fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel. However, the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory is not widely acceptd outside Viltvodle VI and so, the Universe being the puzzling place it is, other explanations are constantly being sought." -The beginning of "The Resturant at the End of the Universe" by Douglas Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Ok yet again I am here late. My reasons that evolution is not true: THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL SPECIES FOSSILS IN THE WORLD. And don't go trying to tell me that Archaeopteryx is a transitional species because it is FAKE. Why are their only 6 fossils of Archaeopteryx in the world and why do ony 2 have feathers? Because its fake. From a website that I found: -------------------------------------------------------------------- If you ask an evolutionist to tell you a transitional link, he will probably say: Archaeopteryx. So, what is, or what was this creature? Archaeopteryx is supposed to be a transition between a dinosaur—a reptile— and a bird, basically a bird-sized, feathered reptile. There is much evidence that this fossil is a fraud. If this is a real transitional species, it is the only one to be found anywhere on earth. There are 6 alleged fossils of this animal. There should be millions, if it was a transitional link. Only 2 of these 6 fossils have feathers, the London and Berlin specimens. Since 1980, prominent scientists have charged that the two Archaeopteryx fossils with visible feathers are forgeries. "Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement." After examining this fossil from closer, we will see that everything points to it being a fraud. All Archaeopteryx fossils come from the Solnhofen limestone formation in Bavaria, Germany. It is interesting that they were all found here, and that the owners of the mine made a great profit from selling the fossils. The body of this animal strangely resembles Compsognathus, a bird-sized dinosaur. Were it not for the feathers, Archaeopteryx would be classified as Compsognathus. The feathers are exactly the same as for modern birds. The forger of Archaeopteryx probably just made feather imprints on a fossil of Compsognathus. This is also proven by the fact that all the feathers of Archaeopteryx are all laid out flat where the main slab and counterslab meet (these are the two sides of a fossil). This animal probably couldn’t fly, since it doesn’t have a sternum (breast bone), which all birds and even bats need to have. Other evidence pointing to forgery: The feather imprints show double strike, which means that the feathers were imprinted twice in slightly displaced positions, when the forger placed the two blocks of limestone together. Only the London specimen has a visible furcula, unique feature of birds.This furcula (or wishbone) is abnormally large and upside-down. It is even broken. How could such a flexible bone buried in soft sediments break, unless the forger accidentally broke it when taking it out of another fossil? The imprint of the furcula on the counter slab is not smooth, and shows the rough work of a chisel. There is a strange, small grained material (called a "chewing gum blob") under the feather imprints. This material differs from the limestone surrounding the fossil. This is probably the wet cement used by the forger to make the feather imprints. The main and counter slabs do not perfectly mate. There are bumps on the counterslab, made of the same fine-grained material found under the feathers. These bumps don’t have any corresponding depressions on the other slab. There was much disagreement about these fossils until 1986, when they were analyzed with an X-ray resonance spectrograph, and definitive conclusions reached. It was found that the fine-grained material was significantly different in chemistry from the surrounding limestone, and the rock of the quarry in Germany where the fossils were found. It has been proven that Archaeopteryx is a forgery that has deceived scientists for over 125 years. -------------------------------------------------------------- Ok so that rules out the transitional link. No cross between species found when their should be MILLIONS of fossils like that. Second reason: Their are NO TRANSITIONAL ORGANS TO BE FOUND. From that same website: --------------------------------------------------------------- Besides the missing transitional species, there are no transitional organs either, e.g. there are no half scale and half feathers, no half leg and half wings (when reptiles are supposed to have turned into birds). The other problem with transitional species is that if they ever lived, they would quickly have died and not passed on their genes. When evolving into a bird, the leg of a reptile would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing. Natural selection would select the reptile with normal legs, and the one that started to evolve into a bird would be unfit and die. Therefore, evolution would not occur. How could the eye evolve for example? Natural selection wouldn’t select an animal with a partially evolved eye. For an eye to work properly, all its parts need to be in their place. A transitional eye wouldn’t be any good, and that’s why we never find such things in the fossil record. The eye could only appear with all its parts at the same time. This can only be done by a Creator. Darwin was speculating in The Origin of Species, how the eye could have evolved, but he admitted: To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. ------------------------------------------------------- So even Darwin, the creator of the theory of evolution, was hesitant. Lets see what we have now, No transitional species, no transitional organs. Dinosaurs did not change all of a sudden into birds. So where are the transitional fossils. THERE ARE NONE. Sorry but evolution sound pretty wrong to me. Now look at this from that same website: ------------------------------------------------------- Let's try to imagine how the dinosaur—bird process could take place. First of all, we need approximately 100 million years. At the beginning of this period, there is the four-legged dino, and at the end the two-legged, two-winged bird. Well, our little dinosaur was in deep trouble, because predators were killing his family, and he couldn't run fast enough, or his environment had changed and he didn't have any place to hide. And then by chance (random mutation) a rather curious little dinosaur hatched which had a few feathers on his back and his two front legs were less functional. Curiously, he survived. By chance again, his offspring had more feathers and even less functional front legs. This process continued for 50 million years, until our dino-bird had neither well-running front legs, nor developed wings to fly. So, instead of being a better survivor than others of his original species, as expected by the evolutionary theory, he was a worse one. Poor chap, he couldn't even exist, because he would have been the first to be eaten by the predators. ------------------------------------------------------- So there are the hard facts that evolution is not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn Most people thinks that bacterias evolving resistance against antibiotics it evidence enough. Oh, they're just adapting. That this adaptation involves severe DNA changes is a minor issue. That we can date our relationship with other races via DNA substitutions, which records the time of separation from the common ancestor is also just an unimportant detail. If you found a skull in a desert which resembled a cross over between a human and an ape, how would you react? How would you react if you were told that a chimpanzee shares 98% of its genes with us, and that it's more closely related to us than to orangutangs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murtaugh Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Aliens created the universe, just like they created earth! http://www.rael.org/int/english/index.html All hail Rael!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Oh boy here we go again. BTW do you know why the bacteria are able to stand agains anti-biotics? I would like to see if you know. And how accurate is you dating methods? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider BTW do you know why the bacteria are able to stand agains anti-biotics? I would like to see if you know. Natural selection. Out of a huge bunch of bacteria, a select few have the right mutation to withstand the applied anti-biotic. They'll survive, and pass on the gene when they multiply afterwards. And how accurate is you dating methods? Pretty accurate. So accurate, in fact, that they're able to predict where the fossils are, how deep they're buried and that we're not supposed to find human fossils in strata from the Jurassic period. If we ever did that, our dating methods would be way off, but this hasn't happened yet. The mere fact that they can predict fossil findings ought to be enough to ensure you that they aren't merely lucky numbers and wild pot-shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast My reasons that evolution is not true: THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL SPECIES FOSSILS IN THE WORLD. And don't go trying to tell me that Archaeopteryx is a transitional species because it is FAKE. Why are their only 6 fossils of Archaeopteryx in the world and why do ony 2 have feathers? Because its fake. Creationist conspiracy theory yet again. The 6 Archeopteryx fossils aren't fakes. The first one was excavated in the bloody 19th century. At that point, no one had got the slightest idea of dinosaurs being related to birds. It was this fossil that turned it upside down, not an attempt to convince the non-creationists at that point. And it is plain false to state they were all excavated in Bavaria, Germany - they have been found deep in Asia as well. Presuming we'd be able to find millions of transitional fossils if it wasn't a forgey only shows how little they know of fossilization and the theory of evolution. And using this one example gives you no right at all to dismiss the countless other transitional fossils. How about Lucy, the Neanderthals, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis and the several transitional fossils found, showing a smooth transition between fish and land living creatures? When evolving into a bird, the leg of a reptile would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing. Again more bullsnot. The first flyers came from forest dwellers, leaping from tree to tree, like the flying snakes and squirrells today. Tiny creatures, which spread their limbs and glided from the treetops. Natural selection would at first select the ones with increasingly more skin stretched out between their arms and legs, so as to make for better gliding. Once this had reached a comfortable stage, tiny feathers began to appear, and it'd instantly help these gliders. Now comes the fine tuning - from being a mere assist in gliding, these feathers slowly grew to the whole body and began to form wings which the creatures would need to steer with. How could the eye evolve for example? Imagine that you're one of the very first many celled fish living at the beginning of evolution in water. You have no eyes. The water is incredibly dark. You cannot distinguish the water surface from the water bottom. Now, light sensitive cells begin to evolve. You still can't see anything, but now your new light sensitive cells react when confronted with light, allowing you to see the surface. An immense aid. The rest is fine tuning - these light sensitive cells grew more and more specialized and accurate, allowing you to make crude patterns in the terrain and thus making sure you don't bumb into anything etc. And one last thing regarding fossils: Fossilization takes time. It has been proven. If all animals lived alongside each other (not that there'd be any space for them), how come we're only able to find fossils of the old ones, dated with our seemingly useless radioactive isotope dating methods? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast My reasons that evolution is not true: THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL SPECIES FOSSILS IN THE WORLD. And don't go trying to tell me that Archaeopteryx is a transitional species because it is FAKE. Why are their only 6 fossils of Archaeopteryx in the world and why do ony 2 have feathers? Because its fake. You cannot say, based on one forgery (if your source is even remotely credible (big if, incredibly big if)). As for the rest of the crap in your post: READ "15 ANSWERS TO CREATIONIST NONSENSE"! You will find everything beutifully explained there. Once you have adressed everything in it, you can come back and talk about facts... Until I rip your arguments apart, and burn the remains (and every mean, yes, all fifteen, capice?). Originally posted by Reborn Outcast So there are the hard facts that evolution is not true. Well, newsflash. That's roughly what we've been telling you all the time. Nothing is true, only more or less wrong. Oh, and BTW: Do you know anything about either Biology, Chemestry, or Physics? Avogadro's constant? Planck's constant? Freeman's constant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Originally posted by Murtaugh Aliens created the universe, just like they created earth! http://www.rael.org/int/english/index.html All hail Rael!!! Remember "Independence Day"? UFOs should not unconditionally be welcomed. Besides: There is a reason why ET hasn't dropped by yet: There are probably incredibly few civilized planets in the galaxy (if you browse http://www.sciam.com you may of may not be able to find the Sceptic article in which this is explained, but the basic point is that L is too small). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 according to historical documents it is exactly accurate. You need to get your facts straight. So, you think three generations removed from the actual events isn't enough? When not every person has easy access to record everything that they see or hear. They can't put a story in the news without a direct source, yet people will change their lives and beliefs to some "someone told someone who told someone" written book. If you went to anywhere with this kind of disassociation from the source, they would think you are nuts... Hindsight is great, I agree that the Bible fits in with many, but not all events in it. The Romans did not have a census that forced Mary and Joseph to go to Jerusalem. Explain this so called pivotal event that forced them to move from one town to another? If the most advanced civilisation at the time didn't do it, who did? It is also contentius the ay that certain key words have been interpreted. Of where the Bible states things were meant to be based, the languages are very similar, and to interpret in the wrong language makes a mockery of what is said in the Bible. Jesus is not actually named in the Bible, since it wasn't written in English, I think it is more likely to be Emmanuel that is the name that is stated.... Many people then believed it as many of us do now, some of the Bible is literal and some is metaphorical. That is why so many people study it. And thats why we have pastors at churches, to study and teach the congragation. And Constantine had done that before any Pope existed, by the way, the Pope is Catholic and the Catholic Bible has two added books to it, so the Bible he was talking about was a bit faulty. BTW its ROMAN Catholicism - The East Roman Empire, ie Byzantine Empire took it as their official religion. When the Byzantine Empire existed, it took in approx 2/3rds of the original Roman Empire, which was approx 80-90% of the known civilised world at the time. Some love to talk about Christianity and all the different denominations, does anyone bother to really look up as to when they actually were formed? Lutheran - Middle Ages, bordering on Reniassance. I think you will find that the doctorine taught in many of these denominations are about 1200-1500 ingrained from Catholicism, due to the influence of the Roman Empire. So when the Pope said it was literal, more than a fair share of the world had to go along with interpretation. You also state the evolution is not a fact, none of us deny that, but how can you prove that the Bible is fact too? All we have is people who will try to debunk evolution, well science actually, using stories from texts that are 20-40 years old. I ask you this: If the Bible is able to be read differently by everyone, then wouldn't you tend to agree that it was actually written as parables, rather than actual fact? The Jews writing style was that of parables, and they were the ones who wrote it. Why would they change one text? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 I am all that is. None of you exist. The world began with me. Time was created when I were born. History before my birth has no meaning, because I am all that is. My environment is a world desperately pulled over my eyes to blind me from the truth - that I am alone. The names I see on my screen before my eyes are nothing. Merely electric impulses interpreted by my brain. The air I breathe is Me myself. Everything revolves back to me, and the world will cease to exist when I die. But I will never die. The concept of time and death are mine, and mine alone. The universe will crumble and everything will be erased when I am no longer here. There will be no history beyond my death and birth, for I am all that is. You are but figments on my eyes. Nothing. Everything is a mirror of Me. Everything exists on my perception, and mine alone. I am All. You are Nothing. Prove. Me. Wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Originally posted by Cjais The world began with me. Time was created when I were born. History before my birth has no meaning, because I am all that is. Prove. Me. Wrong. If you are trying to be God... he was never born, he always has been there. I proved that you are not God. If you are trying to be Jesus then time did not start when he was born. And the time before he was born had a great meaning because it was setting the stage for his birth. I just proved that you are not Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Keralys Posted January 22, 2003 Author Share Posted January 22, 2003 Cjais - that's philosophy now for one thing. For another, if that's the case, then you're the same nothing, and I am everything. "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still fall?" If you're all that exists - you are all and everything else in the universe is subject to your perceptions - then where did you come from? If nothing else exists, then where did you come from? If uyou have existed eternally, then you could be what we call God. Except that I know you're not, given that god exists outside of spacetime, and you say its simply one of your illusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.