Member List
Calendar
F.A.Q.
Search
Log Out
Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000  
 

Go Back   Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 » Other Boards » Discussion

Discussion This is for discussion about current events (news), issues, politics, and any other topics of serious discussion. For more casual talk, go to the Other Chat board. Proper sentences, spelling, and grammar is especially strict in this board.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #166  
Old 10-13-2008, 03:58 AM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: Question to christians

Quote:
Originally Posted by invalid View Post
Yes, if light traveled faster in the past that means that it covered more distance, meaning that the solar system is younger than expected.

Example say you travel 60 miles @ 60mph, it would take you one hour.

Now let's say that you travel at 120mph for 15 minutes and then slowed down to 60, it would 45 minutes to travel the 60 miles. (during the first 15 min, you would have travel 30 miles, leaving 30 miles to be traveled at normal speed. when you travel at 60mph, it is estimated that one miles goes by every 60 seconds. )
You misunderstand. I'll take your idea here. What we are measuring is more like this:

Say we have an estimate of 60mph for whatever distance we are estimating.

Now we have that distance and we estimate that some distance is 60 miles from us using this speed as our measurement.

If the actual speed is going from 120mph and drops to 60mph somewhere in the middle so we measure it as though it's only 60mph, we err in our calculation of distance by however long the 120mph time is. Taking your example, it's more like this:

We're at the end of a race, and we think the track's length is 60 miles because it took the guy 1h to get here and he ended up with a 60mph speed. (1h X 60mph = 60 miles)

In the faster speed, we still estimate that it's 60 miles, but in actuality, he traveled 120mph for 30 minutes instead, while we estimate it's 60 miles, the guy actually traveled 90 miles.

This is why a dropping speed of light will impede your arguments rather than enhance it. There is a reason why "Steady State" theorists use this argument, not Creationists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by invalid View Post
A dog can not produce a non dog, and the same with a cat. Never in the history of man has someone seen a dog produce a cat. Animals only have babies if they mate with their own kind.
First of all, it's bad etiquette to not read my evidence on how speciation occurred. Second of all, you're getting it all wrong. This has nothing to do with "seeing a dog making a cat" because it's ludicrous even in evolutionary terms. It's understanding that there can be a single species, under some form of differentiation, cause them to separate into two separate species, and over large periods of times, these separation gaps grow greater. For example, wolves and dogs are not the same species (and are both currently occupying different "ends"), but they come from a single species in the distant past, but separated from each other to cause them to be different species. In the case between cats and dogs, their closest ancestors are even further apart.

The question is HOW this can occur, and this is just because of the DNA, the unit of inheritance of all units of life, are different between the two species. That is, all of the visual differences you see between any two animal is not due to anything that superficial: it's just difference in their DNA codes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by invalid View Post
Usually death, right?
Yes and no, though the current theory of evolution has death as a requirement for natural selection to work. You, for example, carry a tonne of those types of mutations as well (all humans have a large number of deleterious mutations), just that it's being masked by your complement gene so you won't die from it. This is why incest is frowned upon, because the baby has a high chance at hitting any one of those deleterious genes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by invalid View Post
What do you mean specitation?
Speciation. The occurrence of a divergence of a single species to two different species. That is, the exact thing you're looking for. If you want to see the original proof, it's in my previous post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by invalid View Post
Do you mean the medicine that have more side effects than benefits?
No. It's because medicine is built upon the "assumption" of evolution. That is, most of the technology that we use (such as vaccination) requires us to use evolution as a tool to help people. Without evolution, things like vaccination, drugs, etc. wouldn't be possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by invalid View Post
Why don't we agree to disagree? I don't fell like getting in another debate, and this thread is not about evolution, or the age of the earth. It is about whether god existed, and I believe that a decent answer can be found on page 2.
It's not a debate; it's teaching misconceptions and lack of understanding of evolution and age of Earth/Universe. That is, I won't allow you to leave without understanding what I say to its fully. I won't allow you to not be able to make an informed decision. To put it blunt, I'm only following the Hippocratic Oath. If you haven't noticed yet, I encourage further reading. This is why I link so many articles, in hopes that you'll read it all to learn not just from 1 side of a story, but both. It's to help you criticize not only other people's work, but your own as well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wunschkind View Post
So Kenny, what you're saying is that since I don't believe in evolution, I don't believe in medicine either, amirite? Makes absolutely no sense to me, but that's how it is with most things liberals say. ;)
No, it's because knowledge in modern medicine is based on evolution. If you don't accept evolution, which is the underlying mechanism in modern medicine, you don't accept medicine either. That sounds about like a normal statement to me. Something like you don't accept A, and since B includes A, you therefore can't also accept B either. I also don't appreciate you calling me a liberal when you know nothing about me either. Just because I don't believe in your religion, but another religion, doesn't mean that I'm any more invalid than you are. In fact, due to my training in biology (I am a graduate of a specialist biology university program, after all), I am definitely more of an authority in biology than you. I don't care about petty stuff like this, I only care about lack of understanding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Celebi View Post
But if you don't, you're thought of as crazy. That's pretty much the same with evolution. However, I don't necessarily believe in evolution, so don't take it as I'm saying I am, I just think its the best explanation for how we got here.
I call BS here. I don't think it has anything to do with the "explanation for how we got here", you are the person who actually makes this correlation. It has nothing to do with evolution in itself what you apply it in. That is, even if you think it's not the "best explanation", it does not affect the fact that evolution is truth. However, you can contest about the mechanism of evolution all you want. If you don't believe in natural selection or genetic drift (which "explains how you got here", by the way), by all means.

Last edited by Kenny_C.002; 10-13-2008 at 04:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 10-13-2008, 01:30 PM
Starkipraggy's Avatar
Starkipraggy Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 3)
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Gundam Porygon ZZ
Posts: 3,151
Send a message via MSN to Starkipraggy
Default Re: Question to christians

I personally believe that God created us, then being bored, decided to go backdate stuff for us to dig up and find and be all happy about, knowing that some people simply <3 finding out about the past. And then he decided he didn't have time to make new lifeforms, so he made a system to let it run on auto so he could focus on making old stuff.

Therefore creationism exists. Evolution is just some weird thing that God felt like making. At least, that's what I believe. It's so much more fun. XD
__________________


Mons are here though

私はグレダーです--I am a Grader
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 10-13-2008, 01:59 PM
Azure Offline
Master Trainer
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 284
Default Re: Question to christians

Wunschkind, I could take this moment to insult your political preferences.... but I'm not going to.

Instead, I'm going to repeat the question that I asked twice already: What makes you sure that the bible is the word of God.
__________________
Oh yeah
I'm back
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 10-13-2008, 02:17 PM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: Question to christians

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starkipraggy View Post
I personally believe that God created us, then being bored, decided to go backdate stuff for us to dig up and find and be all happy about, knowing that some people simply <3 finding out about the past. And then he decided he didn't have time to make new lifeforms, so he made a system to let it run on auto so he could focus on making old stuff.

Therefore creationism exists. Evolution is just some weird thing that God felt like making. At least, that's what I believe. It's so much more fun. XD
Fine with me. Lots of people reconciled this fact long ago like you did. :3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure View Post
Wunschkind, I could take this moment to insult your political preferences.... but I'm not going to.
Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 10-13-2008, 07:12 PM
invalid's Avatar
invalid Offline
Amateur Trainer
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Kansas
Posts: 81
Send a message via Yahoo to invalid
Default Re: Question to christians

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
First of all, it's bad etiquette to not read my evidence on how speciation occurred. Second of all, you're getting it all wrong. This has nothing to do with "seeing a dog making a cat" because it's ludicrous even in evolutionary terms. It's understanding that there can be a single species, under some form of differentiation, cause them to separate into two separate species, and over large periods of times, these separation gaps grow greater. For example, wolves and dogs are not the same species (and are both currently occupying different "ends"), but they come from a single species in the distant past, but separated from each other to cause them to be different species
WRONG. Dogs and wolfs are both of the Canis family. Besides a dog is just a variation of a wolf, just as the different breeds of dogs and wolfs are still canines.

Quote:
The question is HOW this can occur, and this is just because of the DNA, the unit of inheritance of all units of life, are different between the two species. That is, all of the visual differences you see between any two animal is not due to anything that superficial: it's just difference in their DNA codes.
Yes, it is called drift. It is the same reason we have black and white, short and tall people.

Quote:
Yes and no, though the current theory of evolution has death as a requirement for natural selection to work
Natural selection is basically quality control. Only the fit will survive. Natural selection makes sure that the stupid animal don’t live long enough to mate (I think humans need a little dose of this). If evolution is what we are debating, then when the fist animals were crawling out of the water, what did they eat? THEY WERE THE ONLY THING OUT OF THE WATER. Not to mention why did they suddenly said: “screw the water, I’m going on land”. They were living happily in the water, no need to change.


Quote:
Speciation. The occurrence of a divergence of a single species to two different species. That is, the exact thing you're looking for. If you want to see the original proof, it's in my previous post.
Okay, so it happened under the microscope, but where is the proof that it happened in the wild.


Quote:
No. It's because medicine is built upon the "assumption" of evolution. That is, most of the technology that we use (such as vaccination) requires us to use evolution as a tool to help people. Without evolution, things like vaccination, drugs, etc. wouldn't be possible.
First off, you know what assuming does. And second off it does not require us to believe anything. What someone believes in is a personal choice. Just because one believes in evolution does not automatically make them smarter, and the same goes with creation. It’s absurd to say otherwise.
And how does not believing in evolution limit our knowledge on vaccination and drugs?



Quote:
It's not a debate; it's teaching misconceptions and lack of understanding of evolution and age of Earth/Universe. That is, I won't allow you to leave without understanding what I say to its fully. I won't allow you to not be able to make an informed decision. To put it blunt, I'm only following the Hippocratic Oath. If you haven't noticed yet, I encourage further reading. This is why I link so many articles, in hopes that you'll read it all to learn not just from 1 side of a story, but both. It's to help you criticize not only other people's work, but your own as well.
Have you ever studied creation?

Quote:

I call BS here. I don't think it has anything to do with the "explanation for how we got here", you are the person who actually makes this correlation. It has nothing to do with evolution in itself what you apply it in. That is, even if you think it's not the "best explanation", it does not affect the fact that evolution is truth. However, you can contest about the mechanism of evolution all you want. If you don't believe in natural selection or genetic drift (which "explains how you got here", by the way), by all means.
Evolution is THEORY, that would be the reason it is called "The Evolution Theory".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 10-13-2008, 08:14 PM
MaskedJackal's Avatar
MaskedJackal Offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,625
Send a message via AIM to MaskedJackal Send a message via MSN to MaskedJackal
Default Re: Question to christians

Quote:
Originally Posted by invalid View Post
Have you ever studied creation?
I'd bet money that they haven't.

Quote:
No, it's because knowledge in modern medicine is based on evolution. If you don't accept evolution, which is the underlying mechanism in modern medicine, you don't accept medicine either. That sounds about like a normal statement to me. Something like you don't accept A, and since B includes A, you therefore can't also accept B either. I also don't appreciate you calling me a liberal when you know nothing about me either. Just because I don't believe in your religion, but another religion, doesn't mean that I'm any more invalid than you are. In fact, due to my training in biology (I am a graduate of a specialist biology university program, after all), I am definitely more of an authority in biology than you. I don't care about petty stuff like this, I only care about lack of understanding.
Well you're definitely not more of an authority than God is on the subject. You're just a puny little human being, as are the rest of us.
__________________

Last edited by MaskedJackal; 10-13-2008 at 08:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 10-13-2008, 09:56 PM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: Question to christians

Quote:
Originally Posted by invalid View Post
WRONG. Dogs and wolfs are both of the Canis family. Besides a dog is just a variation of a wolf, just as the different breeds of dogs and wolfs are still canines.
Indeed they are both from the canis genus, though that doesn't change anything with my statement. Dogs and wolves are from the same genus, but cats and dogs are from the same order. You might want to read up on taxonomy though, considering you're mixing up the difference between a species and a family (or in this case, genus).

Quote:
Originally Posted by invalid View Post
Yes, it is called drift. It is the same reason we have black and white, short and tall people.
It is also how we can have cats and dogs. Larger differences in DNA code just means they have had a longer period of time to differentiate from each other. That is, the genetic code between species of the same family will be much more similar to that of those between the same cohort. You also forget that there are other factors such as homologous recombination, crossing over, etc. that also factor into how DNA can differentiate from each other.

The reason why we have black/white/tall/short people is not JUST drift, it's the perpetuation of this drift via other mechanisms in genetics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by invalid View Post
Natural selection is basically quality control. Only the fit will survive. Natural selection makes sure that the stupid animal don’t live long enough to mate (I think humans need a little dose of this). If evolution is what we are debating, then when the fist animals were crawling out of the water, what did they eat? THEY WERE THE ONLY THING OUT OF THE WATER. Not to mention why did they suddenly said: “screw the water, I’m going on land”. They were living happily in the water, no need to change.
Natural selection never states "the fit will survive", nor is it "quality control", because it's irrelevant whether or not a single individual survives or not. What matters in natural selection is that the "fitter" simply are capable of making more offspring than another individual of the same species. This does not mean long life, but can correlate with it to a certain extent.

Next is your misconception of "fish animals crawling out of the water": the short answer, of course, is no. No sane evolutionary biologist would say that your statement is anywhere close to being true. What you forget, first, is that plants are already there on land before other organisms moved to land, so it's likely that the first full land organisms are herbivores. The other thing is that no organism is capable of saying "screw the water, I'm going on land.", but it would rather be likely that a population of already highly developed organisms who can use oxygen gain the ability to be amphibious, which sets off the cycle for "land organisms".

Secondly, they weren't happily living in water, they were clearly under tremendous competition from other species and other organisms. Those that could survive in oxygen and could therefore reach land were able to occupy a fertile niche, where their fitness would have increased tremendously by going to land. Please note that I'm using the notation in population, nor individual organisms.

Thirdly, if it's a debate on evolution you wanted, why are you wasting time on something we're using to try and explain evolution rather than actually evolution in the first place?

Quote:
Originally Posted by invalid View Post
Okay, so it happened under the microscope, but where is the proof that it happened in the wild.
I wasn't aware that flies can happen under a microscope. They are fairly large, after all. As to whether "proof" that this happened in the wild, you don't need to look any further than any of the mass extinctions. In the laboratory environment, the flies diverged in species lineage specifically due to bottlenecks and physical separation. In the wild, chasms between animals and time is enough to make them different. We only see the "end result" (not really an end result because evolution is continuous) often in the wild with so many different species of seals (though they look relatively identical). The reason why we don't "observe" it like in the lab is because the lab accelerates the process many times, going through thousands upon thousands of generations before this is observed. For this to occur in larger animals in the wild would take more than thousands of years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by invalid View Post
First off, you know what assuming does. And second off it does not require us to believe anything. What someone believes in is a personal choice. Just because one believes in evolution does not automatically make them smarter, and the same goes with creation. It’s absurd to say otherwise.
And how does not believing in evolution limit our knowledge on vaccination and drugs?
Yes I know, see my comments below on why I say "assume". What someone believes is a personal choice, what someone accepts is also a personal choice. You can choose, for example, to not accept a truth. It also means that you aren't accepting anything else that includes that truth.

I never insinuated that accepting evolution or creationism would make anybody smarter or more stupid. It's just understanding of information. It is absurd, however, to be dismissive of evolution even in the face of mounting evidence.

Not accepting evolution does not limit our knowledge on vaccination and drugs, because we accepted evolution, we're the ones working on it. Not accepting evolution only limits your knowledge on vaccination and drugs, which is fine if you simply take medicine for granted anyways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by invalid View Post
Have you ever studied creation?
Does it look like I'm anti-creationism to you when I've essentially agreed with how many Christians feel about this topic? Secondly, yes, I've read everything that has been posted about it, all of the links, and even researched about it by looking up parts of Genesis that pertain to creationism, so while I may not have a complete idea of creationism in its entirely, I sure as heck know more about creationism than your knowledge of evolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by invalid View Post
Evolution is THEORY, that would be the reason it is called "The Evolution Theory".
No. You got it mixed up again. Evolution is a fact. The theory is in our explanation of this fact (this is what is meant by theory of evolution. It's the observation of evolution, and making a theory of it). The problem is that our explanation of this fact is indeed a "theory" in it that it is unlikely to be perfect. That is why I don't care if you believe in things such as natural selection, because it does not concern the actual fact of evolution itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wunschkind View Post
Well you're definitely not more of an authority than God is on the subject. You're just a puny little human being, as are the rest of us.
I never claimed to be more of an authority than your God (or in fact, any god) on the subject, I simply claimed to be more of an authority on it than you and your faith. I claim to be, in essence, "closer to God" in this subject than you (and note that it's "than you") because not only do I know God's metaphorical writings on the Bible through my readings of Genesis with regards to the creation of the world, I also understand how he did so through evolution. Unfortunately, it seems that all you can do in the face of my logic and reasoning is to insult me though. If you really think that you have perfect reasoning and that your word is absolutely correct, then go ahead and prove me wrong by pointing out counter evidence from reputable journals. Besides that fact, you still haven't answered Azure's question yet, since you believe that your faith is above science.

Last edited by Kenny_C.002; 10-13-2008 at 10:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 10-14-2008, 12:28 AM
zachattack's Avatar
zachattack Offline
Elite Trainer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: fewaf
Posts: 656
Send a message via AIM to zachattack Send a message via MSN to zachattack
Default Re: Question to christians

-Watches as very interesting debate goes on-

By the way, invalid, just to put some point into this post.

Wolves and Canines are both of the same genus, but same species? I think not.
__________________

==
==
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 10-14-2008, 04:45 AM
Azure Offline
Master Trainer
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 284
Default Re: Question to christians

I love watching Wunschkind ignore me and enjoying watching this turn into an evolution debate.

Not to say that I don't like Kenny kicking invalid's but.

Mod Warning: It's still not productive to write any of this on the post. While it's viable to address Wunschkind for ignoring you, any other part of your post does feel unnecessary.
__________________
Oh yeah
I'm back

Last edited by Kenny_C.002; 10-14-2008 at 05:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 10-14-2008, 06:13 AM
Surly Professor's Avatar
Surly Professor Offline
Monsterous
Elite Trainer (Level 2)
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Terra Incognita
Posts: 2,028
Default Re: Question to Christians

It's never a debate about evolution.
"Debate" implies that there is something like equal ground.
The only opposition here is religious.
So it boils down to actual scientific observations vs. a bronze age folktale.
__________________

The good can decay many ways.
The good candy came anyways.

Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 10-14-2008, 03:08 PM
Demon_Shiron's Avatar
Demon_Shiron Offline
Elite Trainer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Deadzone
Posts: 512
Send a message via AIM to Demon_Shiron
Default Re: Question to christians

The only opposition to anything good these days is religion... It has to argue with everything. I dunno, I can't think right now lol, so I'll just shut up.

Mod Warning: Broad statements such as this is not good for a debate unless specifically backed up. What is, for example, "good"? Why is it only religion? It's clear that religion doesn't argue with everything either, as it is impossible to do so.
__________________


I Am Everything You Ever Were Afraid Of

My Friend Code: 2922-3457-5225

Last edited by Kenny_C.002; 10-14-2008 at 03:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 10-14-2008, 09:28 PM
Dr Scott's Avatar
Dr Scott Offline
Vanilla Bear
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 6,277
Send a message via AIM to Dr Scott Send a message via MSN to Dr Scott Send a message via Yahoo to Dr Scott Send a message via Skype™ to Dr Scott
Default Re: Question to Christians

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surly Professor View Post
It's never a debate about evolution.
"Debate" implies that there is something like equal ground.
The only opposition here is religious.
So it boils down to actual scientific observations vs. a bronze age folktale.
Meh, I've always found people who argue religion to be stupid (ie against it, it's fine to speak up for it :P). It's a belief thing, and it's dumb to tell people what they should believe. Also, minus the idiots who use religion to be an ass (those who start wars in its name even though its just an excuse to fight, etc.) religion is basically about being a good person. So I never understood why people fought that when there are so many jerks in the world ...

Scientists have not 100% proved it is untrue, though they have tried. Aren't scientists supposed to take every single possibility into account? And isn't religion a possibility?

Really, scientists are going to kill us all when they try to do something we never should and get all of us killed with a failed experiment :P.

Meh, these types of threads always get so heated ... It's more about opinions than debates, really.
__________________

"God, my brilliance is now somewhat of a burden. Get back to me."
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 10-14-2008, 09:35 PM
Lord Celebi's Avatar
Lord Celebi Offline
Zhu-Quiao
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 13,317
Send a message via AIM to Lord Celebi Send a message via Skype™ to Lord Celebi
Default Re: Question to christians

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
I call BS here. I don't think it has anything to do with the "explanation for how we got here", you are the person who actually makes this correlation. It has nothing to do with evolution in itself what you apply it in. That is, even if you think it's not the "best explanation", it does not affect the fact that evolution is truth. However, you can contest about the mechanism of evolution all you want. If you don't believe in natural selection or genetic drift (which "explains how you got here", by the way), by all means.
I do accept a lot of evolution as truth, however, since evolution is not 100% concrete information, I'd rather say "I don't know, and I'll probably never know" rather than resign myself to something that may be wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wunschkind View Post
I'd bet money that they haven't.
*Gladly takes a lot of money*

Quote:
Well you're definitely not more of an authority than God is on the subject. You're just a puny little human being, as are the rest of us.
I believe Kenny is more of an authority on biology than a magical sky pixie, IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 10-15-2008, 12:40 AM
invalid's Avatar
invalid Offline
Amateur Trainer
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Kansas
Posts: 81
Send a message via Yahoo to invalid
Default Re: Question to christians

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
Indeed they are both from the canis genus, though that doesn't change anything with my statement. Dogs and wolves are from the same genus, but cats and dogs are from the same order. You might want to read up on taxonomy though, considering you're mixing up the difference between a species and a family (or in this case, genus).
I was saying that cats and dogs are not related, there for cannot have babies. Sorry if my post was hard to understand.
Quote:
Natural selection never states "the fit will survive", nor is it "quality control", because it's irrelevant whether or not a single individual survives or not. What matters in natural selection is that the "fitter" simply are capable of making more offspring than another individual of the same species. This does not mean long life, but can correlate with it to a certain extent.
The fit are going to be able to catch the food, and thus survive, hence survival of the fittest. The weak and sick are not going to be able to catch food, so they will die. In a roundabout way, it is quality control.
Quote:
Next is your misconception of "fish animals crawling out of the water": the short answer, of course, is no. No sane evolutionary biologist would say that your statement is anywhere close to being true. What you forget, first, is that plants are already there on land before other organisms moved to land, so it's likely that the first full land organisms are herbivores. The other thing is that no organism is capable of saying "screw the water, I'm going on land.", but it would rather be likely that a population of already highly developed organisms who can use oxygen gain the ability to be amphibious, which sets off the cycle for "land organisms".

Secondly, they weren't happily living in water, they were clearly under tremendous competition from other species and other organisms. Those that could survive in oxygen and could therefore reach land were able to occupy a fertile niche, where their fitness would have increased tremendously by going to land. Please note that I'm using the notation in population, nor individual organisms.
Where is the hard proof of this “amphibians” stage? (or is it one of those missing links?)
Quote:
Not accepting evolution only limits your knowledge on vaccination and drugs, which is fine if you simply take medicine for granted anyways.
How does my not accepting evaluation limit my knowledge to drugs?


Quote:
Does it look like I'm anti-creationism to you when I've essentially agreed with how many Christians feel about this topic? Secondly, yes, I've read everything that has been posted about it, all of the links, and even researched about it by looking up parts of Genesis that pertain to creationism, so while I may not have a complete idea of creationism in its entirely, I sure as heck know more about creationism than your knowledge of evolution.
I never said you were anit-creationism, I just wanted to know if you had studied creation.

Don’t say that, because you don’t know what I know. I went through school; I know what they taught me.


Quote:
No. You got it mixed up again. Evolution is a fact. The theory is in our explanation of this fact (this is what is meant by theory of evolution. It's the observation of evolution, and making a theory of it). The problem is that our explanation of this fact is indeed a "theory" in it that it is unlikely to be perfect. That is why I don't care if you believe in things such as natural selection, because it does not concern the actual fact of evolution itself.
Where is hard proof for evolution? Something that sows that evolution happened.

Where did life come from? What started life in motion as we know it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zachattack
By the way, invalid, just to put some point into this post.

Wolves and Canines are both of the same genus, but same species? I think not.
Uh, Zack, even Kenny said that dogs and wolfs are of the same species, and species is the exact same thing as genus.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 10-15-2008, 12:59 AM
Dr Robotnik's Avatar
Dr Robotnik Offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: A boot
Posts: 9,070
Default Re: Question to christians

I admit that my brain happens to be working on a .5 beta release verion (which is normally extremely bad quality for me) but I must ask; Who gives a rip? Certainly not me. I mean, seriously, the Earth's gonna take care of itsself, why worry about where we came from or what we exist for? We exist because we do. It's our choice to do what we will with our lives...



Venom: Opinions expressed by this idiot are not entirely his own.
__________________
<Image made by Neo>
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Design: AlienSector.com