Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Evolution or creationism?
Slickinfinit
Member UncommonPosts: 1,094
I do not intend for this to be a flame war or battle of insults just a open debate on the argument, is evolution real or is intelligent design/creationism true?
I personaly am adamant in my stance that evolution clearly is scientific fact and that creationism is just religions way of saying "God did it". I dont believe in god for many reasons and most of them due to the fact in my understanding of theoretical physics and superstring theory that its unessecary for god to exist in order for us to exist. Our planet was just in the right place at the right time and life spontainiously evolved here with no outside influence and over a period od 3.7 billion years we got to the state we are in now a planet with thinking people.
How can people actualy say evolution isnt fact? I have actualy studied biology to some extent on my own and even my limited knowlege in the field lead me to conclude there is no other way possible to get from 3.7 billion years ago being primordial soup to here now other then evolution. Lets look at people from Tibet and the mountains of Chile, they have EVOLVED geat lung capacity and smaller body frames because the air is so thin where they live. Darwin's theory is that we evolve to adapt to out surroundings and that clearly explains why humans look differant in the differant places they evolved in? Look at arctic animals they evolve white coloured fur and huge blubber reserves, look at desert creatures like the camel they evolved a water storing gland and can go without for a very long time, look at a dog compared to a wolf and how we made wolves into dogs by 50k+ years of domestication. Evolution is everywhere and I cant really see a logical argument against it but thats just me.
{(RIP)} SWG
Comments
I will tell you why...and then I'll leave this thread.
Because there has never been a single beneficial mutation observed in any organism that caused a change in genetic information...There are three kinds of mutation, beneficial mutations, which helps the organism, and the organism survives the mutation...neutral mutation, where the mutation is of neither benefit nor detriment to the organism, and detrimental mutation, things like disease. Evolution contends that millions of beneficial mutations occur over long periods of time, yet we have never discovered one, No genetic mutation that has caused a change in genetic information has ever been observed by ANYONE, this is absolute undisputable fact. Do not mistake this for genetic variability...things like skin pigment and the fat around your eyes(what causes an asians eyes to look different than a white persons) have no extra information in them, evolution contends that information is added over long period of time.
personal theory: Taking this information into account, and the fact that white people have LESS melanin in their skin that black people, we can conclude that white people have somewhere LOST genetic information, and that the first people on earth were most likely of a darker skin tone...yup I said it! the first people were black!
When you hear teachers say that we can observe evolution taking place...uhh yeah, it's a lie...because we have never observed evolution taking place, even through fossil records, the conclusions that some scientists come up with about how an animal has evolved are extremely questionable at best...remember Archaeoraptor? the bird dinosaur with feathers? It was proven to be a fake...
Remember Lucy? Lucy was discovered with hip bones resembling that of an ape, hip bones that would require her to walk hunched over...but the person that discovered Lucy decided that the hip bones had somehow been misshapen during the fossilization process...so he decided to cut them up and reshape them to look more like what he wanted them to so that he could say that she walked upright...an unprecidented leap over the scientific progres...but then again, he named Lucy after the song Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds, so what can you expect? Another fun fact about Lucy...Lucy was found with his/her great toes on the SIDES of his/her feet...as an ape has them...yet history books always show Lucy as having her great toes pointing forward, like a human...my conclusion: Lucy was not a human of any kind, but rather an extinct species of Ape...and I would say that there is more evidence on my side of it than theirs.
edit: I said Archaeopteryx in my origional post, after a short research session I realized that it was Archaeo raptor(sp?)...Archaeo raptor was a fossil found in China that was said to be a dinosaur with feathers...upon further invesigation it was found that it was a fake...so this is me correcting myself O_O
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
So, how about the "I have no idea how we ended up here" option?
Oh, and PRIMORDIALSOUPDIDIT
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
I will tell you why...and then I'll leave this thread.
Because there has never been a single beneficial mutation observed in any organism that caused a change in genetic information...There are three kinds of mutation, beneficial mutations, which helps the organism, and the organism survives the mutation...neutral mutation, where the mutation is of neither benefit nor detriment to the organism, and detrimental mutation, things like disease. Evolution contends that millions of beneficial mutations occur over long periods of time, yet we have never discovered one, No genetic mutation that has caused a change in genetic information has ever been observed by ANYONE, this is absolute undisputable fact. Do not mistake this for genetic variability...things like skin pigment and the fat around your eyes(what causes an asians eyes to look different than a white persons) have no extra information in them, evolution contends that information is added over long period of time.
personal theory: Taking this information into account, and the fact that white people have LESS melanin in their skin that black people, we can conclude that white people have somewhere LOST genetic information, and that the first people on earth were most likely of a darker skin tone...yup I said it! the first people were black!
When you hear teachers say that we can observe evolution taking place...uhh yeah, it's a lie...because we have never observed evolution taking place, even through fossil records, the conclusions that some scientists come up with about how an animal has evolved are extremely questionable at best...remember Archaeopterix? the bird dinosaur with feathers? It was proven to be a fake...
Remember Lucy? Lucy was discovered with hip bones resembling that of an ape, hip bones that would require her to walk hunched over...but the person that discovered Lucy decided that the hip bones had somehow been misshapen during the fossilization process...so he decided to cut them up and reshape them to look more like what he wanted them to so that he could say that she walked upright...an unprecidented leap over the scientific progres...but then again, he named Lucy after the song Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds, so what can you expect? Another fun fact about Lucy...Lucy was found with his/her great toes on the SIDES of his/her feet...as an ape has them...yet history books always show Lucy as having her great toes pointing forward, like a human...my conclusion: Lucy was not a human of any kind, but rather an extinct species of Ape...and I would say that there is more evidence on my side of it than theirs.
For one they cant see an actual mutation unless it purposely caused by large doses of radiation and the actual cjanges in evolution take very long, I estimate about 25k-100k years to see significant changes barring their surroundings change. Look at the Galapagos Islands and tell me those species didnt evolve differantly after the continental drift pulled the Island far from mainland? Darwin used that Island as one of the best examples of evolution, all the animals on the island got smaller then the ones on the mainland and developed things like no natural fear of predators because none were on the island. The sea Iguana on the Island evolved its own ballast system to sink/float itself. To your statement on Arcaeopterix you just have to look at certain parts of birds to know that they did infact evolve from a dinosaur/avian sub-species and there is to much evidence to deny that.
I also respect your beliefe's and your right to just that so I just want to explain my side of the argument but man I really do think I am right on this. How do you acknowlege the people of Tibet and in the mountains of CHile though? They have evolved for life in high altitudes or just got lucky ?
{(RIP)} SWG
Anyone see the South Park episode about Evolution last night? I thought it was pretty funny. :P
I just want to comment that it's possible to believe in both creationism and evolution, to a degree. Many religious people actually find evolution a viable explanation for things that occured during human development The difference is between you and they, is that they attribute evolution to one of God's great plans (being the master biologist he is). Of course, their are logical problems with believe this fusion, but I just wanted to point out that it's possible.
I'd tell you why but I'm sleepy. ;D Ganna go take a nap, hehe!
Independant, Shinto, Lesbian, and Proud!
Creationism
Evolution
Dont go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. (Mark Twain)
Why don't you provide some evidence to disprove that we can see Evolution? Lucy and "the bird dinosaur" are irrelevant.
And who said it's a "fake?" All of those fossil records just appeared out of no where according to you than. Someone just burried "fake" big/dino bones one day as a prank.
Yea..right. Lol.
The Archaeopterix is already set in the books as the Avian dino/bird of the Jurassic period, there's no denying it. They have plenty of fossils and etx to prove that the creature lived and that it did in fact have feathers.
So uh...lol to you.
Independant, Shinto, Lesbian, and Proud!
Most people think that evolution has not been proven because they don't know much about science and are not following new studies. However, evolutionary ideas have been proven through observations and analysis - it was Darwin's old position that evolution was slow and undetectable but it is certainly not and examining short-lived creatures in well defined living spaces will demonstrate most principles of evolution quite directly.
See my above post on "The Beak of the Finch"
On the other hand, not much in the way of observable science supports the existence of a God. Faith is belief without rules, science is knowlege by clearly defined parameters. I would rather have a scientist working on the design of my airplane than a priest....
First of all, people haven't recorded any evolution, "beneficial mutation" because recorded history is only a few thousand years old, while evolution takes millions. Evolution isn't just one generation or even one organism being born different and then prospering, it's the gradual change of populations as a whole. I will agree that evolution shouldn't be confused for genetic differences, but your claim that evolution adds genetic information is totally false. Evolution is the idea that outside factors influence which organisms reproduce more, to provide slow changes to the average genetic makeup, not an addition or subtraction.
Your personal theory is completely off-base. Since Caucasians have less melanin than Africans doesn't mean they have less genes, because that's crazy and nobody claims that. Evolutionists won't tell you that Asians have more genes because of the fat around their eyes, or that Africans have more genes because they have more pigment in their skin. I do agree, though, that research has led scientists to believe that humans originated somewhere around the Kenyan and Somalian regions of Africa. This point alone should help prove evolution though. As people
left Africa and moved into milder regions of the world, they were exposed to less direct sunlight, and the next generations that were born with less pigment were naturally better suited to this environment.
I don't know what kind of teachers you had, telling students they can go watch evolution, because that's completely wrong. Over the course of human history, evolution hasn't had time to make differences large enough to be noticed by scientists and researchers.
For my views on the subject of Evolution v Creationism, I say that Creationism is a metaphor designed to explain Evolution in religious terms of intelligent design. I believe in Evolution, and I believe in Creationism, it's just that some people think that you have to have one without the other while I believe that they are one in the same. Those who'll say Creationism is the creation of the world and it's inhabitants in a six, twenty-four hour day period cannot be taken seriously.
Je mettrai l'amour sur dos de moi.
I've been fortunate to be involved in some rather intresting scientific studies of genetic structures. Generally speaking a species has sets of DNA. Active DNA, Sub-Active DNA, Latent DNA and lastly Sub-Latent DNA. Most species simply use the Active and SA Dna to pattern themselves after. When a species runs into a situation where it needs longer hair to survive several mechanisms can occur which allow it to persist as a living species due to a needed adaption. In some causes normal flux of DNA structures will yiled minor diffrences in DNA. The Individuals with the best bodies naturally survive. Generally this is know as natural selection.
In other situations Latent DNA which doesnt normally get used is activated due to sub-structures being activated and the dna shuffles the old latent dna back into working order. Usually this requires a equal exchange though. Meaning a peice of dna that was A or SA has to become L. This allows for species to keep libraries of unique features for later use.
Once in a blue moon a latent dna strand becomes SL. These dna features usually are never accessed due to there sub-structure activation sequences being very fine tuned. These are ultra archaic features usually.
Now with a normal dna test only detects A or SA. Some tests can detect Latent. The substructures or overall being ignored. What is obvious once you delve into DNA is that some species which seem to have evolved from a similar ancestor and have diffrent dna indeed dont. They in fact are the same bloody species except there substructures dont allow it to be obvious. See a Polar bear and a Kodiak bear have the same dna. The two species only appear diffrent because one species has a chromosone the other doesnt. The issue is that if you test the other bear for latent or sub latent dna the diffrent dna is just hidden from obvious tests.
We found bears off the coast of alaska which appear to have VERY little sub-structures. Rather they have a massively active dna structure sharing and exceding the genetic complexity of the polar bears, kodiaks and grizzlies. They can easily be said to be the base species from which they descended.
Eventually you can shrink the evolutionary tree and connect species along simpler lines of descent with this genetic system being understood. What id does end up with is that some species appear to have no previous ancestor. The species before it in fossil record can be traced to similiar promethean species. It would appear species over time are being introduced with super complex and totally active dna sequences. THen over time there dna passes some dna material back into latent stages to allow for adaptions rather then adding patterns.
This of course leaves in question the source of the super species. In anycase hope this system of dna mechanics is intresting to you all.
Oh I forgot to add that Promethean Species DNA in my mind is some of the most valuable material around. You could engineer any species that developed from a promethean species. As such there dna is a stopgap to stoping extinction. One species dna could save 10's if not hundreds of species. As of now only several promethean species are identified. A few insects, birds and mammals. If only we get our hands on a promethean honey bee! Sadly the promethean honey bee went extinct prolly hundreds of millions of years ago.
...remember Archaeopterix? the bird dinosaur with feathers? It was proven to be a fake...
O Rly?
And who said it's a "fake?" All of those fossil records just appeared out of no where according to you than. Someone just burried "fake" big/dino bones one day as a prank.
Yea..right. Lol.
The Archaeopterix is already set in the books as the Avian dino/bird of the Jurassic period, there's no denying it. They have plenty of fossils and etx to prove that the creature lived and that it did in fact have feathers.
So uh...lol to you.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a388487fe0e8c.htm
edit: honest mistake on my part, it wasn't Aerchaopteryx, it was archaeoraptor...Of course the fact that one has been proven a fake doesn't necessarily mean that all the others are fake...but then again it does show just how quick some people are to believe this stuff...and does open the window for speculation.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Draenor the species they found in china which they claim had feathers and didnt wasnt the species in question in your discussion. The Archaeopteryx is a diffrent species entirely which does have fossil proof of feathers. Mind you I dont dispute that its not proof of evolution. According the the Genetic System I adhere to the most likely common ancestor to most of the Saurians prolly had feather like structures but not nescarrily had them in there active dna. Alot of useful dna is packed into species that isnt used. Take chickens. All chickens have the dna needed to had horns. Yet only a few dozen examples of chickens with the horn dna active exist.
Err sorry you corrected yourself about the species, lol sometimes edit is tricky on convos
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Yuppers. Albeit the diffrences between races can be dramatic. Although a white and a black share the same total dna pattern including active and inactive, the dna that is active effects them greatly. A black though human is going to behave diffrently then a white for more reasons then just upbringing. Alot of it has to do with what hormones are being produced at certain times. Profiling races is very dangerous though. Once you start to disriminate based off potenials you tread a very slippery slope.
All this talk about genetics is making me want to play Spore!
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I'd love to read all th posts in this thread before giving a response as I love this subject, but I can't due to wife yelling at me atm, lol.
Simply put, no one has any concrete evidence supporting any theory or ideal on how we came to be. Want to believe we were once monkeys, when we can find dinosaur bones from 65 million years ago, but not a trace of human evolution anywhere in the last million? Go ahead. Want to believe an epic being created the world and created all the creatures in it but left us no proof of his existance other than some papers written by mortals who couldn't even agree on what he said? Go ahead.
I am a christain, but abit different from many in that I don't believe the Book of Genesis has any hard value. I think it was written by a bishop before the bible was released because he realised that the gospel never actually explained how the earth was created, and it's hard to sell a religion without an explaination that important.
Wifre yelling again, blah, lol.
What greater tribute to free will than the power to question the highest of authority? What greater display of loyalty than blind faith? What greater gift than free will? What greater love than loyalty?
I wish to re-emphasize that evolution is scientific in origin.
I would also like to define "theory" and "law" in a scientific context. A Law is an observation of natural phenomena. We say F=dp/dt is Newton's Second Law of Motion because it is observable.
A theory, on the other hand, is an explanation of the observable. Superstring theory, for example, provides an explanation for sub-particle mechanics.
To contrast the two on a very similar plane, the Law of Gravity is: The gravitational force between two masses is directly proportional to its masses and inversely proportional to the square of its radius. A theory of gravity is: Gravity is caused by the interactions of particles called 'gravitons' between matter.
This explanation is not meant to be condescending in any way, but merely to disambiguate the common definition of 'theory' (ex: 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists believe that 9/11 was an inside job) and the scientific definition of theory.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
okay well...I'm a big fan of God...does that do it for you? lol.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.