The Armor Games website will be down for maintenance on Monday 10/7/2024
starting at 10:00 AM Pacific time. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Forums → WEPR → Just posting this...
| 55 | 8388 |
Here. This is in a Church in the USA. Post you comments below.
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3bdtlNUlx4&laynext_from=TL&videos=_74NPuNkyio]
- 55 Replies
Actually no
There's very strong evidence pointing towards species evolving from common ancestors. There's even stronger evidence that shows that we are constantly evolving even today, which supports the first point I made.
Obviously we aren't 99.9% sure that evolution is absolutely true, then again, we aren't absolutely sure about how plants create food. We're pretty certain we know, but it isn't scientific law. In fact, the law of gravity has recently been changed because terminal velocity may vary depending on the mass of an object, because all objects have their own gravitation pool. The difference, however, is so absolutely thin though, that it really doesn't change very much.
So my point is that we may not be completely certain that evolution is true, but there's NO evidence what so ever supporting creationism other than the bible, which can't be used as a source because it has constant contradictions, is based off of stories rather than research, and nothing in the bible can follow scientific process.
Therefore, through the eyes of a scientist who uses scientific process, it is far more plausible that we evolved from a common ancestor than that in which we were created the way are. And if for some reason science is wrong, odds are that the truth is closer to evolution than creationism.
WRONG. Schools ( pre-school through 12th grade ) are supposed to ready you for life and help you decide on your future.
That's not true if you go to public school. Public schools are supposed to teach only what has scientific data to back it up. This includes basic biology. Private school, on the other hand, can teach whatever they want, I do believe.
My point was that considering evolution scientific fact is generally ignorant as science is constantly changing; in the last month we've discovered a new hominid and learned that we interbreed with Neanderthals in our past.
So my point is that we may not be completely certain that evolution is true, but there's NO evidence what so ever supporting creationism other than the bible, which can't be used as a source because it has constant contradictions, is based off of stories rather than research, and nothing in the bible can follow scientific process.
I agree, to a point, but I believe that the idea of ID should at least be legal to talk about in schools. Creationism is a religious theory, ID is not.
That's not true if you go to public school. Public schools are supposed to teach only what has scientific data to back it up.
I have gone to a public school all of my life. I even went to the School Board of Mobile and asked them why we had to waste our youth in school. And they told me that EXCACT line.
Actually no; and this is what always gets me. How can you be sure that all the similarities we see do not come from some sort of creator who simply used the same materials. Clearly there is evidence for evolution if you already believe in evolution; if you do not then all you see are coincidences.
Samy, you are uninformed. Let me inform you.
Creationist arguments are based on the 'fact' that natural selection(microevolution) is qualitatively different from evolution(macroevolution). That is the only possible quarrel against evolution from a creationist standpoint. The only one that has been thought up so far that offers an actual challenge to evolution. But even that is wrong. Why? Simple. Let me explain.
Creationism says that microevolution(a scientific LAW, considered almost universally as a fact)is qualitatively different from macroevolution - that they're different things. This is incorrect. Macroevolution and microevolution are the exact same thing, but with a different time-scale! Macroevolution is holistic, and microevolution is reductionist. They're the same thing. Therefore, macroevolution is also a scientific fact and a scientific law. The only difference is how you look at it - generation-to-generation with microevolution, or in larger blocks with macroevolution.
Boom goes the dynamite.
And no, not all the similarities can be attributed to that. If a creator used all the same materials, we would have controller genes like those of flies and bears. We don't. Controller genes are genes that control what body parts the life-form will have. Evolution doesn't spring-clean them away over millions of years. Scientists can make chicken with teeth. Reptilian teeth. Why? Because they still have controller genes left over from the reptilian ancestors they evolved from. There is no other way that they could have controller genes with reptilian teeth like that. It's further backed up by scientists being able to give snakes legs their evolutionary ancestors had, or cavefish the eyes their evolutionary ancestors had. These creatures lost these features as active and normal parts of them due to natural selection editing them out. But the proof is in the pudding(readNA). The lineage is still there.
If you're objective and don't take either side - which you should be when evaluating different ideas like this - there's inarguable, concrete, scientific evidence supporting evolution, which is already a scientific fact, as I said earlier. There's no way to argue against facts without being stupid, incorrect, or both.
I'm not saying evolution is wrong but the way ID is utterly ignored in public schools takes away an individuals right to decide.
You don't have to believe what you're being taught. You can still choose. But teaching intelligent design is unconstitutional because it favors a religious institution over another. The government just cant do that - and so it uses scientific FACT, stuff that's been validated over and over - in this case, evolution.
WRONG. Schools ( pre-school through 12th grade ) are supposed to ready you for life and help you decide on your future. If you are pursuing a career in evoulution, go right on ahead. You don't need to learn about it for weeks upon weeks during your youth. I mean, the picture of evolution for humans kind of speaks for itself... So why should schools have to teach it. Some Science teachers will verbally fight you just to try to make you believe in evolution. That is wrong, yes, but it changes the way you will think about it forever. There is proof of evolution, yes, but EVERYTHING had to of come from SOMETHING was it just one thing? or was it multiple? What "Sparked" life. What caused emotions? What caused curiousity? Something made us want to wear clothes. Something made us want to progress. We could be like most primitive animals and just stay at the most basic level of what would keep us alive. Like other things that don't talk, or show understanding, we might call stupid, or un-evolved. Like Monkeys for example. why don't we see any of them evolving now? They don't want to cover up their skin or anything like that. Why dont't they strive to progress? Is it stupidity? or would it be intelligence? WHY did the early humans try to progress? Why didn't they just adapt to enviorment and stay the same? It isn't like we aren't able to survive in the wild. DNA may be the same, but where are the genes for progression that we have? Does that make up the small percentage that the monkey family doesn't have? So much has already been discovered, but the BIG picture has yet to be revealed. Who or what will reveal it, I do not know.
First, DNA and RNA were what "Sparked" life. They are essentially building blocks for life, witch formed into signal cell organisms mostly in the ocean and evolved. Intelligence, witch we evolved to make up for our lack of natural weapons, lead to curiosity, our lack of hair and need to take over land that is colder lead to close. We don't see other animals evolve AS MUCH because they do not have the necessity. We have seen evolution in some bugs, and several in bacteria, do to there higher reproduction rate and changing needs. Hey look at that, I just revieled it.
Samy, you are uninformed. Let me inform you.
And yet I still stand with my original point what part of this evidence proves that evolution occurs? Personally I see that evolution is the most likely explanation for life we currently have but I do believe that God played a major role in this evolution. But you can expect to explain why evolution is correct without just citing coincidences perchance chickens had teeth some time during the last 6000 years (Creationist timeline) but through micro-evolution they have lost them.
I know plenty of Christians who reject the idea of evolution outright because they don't see what definitive proof is behind it and because it can' be explained at a level that the average 100 IQ person can fully understand.
Not entirely sure where I was going with this...
Oh right, evolution isn't fact and I'm not uninformed, just because I understand two viewpoints shouldn't cause me to lose credibility.
Read carfully Alt... I said that something had to be created. Not by a God or anything. GOTCHA THERE! XP
Abiogenesis. Eliminates the need for a creator. It deals with the arrangement of molecules into amino acids, and amino acids into proteins, and proteins into life. The wikipedia article is good on this, actually.
Also, just another source to back up my mini wall-o-text.
And yet I still stand with my original point what part of this evidence proves that evolution occurs? Personally I see that evolution is the most likely explanation for life we currently have but I do believe that God played a major role in this evolution. But you can expect to explain why evolution is correct without just citing coincidences perchance chickens had teeth some time during the last 6000 years (Creationist timeline) but through micro-evolution they have lost them.
Unless chicken took teeth from reptiles, your explanation still does not even cover that they were able to form reptiles from chicken teeth...
i want to punch that guy in the face for making christians look so bad..... its people like that that jsut frustrate me to the point of no end where they put in a bad name for all christians to the world by doing that.
First, DNA and RNA were what "Sparked" life.
Sparked life as in PERSONALITY. get it straight.
Intelligence, witch we evolved to make up for our lack of natural weapons,
Elaborate please. Natural Weapons? o.o
We don't see other animals evolve AS MUCH because they do not have the necessity
The Evolution of Personality. What makes us think. What makes us think we need to voice our opionion. What makes us think we need to progress. WHAT MAKES US, US.
Why did we need to evolve so much? So much to where we are now DESTROYING nature. I do not think that Darwin's Theory of Evoulution (NATURAL selection), in which bluntly states that whichever adaptations are better for the certain enviorment you live in, are the ones that will stay alive longer and reproduce more. Basically, whatever works will be. I am not asking you to reveal* what has already been done, simply asking you to show what makes us so... stupid
Unless chicken took teeth from reptiles, your explanation still does not even cover that they were able to form reptiles from chicken teeth...
Again what if chickens originally had reptilian teeth bu natural selection favored those without teeth?
I'm not saying evolution's false but that it's extremely brash to call it a fact.
I have gone to a public school all of my life. I even went to the School Board of Mobile and asked them why we had to waste our youth in school. And they told me that EXCACT line.
I don't think they said the exact thing, and what they said may sound similar but what I explained was what should be taught in school, not why we go to school.
I agree, to a point, but I believe that the idea of ID should at least be legal to talk about in schools. Creationism is a religious theory, ID is not.
Do you mind clearing up what you mean by ID?
Clearly there is evidence for evolution if you already believe in evolution; if you do not then all you see are coincidences.
When it comes to science, evidence is anything that can be tested over and over again with recurring results. If there's something you can't test, then it remains a theory. There are certain tests that support evolution. Evolution, however, isn't something that can be seen clearly as day, so it takes a deep understanding of DNA to understand how it truly works.
If I toss a coin in the air 100 times and it lands head side up every time, it COULD be a coincidence, but chances are there's a reason why it didn't land on tails. It could have been a magnet where one side was positive and the other negative. I could have tossed it onto a positively charged plate. It could have been a trick coin. But if I didn't see the coin flip or the coin, all I have are theories. Because its next to impossible that a coin can be flipped 100 times and land heads every time, my theories become more plausible than simple chance.
Oh right, evolution isn't fact and I'm not uninformed, just because I understand two viewpoints shouldn't cause me to lose credibility.
Ugh, did I not prove it was fact? Natural selection is fact, evolution is the same thing as natural selection, therefore evolution is fact. To not accept that, you have to be bluntly refusing to accept logic.
And yet I still stand with my original point what part of this evidence proves that evolution occurs?
The thing with the controller genes. Chickens had to have evolved, or changed, from reptilian creatures into what they are today to be able to have the controller genes for teeth. Did you read my sources?
I do believe that God played a major role in this evolution
Evolution deals only with changes. Not creation of life itself. God would have a role in the origin, not the changing.
But you can expect to explain why evolution is correct without just citing coincidences perchance chickens had teeth some time during the last 6000 years (Creationist timeline) but through micro-evolution they have lost them.
Chickens with teeth wouldn't be chickens. They would be genetically different enough to be in a different phylum - birds don't have teeth. Chickens are birds. Also, I specifically said reptilian teeth - chickens can't be edited to have bird teeth, they can be edited to have reptile teeth. To have those genes, they'd have to have once been reptiles.
Also, chickens can't have once had reptilian teeth and been chickens. Your arguments are degenerating into being illogical. Humans can have vestigial tails because we have those genes - but not because we had doggie tails on us in the last 6000 years. It's because we had ape tails.
Also, evolution is both a theory and a fact.
Sparked life as in PERSONALITY. get it straight.
That goes with intelligence as well.
Elaborate please. Natural Weapons? o.o
We don't have claws, size, or even advanced running ability. We have intelligence instead, as we lack the other things.
The Evolution of Personality. What makes us think. What makes us think we need to voice our opionion. What makes us think we need to progress. WHAT MAKES US, US.
The large brain we evolved, which was able to be made do to the warm blood system we have, thus bringing intelligence to human. We need to progress as it is what all species want to do. Reproduce and leave the world better, as we are social animals. Side note: even dogs and cats have this ability. They have opinion on what food they want, what time they would like to be let outside, where they like to be scratched, etc. It doesn't even take a massive amount of intelligence to grow this ability.
Why did we need to evolve so much? So much to where we are now DESTROYING nature. I do not think that Darwin's Theory of Evoulution (NATURAL selection), in which bluntly states that whichever adaptations are better for the certain enviorment you live in, are the ones that will stay alive longer and reproduce more. Basically, whatever works will be. I am not asking you to reveal* what has already been done, simply asking you to show what makes us so... stupid
That is even simpler. Instead of adapting to the environment, we adapt the environment to us. Instead of adapting high necks to reach the top of the trees, we change the environment by adding ladders. Instead of leaving mountains because we lack food, we grow food. That is why human involve less, coupled with intelligent selection.
As why does everything need to evolve so much? Competition. For example, on a grassland there is competition for grass. Thus some of the grass eaters die, but those that are slightly larger are able to get to the trees. Thus the ones that can get to the trees have less competition and get healthy without much work, thus reproduce easier passing on those genes and so on, in till you end up with something like a Brontosaurus.
You must be logged in to post a reply!