Just posting this... - Armor Games Community

55	8477

offline

Freakenstein

9,504 posts

Jester

Posted May 12, '10 3:16am UTC

So you are saying a dinosaur isn't an animal....? I don't think the bible mentions snails either, but that doesn't say they don't exist...

It doesn't mention dinosaurs because these have only recently been discovered. The fact that they were around much, much earlier than when 'adam' was around completely destroys this.

Carbon dating is a total fail

It is? Since when? If it was used to determine that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and has proof to back it up, I'd say it's genuine.

So why should schools have to teach it.

Because Evolution is Science. The concepts of Evolution is built around science, primarily Biology. But when does Evolution debunk religion ever? They will not teach Religion because there are many branches of it so naturally there will be other beliefs.

Holy Cow that is alot of rambling....

Yes it is. Lemme start from the top:

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

We don't know. But we are trying endlessly to figure out that missing piece of the puzzle. But at least we are looking for ways, instead of thinking and sticking of ways.

What caused emotions? What caused curiousity?

All this is through the evolution of the nervous system. We are talking from the first protocell that could only sense its surroundings to the first humans who could relate a series of words in syntax to understand each other-- that took a very, very long time. I stress this because contrary to the popular belief, it did not 'just happen', whether its from religion or religion that says we are thinking like this. Miiiilions of years, dude.

Something made us want to wear clothes.

It could quite possibly be from our intelligence itself--another evolutionary side of the brain, and from the constant environmental stimuli given to early humans to make them use their brains to survive, since they weren't and aren't physically able to.

It could also be our personalities as humans of being self-conscious about appearance. We could all run naked if we wanted to. Hell, if it wasn't a law, I'd be doing it right now! Tired of these confining jeans....*mumble*

We could be like most primitive animals and just stay at the most basic level of what would keep us alive.

Problem with that is, there is no 'basic level' of survival. We are always changing, whether it is a fast, big change, or a small, meaningless, insignificant change. I could argue that back then we are shorter in stature. Would that be from us, or from medical and agricultural technology itself? I'm not sure.

why don't we see any of them evolving now?

Because evolving is a slow, gradual, incremental process. We not seeing them evolve is no different than not seeing us evolve. We have to go through a large-scale time difference in order to see what 'changed' as time passed from point B to point A.

Why dont't they strive to progress? Is it stupidity? or would it be intelligence?

Evolution is essentially random. Gene and phenotype pools are shuffled for the newborn every time a couple mates. Whatever the male and female have will be shuffled and the newborn gets. If however, there is a...connection so to say between the two that the newborn will inevitably have, he/she will get it.

I really don't think it's intelligence, but more along the side of knowledge. Humans back then didn't know what evolution was or how to know what a human being is going to turn out. Now that we do, we could essentially 'create' whatever kind of human we want to, given the necessary time and effort. A human so far out of bounds that it wouldn't be accessible for mating, AKA a new species. It's very interesting and mind-boggling if you think about it.

Why didn't they just adapt to enviorment and stay the same?

Hmm...How would you 'adapt' to an environment, MoonFairy? Is it something we could physically or mentally do? If we are in an environment where there is no food in our reach will we automatically stretch our necks and get to that source? No; adaptation does not work like that. ---**

DNA may be the same, but where are the genes for progression that we have?

'Progression' isn't a gene, BUT. It is acquired through change of a species' genes. I'm going to assume you mean progression as a significant change in a species, correct? Alright lemme begin.

Today, we have two sets of 10 animals. The 20 animals are the same creature but have slightly different characteristics. Set A for instance have longer claws, while Set B has a longer neck.

Geographical isolation occurs via earthquake, and they are separated. In the land for Set B, the food is hanging from trees and they have to stretch their necks in order to get to it. However, some aren't able to get to the food, so they die off. Those that are able to get to the food will survive and reproduce their genes, primarily the gene that contains having a long neck.

Set A, the food is underground. If the animals in this group cannot dig far enough into the ground to get the food, they will die off. Some however, can, and they will survive and pass on their traits to their young so they can get their food too.

Overtime, both species have to adapt to different environments in order to survive. 20,000 years pass, and one of each set is brought back to be examined. The scientists have shown that Set A is smaller, but has curved claws, mainly for digging in the ground, so they can sift and find nutrients and various plants for food. Set B is different. They are much taller and has very long necks similar to that of giraffes. The fact that they are like this is because their past parents were able to survive and pass on their traits.

Something made us want to wear clothes.

It could quite possibly be from our intelligence itself--another evolutionary side of the brain, and from the constant environmental stimuli given to early humans to make them use their brains to survive, since they weren't and aren't physically able to.

It could also be our personalities as humans of being self-conscious about appearance. We could all run naked if we wanted to. Hell, if it wasn't a law, I'd be doing it right now! Tired of these confining jeans....*mumble*

---** I encourage you and anyone else that wants to figure out and learn about my wall of text by looking at this very informative and very hilarious youtube video of natural selection, basically what I was talking about in about half my post. Very good, very funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8

[quote]So you are saying a dinosaur isn't an animal....? I don't think the bible mentions snails either, but that doesn't say they don't exist...[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt doesn't mention dinosaurs because these have only recently been discovered. The fact that they were around much, much earlier than when 'adam' was around completely destroys this.\r\n\r\n[quote]Carbon dating is a total fail[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt is? Since when? If it was used to determine that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and has proof to back it up, I'd say it's genuine.\r\n\r\n[quote]So why should schools have to teach it.[/quote]\r\n\r\nBecause Evolution is Science. The concepts of Evolution is built around science, primarily Biology. But when does Evolution debunk religion ever? They will not teach Religion because there are many branches of it so naturally there will be other beliefs.\r\n\r\n[quote]Holy Cow that is alot of rambling.... [/quote]\r\n\r\nYes it is. Lemme start from the top:\r\n[quote]\r\nThere 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[/quote]\r\n\r\nWe don't know. But we are trying endlessly to figure out that missing piece of the puzzle. But at least [i]we[/i] are looking for ways, instead of thinking and sticking of ways.\r\n\r\n[quote]What caused emotions? What caused curiousity? [/quote]\r\n\r\nAll this is through the evolution of the nervous system. We are talking from the first protocell that could only sense its surroundings to the first humans who could relate a series of words in syntax to understand each other-- that took a very, very long time. I stress this because contrary to the popular belief, it did not 'just happen', whether its from religion or religion that says we are thinking like this. Miiiilions of years, dude.\r\n[quote]\r\nSomething made us want to wear clothes. [/quote]\r\n\r\nIt could quite possibly be from our intelligence itself--another evolutionary side of the brain, and from the constant environmental stimuli given to early humans to make them use their brains to survive, since they weren't and aren't physically able to. \r\n\r\nIt could also be our personalities as humans of being self-conscious about appearance. We could all run naked if we wanted to. Hell, if it wasn't a law, I'd be doing it right now! Tired of these confining jeans....*mumble*\r\n\r\n[quote]We could be like most primitive animals and just stay at the most basic level of what would keep us alive. [/quote]\r\n\r\nProblem with that is, there is no 'basic level' of survival. We are always changing, whether it is a fast, big change, or a small, meaningless, insignificant change. I could argue that back then we are shorter in stature. Would that be from us, or from medical and agricultural technology itself? I'm not sure.\r\n\r\n[quote]why don't we see any of them evolving now? [/quote]\r\n\r\nBecause evolving is a slow, gradual, incremental process. We not seeing them evolve is no different than not seeing us evolve. We have to go through a large-scale time difference in order to see what 'changed' as time passed from point B to point A.\r\n[quote]\r\nWhy dont't they strive to progress? Is it stupidity? or would it be intelligence?[/quote]\r\n\r\nEvolution is essentially random. Gene and phenotype pools are shuffled for the newborn every time a couple mates. Whatever the male and female have will be shuffled and the newborn gets. If however, there is a...connection so to say between the two that the newborn will inevitably have, he/she will get it.\r\n\r\nI really don't think it's intelligence, but more along the side of knowledge. Humans back then didn't know what evolution was or how to know what a human being is going to turn out. Now that we do, we could essentially 'create' whatever kind of human we want to, given the necessary time and effort. A human so far out of bounds that it wouldn't be accessible for mating, AKA a new species. It's very interesting and mind-boggling if you think about it.\r\n\r\n[quote]Why didn't they just adapt to enviorment and stay the same?[/quote]\r\n\r\nHmm...How would you 'adapt' to an environment, MoonFairy? Is it something we could physically or mentally do? If we are in an environment where there is no food in our reach will we automatically stretch our necks and get to that source? No; adaptation does not work like that. [b]---**[/b]\r\n\r\n[quote]DNA may be the same, but where are the genes for progression that we have?[/quote]\r\n\r\n'Progression' isn't a gene, BUT. It is acquired through change of a species' genes. I'm going to assume you mean progression as a significant change in a species, correct? Alright lemme begin.\r\n\r\nToday, we have two sets of 10 animals. The 20 animals are the same creature but have slightly different characteristics. Set A for instance have longer claws, while Set B has a longer neck. \r\n\r\nGeographical isolation occurs via earthquake, and they are separated. In the land for Set B, the food is hanging from trees and they have to stretch their necks in order to get to it. However, some aren't able to get to the food, so they die off. Those that are able to get to the food will survive and reproduce their genes, primarily the gene that contains having a long neck.\r\n\r\nSet A, the food is underground. If the animals in this group cannot dig far enough into the ground to get the food, they will die off. Some however, can, and they will survive and pass on their traits to their young so they can get their food too.\r\n\r\nOvertime, both species have to adapt to different environments in order to survive. 20,000 years pass, and one of each set is brought back to be examined. The scientists have shown that Set A is smaller, but has curved claws, mainly for digging in the ground, so they can sift and find nutrients and various plants for food. Set B is different. They are much taller and has very long necks similar to that of giraffes. The fact that they are like this is because their past parents were able to survive and pass on their traits.\r\n\r\n[quote]\r\nSomething made us want to wear clothes. [/quote]\r\n\r\nIt could quite possibly be from our intelligence itself--another evolutionary side of the brain, and from the constant environmental stimuli given to early humans to make them use their brains to survive, since they weren't and aren't physically able to. \r\n\r\nIt could also be our personalities as humans of being self-conscious about appearance. We could all run naked if we wanted to. Hell, if it wasn't a law, I'd be doing it right now! Tired of these confining jeans....*mumble*\r\n\r\n---** I encourage you and anyone else that wants to figure out and learn about my wall of text by looking at this very informative and very hilarious youtube video of natural selection, basically what I was talking about in about half my post. Very good, very funny.\r\n\r\nhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8

offline

MoonFairy

3,386 posts

Shepherd

Posted May 12, '10 3:55am UTC

Evolution deals only with changes. Not creation of life itself. God would have a role in the origin, not the changing.

That, I could work with. Even though the belief in just ONE, MALE, RULER, that knows everything, is hard to believe.(i have been questioning my religion for the past few months)

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.

hmm. as this does make sense in a logical way. But if I haven't made this clear already, I am not asking about intelligience. If everyone only had intelligience, we wouldn't really have emotions.

We don't have claws, size, or even advanced running ability. We have intelligence instead, as we lack the other things.

Ah thank you for clearing that up. But we would not lack the those, if we didn't try to create ladders and such. So can Inteligience be summed up as a Laziness? Most inventions are to make things to do less work. To make things easier. Some help alot, while others we have come to rely on so much. Cell Phones people! Cell Phones! Teenagers use cell phones so much, and I have seen some cry over it getting taken away, which is just sad. If some of us were stuck on a deserted island, and we had no service, couldn't get in contact with anyone, more than half the teenage population in my generation probably wouldn't know what to do. I am not saying that any of you wouldn't know, but I am sure we all know some people that are so materialistic, that they would be goners in the wild.

and,How is it good for us to change the enviorment around us? Do you really think that that is a good thing?

[quote]Evolution deals only with changes.  Not creation of life itself.  God would have a role in the origin, not the changing.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat, I could work with. Even though the belief in just ONE, MALE, RULER, that knows everything, is hard to believe.(i have been questioning my religion for the past few months)\r\n\r\n[quote]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. [/quote]\r\nhmm. as this does make sense in a logical way. But if I haven't made this clear already, I am not asking about intelligience. If everyone only had intelligience, we wouldn't really have emotions.\r\n\r\n[quote]We don't have claws, size, or even advanced running ability. We have intelligence instead, as we lack the other things. [/quote]\r\nAh thank you for clearing that up. But we would not lack the those, if we didn't try to create ladders and such. So can Inteligience be summed up as a Laziness? Most inventions are to make things to do less work. To make things easier. Some help alot, while others we have come to rely on so much. Cell Phones people! Cell Phones! Teenagers use cell phones so much, and I have seen some cry over it getting taken away, which is just sad. If some of us were stuck on a deserted island, and we had no service, couldn't get in contact with anyone, more than half the teenage population in my generation probably wouldn't know what to do. I am not saying that any of you wouldn't know, but I am sure we all know some people that are so materialistic, that they would be goners in the wild.\r\n\r\nand,How is it good for us to change the enviorment around us? [i]Do you really[/i] think that that is a good thing?

offline

314d1

3,817 posts

Nomad

Posted May 12, '10 4:04am UTC

hmm. as this does make sense in a logical way. But if I haven't made this clear already, I am not asking about intelligience. If everyone only had intelligience, we wouldn't really have emotions.

Intelligence creates advanced emotions, more pure emotions are used for survival. Anger removes a threat. Showing pain allows you to get help. Being sad allows the parent to know there child's needs.

Ah thank you for clearing that up. But we would not lack the those, if we didn't try to create ladders and such. So can Inteligience be summed up as a Laziness? Most inventions are to make things to do less work. To make things easier. Some help alot, while others we have come to rely on so much. Cell Phones people! Cell Phones! Teenagers use cell phones so much, and I have seen some cry over it getting taken away, which is just sad. If some of us were stuck on a deserted island, and we had no service, couldn't get in contact with anyone, more than half the teenage population in my generation probably wouldn't know what to do. I am not saying that any of you wouldn't know, but I am sure we all know some people that are so materialistic, that they would be goners in the wild.

Taking a human away from society is the same as taking an ant away from the hill. Social animals need other social animals to survive.

Less work is a good thing. Using less energy allows for more time. For example, one of the major time wasters in cows is eating. If you see a cow, it would be eating. Human do not waste that time eating, as they don't have the cow's size or horns that protect it, but take more energy to keep up. Human, having more energy, are then able to do non essentials, such as play on AG.

and,How is it good for us to change the enviorment around us? Do you really think that that is a good thing?

Of course! It is an amazing thing! Food can be grown more effectively in a human environment then in a "natural" environment. More human can live in a smaller aria in a human environment. Moving is easier in a human environment. And, to me, it is even more beautiful!

[quote]hmm. as this does make sense in a logical way. But if I haven't made this clear already, I am not asking about intelligience. If everyone only had intelligience, we wouldn't really have emotions.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIntelligence creates advanced emotions, more pure emotions are used for survival. Anger removes a threat. Showing pain allows you to get help. Being sad allows the parent to know there child's needs. \r\n\r\n[quote]\r\nAh thank you for clearing that up. But we would not lack the those, if we didn't try to create ladders and such. So can Inteligience be summed up as a Laziness? Most inventions are to make things to do less work. To make things easier. Some help alot, while others we have come to rely on so much. Cell Phones people! Cell Phones! Teenagers use cell phones so much, and I have seen some cry over it getting taken away, which is just sad. If some of us were stuck on a deserted island, and we had no service, couldn't get in contact with anyone, more than half the teenage population in my generation probably wouldn't know what to do. I am not saying that any of you wouldn't know, but I am sure we all know some people that are so materialistic, that they would be goners in the wild.[/quote]\r\n\r\nTaking a human away from society is the same as taking an ant away from the hill. Social animals need other social animals to survive. \r\n\r\nLess work is a good thing. Using less energy allows for more time. For example, one of the major time wasters in cows is eating. If you see a cow, it would be eating. Human do not waste that time eating, as they don't have the cow's size or horns that protect it, but take more energy to keep up. Human, having more energy, are then able to do non essentials, such as play on AG. \r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]and,How is it good for us to change the enviorment around us? Do you really think that that is a good thing?[/quote]\r\n\r\n\r\nOf course! It is an amazing thing! Food can be grown more effectively in a human environment then in a "natural" environment. More human can live in a smaller aria in a human environment. Moving is easier in a human environment. And, to me, it is even more beautiful!

offline

MoonFairy

3,386 posts

Shepherd

Posted May 12, '10 4:06am UTC

I appreciate your response Freakenstein, and yes it makes sense. But this line:

We don't know. But we are trying endlessly to figure out that missing piece of the puzzle. But at least we are looking for ways, instead of thinking and sticking of ways.

Is what gives me doubt. I won't believe what people say about human evolution until it is proven.
I will accept the rest of the the worlds evolution, but i don't for the human race. I don't think a brain could change so much within this MIiiiiiiiiiilions of year you people talk about. I am not Christian, and I am not saying that Evolution is wrong, I just don't believe that Humans came from Monkeys. There are similarities, yes, but the neurological evolution is a whole different level.

And @ the carbon dating, They tested a live oyster before, and it said it was 4.3 million years old i do believe. I am not sure of the EXCACT number they game, but it was around that. so that is a nada for me on carbon dating.

I appreciate your response Freakenstein, and yes it makes sense. But this line:\r\n[quote]We don't know. But we are trying endlessly to figure out that missing piece of the puzzle. But at least we are looking for ways, instead of thinking and sticking of ways.[/quote]\r\nIs what gives me doubt. I won't believe what people say about human evolution until it is proven. \r\nI will accept the rest of the the worlds evolution, but i don't for the human race. I don't think a brain could change so much within this MIiiiiiiiiiilions of year you people talk about. I am not Christian, and I am not saying that Evolution is wrong, I just don't believe that Humans came from Monkeys. There are similarities, yes, but the neurological evolution is a whole different level. \r\n\r\nAnd @ the carbon dating, They tested a live oyster before, and it said it was 4.3 million years old i do believe. I am not sure of the EXCACT number they game, but it was around that. so that is a nada for me on carbon dating.

offline

MoonFairy

3,386 posts

Shepherd

Posted May 12, '10 4:12am UTC

Of course! It is an amazing thing! Food can be grown more effectively in a human environment then in a "natural" environment. More human can live in a smaller aria in a human environment. Moving is easier in a human environment. And, to me, it is even more beautiful!

Changing the natural course of the world is a good thing... WTF?! If we will make all of these advancements such as more human living in smaller areas, then I would need to see it. By creating this Human Enviorment, we are DESTRYOING the Nature Enviorment. Are you that selfish? to kill all the other animals just so you can have room for your 'beautiful enviorment'?! If you believe in Evolution, you do realize that you are KILLING your ANCESTORS by creating a human enviorment, right? If enough food can't go around, oh well. Survival of the fitest. If you rely so much on the human enviorment, what will happen to you if the natural enviorment takes over ours?

offline

314d1

3,817 posts

Nomad

Posted May 12, '10 4:23am UTC

Changing the natural course of the world is a good thing... WTF?! If we will make all of these advancements such as more human living in smaller areas, then I would need to see it. By creating this Human Enviorment, we are DESTRYOING the Nature Enviorment. Are you that selfish? to kill all the other animals just so you can have room for your 'beautiful enviorment'?! If you believe in Evolution, you do realize that you are KILLING your ANCESTORS by creating a human enviorment, right? If enough food can't go around, oh well. Survival of the fitest. If you rely so much on the human enviorment, what will happen to you if the natural enviorment takes over ours?

Selfish? Might makes right, especially when you are talking non human. Human life is simply worth more then beast life, do mainly to intelligence and partially do to long life. If I had to kill a million beasts to save one human, I would, and that of course ends up being the case.

If the natural environment takes over ours? Remake the environment. If it ends up extremely bad just declare war on the assaulting environment, exterminating it with poison.

[quote]Changing the natural course of the world is a good thing... WTF?! If we will make all of these advancements such as more human living in smaller areas, then I would need to see it. By creating this Human Enviorment, we are DESTRYOING the Nature Enviorment. Are you that selfish? to kill all the other animals just so you can have room for your 'beautiful enviorment'?! If you believe in Evolution, you do realize that you are KILLING your ANCESTORS by creating a human enviorment, right? If enough food can't go around, oh well. Survival of the fitest. If you rely so much on the human enviorment, what will happen to you if the natural enviorment takes over ours?[/quote]\r\n\r\nSelfish? Might makes right, especially when you are talking non human. Human life is simply worth more then beast life, do mainly to intelligence and partially do to long life. If I had to kill a million beasts to save one human, I would, and that of course ends up being the case. \r\n\r\nIf the natural environment takes over ours? Remake the environment. If it ends up extremely bad just declare war on the assaulting environment, exterminating it with poison.

offline

ulimitedpower

1,739 posts

Nomad

Posted May 12, '10 11:10am UTC

Carbon dating is a total fail, so we can't use that.

If it fails, why do you use it?

By creating this Human Enviorment, we are DESTRYOING the Nature Enviorment.

This isn't part of the topic. And you're arguing something with ver different opinions on both sides.

Well, I was mainly trying to state that there are far more organizations that teach evolution than creationism, and most kids who are taught creationism will eventually learn about evolution anyway. I shouldn't have used numbers to stress my point.

Most people believe in evolution due to facts behind it. I dislike it when people say 'carbon dating is a billion years off' because then that means life still began long before humanity. I have nothing creationism, except that some people stubbornly believe it solely because they do not understand the other theory.

offline

Sassin

170 posts

Nomad

Posted May 12, '10 11:31am UTC

Another i thing i would like to add how could creatism be possible when they say the earth was made 6,000 years ago. While with carbon dating and other dating sources say that there are many more rocks and bones on earth that are much much older than 6,000 years old.

offline

WexMajor82

1,026 posts

Nomad

Posted May 12, '10 12:48pm UTC

We should create "The Book Of Science"
And go around saying:"It's written in the book! So it's real!"
I guess that those dumba*s would belive this.
You shouldn't be brainwashing kids into beliving what's written in a 2000 years old book. If I have to choose, I'll go with "The metamprphosis" of Apuleio.

offline

thepossum

3,035 posts

Nomad

Posted May 12, '10 3:51pm UTC

Actually, there are plenty of books like that, and people do go around saying that. And besides the parts about evolution, it is mostly accepted as fact, since most of what's in the books are solid facts.

offline

Xcalibur45

1,830 posts

Farmer

Posted May 12, '10 5:22pm UTC

If any of u guyz have ever heard of Kent Hovind, he breaks stuff down pretty good.

offline

FireflyIV

3,224 posts

Nomad

Posted May 12, '10 5:35pm UTC

Should people have the freedom to be idiots? Certainly. Does this massive population of idiots have severe implications for the rest of society? Certainly.

I guess it comes down to what your priorities are as a society. The maximisation of freedom at the expense of being well educated, or the maximisation of education at the expense of freedom. I personally plump for the latter, but Americans love their notions of freedom, so I say let them go ahead with it.

offline

Freakenstein

9,504 posts

Jester

Posted May 12, '10 5:47pm UTC

I won't believe what people say about human evolution until it is proven.

What's so hard to understand about human evolution than it is for the rest of the world's organisms? I think you are still clinging on to the old rhetoric that we are somehow a higher being not able to be considered an animal, as what religion has you believe.

I don't think a brain could change so much within this MIiiiiiiiiiilions of year you people talk about. I am not Christian, and I am not saying that Evolution is wrong, I just don't believe that Humans came from Monkeys.

Ah, here's the problem: You think that we believe humans came from monkeys. You couldn't be more wrong.

And why would you single out the brain, and not say an eye? The tongue? The rest of the special senses? They all went through evolutionary changes. If you took my advice and watched the youtube video, you could learn how this takes place instead of hearing it from me.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted May 12, '10 6:36pm UTC

Creationism is a religious theory, ID is not.

Thought I covered this already? They are the same thing, ID is just more generalized.

Creationism; the religious belief that the universe, the Earth, and life were created by God.

ID; the "theory" (more of an assertion) that certain things were created by a designer.

You can't see how they're the same?

Carbon dating is a total fail

How so also keep in mind radiocarbon dating is just one dating method. There are also methods such as potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating. All these methods are independent of each other and can be used then cross reference to see if they agree with each other.

Evolution deals only with changes. Not creation of life itself. God would have a role in the origin, not the changing.

Was God really necessary?

We have shown that RNA molecules could easily have formed from non living material in the early Earth environment. Once you have RNA molecules it's a short jump to RNA strands from here it's again a short jump from RNA to DNA. Also since RNA is self replicating once RNA molecules formed you can easily have the processes of evolution take over.

So if there is a God and he had a hand in it, he wasn't needed. Really God creating life is about as amazing as a human holding open an automatic door for someone.

If any of u guyz have ever heard of Kent Hovind, he breaks stuff down pretty good.

Yeah I heard of him, he's either an idiot, liar, or both.

[quote]Creationism is a religious theory, ID is not.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThought I covered this already? They are the same thing, ID is just more generalized.\r\n\r\nCreationism; the religious belief that the universe, the Earth, and life were created by God.\r\n\r\nID; the "theory" (more of an assertion) that certain things were created by a designer.\r\n\r\nYou can't see how they're the same? \r\n\r\n[quote]Carbon dating is a total fail[/quote]\r\n\r\nHow so also keep in mind radiocarbon dating is just one dating method. There are also methods such as potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating. All these methods are independent of each other and can be used then cross reference to see if they agree with each other. \r\n\r\n[quote]Evolution deals only with changes.  Not creation of life itself.  God would have a role in the origin, not the changing.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWas God really necessary?\r\n\r\nWe have shown that RNA molecules could easily have formed from non living material in the early Earth environment. Once you have RNA molecules it's a short jump to RNA strands from here it's again a short jump from RNA to DNA. Also since RNA is self replicating once RNA molecules formed you can easily have the processes of evolution take over.\r\n\r\nSo if there is a God and he had a hand in it, he wasn't needed. Really God creating life is about as amazing as a human holding open an automatic door for someone.\r\n\r\n[quote]If any of u guyz have ever heard of Kent Hovind, he breaks stuff down pretty good.[/quote]\r\n\r\nYeah I heard of him, he's either an idiot, liar, or both.

offline

thepossum

3,035 posts

Nomad

Posted May 12, '10 8:36pm UTC

We have shown that RNA molecules could easily have formed from non living material in the early Earth environment. Once you have RNA molecules it's a short jump to RNA strands from here it's again a short jump from RNA to DNA. Also since RNA is self replicating once RNA molecules formed you can easily have the processes of evolution take over.

Actually, the conditions of early earth are still not agreed upon in the scientific community, there is even evidence of the early Earth being rich in Oxygen, which is the opposite of what evolution needed. Also, when they recreated the "early earth environment", they left out all the effects that would have stopped the experiment from working.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Just posting this...