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 → Evolutionism or creationism
| 1486 | 258261 |
im just opening this topic so that people can have a NICE, FREINDLY place to talk about their beliefs, i Myself believe in evolutionism
- 1,486 Replies
Like samy said, the thing about how the Bible says the Earth is so young is purely symbolic. Though there are some people out there that actually think the Earth is that old....(religious fanatics)
Ahh, yes - Fundies as we in the business call them. A catalogue of quotes from such people can be found at FSTDT.com. On topic, WTH Cinna? How do you connect us with dragons? Dragons are A. Non-existent and B. Reptilian (we are mammals in the Animalia Kingdom).
Like samy said, the thing about how the bible says the earth is so young is purely symbolic. Though there are some people out there that actually think the Earth is that old....(religious fanatics)
I've never heard anyone come up with samy's point, but it really makes sense. Thanks for bringing up that possibility.
But for seriously Wolves to dogs? roflwaffle to the max bro What will we be in 10 million years? Dragons or something?
I hope you realize how completely harmful you're being to your side. Are you saying wolves could not become dogs? Last I checked they were actually the same species, capable of breeding. And for the record saying "end Christian snobbishness" is not the most effective tactic.
Not trying to be rude, but your argument does not make sense.
Not trying to be rude, but your argument does not make sense.
Nothing makes sense.
Oh keep that godflowering bible from the politics forum. Nothing in it affords a sence.
Im no american, im austrian, and its simply wrong to say in austrian: 'Es macht Sinn', u have to say 'Es ergibt Sinn'. And I guess its wrong in english too :P
Well, this topic is strange anyway. You have to discuss and focus on arguments guys, whats that?: This/That/This/That lolololol
Oh well, i dont say anything to this. I believe neither in this nor that.
Oh well, i dont say anything to this. I believe neither in this nor that.
So... what do you believe in?
Oh and while I'm here (and for Cinna's benefit)
Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris), gray wolves (C. lupus) and dingos (C. lupus dingo) are currently regarded as all being the same species. Red wolves (C. rufus) and coyotes (C. latrans) are currently regarded as different species, but all can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
Well that doesn't really matter because species don't evolve, now does it?
I'm pretty sure they can. Just check the evolution of man.
10,000 years is not enough time for a species to evolve into a different one.
We do have cases of speciation within a 200 year period, but still 10,000 years still not nearly enough time to see the diversity we have today.
but you couldn't get Birds from pterosaurs
Yeah specially since birds didn't evolve from pterosaurs, they likely evolved from raptors. Technically pterosaurs weren't dinosaurs but just rather flying reptile that lived during the time of the dinosaurs.
Well that doesn't really matter because species don't evolve, now does it?
We have plenty of examples of evolution. I've already given a few examples of observed speciation which is evolution at or above the level of the species aka macroevolution. evolution below the level of the species aka microevolution is so prevalent that even many creationists can't deny it happens but instead comes up with lies saying macro and micro evolution are completely different.
But for seriously Wolves to dogs? roflwaffle to the max bro What will we be in 10 million years? Dragons or something?
Considering hoe ridiculous and counter productive this argument is to your claim I'm not sure if your being serious.
BTW, I'm still waiting for that evidence for creation. (#8)
Thanks for correcting me Mage - I always get confused on that one and make that mistake. Also, I'm beginning to think Cinna is a troll - or homeschooled.
@MGW
1.
[quote]For instance let's say there is no random anomalies. It could still be governed by other natural processes. (I'll get to that in a moment) So the rejection of anything random happening still doesn't automatically equal creator.
2.
As for having to accept abiogenesis first before being able to accept evolution, this is completely false as there are theistic evolutionists. If we were to go from that stand point, what ever deity is believed created the universe and/or life then let things evolve from there. Some would also say that deity nudged things along every so often, but this still leave the acceptance of evolution.
3.
The processes of evolution aren't entirely random. They are governed by environmental changes and natural selection.[/quote]
So I guess I have to take on your stupidity just so you can see how stupid you are.
In the first one. 1. I said that I rejected any random events. This concludes that there was an intention behind the universe's appearance. You answered by saying this could be "governed by naturalistic processes." Mr.Egghead, where did these "naturalistic processes" get developed other than a random event?
In the second one. 2. I'm not talking about anyone else's way of thinking about theistic evolution. I'm talking about MY way of thinking, since you asked about MY way of thinking. People have their reasons for thinking that the Deity would allow random events to occur to develop life evolutionarily, but I don't have those reasons. If the Universe was created with an intention, then what, the Deity is taking a siesta now? I don't think so. Everything must have intention, otherwise, why was the Universe intended?
In the third point. 3. Evolution depends on random events for different species to occur. You are talking about adaptation. Do you know even the difference? In adaptation, the existing population adapts to a change and that depends on their group DNA structure. The DNA doesn't change to the environment. In evolution, they say that random events change the DNA so much that it develops a new species over time. So evolution depends on random events, and since I said that I reject Random Events, then you should have been able to see through the steps that I reject evolution on that standpoint. I think they call it macroevolution, but I'm not sure.
Anyway, you didn't see it. I don't know why. And you added a lot of quotes that weren't mine, so next time you add someone else's quotes you should at least put a @ sign and there name by it so it can help you remember whom your talking at. Cause you get mixed up.
I don't really understand how you gotten so mean. You were really nice in your Jesus thread.
Yielee, there're a few different definitions of what exactly macroevolution is, because the nature of speciation itself is still a matter under debate. But now, the best theory on it(imo) is that speciation, AKA macrevolution, is reducible to natural selection - that a lot of little changes from generation to generation add up to a much larger change if looked at from a different perspective. Basically, that macroevolution is a more holistic view on evolution as a whole, whereas microevolution - AKA natural selection - is a reductionist way of looking at it. There are multiple theories and definitions floating around teh interwebz at this point.
@alt, I don't know the definitions so thanks for trying to help me with this. At least it's good to know that there's some confusion or a lot of complicated answers.
My opinion is just that it seems the only way to seperate one species into 2 species, is to change its DNA so much that even mating with the parent group won't make offspring, and I don't see anything that says natural selection alters DNA sequences, so it has to be done randomly. So all the parts having to do with randomness I just have to reject.
I saw your fruit fly example and I wouldn't call those two species, because technically they can still reproduce. So making two species that can no longer reproduce means randomly changing the DNA structure of one of them to such an extent. Sorry if I repeated myself on that one!
I said that I rejected any random events. This concludes that there was an intention behind the universe's appearance. You answered by saying this could be "governed by naturalistic processes." Mr.Egghead, where did these "naturalistic processes" get developed other than a random event?
The formation of the universe has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. It's not even in the same field of study.
Since we are comparing creation to evolution not creation to the Big Bang (or would it be Big Bounce?) this argument is moot.
I'm not talking about anyone else's way of thinking about theistic evolution. I'm talking about MY way of thinking, since you asked about MY way of thinking.
You made a blanket statement that you had to believe in random events occurring to accept the theory of evolution (which you didn't even define correctly, you defined abiogenesis which is a theory in chemistry, so again not the same field of study). So I was pointing out how that is not the case.
Deity would allow random events to occur to develop life evolutionarily,
That's not even what I said...
Evolution depends on random events for different species to occur. You are talking about adaptation.
Adaptation is a part of evolution.
they say that random events change the DNA so much that it develops a new species over time. So evolution depends on random events, and since I said that I reject Random Events
When a biological life form reproduces that reproduction is not going to be a perfect copy. So are you saying this is not correct?
Most of the time these imperfections do nothing, sometimes they are harmful, and sometimes they are beneficial. The beneficial imperfections will usually spread through the species over generations.
Weather these imperfections are the result of random mutations or a deity behind the scenes picking and choosing is inconsequential.
I don't really understand how you gotten so mean. You were really nice in your Jesus thread.
Your the one throwing out names and I'm the mean one huh?
*sighs* righteo more Stupidity Minute time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn-5JiHwJY4
Once again it stars our favourite Creationist being wrong.
Thread is locked!