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 | 258269 |
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
(the American evolutionists are the black people)
Well that's a little racist
Thats too much! I cant stop laughing!!! XD
Sry for this racist joke dude, but i guess you dont know the point of that joke.
Yea quicksmasher let's avoid spam mk?
I'll try to do my best, but your interpretation of this...
I mean, both, evolutionism and creationism, are may in the beginnings like the cerebral tumour of the humanity destroying social life, but also, its as unstoppable and uncurable and becomes worse with each second...
... was simply inestimable! Sorry dude! XD
... was simply inestimable! Sorry dude! XD
Would you care to enlighten us on what you meant then? In English preferably.
I meant what i wrote, wheres the need for enlightening?
Then fix the grammar or something; we don't get it simplify it so us lesser humans can understand it I don't care just get rid of the analogy and explain what you mean.
All the theories of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, etc. How does that all happen by chance? The theories don't add up.
First off evolution isn't an entirely random process. Yes there are random elements, but there are other elements that are not.
Now if your arguing that there are no random event then how about a simple question. Why do you look both ways when crossing the street? If it's not random your chances of being hit or not won't change by your looking.
First off evolution isn't an entirely random process. Yes there are random elements, but there are other elements that are not.
Erm; which elements aren't random? Natural selection occurs because of random changes in the ecosystem of the organism and mutation is a random permanent change in the DNA sequence of an organism.
Then fix the grammar or something; we don't get it simplify it so us lesser humans can understand it I don't care just get rid of the analogy and explain what you mean.
Lalz... upgrading armorgames forum into battlefield . . .
Isnt it clear that god doesnt exist? In Austria it is!
You can't force people to believe what you believe Quicksmasher.
@MAverick, yes your welcome for me adding in. XP I had a few conversations on this certain thread a while ago.
Back to Quick, just because you think something doesn't exist, doesn't mean it is. I won't pretend that I know, and honestly, I don't care. Just live your life and don't waste it here trying to persuade people into wether or not a God exitsts or not
It's like trying to get a rock to talk to you basically. XD
Natural selection occurs because of random changes in the ecosystem of the organism and mutation is a random permanent change in the DNA sequence of an organism.
I'll answer this with a quote.
There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
No I realize that I'm saying that the changes in the ecosystem are random so even though the natural selection isn't the force that drives it (changes in weather, natural disasters, etc.) Are random.
By the way 80% of Austrains are Christian.
No I realize that I'm saying that the changes in the ecosystem are random so even though the natural selection isn't the force that drives it (changes in weather, natural disasters, etc.) Are random.
Natural selection is one of the things that drives it.
Also i wasn't saying that there is nothing in it that is random, there are random variables. But you had asked what isn't random about it, so that's what I answered.
I think Pro-Creation is my view because God designed everything for Human and Animals to survive and without God we wouldn't be able to live here.
I think Pro-Creation is my view because God designed everything for Human and Animals to survive and without God we wouldn't be able to live here.
Duely noted. But belief only makes a thing real to the individual. As a whole truth it means little.
I think Pro-Creation is my view because God designed everything for Human and Animals to survive and without God we wouldn't be able to live here.
How does that mean organisms didn't change over time? How does that explain all the observed instances of evolution?
Found this video, it's a bit dry but tries to explain in laymen terms. It's a podcast recording with a molecular biologist.
What is Evolution?
@MGW
When a biological life form reproduces that reproduction is not going to be a perfect copy. So are you saying this is not correct? And as I said when a biological lifeform reproduces that reproduction isn't a perfect copy. Making mutations being as common as reproduction...We are not identical clones of our parents what I was talking about is genetic variation between parent and offspring, which most defiantly does occur in sexual reproduction and is a big part of natural selection. When a cell divides it creates a copy of it's DNA, sometimes this copy is imperfect aka a mutation.
Do you see what you did? You confused an idea called "DNA recombination" with another idea called "genetic mutation". So that's the second time you'll have to know that. And now you could stop. By the way, most genetic mutations are lethal not benign. I just made sure of that to write it, so you'll have to correct yourself next time.
My point is that I'm all in favor of new species coming from "DNA recombination", since that's something that's already in place, like goumas13's butterfly example.
I don't agree that new species can come from random mutations that create so much new DNA that the new organism can no longer reproduce with its parent species and is also better adapted to some new environment. That just sounds ridiculous. So that's why I don't agree with that part of evolutionism, and is why Creationism makes more sense to me.
Also, as Alt said, that part of macroevolution is still under debate and being researched and lots of complicated ideas are floating around so the matter isn't really clear on how species are formed from the evolutionists' view. But the matter is settled for Creationists, which is that everything is intended, no random chance. I'm just more in agreement with Creationism than Evolutionism.
You want evidence for Creationism? It starts with the origin of the Universe. You once rejected that, saying it's Cosmology. Well look at the title of this thread. It's about Evolutionism OR Creationism. Meaning if you want my evidence for Creationism, then that's about the moment of Creation, and it's tough if that's Cosmology and you don't like it, cause that's what Creationism is all about. I believe the Universe did not happen by random chance, it was intended. This intention goes all the way thru my philosophy on life, the earth was intended, all life on earth has been intended. Because of this, I don't believe random chance mutations create new species. I only believe when you have DNA it can recombine to make new species or better adaptations. This is DNA recombination. The reason is that the DNA was created by intention, whether that intention is to make new offspring or new species doesn't matter.
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
Using creation explain how this occurred?
You didn't give the full story and I spent almost my entire weekend looking it up. And I'm upset at you for this by the way. Why would you give half the information and hide the other half? Afraid you'd lose yet another point? Well, you were right.
This example was the result of DNA recombination. I would have known that earlier if you had given the other half of the story. Those so-called new species are actually called tetraploids and alloploids. In a normal organism there diploid meaning 2 sets of chromosomes. The first new species has 4 sets of chromosomes and the alloploid one has an unequal number of chromosomes from the two parent species.
At first they had trouble. This is becuase most of the offspring were triploids, meaning 3 sets of chromosomes. Three chromosomes can't seperate equally during reproduction, so these were steril. Only the ones with even numbers of chromosomes could.
So obviously, in some organisms that make polyploids, it's probably not a good idea to talk about what evolutionists think, since these are way complicated examples.
Anyway, the Creationist answer is that it's just the result of DNA recombination. The reason this fits with a Creationist's viewpoint, is that you have the starting material in the new flowers but no new functioning DNA was added by random chance.
Are you starting to understand my viewpoint yet? Cause it's hard to tell by your responses.
Thread is locked!