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 | 258287 |
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
Eat it pHacon. Mage is just being nit-picky.
Have you already forgotten what I was trying to get across?
If you have, there is less hope of you truly coming to this argument with an open mind than I thought at first, I will no longer try to fight you, as your logic and rationality are now suspect in my opinion.
I will not resort to your means of fanaticism to try and convince you to slow down, and think rationally.
You can all shut your mouths with me talking about the beginning of the world.
Then you might as well shut your mouths talking to the rest of us concerning the beginning.
You have yet to give one piece of evidence that is convincing.
Trying to use an atheist's argument against him?
And thisisnotanalt, if you look at what I said, you will see that the question was not directed at you, and you also missed the point. I asked Moe the question, and I wasn't asking where the world started. Only where evolution started. Most say it's from a primordial soup, but there are different theories. It isn't very convincing, however, since even though all evolutionists believe the same basic theory, they can't even agree about how it started.
I know it wasn't directed at me; I wanted to clarify. Also, I know what you said - and like I said, evolution started when survival of the fittest first kicked in.
It isn't very convincing, however, since even though all evolutionists believe the same basic theory, they can't even agree about how it started.
The wealth of different theories is a good thing - it means that we're examining more possibilities. Science isn't about unity and standing together in your beliefs like religion is - it's about finding out what's truly correct, and having so many possible avenues like this means tat that is going on.
Alright, I have already stated I am not dismissing evolution. I'm providing evidence against it and said I do not believe in it, but if we make a breakthrough that can actually prove that evolution is true, I will believe it.
Lol, you mentioned not dismissing evolution in the same post you wrote that, so you may as well not have mentioned that at all.
Also, you have presented no valid evidence against it. You haven't linked to a single source yet. If I can find it, Firefly made a giant link list with 50+ articles of evidence for evolution. I'll have it up in a sec if I can find it.
Here it is! Scroll down until you see the wall of light blue text.
Tada!
Natural selection, the driving force of evolution, is a fact. So that means the vast majority of evolution is too - evolution is a scientific theory, and while there are unsolved problems typically used as evidence against it, there's quite a bit of evidence for it. The link list is a very small fraction of evidence.
Stop spamming. This IS off-topic, because I'm sure the creator (lol nice pun right?) of this thread created it to be a serious discussion about two different beliefs, not about the spelling of evolutionism or whatever you want to call it...
Forgive me if I use the incorrect grammatical terms when referring to those that believe in evolution in this post and every one of my posts from now on.
I am sorry you came to the conclusion that my previous post was one-sided. I gave a completely fitting allusion to a doctor and a patient, and I can see that all it did was make creationists happy and offend the evolutionists who saw the truth behind it. Your calling me one-sided, but wasn't the whole point of that story to say that you are being one-sided?
Thank you, yielee, for actually helping me out a bit here.
And MageGrayWolf, you're kind of blindly throwing aside anything going against evolution. Maybe you should try listening a bit before giving lame excuses about how we're so wrong and evolution somehow makes sense? Thanks.
Evolutionism is just a theory. A theory that makes no sense. Just think about it. Think about it. Can you honestly fool yourself into thinking that we, the highest in the food chain, actually came from little spores that appeared when an atom just decided to randomly blow up? And can you do that without feeling like you might have fallen for a lame excuse that has been proven wrong, and has no proof but whims to back it up? You know the theory of evolution leads to a dead end. There's no start. Just an atom exploding. But where did that atom come from? Gas? Where did the gas come from? No where? That defies logic. THERE IS NO START TO EVOLUTION. Only a being who has no beginning and no end could possibly put a start to our marvelously diverse world. You're never convincing me that I came from a pool of muck.
Sorry, but this thread is annoying. I don't think anyone will convince anyone to change their beliefs. Therefore, I think this thread is a dud for people to get angry at each other, such as the evolutionists calling me names for giving my incredibly fitting allusion. I doubt I will post on here again, and I kind of envy the Christians in the beginning of this thread who refused to participate. There's no convincing anyone, so I think I'll call this one a stalemate. Guess I'll see you guys around.
Allow me to point out a few flaws in your reasoning.
1. As previously stated Evolution is a theory, not an -ism
2. Evolution has nothing to do with the universe. By claiming this you are comparing to seperate fields of scientifc study.
3. You ask others to be open minded but you yourself contradict this.
4. We who support the side of Evolution have given countless points to support our arguement, that you blatantly ignore our evidence is not our fault but yours.
5. Please watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn-5JiHwJY4
THERE IS NO START TO EVOLUTION
Actually, there are quite a few theories as to the start of evolution on Earth. One is that a meteor crashed into Earth with a species of single celled organisms on it, and we evolved from those. Another is that the first single celled organisms were formed by a slow combination of basic elements like helium and hydrogen, the same chemicals that condensed to form our solar system. I'm not a scientist, so I don't know the full details.
I know that evolutionism
Evolution... Since you know the rest it's clear your just trying to be inaccurate which only hurts any credibility you could possible muster.
The theory of evolution may not talk about it, but we were discussing where life came from, not how it became diverse. I'm obviously a Creationist (or whatever it's called), so I'll talk about the beginning since my belief does.
Yes that's quite clear. Though the topic isn't Big Bang or Creationism, or abiogenesis or creationism, it's about evolution or creationism.
Also, you have presented no valid evidence against it. You haven't linked to a single source yet. If I can find it, Firefly made a giant link list with 50+ articles of evidence for evolution. I'll have it up in a sec if I can find it.
I keep a notepad of it along with a hand full of videos I added to the end further explaining evolution. So if you ever need just feel free to ask me.
29+ Cases for Macroevolution
An Account of a Debate with a Creationist
An Account of the 1993 Creation Conference
All About Archaeopteryx
Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths
Arachaeopteryx: Answering the Challenge of the Fossil Record
Are Mutations Harmful?
Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics
Bombadier Beetles and the Argument of Design
The 'Burdick Print'
Creationism and the Platypus
Creationist Arguments: Java Man
Creationist Arguments: The Monkey Quote
Creationist Arguments: Neandertals
Creationist Arguments: Peking Man
A Creationist Exposed: Gish
Creationist Whppoers
Creationists and Pithecanthropines
The Creation Research Society's Creed
Darwin's Black Box: Irredicule Complexity or Irrepoducible Irreducibility?
Digit Numbering and Limb Development
Dino Blood Redux
Dinosaur Footprints in Coal
Dinosaur Valley State Park
Do Human Tracks Occur in the Kayenta of Arizona?
Debate: Edwards vs. Aguillard
Entropy, Disorder and Life
Evidence for Evolution
The Evolution of Improved Fitness
The Evolution of the Woodpecker's Tongue
Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution
Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Evolution
Fossil Hominids: Lucy
Genetic Algorithims and Evolutionary Computation
Geologic References in the Paluxy Controversy
How Good are those Young Earth Arguments: A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims
Horse Evolution: Hyrocatherium and Hyrax
IRC Graduate School Catalogue and List of Publications
Images of Neandertals
Information Theory and Creationism: Spetner and Biological Information
Jury-Rigged Design
Kansas Evolution Hearings
Lucy's Knee Joint
A Matter of Degree: Carl Baugh's Alleged Credentials
Observed Instances of Speciation
On Archaeopteryx, Astronomers and Forgery
On the Heels of Dinosaurs
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
An Overview of Dinosaur Tracking
Peking Man and Homo erectus
Plaigiarised Errors and Molecular Genetics
Publish or Perish: Some Published Works on Biochemical Evolution
A Response to Ashby Camps 'Critique'
Response to Casey Luskin
A Response to Wayne Jackson
Review: Bones of Contention
A Review of IRC's Impact Article 151
A Review of NBC's 'The Mysterious Origins of Man'
Review: Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis
Review: The Image of God
Sauropods, Elephants,Weightlifters
Sea-Monster or Shark?
Scientific Creationism and Error
Scientists Challenge Claim for 60,000 year old Mungo DNA
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution and Probability
Suspicious Creationist Credentials
A Tale of Two Teeth
The Taylor Site 'Man Tracks'
Ted Holden's Frequent Questions Answered
Ted Holden's World
The Texas Dinosaur/'Man Track' Controversy
Transitional Vertevrate Fossils FAQ
A Visit to the IRC Museum
Lets Test Them: Evolution vs. Creationism
Irrefutable Proof of Evolution- Part 1 (mtDNA, ERVs, Fusion)
Proof of Evolution - Part 2 (Summation)
Proof of Evolution - Part 3 (Atavisms and Fossils- censored)
How Evolution Works- Introduction (Part I)
How Evolution Works- Forces (Part 2)
How Evolution Works Part 3- DNA
How Evolution Works Part 4- Mutations
How Evolution Works Part 5- Natural Selection
How Evolution Works 6- The Constraints of Evolution
How Evolution Works 7: Speciation
Evidence for Evolution, Part I
Evidence for Evolution, Part II
Evidence for Evolution, Part III
Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker
The Evolution of the Flagellum
Evolution of the Bombardier Beetle
How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information, Part I
How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information, Part II
Some things for Creationists to look at about Evolution and life:
This one deals with age
This with complexity
This one deals with the Bible
Some stuff on science and evolution
And just to be nice - some more about Evolution
An amount of genetic information doesn't correlate to how advanced or complex an organism is, for example, a butterfly has 380 chromosomes compared to our 46.
Oh, and we aren't looking at mutations in evolution, we're looking at genetic variations.
Uni, it is not based on mutations. It is based on the best suited of the species surviving and mating, passing on all of the positive traits. For example, I will use bacterium as they evolve faster do to the fact they reproduce faster. Penicillin was widely used to treat everything, but some bacterium were immune to it. The immune thus survived and reproduced wile the others were wiped out. The effect ends up being immune bacterium.
Evolution is based on the idea that we evolved into more and more complex organisms through mutation, but most mutations are either neutral or harmful, so this doesn't really make sense to me. As well, mutations alway decrease genetic data, rather than increasing it, so although the organism could experience benefits from a mutation, it doesn't make sense that it could actually develope into a more complex organism.
Evolution doesn't necessarily always result in more complex organisms. Just better adapted organisms to there environment. Most mutations are neutral, but only some are harmful while others beneficial. The harmful ones are weeded out leaving the beneficial. Mutations can increase genetic information (see the last two videos on the list above) mutations can also remove genetic information so it can do both.
Uni, are you saying there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation?
What about drug-resistant bacteria (beneficial to the bacteria), the radiation resistant fungi in Chernobyl (As can be seen here) or a mutation in a human gene that gives partial resistance (and with a double copy full immunity from) HIV-1?
or a mutation in a human gene that gives partial resistance (and with a double copy full immunity from) HIV-1?
On an interesting side note the mutation also likely gave some humans the immunity to the black plague.
Yes I read that article with interest - and that then brought me to thinking about an antibiotic resistant strain of the plague (we know that the plague still exists - it wasn't really wiped out and so could infect people on a large scale - luckily for us at the minute it can be easily treated with antibiotics). Again, the plague resistance in humans shows beneficial mutation and the possibility that the plague could develop resistance to antibiotics - again proves beneficial mutation and I think we can move forward. Do you agree, Mage? Everyone else?
Here's a link that lists a few examples of beneficial mutations. Some of which have already been mentioned.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/beneficial-mutation.html
Thread is locked!