Evolutionism or creationism - Armor Games Community

1486	258299

offline

660 posts

Nomad

Posted June 13, '10 10:52pm UTC

ok, this is actualy hilarious, this thread has been here for years now and nobody is closer to an answer, so i just want somebody who is a firm believer in creationism explain why we share around 98% of our genetic code with apes and dinosaurs for me.

offline

wajor59

909 posts

Nomad

Posted June 14, '10 12:39am UTC

What proof do you have of that?

An egg can't lay itself, it takes the rooster and the hen to produce a baby chick, need I say more?

I hold religion responsible for millions of deaths. On top of that it discourages open thinking and creates divisions and rifts that, if we started right NOW, would take decades if not centuries to heal.

I've studied lots of changes in how far America has come from it's Puritan roots, especially the Salem witch trials. As it looks to me the healing started when the last shot was fired after the American Civil War. It didn't, however really change the lives of the freed slaves until my generation and the Vietnam War when blacks were treated equally and paid equally for equal work.

Ethnic cleansing still occurs but the world is rapidly becoming more sophisticated as the "old world" generation dies off. Soon, perhaps while I'm still alive this too will be a thing of the past.

offline

Ion24

121 posts

Nomad

Posted June 14, '10 1:02am UTC

AHEM...

ok, this is actualy hilarious, this thread has been here for years now and nobody is closer to an answer,...

I don't recall this thread being about getting an answer, because let's face it, we're not going to find one. It's about stating your opinion and debating over it in a POLITE manner.

An egg can't lay itself, it takes the rooster and the hen to produce a baby chick, need I say more?

That makes perfect sense, but the whole thing becomes confusing when you consider at what point down the line of heredity do we classify the species as chickens? It wouldn't make sense to just have it at a black and white cut-off line, but as a sort of gradient from one to the other. But when you say that, the whole debate becomes invalid (undebatable, in this case).

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted June 14, '10 5:08am UTC

[quote]An egg can't lay itself, it takes the rooster and the hen to produce a baby chick, need I say more?

That makes perfect sense, but the whole thing becomes confusing when you consider at what point down the line of heredity do we classify the species as chickens? It wouldn't make sense to just have it at a black and white cut-off line, but as a sort of gradient from one to the other. But when you say that, the whole debate becomes invalid (undebatable, in this case).[/quote]

It is as you say a gradient. Perhaps a different perspective is in order.

Let's pretend the red square represents the current generation of chicken alive today and the blue square represents what the chicken evolved from (our "non chicken&quot, let's also pretend each square represents one generation. Now of course we won't see the non chicken generation give birth to a chicken generation.

(The process of evolution just won't look like this.)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/evo2.jpg

What we see in our time is a change so gradual that it's hardly detectable. So if we look at evolution from this perspective it can seem like the species isn't really changing, with the changes only being very slight.

(This is basically what we usually see.)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/evo3.jpg

But if we were able to back up and look at the process as a whole we would see how this gradual change can result in our non chicken evolving into a chicken as each generation underwent a slight change.

(This is how to properly view the process of evolution.)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/evo1.jpg

[quote][quote]An egg can't lay itself, it takes the rooster and the hen to produce a baby chick, need I say more?[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat makes perfect sense, but the whole thing becomes confusing when you consider at what point down the line of heredity do we classify the species as chickens? It wouldn't make sense to just have it at a black and white cut-off line, but as a sort of gradient from one to the other. But when you say that, the whole debate becomes invalid (undebatable, in this case).[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt is as you say a gradient. Perhaps a different perspective is in order.\r\n\r\nLet's pretend the red square represents the current generation of chicken alive today and the blue square represents what the chicken evolved from (our "non chicken"), let's also pretend each square represents one generation. Now of course we won't see the non chicken generation give birth to a chicken generation.\r\n \r\n(The process of evolution just won't look like this.)\r\n[img]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/evo2.jpg[/img]\r\n\r\nWhat we see in our time is a change so gradual that it's hardly detectable. So if we look at evolution from this perspective it can seem like the species isn't really changing, with the changes only being very slight.\r\n\r\n(This is basically what we usually see.)\r\n[img]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/evo3.jpg[/img]\r\n\r\nBut if we were able to back up and look at the process as a whole we would see how this gradual change can result in our non chicken evolving into a chicken as each generation underwent a slight change.\r\n\r\n(This is how to properly view the process of evolution.)\r\n[img]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/evo1.jpg[/img]

offline

thisisnotanalt

9,821 posts

Shepherd

Posted June 14, '10 4:08pm UTC

That makes perfect sense, but the whole thing becomes confusing when you consider at what point down the line of heredity do we classify the species as chickens? It wouldn't make sense to just have it at a black and white cut-off line, but as a sort of gradient from one to the other. But when you say that, the whole debate becomes invalid (undebatable, in this case).

Like mage illustrated, a gradient is exactly how it happens. There's a species that's poorly adapted, then it goes through a lot of mutations, there are transitional species, and eventually we end up with a different species after many years - the color is no longer lavender, but blue.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted June 14, '10 8:51pm UTC

There's a species that's poorly adapted,

It's not that it's poorly adapted, but rather it was adapted for a different environment. As the environment changes so did the species.

Now here's an interesting video. This guy basically did the same thing I did with the colored squares but with artistic renderings of our own evolutionary linage.
Quest for Truth: Transitional Species

offline

DDX

3,562 posts

Nomad

Posted June 14, '10 9:10pm UTC

But if we were able to back up and look at the process as a whole we would see how this gradual change can result in our non chicken evolving into a chicken as each generation underwent a slight change.

right but that is micro evolution.

personally let me just state. that I have some religious background. It is not as silly as Mormonism. rather it is just regular Christianity. but due to recent events. I was led to question the existence of god himself. either or.
and the only reason I am Christian is because I was raised that way.

that aside I have a strict separation of church and science. the 2 do not intermingle. I think of religion more of as a way to model myself as to being a better person. now that aside.

Like mage illustrated, a gradient is exactly how it happens. There's a species that's poorly adapted, then it goes through a lot of mutations, there are transitional species, and eventually we end up with a different species after many years - the color is no longer lavender, but blue.

right and at that point it becomes an entirely new species and is named as such.

It's not that it's poorly adapted, but rather it was adapted for a different environment. As the environment changes so did the species.

well yes, the species has to undergo changes to fit the environment otherwise it will die out. no one can deny that evolution doesn't exist. but there are certain types of evolution that really can't be explained. Huge jumps without going through a gradient. There is some kind of force at work that mutated the animals faster, I wont say there is a god and he created everything ect. but there is some kind of force that caused macro evolution. it is pretty much just like going from red, directly to blue

[quote]But if we were able to back up and look at the process as a whole we would see how this gradual change can result in our non chicken evolving into a chicken as each generation underwent a slight change.[/quote]\r\n\r\nright but that is micro evolution. \r\n\r\npersonally let me just state. that I have some religious background. It is not as silly as Mormonism. rather it is just regular Christianity. but due to recent events. I was led to question the existence of god himself. either or.\r\nand the only reason I am Christian is because I was raised that way.\r\n\r\nthat aside I have a strict separation of church and science. the 2 do not intermingle. I think of religion more of as a way to model myself as to being a better person. now that aside.\r\n\r\n[quote]Like mage illustrated, a gradient is exactly how it happens.  There's a species that's poorly adapted, then it goes through a lot of mutations, there are transitional species, and eventually we end up with a different species after many years - the color is no longer lavender, but blue.[/quote]\r\n\r\nright and at that point it becomes an entirely new species and is named as such.\r\n\r\n[quote]It's not that it's poorly adapted, but rather it was adapted for a different environment. As the environment changes so did the species.[/quote]\r\n\r\nwell yes, the species has to undergo changes to fit the environment otherwise it will die out. no one can deny that evolution doesn't exist. but there are certain types of evolution that really can't be explained. Huge jumps without going through a gradient. There is some kind of force at work that mutated the animals faster, I wont say there is a god and he created everything ect. but there is some kind of force that caused macro evolution. it is pretty much just like going from red, directly to blue

offline

314d1

3,817 posts

Nomad

Posted June 14, '10 9:18pm UTC

right but that is micro evolution

I thought we went over this... Micro evolution happens many times leading to Macro evolution. Got that? Good boy, have a cookie.

personally let me just state. that I have some religious background. It is not as silly as Mormonism. rather it is just regular Christianity. but due to recent events. I was led to question the existence of god himself. either or.
and the only reason I am Christian is because I was raised that way.

I was raised a Christian. Am I a Christian now? Science and religion are two ways of trying to explain things. Science uses logic and proof, religion uses threats, lies, and culture. Why do you separate them? It would be like playing marbles. Do you separate the powerful steel marbles from the glass ones? The only reason you would do that is to not break the glass ones.

right and at that point it becomes an entirely new species and is named as such.

It evolves into a new species.... And yet you say there is no evolution?

well yes, the species has to undergo changes to fit the environment otherwise it will die out. no one can deny that evolution doesn't exist. but there are certain types of evolution that really can't be explained. Huge jumps without going through a gradient. There is some kind of force at work that mutated the animals faster, I wont say there is a god and he created everything ect. but there is some kind of force that caused macro evolution. it is pretty much just like going from red, directly to blue

It exists, no one can deny that, so I will just hope that was a typo. Can you name one huge jump for me? There is no force that mutates animals faster. There has never been a recorded case of red jumping to blue as far as I know....

[quote]right but that is micro evolution[/quote]\r\n\r\nI thought we went over this... Micro evolution happens many times leading to Macro evolution. Got that? Good boy, have a cookie.\r\n\r\n[quote]personally let me just state. that I have some religious background. It is not as silly as Mormonism. rather it is just regular Christianity. but due to recent events. I was led to question the existence of god himself. either or.\r\nand the only reason I am Christian is because I was raised that way.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI was raised a Christian. Am I a Christian now? Science and religion are two ways of trying to explain things. Science uses logic and proof, religion uses threats, lies, and culture. Why do you separate them? It would be like playing marbles. Do you separate the powerful steel marbles from the glass ones? The only reason you would do that is to not break the glass ones. \r\n\r\n[quote]right and at that point it becomes an entirely new species and is named as such.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt evolves into a new species.... And yet you say there is no evolution? \r\n\r\n[quote]well yes, the species has to undergo changes to fit the environment otherwise it will die out. no one can deny that evolution doesn't exist. but there are certain types of evolution that really can't be explained. Huge jumps without going through a gradient. There is some kind of force at work that mutated the animals faster, I wont say there is a god and he created everything ect. but there is some kind of force that caused macro evolution. it is pretty much just like going from red, directly to blue[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt exists, no one can deny that, so I will just hope that was a typo. Can you name one huge jump for me? There is no force that mutates animals faster. There has never been a recorded case of red jumping to blue as far as I know....

offline

DDX

3,562 posts

Nomad

Posted June 14, '10 9:36pm UTC

I thought we went over this... Micro evolution happens many times leading to Macro evolution. Got that? Good boy, have a cookie.

no, "we" didnt. I obviously did not bother to read the entire thread since it is a bunch of hormone pumping 14 year old atheists bashing on a already shoddy christian foundation.

Ofcourse micro ev happens many times leading to a macro ev. I took bio at college this year and AP bio in 9th grade. lots of micro happening at once seems like a macro. so no i dont want a f*cking cookie I want you to f*cking show some respect because this is a debate not a troll parade.

I was raised a Christian. Am I a Christian now? Science and religion are two ways of trying to explain things. Science uses logic and proof, religion uses threats, lies, and culture. Why do you separate them? It would be like playing marbles. Do you separate the powerful steel marbles from the glass ones? The only reason you would do that is to not break the glass ones.

my comment only gave a background to what I was, It wasnt a part of the argument it was only to clarify my background. since Im not the type of person to be parading my religious background on my profile.

cience uses logic and proof, religion uses threats, lies, and culture

I thought i made it clear I have a separation of church and science. not combine. hmm? no pretty sure I said that, here take some glasses and read more. just because i typed a lot doesnt mean you can't atleast make the effort to just skim it instead of looking at words and pulling a conclusion from your dislike of me, when i flamed you back on my thread for not making any sense what so ever.

It evolves into a new species.... And yet you say there is no evolution?

didnt say that kid. Im saying that evolution exists, it is undeniable. Im not a fan of creationism, because in my opinion I dont understand how things just appear out of dirt. so quit being such a jerk about it.

I was raised a Christian. Am I a Christian now? Science and religion are two ways of trying to explain things. Science uses logic and proof, religion uses threats, lies, and culture. Why do you separate them? It would be like playing marbles. Do you separate the powerful steel marbles from the glass ones? The only reason you would do that is to not break the glass ones.

UH. animals obtaining lungs. how is that not a jump. did aquatic species learn to only breathe half air then full air? no. lungs developed then aquatic species moved to land. hurp derp.

[quote]I thought we went over this... Micro evolution happens many times leading to Macro evolution. Got that? Good boy, have a cookie.[/quote]\r\nno, "we" didnt. I obviously did not bother to read the entire thread since it is a bunch of hormone pumping 14 year old atheists bashing on a already shoddy christian foundation.\r\n\r\nOfcourse micro ev happens many times leading to a macro ev. I took bio at college this year and AP bio in 9th grade. lots of micro happening at once seems like a macro. so no i dont want a f*cking cookie I want you to f*cking show some respect because this is a debate not a troll parade.\r\n\r\n[quote]I was raised a Christian. Am I a Christian now? Science and religion are two ways of trying to explain things. Science uses logic and proof, religion uses threats, lies, and culture. Why do you separate them? It would be like playing marbles. Do you separate the powerful steel marbles from the glass ones? The only reason you would do that is to not break the glass ones. [/quote]\r\nmy comment only gave a background to what I was, It wasnt a part of the argument it was only to clarify my background. since Im not the type of person to be parading my religious background on my profile.\r\n\r\n[quote]cience uses logic and proof, religion uses threats, lies, and culture[/quote]\r\nI thought i made it clear I have a separation of church and science. not combine. hmm? no pretty sure I said that, here take some glasses and read more. just because i typed a lot doesnt mean you can't atleast make the effort to just skim it instead of looking at words and pulling a conclusion from your dislike of me, when i flamed you back on my thread for not making any sense what so ever. \r\n\r\n[quote]It evolves into a new species.... And yet you say there is no evolution? [/quote]\r\ndidnt say that kid. Im saying that evolution exists, it is undeniable. Im not a fan of creationism, because in my opinion I dont understand how things just appear out of dirt. so quit being such a jerk about it.\r\n\r\n[quote]I was raised a Christian. Am I a Christian now? Science and religion are two ways of trying to explain things. Science uses logic and proof, religion uses threats, lies, and culture. Why do you separate them? It would be like playing marbles. Do you separate the powerful steel marbles from the glass ones? The only reason you would do that is to not break the glass ones. [/quote]\r\nUH. animals obtaining lungs. how is that not a jump. did aquatic species learn to only breathe half air then full air? no. lungs developed then aquatic species moved to land. hurp derp.

offline

314d1

3,817 posts

Nomad

Posted June 14, '10 9:46pm UTC

no, "we" didnt. I obviously did not bother to read the entire thread since it is a bunch of hormone pumping 14 year old atheists bashing on a already shoddy christian foundation.

"We" being everyone on this forum going over it multiple times. And I would be insulted, if there was anything to be insulted about in that text... I am fourteen, I am an atheist, and I pump hormones...

Ofcourse micro ev happens many times leading to a macro ev. I took bio at college this year and AP bio in 9th grade. lots of micro happening at once seems like a macro. so no i dont want a f*cking cookie I want you to f*cking show some respect because this is a debate not a troll parade.

So you admit that Macro happens... Fine. I'll take my cookie back.

my comment only gave a background to what I was, It wasnt a part of the argument it was only to clarify my background. since Im not the type of person to be parading my religious background on my profile.

So you put something random up to show your background, but when I do it it is wrong? You are defiantly a Christian.

I thought i made it clear I have a separation of church and science. not combine. hmm? no pretty sure I said that, here take some glasses and read more. just because i typed a lot doesnt mean you can't atleast make the effort to just skim it instead of looking at words and pulling a conclusion from your dislike of me, when i flamed you back on my thread for not making any sense what so ever.

I read it and understood it. Religion and science are in the same topic, no matter how much you wish for them to be separate. Do I need to say my marble metaphor again?

didnt say that kid. Im saying that evolution exists, it is undeniable. Im not a fan of creationism, because in my opinion I dont understand how things just appear out of dirt. so quit being such a jerk about it.

So I was correct in it being a typo, as last you said that evolution didn't exist. This misunderstanding is your fault.

UH. animals obtaining lungs. how is that not a jump. did aquatic species learn to only breathe half air then full air? no. lungs developed then aquatic species moved to land. hurp derp.

That is not a huge jump. It develops over millions, if not billions, of years. The fish just didn't go "You know what, there is this great land stuff, I think I want to live on it..." and then have lungs, they went threw many changes to become amphibians. Over millions of years. If anything, it is more like a crawl then a jump.

[quote]no, "we" didnt. I obviously did not bother to read the entire thread since it is a bunch of hormone pumping 14 year old atheists bashing on a already shoddy christian foundation.[/quote]\r\n\r\n"We" being everyone on this forum going over it multiple times. And I would be insulted, if there was anything to be insulted about in that text... I am fourteen, I am an atheist, and I pump hormones... \r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]Ofcourse micro ev happens many times leading to a macro ev. I took bio at college this year and AP bio in 9th grade. lots of micro happening at once seems like a macro. so no i dont want a f*cking cookie I want you to f*cking show some respect because this is a debate not a troll parade.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSo you admit that Macro happens... Fine. I'll take my cookie back. \r\n\r\n[quote]my comment only gave a background to what I was, It wasnt a part of the argument it was only to clarify my background. since Im not the type of person to be parading my religious background on my profile.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSo you put something random up to show your background, but when I do it it is wrong? You are defiantly a Christian. \r\n\r\n[quote]I thought i made it clear I have a separation of church and science. not combine. hmm? no pretty sure I said that, here take some glasses and read more. just because i typed a lot doesnt mean you can't atleast make the effort to just skim it instead of looking at words and pulling a conclusion from your dislike of me, when i flamed you back on my thread for not making any sense what so ever. [/quote]\r\n\r\nI read it and understood it. Religion and science are in the same topic, no matter how much you wish for them to be separate. Do I need to say my marble metaphor again? \r\n\r\n[quote]didnt say that kid. Im saying that evolution exists, it is undeniable. Im not a fan of creationism, because in my opinion I dont understand how things just appear out of dirt. so quit being such a jerk about it.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSo I was correct in it being a typo, as last you said that evolution didn't exist. This misunderstanding is your fault. \r\n\r\n[quote]UH. animals obtaining lungs. how is that not a jump. did aquatic species learn to only breathe half air then full air? no. lungs developed then aquatic species moved to land. hurp derp.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat is not a huge jump. It develops over millions, if not billions, of years. The fish just didn't go "You know what, there is this great land stuff, I think I want to live on it..." and then have lungs, they went threw many changes to become amphibians. Over millions of years. If anything, it is more like a crawl then a jump.

offline

DDX

3,562 posts

Nomad

Posted June 14, '10 9:58pm UTC

"We" being everyone on this forum going over it multiple times. And I would be insulted, if there was anything to be insulted about in that text... I am fourteen, I am an atheist, and I pump hormones...

good for you. I wasnt directing it towards you. I was just saying. that Most Christians in this thread have been raised this way. and you have to understand they were not given a choice like many. they were only taught to believe 1 thing and 1 thing only. idk about you, but that is what majority of the christians on this thread are like.

So you admit that Macro happens... Fine. I'll take my cookie back.

... durr without macro we would not be here.

So you put something random up to show your background, but when I do it it is wrong? You are defiantly a Christian.

uh no. I just said I dont lie cheat steal. and that is about all the christian in me.

I read it and understood it. Religion and science are in the same topic, no matter how much you wish for them to be separate. Do I need to say my marble metaphor again?

I didnt bother to read from 70ish to 137. because I forget when i stopped posting in this thread due to influx of zealous Christians who only use bible as source.

So I was correct in it being a typo, as last you said that evolution didn't exist. This misunderstanding is your fault.

no.. I never said that. I said there is something else besides evolution.

That is not a huge jump. It develops over millions, if not billions, of years. The fish just didn't go "You know what, there is this great land stuff, I think I want to live on it..." and then have lungs, they went threw many changes to become amphibians. Over millions of years. If anything, it is more like a crawl then a jump.

it's a jump relative what you compare it to. if you do day by day, then yes. sure slow crawl. but in the lifespan of the universe. then large leap.

This misunderstanding is your fault.

there was no misunderstanding. you just didnt understand what I wrote. idk could be your ego, and you dont want to be wrong or maybe you just hate me. I do not know. bUt I made it pretty clear that evolution existed, and it was possible that something could have affected the flow of evolution.

just because no one can prove god exists. (does god deliver? still waiting...) doesnt mean he doesn't. you can believe what you want. but I specifically stated that evolution does exist. not my problem we got some kind of barrier due to past problems (or atleast that's what I feel)

[quote]"We" being everyone on this forum going over it multiple times. And I would be insulted, if there was anything to be insulted about in that text... I am fourteen, I am an atheist, and I pump hormones... [/quote]\r\ngood for you. I wasnt directing it towards you. I was just saying. that Most Christians in this thread have been raised this way. and you have to understand they were not given a choice like many. they were only taught to believe 1 thing and 1 thing only. idk about you, but that is what majority of the christians on this thread are like.\r\n\r\n[quote]So you admit that Macro happens... Fine. I'll take my cookie back. [/quote]\r\n\r\n... durr without macro we would not be here.\r\n\r\n[quote]So you put something random up to show your background, but when I do it it is wrong? You are defiantly a Christian. [/quote]\r\nuh no. I just said I dont lie cheat steal. and that is about all the christian in me.\r\n\r\n[quote]I read it and understood it. Religion and science are in the same topic, no matter how much you wish for them to be separate. Do I need to say my marble metaphor again? [/quote]\r\nI didnt bother to read from 70ish to 137. because I forget when i stopped posting in this thread due to influx of zealous Christians who only use bible as source.\r\n[quote]So I was correct in it being a typo, as last you said that evolution didn't exist. This misunderstanding is your fault.\r\n\r\n[/quote]\r\nno.. I never said that. I said there is something else besides evolution.\r\n\r\n[quote]That is not a huge jump. It develops over millions, if not billions, of years. The fish just didn't go "You know what, there is this great land stuff, I think I want to live on it..." and then have lungs, they went threw many changes to become amphibians. Over millions of years. If anything, it is more like a crawl then a jump.[/quote]\r\nit's a jump relative what you compare it to. if you do day by day, then yes. sure slow crawl. but in the lifespan of the universe. then large leap.\r\n\r\n[quote]This misunderstanding is your fault. [/quote]\r\nthere was no misunderstanding. you just didnt understand what I wrote. idk could be your ego, and you dont want to be wrong or maybe you just hate me. I do not know. bUt I made it pretty clear that evolution existed, and it was possible that something could have affected the flow of evolution.\r\n\r\njust because no one can prove god exists. (does god deliver? still waiting...) doesnt mean he doesn't. you can believe what you want. but I specifically stated that evolution does exist. not my problem we got some kind of barrier due to past problems (or atleast that's what I feel)

offline

314d1

3,817 posts

Nomad

Posted June 14, '10 10:16pm UTC

well yes, the species has to undergo changes to fit the environment otherwise it will die out. no one can deny that evolution doesn't exist. but there are certain types of evolution that really can't be explained. Huge jumps without going through a gradient. There is some kind of force at work that mutated the animals faster, I wont say there is a god and he created everything ect. but there is some kind of force that caused macro evolution. it is pretty much just like going from red, directly to blue

Right in the bold is were you state that evolution does not exist.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted June 14, '10 10:19pm UTC

right but that is micro evolution.

What I demonstrated in my illustration was how one species can change into another over time. In other words macroevolution.

Again using my illustrations.

Microevoltuon changes below the level of species.

Macroevolution; changes at or above the level of species.

This is why micro and macro evolution are the same thing just viewed on different scales.

no, "we" didnt. I obviously did not bother to read the entire thread since it is a bunch of hormone pumping 14 year old atheists bashing on a already shoddy christian foundation.

Yeah we have covered this a few times on here. And for the record I'm not 14.

well yes, the species has to undergo changes to fit the environment otherwise it will die out. no one can deny that evolution doesn't exist. but there are certain types of evolution that really can't be explained. Huge jumps without going through a gradient. There is some kind of force at work that mutated the animals faster, I wont say there is a god and he created everything ect. but there is some kind of force that caused macro evolution. it is pretty much just like going from red, directly to blue

Yes there are times when a species develops through among other processes a random mutation and a vast change in the environment. It still wouldn't be going directly from blue to red though there would still be a gradient effect.
If a species develops a mutation say, being able to feed on a different food source. If that food source wasn't abundant in it's old environment it would likely die out. But if the environment changed allowing that the new food source to become abundant and the old to become scarce this mutation is then beneficial tot he species.
So there's really nothing mysterious going on in such an event.

UH. animals obtaining lungs. how is that not a jump. did aquatic species learn to only breathe half air then full air? no. lungs developed then aquatic species moved to land. hurp derp.

a species of fish eventually developed the ability to exist on land for a short period of time. That ability was improved upon, as the need to be on land increased. Eventually it developed the ability to breath both air and under water still having to stay close to water. Eventually it was able to complete get away from the water and stay entirely on land.
We even have modern animals who still use these varying states of development today.

[quote]right but that is micro evolution.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWhat I demonstrated in my illustration was how one species can change into another over time. In other words macroevolution.  \r\n\r\nAgain using my illustrations.\r\n\r\nMicroevoltuon changes below the level of species.\r\n[img]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/evo3.jpg[/img]\r\n\r\nMacroevolution; changes at or above the level of species. \r\n[img]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/evo1.jpg[/img]\r\n\r\nThis is why micro and macro evolution are the same thing just viewed on different scales.\r\n\r\n[quote]no, "we" didnt. I obviously did not bother to read the entire thread since it is a bunch of hormone pumping 14 year old atheists bashing on a already shoddy christian foundation.[/quote]\r\n\r\nYeah we have covered this a few times on here. And for the record I'm not 14.\r\n\r\n[quote]well yes, the species has to undergo changes to fit the environment otherwise it will die out. no one can deny that evolution doesn't exist. but there are certain types of evolution that really can't be explained. Huge jumps without going through a gradient. There is some kind of force at work that mutated the animals faster, I wont say there is a god and he created everything ect. but there is some kind of force that caused macro evolution. it is pretty much just like going from red, directly to blue[/quote]\r\n\r\nYes there are times when a species develops through among other processes a random mutation and a vast change in the environment. It still wouldn't be going directly from blue to red though there would still be a gradient effect. \r\nIf a species develops a mutation say, being able to feed on a different food source. If that food source wasn't abundant in it's old environment it would likely die out. But if the environment changed allowing that the new food source to become abundant and the old to become scarce this mutation is then beneficial tot he species.\r\nSo there's really nothing mysterious going on in such an event.\r\n\r\n[quote]UH. animals obtaining lungs. how is that not a jump. did aquatic species learn to only breathe half air then full air? no. lungs developed then aquatic species moved to land. hurp derp.[/quote]\r\n\r\na species of fish eventually developed the ability to exist on land for a short period of time. That ability was improved upon, as the need to be on land increased. Eventually it developed the ability to breath both air and under water still having to stay close to water. Eventually it was able to complete get away from the water and stay entirely on land. \r\nWe even have modern animals who still use these varying states of development today.

offline

Tibbers

109 posts

Nomad

Posted June 14, '10 10:46pm UTC

Joel is right about that. For the earth and life to be created again is a one in (almost) infinity chance. Luck is the basis of scientific theory, and Creationism just makes more sense for many. People want to believe that everything has a purpose.

That said, both theories should be embraced. It's true, science cannot explain everything. But neither can religion. Which one is right however, I do not know. I still am neutral on the subject.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted June 14, '10 11:21pm UTC

while Evolution is more theory than faith;

Faith isn't part of the equation when it comes to a scientific theory.

Evolution bases everything on chance,

As has been said before while there are random elements involved it's not entirely relying on chance. Or as alt said, "Once again, randomness does not drive evolutionary changes, environment does."

Shall I go on?

Please do but can you at least define evolution first? That way we can at least tell if you even know what your arguing against.

Joel is right about that. For the earth and life to be created again is a one in (almost) infinity chance.

Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the Earth or how life began.

Luck is the basis of scientific theory,

Evidence that can be tested and repeated is the basis for a scientific theory, not chance.

and Creationism just makes more sense for many. People want to believe that everything has a purpose.

I want to believe that I live in a Utopia like in Star Trek, but that doesn't make it real.

[quote]while Evolution is more theory than faith;[/quote]\r\n\r\nFaith isn't part of the equation when it comes to a scientific theory.\r\n\r\n[quote]Evolution bases everything on chance,[/quote]\r\n\r\nAs has been said before while there are random elements involved it's not entirely relying on chance. Or as alt said, "[i]Once again, randomness does not drive evolutionary changes, environment does.[/i]"\r\n\r\n[quote]Shall I go on?[/quote]\r\n\r\nPlease do but can you at least define evolution first? That way we can at least tell if you even know what your arguing against.\r\n\r\n[quote]Joel is right about that. For the earth and life to be created again is a one in (almost) infinity chance.[/quote]\r\n\r\nEvolution has nothing to do with the formation of the Earth or how life began.\r\n\r\n[quote]Luck is the basis of scientific theory,[/quote]\r\n\r\nEvidence that can be tested and repeated is the basis for a scientific theory, not chance.\r\n\r\n[quote]and Creationism just makes more sense for many. People want to believe that everything has a purpose.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI want to believe that I live in a Utopia like in Star Trek, but that doesn't make it real.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Evolutionism or creationism