Crimson_Blade wrote:
Why did you reply to my topic twice with completely different comments
He here to make trouble, and people usually think Ive done something horrible wrong because of it.
--- Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.
markymark wrote:
i know that had nothing to do with the “Evilution” debate.
obviously i believe in evolution
and for all those british ppl out there start correcting your speech from evilution to EVOLUTION
baby steps right
so you believe “billions of years ago” a rock came out of nowhere and randomly blew up making everything today.........wow thats so true.
I believe there was a creator.
If you we walking down a forest and saw a painting. there were no footprints or anything of anyone near by, you would automatically assume there was a painter.
same thing here. there was a creator.
you are trying to over simplify the big bang, evolution doesnt explain the big bang, and it doesnt explain the original of life. Evolution explain the diversity of life, or as darwin said, the origin of species.
--- Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.
markymark wrote:
i know that had nothing to do with the “Evilution” debate.
obviously i believe in evolution
and for all those british ppl out there start correcting your speech from evilution to EVOLUTION
baby steps right
so you believe “billions of years ago” a rock came out of nowhere and randomly blew up making everything today.........wow thats so true.
I believe there was a creator.
If you we walking down a forest and saw a painting. there were no footprints or anything of anyone near by, you would automatically assume there was a painter.
same thing here. there was a creator.
1. The big bang wasn’t caused by a rock.
2. The bang bang just didn’t go “pop” and create all the stars, planets, oceans, trees and animals into existance. At first there was merely energy which cooled after the expansion dropped below the speed of light to form matter which took a very, very long time to come together to create all the stars and planets and even longer for the right substances to come together to create life.
3. If you saw a cloud that kinda looks like a gorilla would you assume it was made when aliens came along with their cloud making machine to make a cloud in the shape of a gorrila? My point is, just because something looks designed doesn’t mean it is designed. The species that were too weak or not good enough to survive died out, leaving the more superior ones that look designed to go on a breed, of course every once in a while the mutations arise again, even in humans. Would you call mental disorders “intelligent design”?
4. You fail.
---
Last edited 08 Jul 2008 02:28 am by Sean of the Living
Sean of the Living wrote:
3. If you saw a cloud that kinda looks like a gorilla would you assume it was made when aliens came along with their cloud making machine to make a cloud in the shape of a gorrila? My point is, just because something looks designed doesn’t mean it is designed. The species that were too weak or not good enough to survive died out, leaving the more superior ones that look designed to go on a breed, of course every once in a while the mutations arise again, even in humans. Would you call mental disorders “intelligent design”?
Most people don’t seem to understand that what a species “evolved” into, isn’t always the better or “superior” one. A species will change by random mutation, and genetic drift, and natural selection will give the species that is better suited to the environment more chance to reproduce. eg. there was this island where they had found tiny adult elephant bones, the elephant got trap on the island, and only the smaller elephants had enough food to eat. But in the end the elephant could not adapted fast enough, and died out. Now is a smaller weaker elephant superior?
There are many examples of this through out the fossil record, you should take a look, its very interesting.
--- Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.
Sean of the Living wrote:
3. If you saw a cloud that kinda looks like a gorilla would you assume it was made when aliens came along with their cloud making machine to make a cloud in the shape of a gorrila? My point is, just because something looks designed doesn’t mean it is designed. The species that were too weak or not good enough to survive died out, leaving the more superior ones that look designed to go on a breed, of course every once in a while the mutations arise again, even in humans. Would you call mental disorders “intelligent design”?
Most people don’t seem to understand that what a species “evolved” into, isn’t always the better or “superior” one. A species will change by random mutation, and genetic drift, and natural selection will give the species that is better suited to the environment more chance to reproduce. eg. there was this island where they had found tiny adult elephant bones, the elephant got trap on the island, and only the smaller elephants had enough food to eat. But in the end the elephant could not adapted fast enough, and died out. Now is a smaller weaker elephant superior?
There are many examples of this through out the fossil record, you should take a look, its very interesting.
By superior, I basically meant “the one that survives when the others die out”. Sorry, biology isn’t my best field. You are right though, simplicity can be an advantage. It all depends on the situation.
Sean of the Living wrote:
3. If you saw a cloud that kinda looks like a gorilla would you assume it was made when aliens came along with their cloud making machine to make a cloud in the shape of a gorrila? My point is, just because something looks designed doesn’t mean it is designed. The species that were too weak or not good enough to survive died out, leaving the more superior ones that look designed to go on a breed, of course every once in a while the mutations arise again, even in humans. Would you call mental disorders “intelligent design”?
Most people don’t seem to understand that what a species “evolved” into, isn’t always the better or “superior” one. A species will change by random mutation, and genetic drift, and natural selection will give the species that is better suited to the environment more chance to reproduce. eg. there was this island where they had found tiny adult elephant bones, the elephant got trap on the island, and only the smaller elephants had enough food to eat. But in the end the elephant could not adapted fast enough, and died out. Now is a smaller weaker elephant superior?
There are many examples of this through out the fossil record, you should take a look, its very interesting.
By superior, I basically meant “the one that survives when the others die out”. Sorry, biology isn’t my best field. You are right though, simplicity can be an advantage. It all depends on the situation.
Natural selection you mean... right?
--- “Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil." Jerry Garcia
Sean of the Living wrote:
3. If you saw a cloud that kinda looks like a gorilla would you assume it was made when aliens came along with their cloud making machine to make a cloud in the shape of a gorrila? My point is, just because something looks designed doesn’t mean it is designed. The species that were too weak or not good enough to survive died out, leaving the more superior ones that look designed to go on a breed, of course every once in a while the mutations arise again, even in humans. Would you call mental disorders “intelligent design”?
Most people don’t seem to understand that what a species “evolved” into, isn’t always the better or “superior” one. A species will change by random mutation, and genetic drift, and natural selection will give the species that is better suited to the environment more chance to reproduce. eg. there was this island where they had found tiny adult elephant bones, the elephant got trap on the island, and only the smaller elephants had enough food to eat. But in the end the elephant could not adapted fast enough, and died out. Now is a smaller weaker elephant superior?
There are many examples of this through out the fossil record, you should take a look, its very interesting.
By superior, I basically meant “the one that survives when the others die out”. Sorry, biology isn’t my best field. You are right though, simplicity can be an advantage. It all depends on the situation.
Natural selection you mean... right?
The terms are synonymous, jesus fucking christ... does the terminology matter THAT much?
Sean of the Living wrote:
3. If you saw a cloud that kinda looks like a gorilla would you assume it was made when aliens came along with their cloud making machine to make a cloud in the shape of a gorrila? My point is, just because something looks designed doesn’t mean it is designed. The species that were too weak or not good enough to survive died out, leaving the more superior ones that look designed to go on a breed, of course every once in a while the mutations arise again, even in humans. Would you call mental disorders “intelligent design”?
Most people don’t seem to understand that what a species “evolved” into, isn’t always the better or “superior” one. A species will change by random mutation, and genetic drift, and natural selection will give the species that is better suited to the environment more chance to reproduce. eg. there was this island where they had found tiny adult elephant bones, the elephant got trap on the island, and only the smaller elephants had enough food to eat. But in the end the elephant could not adapted fast enough, and died out. Now is a smaller weaker elephant superior?
There are many examples of this through out the fossil record, you should take a look, its very interesting.
By superior, I basically meant “the one that survives when the others die out”. Sorry, biology isn’t my best field. You are right though, simplicity can be an advantage. It all depends on the situation.
Natural selection you mean... right?
The terms are synonymous, jesus fucking christ... does the terminology matter THAT much?
Im sorry jeez just trying to confirm :/
--- “Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil." Jerry Garcia
Sean of the Living wrote:
By superior, I basically meant “the one that survives when the others die out”. Sorry, biology isn’t my best field. You are right though, simplicity can be an advantage. It all depends on the situation.
Exactly, and those that any mutation or genetic drift has lead to less reproduction, would not change much at all, eg crocodiles, sharks and a few types of insects. But dont make the mistake that their dna hasn’t change much, because all likly hood they may look like their pre historic ancestors, but their genes would have change so much that they would not be able to breed with one another. - I just want to point this out to everyone who wants to argue this, I wasnt directing this at you sean..
--- Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.
If creationist should not have a problem with evolution, if they are willing to accept that dna changes with every generation.. this should be creation vs abiogenesis. And just like creation abiogenesis, as not been proven, and will not be taught in school until their is evidence for it, again, just like creationism.
--- Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.
Yeah I basically see creation as the why and evolution as the how.
I mean it is nice to have something to believe in, even if I have no way of proving that belief. And it’s cool if people don’t believe it, I mean we have as much right to believe in whatever as much as the next person. I’ve always had a passion for science and I’m a kinda...“geek” so it works quite well for me.
--- Possibly the quote of the week.
seed wrote:
WOW,locking the original topic?buster sword afraid of me that’s why he request to locked that.
»
Religion
» Creation vs. Evolution Debate topic
