Author |
Comment |
eK Isonian Posts: 995 (3/25/03 1:03 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
All |
Beliefs
Let's do this right, shall
we?
This pool is a modification of "wat do you believe".
Results
(total votes = 28):
|
Creationism |
8 / 28.6% |
|
|
Big
Bang |
7 / 25.0% |
|
|
Creationism + Big
Bang |
5 / 17.9% |
|
|
Undecided |
5 / 17.9% |
|
|
None of the
Above |
3 / 10.7% |
|
|
|
LordOfGlobox Vortininja Posts: 117 (3/25/03 1:19 am) 209.81.165.11 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
God created the Universe in 7 days, & set laws for it.
|
LordOfGlobox Vortininja Posts: 118 (3/25/03 1:21 am) 209.81.165.11 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
DAMMIT! Why'd ya ice "what do you believe?"? For gods sake, That
was perfectly fine thread.
|
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1803 (3/25/03 1:28 am) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Just continue the discussion here. He closed that because the poll
was majorly flawed.
|
LordOfGlobox Vortininja Posts: 119 (3/25/03 1:30 am) 209.81.165.11 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Oh, well....
|
eK Isonian Posts: 996 (3/25/03 2:17 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
if I could have, I would have just altered the original poll, but I
couldn't. So I redid it.
Continue the discussion if you want
here.
|
Grelphy
Vortininja Posts: 214 (3/25/03 2:18 am) 12.23.198.254 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
Sorry, only registered users can reply to this poll
Now I can't cheat!
You
and all those other mental wimps deserve to die! -Mortimer
Mcmire in Commander Keen 3
|
Scizor
CT Council
Janitor Posts: 363 (3/25/03 4:09
am) 65.82.173.167 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Creationism, although I won't rule out the possibility that God
caused the Big Bang Himself.
EDIT: Got mah title.
My Remixes: Here! Click
here! Edited by: Scizor
CT at: 3/25/03 4:10:14 am
|
KeenRush
Garg Posts: 2786 (3/25/03 5:09 am) 212.246.17.130 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
God, but.. I haven't decided about those other things..
Greetings from Bloogton
Tower! |
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1123 (3/25/03 1:44
pm) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Option 3 is the most realistic one for me.
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 386 (3/25/03 3:15 pm) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Probably don't have to say what I answered. You know I don't
understand why a grown up would believe in a god, except monkey-do.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 |
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1818 (3/25/03 4:57 pm) 64.30.37.14 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
You don't seem to understand much.
Every heard of something
called...FAITH?
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1127 (3/25/03 5:11
pm) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
except monkey-do.
Please stop comparing
people with a belief to monkeys
. Besides that it is stupid, if you go to school and your teacher
learns you something, that that is already monkey doing.
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
Flaose Pooper, King of the Slugs Posts:
841 (3/25/03 6:06
pm) 68.147.124.200 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Dopefish. Show more tolerence towards those who believe in
religion. We know that you don't believe, but leave it there. Quit
insulting people for their beliefs, this is a place of tolerence,
not bigotry.
-------------------- Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen
Needs. |
KeenRush
Garg Posts: 2807 (3/25/03 8:11 pm) 212.246.17.130 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
"Every heard of something called...FAITH?" I don't want to think
that I can't control my own life (or whatever he said in The
Matrix).
Yeah, agree with Flaose. Friendly chatting - no insulting.
Greetings from Bloogton
Tower! |
eK Isonian Posts: 1001 (3/25/03 8:31 pm) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
I'm personally undecided, but if I were to believe in creationism
(and I'm not saying I don't, I just don't know) I'd definately
believe in the Big Bang AND Evolution. I'll believe science first,
and incorperate it into my religious beliefs. Since evolution, and
to a lesser extent the big bang theory are well supported by a
wealth of evidence.
The Big Bang though, will probably be
replaced by a better, more accurate theory. I'm pretty confident
about evolution though, considering how much sense it makes (if you
study it) and how much evidence there is to back it
up.
Evolution isn't really debatable.
|
Scizor
CT Council
Janitor Posts: 364 (3/25/03 8:57
pm) 65.82.173.167 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Evolution has some gaping holes in it (the incredible improbability
of it ever happening, and the complete lack of intermediate
fossils), but I've learned that you can never convince anyone about
anything based on religion over the internet, so I don't bother. And
KeenRush, faith isn't losing control of your life. It's belief and
trust in someone or something.
My Remixes: Here! Click
here! |
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1822 (3/25/03 10:29 pm) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Yeah you're confusing that with
fate.
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1003 (3/26/03 12:55 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Look, you obviously know nothing about how evolution works, so I'd
like to kindly ask you not to debate it until you do.
And,
I'd rather no one debated it any more for the same reason that very
few people here grasp what it is.
|
UppyII Vortininja Posts: 261 (3/26/03 3:05 am) 206.63.170.91 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Nothing about the peppered moth case had anything to do with
evolution. It was just an example of natural selection. L Harrison
Matthews in his 1971 forward of Darwin's 'Origin of Species,' wrote
that the peppered moth case was not 'evolution in action.'
Quote:
You guys don't understand how science works. It is unable to prove
that the theory of evolution is universally true. However,
scientists have observed that all sightings of how things happen
in nature consist with what the theory of evolution predicts,
therefore it is accepted as true. If one day evidence is gathered
that is incompatible with the theory of evolution, the theory will
be rejected and one will attempt to make a new hypothesis
explaining those facts. -Chogall
Yes, and science is also
unable to show that the GTE (General Theory of Evolution) is even a
reasonable theory. Evidence to the contrary has been shown, but is
always ignored. I believe it's because people don't want to admit
that there's a god out there.
Quote:
What you need to understand is: Evolution doesn't happen on
individual basis, but on population basis. One animal doesn't
suddenly turn into another, but the genetic composition of a
population changes over time. Imagine a place with only white
moths being predated by birds. A genetic mutation, or the
combination of several mutations, causes moths to be born which
happen to be black. The black moths are much less predated than
the white ones because the birds cannot see them as easily. This
is called selection, and we say that the white moths are being
selected against. This leads to an advantage for the black moths,
so their numbers increase dramatically. But the white and the
black moths aren't separate species yet, because the differences
between them only concern the color and they can still
interbreed.–Chogall
Again, just a case of
natural selection. The change in colour didn't arise through a
mutation, but the genetic information for the colours was already
there. There was no increase in information as you would have us
think.
Quote:
But genetic mutations happen all the time. If the white and the
black moth populations are kept separate for a long time, they
will both accumulate mutations. Some of those may cause certain
biochemical changes. Since the populations are separate, these
changes are different in both populations and may lead to the two
types of moths no longer being able to interbreed. They will then
be two different species.
Since the two moth species can no
longer interbreed, there is no genetic exchange between the two
populations. Changes may then occur independently which make the
two species even more distinct. -Chogall
Still, they're moths. No
evolution, no increase in information. Speciation is not
evolution.
Quote:
Alright, I can't prove anything. Mostly, what I'm saying is based
on what I know to be true, and common-sense observations stemming
from that. –Grelphy
Sounds familiar.
So, you can't prove anything, you just know it's true? Well, I can't
prove that you're wrong, I just know that you are. That's no way to
debate! Come on...
Quote:
Given long enough, they would.
That is what the theory of
evolution says. If the dark moths had been seperated from the
light moths, and the light moths had been kept alivee somehow,
eventually the dark moths would have lost their ability to
interbreed with the dark moths and they would have been seperate
species. Evolution would have occurred. It takes thousands to
millions of years, buut it does happen.\ -Grelphy
I say that they can't. They
need an increase of information and mutations are not going to bring
that about even in millions of years.
Quote:
Among microbes, natural selection occurs much faster. The AIDS
virus, for example, will adapt to become resistant to the drugs
that are used against it. –Grelphy
Again, just using
information which was already present. No increase. No
evolution.
Btw, could someone please explain to me how a
'simple' cell could have evolved?
Edited by: UppyII
at: 3/26/03 3:07:39 am
|
Scizor
CT Council
Janitor Posts: 365 (3/26/03 3:17
am) 67.34.169.41 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
The assumed evolution of cells is in my Biology textbook somewhere.
I may post it. I recommend that people look up the field of
apologetics sometime.
My Remixes: Here! Click
here! |
Grelphy
Vortininja Posts: 217 (3/26/03 3:25 am) 12.23.198.254 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Didn't eK say something aboout not debating evolution?
Oh
well, who cares... Here I go. =)
I know it's true because I
read it somewhere, from a good source. I don't remember the source
and/or can't find it, so I don't list it. Sue me. =)
Also.
since the peppered moth case has come up again... Given that the
more "correct" forms of the moth (i.e., the ones that are selected
for) survive slightly better, they tend to shift the gene pool in
that direction. Enough shift, and...
You
and all those other mental wimps deserve to die! -Mortimer
Mcmire in Commander Keen 3
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1004 (3/26/03 4:16 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Yes, I did.
And I'm in a banning mood right now, so don't
push me.
|
UppyII Vortininja Posts: 262 (3/26/03 4:41 am) 206.63.170.104 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Ok, I'll contact my lawyer first thing tomorrow morning...
Quote:
Also. since the peppered moth case has come up again... Given
that the more "correct" forms of the moth (i.e., the ones that are
selected for) survive slightly better, they tend to shift the gene
pool in that direction. Enough shift, and...
...and molecules just
'shifted' to people?
Quote:
And I'm in a banning mood right now, so don't push me.
Relax, this is just a
discussion. Don't ruin everything.
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1007 (3/26/03 4:55 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
It's people ignorant about evolution that ruin it.
I'm
serious here. If you aren't going to bother to learn about something
like this, don't be an ass and refute it. I'm not in the mood to see
the same old assinine arguements cycle through another post.
|
UppyII Vortininja Posts: 264 (3/26/03 5:04 am) 206.63.170.104 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
I'm serious here. If you aren't going to bother to learn about
something like this, don't be an ass and refute it. I'm not in the
mood to see the same old assinine arguements cycle through another
post.
I have learned about
evolution. I think it's ignorant to say that 'evolution is not
debatable.' For something that's supposed to me science, people sure
religiously defend it...
Ok, I'll advance an argument that
hasn't been through here before. I say that the cell is irreducibly
complex and cannot evolve through a process of small subtle changes
because of its complexity.
Edited by: UppyII
at: 3/26/03 5:05:56 am
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1008 (3/26/03 5:13 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Uppy, don't push me. This is your last warning.
|
chogall Vorticon Elder Posts: 1262 (3/26/03 9:39 am) 217.70.229.196 | Del
ezSupporter
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
Ok, I'll advance an argument that hasn't been through here
before. I say that the cell is irreducibly complex and cannot
evolve through a process of small subtle changes because of its
complexity.
That is not true - there are
a lot of known cells such as archaebacteria, unicellular algae and
protists who have less complex cells than ours, and by studying
these cells you can find a "pathway" of how the different cellular
components evolved. It obviously couldn't all happen at
once.
Quote:
Yes, and science is also unable to show that the GTE (General
Theory of Evolution) is even a reasonable theory. Evidence to the
contrary has been shown, but is always ignored. I believe it's
because people don't want to admit that there's a god out there.
What kind of evidence to the
contrary? A theory is a network of individual hypotheses. If
evidence comes up that proves one of these to be false, the
hypothesis is rejected, and one will attempt to come up with a new
one. The theory of evolution is a model describing the real world,
and if the real world doesn't fit with the model, the model is
changed. Molecular techniques have made great improvements to our
understanding of the evolutionary processes, so the theory of
evolution isn't the same now as it was 50 years ago.
So
saying that evidence to the contrary is ignored is quite wrong.
Evidence against any scientific theory is used in order to adapt
that theory to how the world really is. All empiric evidence helps
science advance.
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1011 (3/26/03 10:37 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Cho'gall, don't even bother. These guys want to wallow in their
ignorance. Really, I think we just need to drop the whole subject.
|
LordOfGlobox Vortininja Posts: 129 (3/26/03 1:11 pm) 209.81.165.111 | Del
|
RE:
Uppy, don't push me. This is your last warning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Who has a stick up your
ass?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cho'gall, don't
even bother. These guys want to wallow in their ignorance. Really, I
think we just need to drop the whole subject.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Why are you so ignorant?
Don't you even read about the proof agianst "evolution"? Or is it
because your teacher told you, so you must obey? Cuz you shure as
hell haven't proofed shit, so why don't you take sit and come up
with some damn reason why we are ignorant.
PS: Floase, after
Ek banns me for insulting his beliefs, could you "un"-bann me?
|
chogall Vorticon Elder Posts: 1263 (3/26/03 1:29 pm) 129.240.148.21 | Del
ezSupporter
|
Re: RE:
Nobody is going to get banned for their opinions. As long as you
act correctly (no flames), and keep the debates in the proper
thread, you'll be fine.
In my opinion, eK's criticism of
Uppy's argumentation is quite correct, but the ban threats went a
bit overboard.
You can continue to argue in these threads
without risking to be banned for your opinions. But if you don't
listen to what other people say, or don't try to understand them,
people will probably not want to debate with you any more.
|
Flaose Pooper, King of the Slugs Posts:
845 (3/26/03 1:35
pm) 68.147.124.200 | Del
|
Re: RE:
Quote:
Originally Posted by:
LordOfGlobox Who has a stick up
your ass?
Uppy does. eK specifically
asked for no evolutionary debate in this thread, and Uppy started
debating.
The big problem is, none of you anti-evolutionaries
haven't brought forth any proof that evolution can't possibly be
right. You say that there's proof against it, but you never bring it
up...
The nice thing about reading Cho'gall's posts are that
he's clear and (more
importantly) concise, which Uppy seems incapible of being.
-------------------- Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen
Needs. |
LordOfGlobox Vortininja Posts: 136 (3/26/03 1:48 pm) 209.81.165.111 | Del
|
Re: RE:
Please, Ek, when we fought about Christianity (HP thread), at least
we gave most answers and we didn't say(like u have):
"You are
so ignorant, you are so ignorant, you are so ignorant, you have no
clue what you are talking about."
Cuz most of the poeple had
not a freaking clue what they were talking about, not even Xtraverse
some of the time. He was raised cotholic, and he still didn't make
100% sense, so excuse me if don't know everything there is to know
about evolution, but don't act like I'm stupid.
PS: I'm
taking a class on evolution, from a VERY, VERY smart man, so I
sugest you take a very close look at you're belief.
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1013 (3/26/03 3:35 pm) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: RE:
Please don't quote me as saying something I didn't say.
Yes,
I do say those people are ignorant, because they are, and I also so
they're stupid, when they are. Harry Potter is not satanic. People
who believe it is, are dolts. This is common sense.
I respect
other people's beliefs, Flaose can vouch for that, but when those
beliefs slide into the catagory of downright idiocy I draw the
line.
There are some topics that are debatable and fun.
Belief can be fun, but when you stack belief against the rigors of
science, whatever the topic, belief will always lose. Because it's
belief, it doesn't have the proof that science does. It relies on
faith. I think faith is great, and I have plenty of friends who
believe in God, but they also don't make the mistake of pitting God
against science because science has a whole body of observations and
evidence, while God has only faith.
There is nothing more to
religion but faith. You have faith in the Bible being a book God
wrote, you have faith in it's truthfulness, etc. Faith is not
knowledge. Faith is not proof. How can you not see
this?
And as for Harry. If God wanted us to only write boring
stories where only He exists and there's nothing in our world other
than what we see and what He tells us exists then he wouldn't have
given us creativity, because we wouldn't have needed it. And just
because it doesn't have Him in it, doesn't automatically make it
evil.
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1131 (3/26/03 3:44
pm) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re: RE:
It's reasonable what you say eK. Discussion evolution is quite
pointless if you're only ahainst it because your believe. I think
that Uppy would betters start an own topic where he can start the
discussion he so much want.
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
chogall Vorticon Elder Posts: 1264 (3/26/03 4:42 pm) 129.240.148.21 | Del
ezSupporter
|
Re: RE:
Well said eK.
|
UppyII Vortininja Posts: 265 (3/26/03 4:58 pm) 206.63.170.56 | Del
|
"This is
serious, isn't it?" -Owen Wilson
Quote:
Uppy does. eK specifically asked for no evolutionary debate in
this thread, and Uppy started debating.
I was under the assumption
that this is where I was to contine the discussion as eK said:
Quote:
Continue the discussion if you want here.
Quote:
And, I'd rather no one debated it any more for the same reason
that very few people here grasp what it is.
Chogall seems to have a
grasp on it. Why can't I debate him?
Quote:
Nobody is going to get banned for their opinions. As long as you
act correctly (no flames), and keep the debates in the proper
thread, you'll be fine.
Isn't this the proper
thread? Isn't this the whole point of the thread? I havn't flamed
anyone. I havn't been swearing at anyone. Am I supposed to start
another thread about evolution and debate it there?
Edited by: UppyII
at: 3/26/03 5:01:53 pm
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 388 (3/26/03 7:44 pm) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: "This is
serious, isn't it?" -Owen Wilson
Quote:
Yes, and science is also unable to show that the GTE (General
Theory of Evolution) is even a reasonable theory. Evidence to the
contrary has been shown, but is always ignored. I believe it's
because people don't want to admit that there's a god out there.
Admit? I say I can't believe
someone believes in God. And God is reasonable? Next you say the
garden of Eden exists. My opinion is that everything which can not
me be measured or seen in any way does not exist. And thoughts,
memories and all these things can be compared with hardware in a
computer. Bit ironic comparation though. And about me saying that I
monkey-do as well: that's not true. I always try to find out to
solve something myself often resulting in reinventing the wheel.
Like for the first RKP I came up with an idea to use blocks without
knowing that these "blocks" are called tiles. I only listen to these
teachers to move in the right direction for the best solution. But
I'm critical enough to find for better solutions.
I don't
think any flaming is going around here. It's just everyone telling
their opinion. And that eK says people are ignorant sounds a lot
like me saying these people are obstinate. But I don't think eK
wants to be compared with me.
But I must agree with eK. Most people denying evolution probably
don't have biology(or physics, chemical) courses or are sleeping
during those courses. That's easy to see. Fossils say enough to
convince me evolution is the best theory. Otherwise search for books
how the human evolved. From the Austroplithecus to the Homo Habilis
to the the Homo Erectus to the Homo Sapiens.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 |
LordOfGlobox Vortininja Posts: 137 (3/26/03 11:37 pm) 209.81.166.18 | Del
|
Re: "This is
serious, isn't it?" -Owen Wilson
But thats the equivelent of what you said isn't? And allso we have
said things agianst evolution, you always just say its scientificly
impossible.
|
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1830 (3/26/03 11:38 pm) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re: "This is
serious, isn't it?" -Owen Wilson
Well actually, people have found a site for which they think the
story of the Garden of Eden was based on. If my memory serves me, it
was an island near Qatar.
|
ceilick
Vortininja Posts: 158 (3/27/03 4:32 am) 207.252.227.7 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
What about the second law of thermodynamics. If the Universe is
winding down then how could evelution happen if entropy is
increasing?
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1138 (3/27/03 7:15
am) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
When I discussed religion with you, didn't I get the impression
that you really tried to understant my points. Actually you ignored.
But that's only my impression Dopefish.
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
KeenEmpire Keen's Empire Posts: 533 (3/27/03 8:55 am) 203.151.38.3 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Entropy increases if energy is not
used to reverse the process. The
process of using energy for that purpose creates at least an
equivilant amount of disorder, but that's beside the point. An
energy source (such as, you know, the sun) can provide sufficient
power to work against the increase in entropy, and though we know
the sun itself is wearing down, the earth is being provided with
quite a bit of energy, for the moment.
There was an
experiment, mentioned in my bio textbook, where scientists recreated
organic molecules using conditions believed to exist during earth's
early days. Coincidentially, however, I checked this post just after
the beginning of a four day weekend (and left my bio book at
school), so don't expect a copy of the words for some time.
"...And during the 'DemOps' event, Keen set the series of events
leading to the formation of the Second Universal Empire That Ever
Existed...
...That Empire, with an economy based on
capitalism, and yet not quite, was..."
-The Summerizer's Guide
to the Universe, Day Edition; Last updated 8/14/2021. |
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 391 (3/27/03 3:45 pm) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
I'm not ignorant. I can't add anything to things you say but saying
that I disagree. But with ignorant I Mean that people are ignorant
to any proves of evolution. Most of you say: That's not a
proof. OK, first of all let me say that only 1% of all species
who have ever lived lives right now. Than if there was no evolution
theory then how can all these species have lived? How can there be
dinosaurs? We never found Dinosaur bones with human bones in it, so
Dinosaurs and Humans should not have lived at the same place or
time. But as Dinosaurs were over the entire globe they should have
lived in a different time. And how can you explain that by watching
the age of fossils that the older the fossil, the more primitive
species it is. Let's see where (according to evolution) animal
types get their origins.
Fishes: From small squid-like
creatures who did have a vertrebrae, but no other bones. The first
fish was the Arandaspis which looked a little bit like a larva. It
was around 15 cm and lived in the Ordovicium era.
Amphibias:
Probably from the longue fish Griphognathus. They have a lot of
resembles with the Ichtyostega(1m), the first living amphibia living
in the Devon era
Reptiles: Probably from the amphibia
Diadectus. Diadectus had the shape of a lizzard, but it's skull
revealed it was an amphibia. Because of the size of the Diadectus it
would have been the first plant eter on land. First true reptile was
the Hylonomus. A small lizzard aroun 20cm long living in the carbon
era.
Birds: It's not known if the protoaves was a bird or a
reptile. It did have feathers. The first true bird was the
Archaeopteryx. Again this creature had a lot of ressembles with the
Dinosaur Compsognathus. They both had the same small size and
Compsognathus might have had feathers. Protoavis lives in the
triassic era and Archaeopteryx lived in the Jurassic
era.
Mammals: They come from mammal-like reptiles. They're
the ancestors of all the living mammals. They had hairs and they
looked a little bit like primitive rats, but they had still the
skeleton structure of a reptile. Most wel known ones are the
Cynognathus(triassic), Massetognathus(Triassic) and the
oligokyphus(jurassic).
Now if that's no evidence. It's all
based on facts and not based on gambling like religion originally
comes from.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 Edited by: therealdopefish
at: 3/27/03 3:46:44 pm
|
UppyII Vortininja Posts: 268 (3/27/03 6:49 pm) 206.63.170.53 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
So what's the bottom line? Am I allowed to continue the discussion
here or what?
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1015 (3/27/03 8:03 pm) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
*sigh*
Whatever.
You kids have your little 'debate'.
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1148 (3/27/03 8:09
pm) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
YIPIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well ehm I don't
have and feel for giving a comment right now. 'Perhaps'
later.
edit: but I do have a quition: What do you mean with
gambling? Something like Holland casino
?
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- Edited by: Djaser
at: 3/27/03 8:11:53 pm
|
Shadow Meep Posts: 1 (3/27/03 9:33 pm) 205.188.209.73 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Hi all! I,m new here, so here goes nothing.
I noticed
someone mentioned the diverse selection of species in the
past.
[quote]OK, first of all let me say that only 1% of all
species who have ever lived lives right
now.-therealdopefish[/quote]
Does this support evolution's
theory that life is getting better and more complex? It seems to me
that this seems to support degeneration and extinction, which in
turn supports the belief of creation.
An excellent example of
this topic is the Chambered Nautilus. Source: [i]National
Geographic[/i], January 1976.
[i]Geographic[/i] had an
article about this shellfish, telling of their "progress over the
years."
From the article,
[quote]"It remains
essentially the same as it's ancestors of 180 million years ago...a
living link with the past."[/quote]
[quote]"Some 3,500
nautiloid species once flourished. A nine-foot one turned up
recently in Arkansas." Now,"...fewer than half a dozen species
exist...time has whittled these descendants to about eight inches."
[/quote]
Did they say "progress?" But it's "essentially the
same." Is progress defined by "whittling the species from 3,500 to
only 6, and cutting down their size from nine feet to eight inches?
Does this evidence convince you of evolution? Or does it fit more
closely with what we should expect if creation of distinct kinds is
true?
I read that eK seems to know quite a bit about
evolution. I have a question for eK. How does evolution explain the
metamorphisis of a caterpillar to a butterfly or moth?
Edited by: Shadow
at: 3/28/03 5:37:59 am
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1016 (3/27/03 9:52 pm) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Evolution doesn't work to explain single instances. It's an all
encompassing theory that applies to all life. I don't know how the
evolution catapillars and moths/butterflies happened, or why insects
go through multiple developement stages. Evolution doesn't say why
it happens, just how.
|
LordOfGlobox Vortininja Posts: 140 (3/28/03 1:45 pm) 209.81.165.16 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Shadow? Do u believe in God? Anyways back to topic,
DopeFish: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Fishes: From
small squid-like creatures who did have a vertrebrae, but no other
bones. The first fish was the Arandaspis which looked a little bit
like a larva. It was around 15 cm and lived in the Ordovicium
era.
Amphibias: Probably from the longue fish Griphognathus.
They have a lot of resembles with the Ichtyostega(1m), the first
living amphibia living in the Devon era
Reptiles: Probably
from the amphibia Diadectus. Diadectus had the shape of a lizzard,
but it's skull revealed it was an amphibia. Because of the size of
the Diadectus it would have been the first plant eter on land. First
true reptile was the Hylonomus. A small lizzard aroun 20cm long
living in the carbon era.
Birds: It's not known if the
protoaves was a bird or a reptile. It did have feathers. The first
true bird was the Archaeopteryx. Again this creature had a lot of
ressembles with the Dinosaur Compsognathus. They both had the same
small size and Compsognathus might have had feathers. Protoavis
lives in the triassic era and Archaeopteryx lived in the Jurassic
era.
Mammals: They come from mammal-like reptiles. They're
the ancestors of all the living mammals. They had hairs and they
looked a little bit like primitive rats, but they had still the
skeleton structure of a reptile. Most wel known ones are the
Cynognathus(triassic), Massetognathus(Triassic) and the
oligokyphus(jurassic).
Now if that's no evidence. It's all
based on facts and not based on gambling like religion originally
comes from ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hate to
break this to you, but thats complete gambling. here's
why:
Where's the missing links? There's no proof of any
age, that evolution says there is, I hate to break this to you to,
but CARBON DATING IS GUESS WORK! There is & never will be any
proof that the world is that old, when you say: "It's all based on
facts" No its not! Where's the facts? There is no proof the worlds a
billion years old.
|
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1839 (3/28/03 2:01 pm) 64.30.37.14 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Carbon dating is not guesswork. It would not be used today if it
was guesswork. It has nothing to do with the "fossils around the
object." Did you actually read up on it?
|
Shadow Meep Posts: 2 (3/28/03 5:31 pm) 205.188.208.140 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote ----------------------------------------------------------- Carbon
dating is not
guesswork.-Xtraverse ----------------------------------------------------------- Unquote
The
system of carbon dating depends on a steady, unchanging rate of
radiation for at least the last 30,000
years.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Things
that could alter the rate of carbon-14 decay are:
1.
Atmospheric pollution, such as Industrial burning and volcanic
activity.
2.Solar Activity, such as sunspots and solar
flares.
3.Cosmic radiation, such as a
supernova.
4.Meteors or other large cosmic bodies falling to
Earth. -----------------------------------------------------------
There
are some "slight" discrepancies in a few C-14 dated
objects:
1. Mollusks (living) test dated at 2,300 years
dead.
2.Mortar from an English castle less than 800 years
old, dated at 7,370 years old.
3.Seal skins (fresh) dated at
1,300 years
old. -----------------------------------------------------------
The
C-14 system depends on the idea that there have been NO globally
Catastrophic events in the past 50,000 years. If conditions on Earth
were very different in the past, then C-14 is nearly worthless,
especially for ages beyond it's half-life. (5,730 years)
----------------------------------------------------------- Other
objects tested by C-14:
Saber Tooth Tiger, supposed
100,000-1,000,000 years old, dated at 28,000 years
old.
Natural Gas, supposed 50,000 years old, dated at 34,000
years.
Coal, supposed 100,000,000 years old, dated at 1,680
years
old! -----------------------------------------------------------
Still
think C-14 dating isn't
guesswork? ----------------------------------------------------------- PS.
I am a Bible believing Christian and a Creationist. I believe God
Created the world and everything in it, in 6 real days.
Edited by: Shadow
at: 3/28/03 6:48:07 pm
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1156 (3/28/03 6:24
pm) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
when you say: "It's all based on facts" No its not! Where's the
facts? There is no proof the worlds a billion years old.
Unless you were there
it's always guess work. Nothing is 100% sure. The only thing we know
sure is that we have bones of animals who don't live anymore. I've
talked to (atheists) people who know very much about reptiles (they
are their job) and even they think that most things are gambling. We
can't be sure about the behave of dinosaurs. We can't even be sure
how they looked since we can make mistakes when re-placing the
bones. And just take a look in the newspapers: in the past few years
they changed their point of view many times about the walk of
dinosaurs. I just try to say that we can't be sure at all about
what has happened with the world. However that doesn't mean that
researching this is wrong.
Quote:
Carbon dating is not guesswork. It would not be used today if it
was guesswork. It has nothing to do with the "fossils around the
object." Did you actually read up on it?
Science isn't guesswork
since scientist have brains. However carbon dating has proved that
is never 100% wrong. I knwe one example but can't remember it right
now.
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
Grelphy
Vortininja Posts: 218 (3/28/03 7:30 pm) 209.195.199.246 | Del
|
C-14
Occaisional discrepancies in carbon-14 dating are caused by "old"
carbon getting trapped in the bodies of "new" animals(i.e., eaten)
and then getting sampled. The vast majority of C-14 datings are
correct to within about 100 years.
Take that!
You
and all those other mental wimps deserve to die! -Mortimer
Mcmire in Commander Keen 3
|
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1841 (3/28/03 8:55 pm) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Yeah, some guy did a study on Dinosaurs and found that with they're
mass and volume, it would have been impossible to run or even go
close to the speeds they're depicted in Jurrasic Park.
|
Grelphy
Vortininja Posts: 220 (3/28/03 9:14 pm) 209.195.250.215 | Del
|
Re: C-14
Actually, you know, I'm not entirely sure about that +- 100 years
stat, I just seem to remember that from my 6th grade earth science
textbook.
And yes, most scientists agree that almost all of
the "big" dinos ran really
slowly. Only about thirty MPH.
You
and all those other mental wimps deserve to die! -Mortimer
Mcmire in Commander Keen 3
|
Shadow Meep Posts: 3 (3/29/03 3:56 am) 152.163.189.99 | Del
|
Re: C-14
Quote:
Occaisional discrepancies in carbon-14 dating are caused by "old"
carbon getting trapped in the bodies of "new" animals(i.e., eaten)
and then getting sampled. The vast majority of C-14 datings are
correct to within about 100 years.-Grelphy
I was not aware that
mortar ate anything, but that's another story...
It is
admitted that C-14 has credibility in determining the ages of items
in the lower range of 3,000 years or so. Usually items that are
thought to be more than 50,000 years old never make it into a C-14
lab. Anything older than 50,000 years could not have enough C-14 to
measure if indeed it is really that old. Remember the coal that was
thought to be a million years old and was dated at 1,680 years? (in
my last post) And I don't think anything ate the Saber Tooth Tiger
either.
I just read about an incident with a meteor in
Siberia on June 30,1908. According to reports the C-14 measurements
of tree rings around the world were greatly altered as a result of
the blast, giving innacurate readings.
On my last post, I apoligize for the retort "still think
C-14 isn't guesswork?" It would be better stated that, I do not
believe C-14 is a reliable dating system for anything older than a
few thousand years.
|
UppyII Vortininja Posts: 272 (3/29/03 7:22 am) 206.63.170.60 | Del
|
Re: C-14
Quote:
Admit? I say I can't believe someone believes in God. And God is
reasonable? Next you say the garden of Eden exists. My opinion is
that everything which can not me be measured or seen in any way
does not exist.
In the end, this is a
self-defeating worldview. If, the statement were true, we would have
no reason to believe that it's true. You are, in effect, resting a
conclusion upon an appeal to the absence (or ignorance, in this
case) of premises proving the contrary which is fallacious
reasoning. Laws of logic, such as the one you broke, are
universal abstract entities. They can be neither seen nor measured,
yet you reject God on the basis that He is not reasonable. Numbers
and their laws are abstract and can neither be seen nor measured,
yet you still study mathematics; you still believe that two plus two
equals four. Have you seen the number two? You may have seen symbols
representing the number two, but have you actually seen or measured
the number two? Laws of science are universal abstract entities and
can neither be seen nor measured yet you base your entire worldview
on them. Have you seen the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Have you
ever measured any scientific law? No. You haven't measured any
scientific law, nor any number, nor any of the laws of numbers, nor
any of the laws of logic. According to you they don't exist.
Ultimately, your worldview leads to the destruction of
knowledge. Colossians 2:3-8 declares that 'All of the treasures
of wisdom and knowledge are hid in Christ.' In Christ you will find
knowledge. (Romans 11:33-36) Just as Augustine said, 'I believe in
order to understand,' so must you also believe in order to attain
true knowledge.
Quote:
Entropy increases if energy is not used to reverse the process.
The process of using energy for that purpose creates at least an
equivilant amount of disorder, but that's beside the point. An
energy source (such as, you know, the sun) can provide sufficient
power to work against the increase in entropy, and though we know
the sun itself is wearing down, the earth is being provided with
quite a bit of energy, for the moment.
The sun, in such a case,
would be the proverbial 'bull in the china shop.' Raw, unharnessed
solar rays would wreck havoc on the earth. In order for 'low entropy
complex organized systems' to be created, there must be A) a system
to convert this destructive energy into a controlled form and B) a
control system 'capable of regulating the activities of the system
undergoing change.' So, lets just say that you had a layer of oxygen
on the earth. Such is needed for the sun's rays to strike it and
form an ozone layer. Now you have a filter in place, getting rid of
much of the harmful rays. But another problem would then arise. The
oxygen would destroy any amino acids on the earth. Let's, as Snaily
'hypothesized,' say that amino acids somehow formed in the ocean.
Well, in order to form a protein, one must have a high concentration
of amino acids. The ocean would dilute them to such a degree that
any collision between them would be extremely rare. And even if they
did collide, amino acids do not naturally link up to form proteins,
but proteins, as the Second Law of Thermodynamics predicts, break
down into amino acids. Ah, we mustn't forget the atmosphere above
the ocean. It would, via oxygen or unfiltered solar radiation,
'destroy the protein products thousands of times faster than they
could have formed.' Ok, let's say that there was a sufficient
amount and concentration of amino acids to form a protein. A protein
chain usually consists from about fifty to one thousand amino acid
links. Each type of amino acid needs to be in its proper place. A
'simple' protein, ribonuclease, has seventeen different types of
amino acids. If even one was in the wrong type or in the wrong place
the protein would be completely unable to perform its duties. Of
course, the chain is not without overall shape. It is a very complex
structure folded in a very precise manner. If it were folded
incorrectly, it would be useless. So now *somehow,* a protein is
formed. This protein would have to get together with other proteins
and form a 'membrane-encased, self-reproducing, metabolizing, living
cell,' keeping in mind that a cell is irreducibly complex and has to
be fully-functioning at every step of the way. This goes completely
against the Law of Biogenesis, and is absurd. There is co evidence
that this ever occurred, this have never been observed, and this has
never been demonstrated. It hit and crossed eK's 'line of downright
idiocy' at a dead run.
Quote:
'I believe this [the overwhelming tendency for chemical reactions
to move in the direction opposite to that required for the
evolution of life] to be the most stubborn problem that confronts
us—the weakest link at present in our argument [for the origin of
life].' George Wald, 'The Origin of Life,' p. 50.
Quote:
'The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious
obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous
generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly
small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds.
Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such
compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them.'
D. E. Hull, 'Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous
Generation,' Nature, Vol. 186, 28 May 1960, p. 694
Quote:
'The story of the slow paralysis of research on life's origin is
quite interesting, but space precludes its retelling here. Suffice
it to say that at present the field of origin of life studies has
dissolved into a cacophony of conflicting models, each
unconvincing, seriously incomplete, and incompatible with
competing models. In private even most evolutionary biologists
will admit that science has no explanation for the beginning of
life.' Behe, 'Molecular Machines,' p. 30.
----------------
Quote:
I'm not ignorant. I can't add anything to things you say but
saying that I disagree. But with ignorant I Mean that people are
ignorant to any proves of evolution. Most of you say: That's not a
proof.
Wouldn't you call that a
self-defeating paragraph?
Quote:
Most people denying evolution probably don't have biology(or
physics, chemical) courses or are sleeping during those courses.
That's easy to see. Fossils say enough to convince me evolution is
the best theory. Otherwise search for books how the human evolved.
From the Austroplithecus to the Homo Habilis to the the Homo
Erectus to the Homo Sapiens.
Plenty of scientists
through the years have been creationists. Thomas Edison, Robert
Boyle, Isaac Newton, and Louise Pasteur, just to name a few. Many
scientists today are creationist or reject evolution. Jonathan
Sarfati, Duane Gish, and Walt Brown. One doesn't get a degree by
sleeping through class. I am also curious to know how you would
support this statement considering the fact that you don't know most
people that deny evolution. I don't know if you haven't studied
paleontology, or whether you are easily convinced of something.
Paleontology is a weak link (maybe even one of the weaker links) in
the GTE. Polystrate fossils, out-of-place fossils, and 'living
fossils' are great evidences against evolution. Walter Lammerts has
published eight lists of wrong-order-formations—almost 200 of them.
The coelacanth was supposed to have been extinct for 70,000,000
years, yet, in 1938, one was caught in the Indian Ocean. Scientists
(evolution believing) are amazed at how similar the live ones are to
the fossils. No, paleontology is not evidence for evolution at all.
Quote:
'But, as by this theory innumerable transitional form must have
existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in
the crust of the earth?' Darwin, 'The Origin of Species,' p. 163
Quote:
'But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their
history and the record fails to contain a single example of a
significant transition.' David S. Woodruff, 'Evolution" The
Paleobiological View,' 'Science,' Vol. 208 16 May 1980, p. 716.
Edited by: UppyII
at: 3/29/03 7:25:36 am
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1020 (3/29/03 8:48 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: C-14
Look, you guys ARE NOT GOING TO
FIND A SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR REJECTING EVOLUTION.
If there was a
valid one, then evolution would already have been rejected by the
scientific community. Until one comes along, it will continue to
stand as the best theory for explaining the diversity and unity in
life we see around us.
There's really no argument any of you
can put for that will successfully refute it.
Edited by: eK
at: 3/29/03 9:03:37 am
|
LordOfGlobox Vortininja Posts: 141 (3/29/03 3:23 pm) 209.115.59.90 | Del
|
RE:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Look, you guys ARE NOT GOING
TO FIND A SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR REJECTING EVOLUTION.
If there
was a valid one, then evolution would already have been rejected by
the scientific community. Until one comes along, it will continue to
stand as the best theory for explaining the diversity and unity in
life we see around
us. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Then what the hell do
you call the page info up
there?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Most people
denying evolution probably don't have biology(or physics, chemical)
courses or are sleeping during those courses. That's easy to see.
Fossils say enough to convince me evolution is the best theory.
Otherwise search for books how the human evolved. From the
Austroplithecus to the Homo Habilis to the the Homo Erectus to the
Homo Sapiens.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Carbon
dating is not guesswork. It would not be used today if it was
guesswork. It has nothing to do with the "fossils around the
object." Did you actually read up on it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yes, I did: FROM A
CHRISTIAN BIOLOGY
MAJOR!!!!!
|
Shadow Grunt Posts: 5 (3/29/03 5:33 pm) 152.163.189.99 | Del
|
Re:
beliefs
Evolution is a religiously guarded
theory.
Scientists have the same weaknesses as the rest of us.
The
L.A. times reported (6/25/78 ):
Quote:
" Scientists behave the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are
in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the
conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless
phrases."
Read the words that
Scientist D.M.S. Watson wrote years ago:
Quote:
"The theory of evolution is universally accepted not because it
can be proved by logical, coherent evidence to be true, but
because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly
incredible!" (Nature, vol. 124, p. 233, 1929)
We need to have the gaul
to ask ourselves: "Which of these options is really incredible?"
People used to think the Earth was flat and bloodletting was
widely known as the best way to reduce a fever. Scientists have been
known to make mistakes. If you ask me: "Prove your eternal God
created all this!" I will say: "Prove to me that atoms are eternal!
If God is not the Creator, how did the atoms get there?" If there is
no evidence, why believe the theory? I'm not quite sure, but is the
theory of evolution being taught as a fact in schools around the
world?
|
Shadow Grunt Posts: 6 (3/29/03 5:40 pm) 152.163.189.99 | Del
|
Re: Proof
Quote:
Look, you guys ARE NOT GOING TO FIND A SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR
REJECTING EVOLUTION.-eK
Can you point out to me
a scientific basis for accepting evolution as a reasonable theory?
(no offence meant)
|
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1846 (3/29/03 9:10 pm) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re:
beliefs
Actually some people still believe the earth is flat
|
Forge315
Grand Intellect Posts: 1351 (3/29/03 10:35 pm) 68.106.137.215 | Del
|
.
What do you mean is flat, of course it is! And you can’t prove
other wise,
(Though would not actually being able to prove such a thing make the
claim any less true?)
Quote:
eK: If there was a valid one, then evolution would already have
been rejected by the scientific community. Until one comes along,
it will continue to stand as the best theory for explaining the
diversity and unity in life we see around us.
Well for being purely scientific
it’s pretty good but next to the little bit of faith required for
Creation science I prefer the latter. Creation science explains
itself wholly, and all that can be proven, is IMO because it
fits.
Though I’d like to pose a question to the evolutionist.
Do you think the constantly changing elements of macroevolution are
a waist of time and that maybe more time should be spent on
scientifically provable areas? Finding fossils as an example isn’t
bad but saying you know how old it is or know what kind of life it
lived irks me, do you share my thoughts in some form
here?
Microevolution, in a vague way gives a little light to
belief in evolution but it can’t prove it, not even a maybe IMO,
though that’s a concentric opinion on my part. For an evolutionist
who accepts all the guess work that has been made, microevolution
might seems like the gospel truth but it really can’t be anything
more than a fancy for the time being.
Edited by: Forge315
at: 3/29/03 10:38:03
pm
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1022 (3/30/03 10:20 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: .
First of all, it's not creation science, there's no science in
it.
Secondly, just because it explains everything doesn't
mean it's right.
Our dating methods are imprecise, but not
inherently flawed, and there's a ton more than just C14 dating.
There can be a large margin of error when dating, but always the
margin is well known.
Why don't you guys start from a
position of non-assumption. You assume that evolution is wrong, so
you set out to disprove it and disregard any proof you're presented
with.
Why not flip it around, assume it's wrong, but then set
out to prove it right. It's always good to force yourself to see
things differently. I've looked at creationist arguments -- I even
went so far as to think that creationism should be brought up in
schools as an alternate theory. But then I flipped things around,
and realized that that would be wrong - as it's not science, and
evolution is. It would fit in a religion class, but not in a biology
class.
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 392 (3/30/03 11:23 am) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re:
First about the C14 Carbon Dating. You can't calculate the exact
value. But tell me if it does matter if something is 40 million
years old or 60 million years old. It's both very old. Evolution
is not entirely gambling. They examine two skeletons of two
different species and see that there are lots of ressembles, and
only a few slight changes. So is that just a big
coincidence?
Religion is gambling. Religion already comes
from the Stone Age. They see lightning and gamble that a
Supernatural Force, called a God is angry on them, without examining
what the real reason is. That's where religion is still based
on.
If Creationism would be true then how can you explain
that once upon a time Dinosaurs lived? The only explanation is that
they lived together with humankind but extincted. That's a pretty
stupid thought. Only other explanation you could give is that God
sometimes extincts certain species and creates new ones. That's even
more stupid. The Dodo for example was extincted by humankind. And
did you ever see new species coming from nowhere?!?!?
Compare
a Bible/Koran with a fairy tale. There's one big coincidence: all
the stories seems to have morals inside of them. And all these
stories can't be merged as one big story, simply because you would
get conflicts(as Cazt2 implies). Example from the Bible(yes, I know
this because I was raised as a Catholic): After Adam and Eva(the
first living being) had to leave the Garden Of Eden they get a two
sons(which makes no sense, as how do they know how to get kids?).
These two sons gets jealous, blablabla. One son leaves and marries a
woman(where does that woman comes from?!?!?!?). Well, it was
something like that, but it's such a long time ago. And also the
two statements in Christian believes: If you did not had a prosper
life you will be sent to hell(moral is that you should have a
prosper life). You should not ignore or bully a certain group of
people because they're different(moral is that you should not
discriminate). Morals are OK, but use them both and it's illogical
as Hell.
And if you think that without religion there would
be no morals: I don't believe in any religion, don't smoke, don't
drink, am always pollite to anyone, am a pacifist, eat about
everything, am social and work on my condition. Sounds like a
prosper life to me(unless you're a vegatarian and believes eating
meat is bad).
What's with all these new smilies?
Edited by: therealdopefish
at: 3/30/03 11:26:31 am
|
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1853 (3/30/03 1:09 pm) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re: .
Actually one son kills the other. He is given a mark so that
people won't kill him when they come upon him, but at that point
there's no people in the world besides Adam and Eve and their
children, so that doesn't make too much sense.
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1174 (3/30/03 1:44
pm) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Good point Xtraverse but you will see if youd better that there
must be more humans since Kain got a wife and became (if I remember
correct) the leader of another country.
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1856 (3/30/03 2:09 pm) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re: .
Incest!
|
Shadow Grunt Posts: 8 (3/30/03 8:47 pm) 205.188.208.140 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Quote:
First about the C14 Carbon Dating. You can't calculate the exact
value. But tell me if it does matter if something is 40 million
years old or 60 million years old. It's both very old.
I thought I had
addressed this issue before, but maybe not. Anything supposed
older than 50,000 years could not be tested by C-14 methods because
it would not have enough C-14 left to date it. We know that C-14 is
continually entering the atmosphere (hence the carbon cycle), and
that C-14 is continually leaving the system by it's decay back to
N-14. The more you have of a radioactive substance, the more
there is to decay-that is, as more enters a system, the rate of
leaving the system increases. To explain this, imagine a box with
holes spaced evenly around the outside. Now, turn on a faucet at the
top. The water will begin to fill the box rapidly, but the rate at
which the water fills the box decreases as the water encounters more
holes. Soon the cycle reaches an equilibrium, at which the water is
coming in as fast as it is leaving. Right?
In the days of
W.F. Libby (the discoverer of this method), measurements of which he
was aware showed that C-14 was entering the system some 12% faster
than it was leaving. This would indicate that the system was less
than 30,000 years old, since equilibrium had not been reached. But
the discrepancy was within Libby's estimates of experimental error,
and could be ignored. What about modern, more sophisticated
measurements? Unfortunately for old earth supporters, these continue
to support a real difference between the rate of production and the
rate of disintigration. Figures quoted from nuclear Chemists
Fairhall and Young suggest that it is as much as 50% out of balance.
(If you want, I can post the figures.) However, there are many
complexities and inaccuracies in these measurements. The average
imbalance is some 35%. To establish a recalibration scale would mean
that the older dates have to be more greatly reduced than later
ones. This seems in order, as does the use of the imbalance data to
establish an upper limit to the age of the Earth's atmosphere of
some 7,000-10,000 years.
This model may be too simplistic
though, as there are many things which can effect the C-14 readings.
(as I stated in an earlier post)
Edited by: Shadow
at: 3/30/03 9:13:46 pm
|
Shadow Grunt Posts: 9 (3/30/03 9:02 pm) 205.188.208.140 | Del
|
Re: .
Quote:
First of all, it's not creation science, there's no science in it.
Please explain.
Quote:
Our dating methods are imprecise, but not inherently flawed, and
there's a ton more than just C14 dating.
Another dating method...
for example?
Quote:
Why don't you guys start from a position of non-assumption. You
assume that evolution is wrong, so you set out to disprove it and
disregard any proof you're presented with.
You assume evolution is
right, so you set out to defend it, and disregard any fact to the
contrary. If you have any facts you would like to show me that
supports evolution, I would like to hear them.
Quote:
I even went so far as to think that creationism should be brought
up in schools as an alternate theory. But then I flipped things
around, and realized that that would be wrong - as it's not
science, and evolution is. It would fit in a religion class, but
not in a biology class.
First you say that
evolution is a theory, (Creationism be taught as alternate theory)
then you say it is scientific fact. (stop me if I am
missunderstanding you) I say that evolution is a religiously
believed theory.
|
Forge315
Grand Intellect Posts: 1354 (3/30/03 10:06 pm) 68.106.137.215 | Del
|
.
Creation science is simply science viewed with a belief in God and
the Bible. Evolution is science viewed with the belief that things
evolve, and technically this hasn’t been proven; I may be able to
swim in the ocean but that doesn’t mean I can swim across it, the
beggining of something isn’t it’s end. Through mutation and a lot of
luck something may change slightly but this doesn’t say things
evolve, quite to the contrary it’ll probably result in degeneration.
Evolution is a guess, a sphinx, an arbitrary belief --
belief.
We can discuss science, but lets not confuse belief
with it. Just because something isn’t a religion doesn’t mean it’s
not like it, not being a religion doesn’t in anyway make it science.
True science is consistent, testable, and doesn’t leave a probable
chance for doubt. Nothing since the formation of Evolution has lent
a reasonable hand to prove it as a factuality, there’s reason to
believe Evolution but nothing to prove it, the same goes for
creation science. It’s impossible to prove belief, though it can be
made more creditable.
Quote:
If Creationism would be true then how can you explain that once
upon a time Dinosaurs lived? The only explanation is that they
lived together with humankind but extincted. That's a pretty
stupid thought. Only other explanation you could give is that God
sometimes extincts certain species and creates new ones. That's
even more stupid. The Dodo for example was extincted by humankind.
And did you ever see new species coming from nowhere?!?!?
I’m sure UppyII would love to
tell you the creationists explanation for that. Its really quite
nice.
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1023 (3/30/03 10:25 pm) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Other Dating Methods:
First, I must note
that C-14 dating fails after 50,000 years because after that it's
impossible to detect the amount of Carbon 14 in bones. There are no
other biologically related dating methods (as far as I know), so all
other dating is performed on the layers of rock surrounding the
artifact.
Potassium-Argon
dating: Based on the decay of K-40
into Ar-40. The ratio of K-40 to Ar-40 is compared and, using the
decay rate of K-40, we're able to date the rock. Works for 100,000 -
2 Billion years
ago.
Thermoluminesence:
If rocks, pottery, etc is heated (usually by artificial means) to
over 400 degrees celcius it loses its free electrons. They are
released in a flash of light that can then be measured. After an
object has been heated like this, it slowly regains it's free
electrons over time, this rate is known and can be measured. When an
artifact that is known to have been heated to this temperature is
found, it is then reheated and the resultant burst of light is
measured and a date is aquired. This is a really new form of dating,
and isn't widely used yet. Works for 0 - 150,000 years
ago.
There's 1-2 more... like a Uranium based one, or the
variation of K-Ar dating, Ar-Ar dating (more accurate)... but I've
got manga to read, so I don't want to talk about them ^^
|
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1864 (3/31/03 4:04 am) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re: .
Shadow, give me a scientific procedure that doesn't have extraneous
results. Every procedure does, and anyways, there are thousands upon
thousands of times when C-14 dating has worked relatively
accurately.
And when were these extraneous results of yours
gotten? In the past few years, scientists have used newer, better,
more accurate C-14 dating techniques.
I'll have to agree with
you, that after about 40,000 years or so, the ration of C-14 to C-12
is too small to get that accurate of a date. However, scientists are
developing new things every day, we might get a better dating method
tomorrow
Basically, C-14 dating works, its just not perfect.
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1179 (3/31/03 6:14
am) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re: .
I don't think that incest was meaned Xtraverse. However it is
possible. And eK I have thought about evolution and still think it's
not 100% of the story. Ow and I tried to ask my quistions once on
this board about evolution. However I didn't get a real reply.
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
Shadow Grunt Posts: 10 (3/31/03 6:30 am) 205.188.208.140 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Quote:
Compare a Bible/Koran with a fairy tale. There's one big
coincidence: all the stories seems to have morals inside of them.
And all these stories can't be merged as one big story, simply
because you would get conflicts(as Cazt2 implies).
First of all, The Bible
does not
contradict itself. I would like to see an example. (that has not
cycled through the "potter"
poll)
Quote:
Example from the Bible(yes, I know this because I was raised as a
Catholic): After Adam and Eva(the first living being) had to leave
the Garden Of Eden they get a two sons(which makes no sense, as
how do they know how to get kids?). These two sons gets jealous,
blablabla. One son leaves and marries a woman(where does that
woman comes from?!?!?!?).
Genesis 1:28- And God
blessed them and God said unto them, Be
fruitful,
and multiply,
and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the
fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living
thing that moveth upon the earth. I believe this answers your
question about "how did they know how to get kids?".
I think
you are talking about Cain and Abel, Adam's first two sons. Cain
killed his brother Able out of jealousy, thus commiting the first
murder. You are wondering who Cain married.(correct?) Adam lived for
930 years, and had numerous sons and daughters. At this period in
history, Intermarriage between family members was allowed.(God later
forbade it and told Moses to set it down as a command) Cain
obviously married one of his many sisters.
PS. I will get
back to you guys about the dating methods
PSS.Hey, I like this one:
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 393 (3/31/03 8:13 am) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Eeh, Shadow read my thread a little bit more careful. And you can
see I gave an example that the Bible is nothing more than a book
with morals inside of them. There's still another equality with a
fairy tale: a fairy tale always says "once upon a time", so it does
not indicate when it happens. The Bible does the same thing. You
don't know when it happens. Our way of counting the years was not
invented when Jesus Christ lived, but hundreds of years later. And I
haven't read that Potter topic.
Oh, yeah thank's for telling
me that his name is Cain. But where the hell do you get the fact
that Adam lived 930 years old?
Can someone point out what is
the difference between a sect, a world religion and traditions in a
primitive tribe somewhere in the jungle of Africa? I can't see the
difference.
And I really thought that people thinking the earth would only
be a few 1000 years old did not exist anymore in a modern society.
Sounds obstinate to me, like your ancestors who did not believe
Galileo that the Earth wasn't flat, simply because it would be
against their religion.
Some misconceptions about
evolution(created because of Marvel Comics, movies and Pokemon): An
animal does not change into a different animal. Also a a radioactive
spider or anything like that does not give you any supernatural
powers if it bites you. And 1 million years that animals do not
change is very long time and is only the case for the Mollusk and
the Coelacant(who was thought to be extinct until a fisher cought
one). 1 million years is equal to 8766000000 hours(if one year is
365.25 days) or 525960000000 minutes or 31557600000000 seconds.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 |
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1866 (3/31/03 4:59 pm) 64.30.37.14 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Quote:
Our way of counting the years was not invented when Jesus Christ
lived, but hundreds of years later
Numerous ancient
civilizations had extremely accurate calendars..I think it was the
Chaldeans (I could be wrong though) that had a calendar that was
only off by 8 minutes.
Quote:
Can someone point out what is the difference between a sect, a
world religion and traditions in a primitive tribe somewhere in
the jungle of Africa? I can't see the difference.
Some are more advanced than
others.
|
Grelphy
Vortininja Posts: 228 (3/31/03 10:37 pm) 12.23.198.254 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Some are more evolved
than others. Wink wink.
I havn't had time to read everything
here recently, but I have to say that there is planty of scientific
evidence for evolution.
For starters: Darwin's Galapagos
finches. The finches on each of the Galapagos islands are slightly
different from each other (and going extinct, but that's something
else entirely). Each is very well suited to its island. For example,
the finches on an island that happens to have lots of nut trees have
big, strong beaks to crack nuts; finches on an island full of berry
bushes have smaller beaks, because
they don't need the strong beaks. The
big-beaked finches have evolved slightly from the other, "older"
finches.
If this isn't enough proof for you, go get a biology
textbook, or better yet, Darwin's
Origin of the Species.
And remember, God could
have made the world yesterday, and given us all fake memories of
everything prior to that. Reigious beleif is far from proof.
|
UppyII Vortininja Posts: 279 (4/1/03 7:05 am) 206.63.170.69 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Quote:
i agree with dope's post on the first page in a way: The sooner
religion is dropped, the better. It just screws things up. And
also, read bible(or equivalent) for any religion - it's likely
you'll find quite a few conflicts and impossibilities. There
again, some things point in the reverse. It's best to be neutral,
I think. –I don't know who posted this. Somebody removed it after
I grabbed it.
There is no such thing
as true neutrality. Either you are for God or you are against Him.
(James 4:4) The truth of God sets believers apart from the world.
The Bible is the believer's foundation. To be neutral; agnostic in
our thinking is to deny God and the Bible. Without the Bible as our
foundation—our presupposition—we can't account for such things as
laws of logic and laws of science. In the end, it would lead to the
destruction of knowledge.
Quote:
First of all, it's not creation science, there's no science in
it. -eK
Science deals with
things that are presently observable and repeatable. No one has ever
observed evolution or the 'big bang.' Intelligent design and
evolution are ultimately beliefs. You can believe evolution if you
want, but it is based of faith as is creation. The only difference
is that the evidence and facts completely agree with Biblical
Creation. The idea that the universe came from nothing and then
exploded is ridiculous. The idea that life originated from some
primordial chemical soup and then proceeded to overcome the Second
Law of Thermodynamics and evolve into incredibly complex organisms
such as the human body is ridiculous. Neither have been observed,
neither are repeatable, neither are in conformity with law of
science. Evolution is not science. Believe it if you will, but it
doesn't stand up to the rigors of science.
Quote:
Secondly, just because it explains everything doesn't mean it's
right. -eK
What's that supposed to
mean?
Quote:
Why don't you guys start from a position of non-assumption. You
assume that evolution is wrong, so you set out to disprove it and
disregard any proof you're presented with.
Why not flip it
around, assume it's wrong, but then set out to prove it right.
It's always good to force yourself to see things differently. I've
looked at creationist arguments -- I even went so far as to think
that creationism should be brought up in schools as an alternate
theory. But then I flipped things around, and realized that that
would be wrong - as it's not science, and evolution is. It would
fit in a religion class, but not in a biology class. -eK
The very idea of
evolution is preposterous and unscientific.
Quote:
Religion is gambling. Religion already comes from the Stone Age.
They see lightning and gamble that a Supernatural Force, called a
God is angry on them, without examining what the real reason is.
That's where religion is still based on. -therealdopefish
The Christian faith is
not based upon 'lightning from supernatural forces'. It is based on
the Bible.
Quote:
If Creationism would be true then how can you explain that once
upon a time Dinosaurs lived? The only explanation is that they
lived together with humankind but extincted. That's a pretty
stupid thought. Only other explanation you could give is that God
sometimes extincts certain species and creates new ones. That's
even more stupid. The Dodo for example was extincted by humankind.
-therealdopefish
It's very simple. God
created dinosaurs on the sixth day along with the other animals.
Noah took them on the ark as God commanded to save them from the
coming flood and apparently most have died off since then. There is
an abundance of evidence that humans have had interaction with them.
Everything from cliff paintings in the Southern U.S. to carvings on
the walls of Babylon.
Quote:
And did you ever see new species coming from nowhere?!?!?
-therealdopefish
New kinds of animals
coming from nowhere? That's ridiculous. Yah, I agree with you here,
but I'm not sure that you do.
Quote:
And if you think that without religion there would be no morals:
I don't believe in any religion, don't smoke, don't drink, am
always pollite to anyone, am a pacifist, eat about everything, am
social and work on my condition. Sounds like a prosper life to
me(unless you're a vegatarian and believes eating meat is bad).
-therealdopefish
I never said that you,
or any other atheist, can't be moral. It's that you can't account
for the very laws of morality that you say you adhere to (although
it's debatable whether the specific things you mentioned are
'moral'). What's wrong with murder? How can anything be wrong? Why
should we feed the poor? I have answers to those questions.
According to you, there is no reason to live a 'moral' life. Animals
kill each other. What does evolution say we are? Nothing more than
the forward push of the evolutionary tree. We don't learn how to be
moral by observing animals, there is no evidence that morality
evolved. No, God laid down the laws we are to obey in the Bible and
in our conscience.
Quote:
I havn't had time to read everything here recently, but I have to
say that there is planty of scientific evidence for evolution.
-Grelphy
Then it would do you
some good to read what's been said.
Quote:
For starters: Darwin's Galapagos finches. The finches on each of
the Galapagos islands are slightly different from each other (and
going extinct, but that's something else entirely). Each is very
well suited to its island. For example, the finches on an island
that happens to have lots of nut trees have big, strong beaks to
crack nuts; finches on an island full of berry bushes have smaller
beaks, because they don't need the strong beaks. The big-beaked
finches have evolved slightly from the other, "older" finches.
-Grelphy
Darwin hadn't known that
they were fiches and didn't even label which island they were from.
Nevertheless, he finally decided that they had descended from the
mainland finches as the 'Biblical creation/Fall/Flood/migration
model' predicts. The finch beak size was a result of the different
food sources. None of the finches evolved. None became more complex.
Simply another example of natural selection using genetic
information already present. No new genetic information, no
evolution.
Edited by: UppyII
at: 4/1/03 7:10:07 am
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1032 (4/1/03 8:41 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: Re:
My, how we twist to serve our desires.
You people disgust
me. How you can be so stupid as to refute a firmly establish
scientific theory on the moronic grounds that you just simply don't
like it --- it escapes me. I've built my life on building a set of
beliefs based on seeing two sides, and taking dips in both back and
forth until the truth became obvious.
I started out a
catholic, then I became an athiest, now I'm agnostic.
People
faced with the obvious truth of evolution, it's sense -- who then
deny it, not on scientific grounds, but on simple refusal to believe
and think that's enough.... people like you make me sick. There is
no compelling evidence against evolution, just a bunch of
non-scientists wishing it away and a braindead childlike populace
that just eats it up.
You don't even try to question your
beliefs, that's what makes me mad. We're all wrong at some point on
something, but if you go through life, and never question your own
beliefs....
I'm so infuriated with people like that, because
it's people like that who make me hate this world, and I don't like
hating this world, I prefer enjoying it.
This is partly why I
didn't want to have this debate, because of people who, for no good
reason, picked a side. You can see it on the pre-evolution side.
Stupid arguments from people who believe in evolution not because
it's right, but because it's assumed that it goes against religious
beliefs.
Take a moment and wonder if maybe you're wrong!
Question things. Jump from one side to the other and resolve the
interal conflict over time. For christ's sake, don't always eat
what's fed you.
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 394 (4/1/03 9:03 am) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: Re:
UppyII wrote a lot. How long did it take to type that all in?
First of all neutrality is possible: these people do not have
any religion; they don't spend their time on thinking about why they
live. They just live. I used to be one and some of my friends have
no opinion about any religion. And this group is growing. The
second statement of eK UppyII does not understand: what he means is
that if you get an explanation for something that this explanation
doesn't have to be correct. If I tell my little brother that the sun
shines, because people live on it then it's an explanation, but it's
incorrect.
Quote:
The very idea of evolution is preposterous and unscientific.
The idea of creationism is
preposterous and unscientific.
Quote:
The Christian faith is not based upon 'lightning from supernatural
forces'. It is based on the Bible.
The Bible is based on the
Jewish religion and on the live of Jesus Christ. The Jewish religion
is based on Mozes' live, which was based on some very old religion
which was based on, and so on. Eventually you get to the stone age
where religion was born.
Quote:
It's very simple. God created dinosaurs on the sixth day along
with the other animals. Noah took them on the ark as God commanded
to save them from the coming flood and apparently most have died
off since then. There is an abundance of evidence that humans have
had interaction with them. Everything from cliff paintings in the
Southern U.S. to carvings on the walls of Babylon.
Hahahahaha, funny. As I said
before this is not possible, because there has never been found any
fossils with a human inside their stomach. That's plain ridiculous.
And did you ever see a picture of the Ark of Noah where Dinosaurs
are drawn on it? When the Bible was written(the old and new part)
there was no such thing known as Dinosaurs. And nowhere in the Bible
is a reference to any sort of creature like that. Only the Chinese
Dragon might refer to found fossils of Dinosaurs. So the only
possiblity is that new species come from nowhere but you say that's
ridiculous.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 |
MRC
Marky Vortininja Posts: 297 (4/1/03 10:24 am) 62.71.135.136 | Del
|
Re: Re:
This is an interesting subject, since it brings up the
differences that persist between Christian branches. Less than a
half of Americans are actually Christians, but the religious ones
are very religious. In turn, Around 90% of our population is
officially Christian, although, nearly everyone believes in theory
of evolution. This is a case of mentality.. Perhaps some people
tend to enjoy the thought of combining everyday reality with
unscientific supernaturalities and above all, religious beliefs. I
always find myself leaning towards logical solutions and rational
choices.
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1034 (4/1/03 10:53 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Marky, that's because your country doesn't persist the myth that
evolution is inherently flawed.
And your populace isn't
stupid enough to buy it.
|
LordOfGlobox Vortininja Posts: 143 (4/1/03 1:47 pm) 216.214.12.108 | Del
|
...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ First of all, it's not
creation science, there's no science in
it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The
idea of creationism is preposterous and
unscientific ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quit putting
the shoe on the other foot & give us a strait
answer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You assume
evolution is right, so you set out to defend it, and disregard any
fact to the contrary. If you have any facts you would like to show
me that supports evolution, I would like to hear
them. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ True ,how
true
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Bible is
based on the Jewish religion and on the live of Jesus Christ. The
Jewish religion is based on Mozes' live, which was based on some
very old religion which was based on, and so
on. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Actually visa versa
for that first part, & for the last part: PROVE IT!!!
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1191 (4/1/03 2:46
pm) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Quote:
And nowhere in the Bible is a reference to any sort of creature
like that.
No somewhere in Job
there is a reference to a strange animal some people believe that it
is a Apatosaurus. I'm not quite sure. Personnaly I think that
dinosaurus didn't live longer than the 6th day.
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
Flaose Pooper, King of the Slugs Posts:
876 (4/1/03 4:02
pm) 68.147.124.200 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Quote:
Originally Posted by:
therealdopefish Oh, yeah thank's
for telling me that his name is Cain. But where the hell do you
get the fact that Adam lived 930 years old?
Genesis 5:5 - And all
the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he
died.
-------------------- Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen
Needs. |
eK Isonian Posts: 1035 (4/1/03 4:55 pm) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: ...
Lucky bastard.
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1195 (4/1/03 4:57
pm) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re: Re:
he wasn't lucky he didn't had computer games to play in his
spare time
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1874 (4/1/03 4:58 pm) 64.30.37.14 | Del
|
Re: Re:
How long do you believe the universe has existed Uppy?
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 396 (4/1/03 5:14 pm) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: ...
Quote:
Quit putting the shoe on the other foot & give us a strait
answer.
That is straight answer. If
I say I find solution 1 stupid and someone says he finds solution 2
stupid it's an opinion. I find UppyII a bit orthodox.
Quote:
Actually visa versa for that first part, & for the last
part: PROVE IT!!!
Read Carefully: The first part
of the Bible and
Jesus Christ
As the second part of the Bible is only about the life of Jesus
which was Jewish you can say that Christianity is nothing more than
the Jewish who believed in Jesus. And Djaser, saying 'somewhere'
is much more unprecise than using C14 for determing how old
something is.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 Edited by: therealdopefish
at: 4/1/03 5:16:00 pm
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1199 (4/1/03 5:18
pm) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Quote:
And Djaser, saying 'somewhere' is much more unprecise than using
C14 for determing how old something is.
If do want to seach it
if you don't believe me. but why don't you?
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
MRC
Marky Vortininja Posts: 298 (4/1/03 6:25 pm) 62.71.135.136 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Only the New Testament is a portion of Bible added by the early
Christians. To some extent, they are considered Jewish as well. Come
on, people. You don't know these facts about the religion you so
eagerly practise and defend?
|
baabis
Gannalech Posts: 167 (4/1/03 7:03 pm) 62.78.239.196 | Del
|
Re: ...
First: my opinion about the bible is that it's a rather boring
fantasy book written by some whacko a few thousand years
ago. Second: Uppy, about mathematics. You replied to
someone(therealdopefish?) about not believing in anything that can't
be measured or seen or something, and used mathematics as an example
of something that can't be measured. Mathematics is a model that
we use to make living easier. Note: MODEL, not anything
concrete. For example if you have 250 apples that you have to
divide betweem a group of 46 evenly, you'll have a hard time
approximating how many apples each should get without
mathematics.
And as for god/religion, religion is a model in
it's own way. The thing wrong with it is that it's based solely on
blind belief, and it doesn't really explain anything. It just says
that stuff is and you need to believe in that. Science on the
other hand, provides a model that it's not based solely on blind
belief, but has "proof". Proof as in the net of hypotheses and
theories based on perceptions that everyone can see with their own
eyes - hypotheses and theories that all make sense and support each
other and thus make science the most reasonable model for
everything.
Don't you just love the word 'model' ?
And
as for the bible being 'proof' for religion/god, c'mon. As I said
before, the bible is only a very boring fantasy book that has
nothing to do with reality. (Except maybe the author actually saw
some stuff that he wrote in the bible, and added the nice dose of
mystery and supernaturality there afterwards) People who knew
nothing needed answers for questions like "Why do people die?" and
"What are stars?" etc.. and christianity provided a nicely packaged
answer for those questions, so that you wouldn't have to think about
it. Those people who knew nothing made religion a base of their
society as it provided all the answers to those questions they
couldn't handle. Also, christianity provided a nice excuse to
misuse the morals told by it and do things that wouldn't have been
accepted before.
For example, in ancient Rome, religion was
almost never a reason for argument, everyone believed what they
wanted and everyone was happy. Then christianity came and the
christians did not tolerate any other religions anymore. So they
decided to slaughter all people who weren't christian or wouldn't
convert into being so.
The board is a mirror of the mind
of the players as the moments pass. When a master studies the record
of a game he can tell at what point greed overtook the pupil, when
he became tired, when he fell into stupidity, and when the maid came
by with tea. Edited by: baabis
at: 4/1/03 7:06:52
pm
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1036 (4/1/03 7:48 pm) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Baaba, I think that's because it was a state religion, and was
enforced. They didn't like the jews at all.
|
ceilick
Vortininja Posts: 162 (4/2/03 2:42 am) 207.252.227.7 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
baabis, people in those days actually had very acurate information
through the Bible such as that the earth is a sphere suspended in
space-Isaiah 40:22 and Job 26:7, That the universe is running
down-Isaiah 51:6 and Psalm 102:26, that the universe is made of
invisible things(atoms)-Hebrews 11:3, and that the earth rotates on
its axis-Job 38:12,14. How esle would these primitive people
discover these scientific facts than through supernatural power?
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1040 (4/2/03 8:39 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: ...
and they had the robotic cat from the future, Doraemon to help them
out too.
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 398 (4/2/03 9:05 am) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Yeah, may be I should buy a Bible and read what great things are
written in it.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 |
LordOfGlobox Vortininja Posts: 144 (4/2/03 12:31 pm) 209.81.165.54 | Del
|
..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And as for god/religion,
religion is a model in it's own way. The thing wrong with it is that
it's based solely on blind belief, and it doesn't really explain
anything. It just says that stuff is and you need to believe in
that. Science on the other hand, provides a model that it's not
based solely on blind belief, but has "proof". Proof as in the net
of hypotheses and theories based on perceptions that everyone can
see with their own eyes - hypotheses and theories that all make
sense and support each other and thus make science the most
reasonable model for
everything. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But the
same goes for evolution, there's no proof that it ever happened,
just a hypothosis. Give a scientific fact & I'll believe
it.
Ps: not an altared fact mind you.
|
baabis
Gannalech Posts: 168 (4/2/03 2:08 pm) 62.78.239.196 | Del
|
Re: ...
Evolution has evidence, religion has none. End of story.
PS.
note: evidence, not proof.
The board is a mirror of the mind
of the players as the moments pass. When a master studies the record
of a game he can tell at what point greed overtook the pupil, when
he became tired, when he fell into stupidity, and when the maid came
by with tea. |
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1206 (4/2/03 2:54
pm) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Quote:
First: my opinion about the bible is that it's a rather boring
fantasy book written by some whacko a few thousand years ago.
I guess you cant
recognize a good book. And it wasn't written by one person. And
indeed religion doesn't have much evidence but it isn't based on
nothing. Ow and everyone believes things which aren't proved. For
example in true love, luck, yourself (I'm sure I take the worse
examples but it is for everyone differen) . And eK I suggest that
you react serious on peoples arguments or just
don't. Therealdopefish don't you even have a bible? Than how can
you even judge it?
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1884 (4/2/03 5:14 pm) 64.30.37.14 | Del
|
Re: ..
The Bible is a great piece of literature, and it's written by many
wackos, not just one
In my opinion, I consider some of the stories true, some
based on fact, and some to just represent ideas.
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 399 (4/2/03 5:41 pm) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: ...
I do know what's in the Bible. I did have a Bible for children. Why
do you know I knew of these sons of Adam and some other details? I
still can remember many details stories: Like that hulk of a guy who
destroyed that temple but was killed because of the ceiling falling
on him or the Ark of Noach and many others(including Jezus' entire
life). I was raised as a liberal Katholic even though I'm baptised
in the reformed church. But already from child on I find religion
nothing for me, nor did I believe it. Already from child on I saw
the Bible as a book with morals.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 |
baabis
Gannalech Posts: 169 (4/2/03 6:11 pm) 62.78.239.196 | Del
|
Re: Re:
The absolutely most disturbing thing about the bible is that it
declares the best state for a human to be knowing absolutely
nothing. At least that's how I comprehended it when reading the
bible.
Oh and one more thing. Aren't you guys just so
lucky that your parents or grandparents belong to the exact right
sect?
The board is a mirror of the mind
of the players as the moments pass. When a master studies the record
of a game he can tell at what point greed overtook the pupil, when
he became tired, when he fell into stupidity, and when the maid came
by with tea. |
eK Isonian Posts: 1042 (4/2/03 9:17 pm) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: ..
Djaser, how can I take you guys seriously? I mean, none of you have
any clue about evolution and refuse to change that.
You're a
joke!
|
Flaose Pooper, King of the Slugs Posts:
879 (4/3/03 12:58
am) 68.147.124.200 | Del
|
Re: ...
So where in the Bible does it say that animals can't have evolved?
Seriously?
-------------------- Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen
Needs. |
ceilick
Vortininja Posts: 167 (4/3/03 3:11 am) 207.252.227.7 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
You cant answer how that science was known to people that long ago,
can you guys. Baabis, I dont recall the bible saying the best state
for a human is to be knowing nothing. I would like to know more
about evelution. Flaose, Animals never evolved but natural selection
does happen. But no species changes into a new species.
Can
some one explain spontanious generation to me? I dont understand
how it can be believed as true.
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1046 (4/3/03 5:51 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: ..
Those are some neato made up facts ceilick!
|
ceilick
Vortininja Posts: 168 (4/3/03 6:05 am) 207.252.227.7 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Seriously, though.
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1211 (4/3/03 6:54
am) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
Djaser, how can I take you guys seriously? I mean, none of you
have any clue about evolution and refuse to change
that.
You're a joke!
If you don't like the
way we talk than leave this topic or close it. You have proven to be
very good in closing topics you don't like.
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 401 (4/3/03 7:20 am) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: ..
Ceilick, as I said before: evolution does not mean that an animal
suddenly changes into a different animal. Like you look a little bit
different than you're parents. And your kids would look different
from you and even more from your parents. Wait millions of years and
the offspring would not look like their very old ancestors. Also in
these millions of years you could get differences: like a child
get's pointy ears, has superior sight or something else(which does't
have to be a positive one). But if a child get's a handicap(blind,
deaf, disabled) then it would not survive if 'survival of the
fittest' was still the rule. Some claim that our way of living means
the end of evolution as also the weak animals can
survive. Ba-abis there's one big difference between Christianity
and a sect. People in a sect commit suicide and give all their
properties to the leader of the sect who lives happily ever after.
Religious people do not commit suicide so the priest could earn from
them until he's retired. Even though he only earns enough to
maintain the Church.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 |
eK Isonian Posts: 1048 (4/3/03 8:04 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
The wrath of the out of control evil op! I will close everything!
FEAR ME!
ROAR!
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1220 (4/3/03 4:05
pm) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Grow up eK. It's like you're spamming this topic or like you're
a bad loser. However I don't understant your didn't lose the
discussion.
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- Edited by: Djaser
at: 4/3/03 4:06:19 pm
|
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1896 (4/3/03 5:00 pm) 64.30.37.14 | Del
|
Re: ..
Nah, eK's just gone a little insane
Why you can't take any sarcasm Djaser?
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1221 (4/3/03 5:14
pm) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
I can but not when I'm serious. Like you can't if you talk about
someone who just died (extreme example) .
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
baabis
Gannalech Posts: 172 (4/3/03 8:15 pm) 62.78.239.196 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
Baabis, I dont recall the bible saying the best state for a human
is to be knowing nothing.
The first sin mentioned in
the bible was that Eve took an apple from the tree of knowledge,
because she was curious and wanted to know stuff. And for wanting to
know about stuff they were punished and banished from the garden of
Eden.
Oh, and I comprehend 'sect' as a certain part of a
larger group of religions. Like christianity, includes orthodox,
luteranism, catholicism, and lots of smaller sects.
The board is a mirror of the mind
of the players as the moments pass. When a master studies the record
of a game he can tell at what point greed overtook the pupil, when
he became tired, when he fell into stupidity, and when the maid came
by with tea. Edited by: baabis
at: 4/3/03 8:18:18
pm
|
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1897 (4/3/03 8:24 pm) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Yeah, I have to agree with baaba there. According to the Bible, if
you ate from the Tree of Knowledge, you would "Be like God and
comprehend good and evil."
|
Forge315
Grand Intellect Posts: 1367 (4/3/03 9:34 pm) 150.176.82.150 | Del
|
.
They were banished for sinning, for disobeying God. To say
otherwise is to question the works of God.
|
Grelphy
Vortininja Posts: 229 (4/3/03 9:40 pm) 12.23.198.254 | Del
|
and that's not
bad?
And that's a bad thing?
|
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1900 (4/3/03 10:04 pm) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
We know that Forge, but why did God want them to not comprehend
good and evil?
It can't be so that they wouldn't sin, because
they did anyway...so what reason was there?
|
UppyII Vortininja Posts: 282 (4/3/03 10:34 pm) 206.63.170.117 | Del
|
Re: .
Quote:
My, how we twist to serve our desires.
You people disgust
me. How you can be so stupid as to refute a firmly establish
scientific theory on the moronic grounds that you just simply
don't like it --- it escapes me. I've built my life on building a
set of beliefs based on seeing two sides, and taking dips in both
back and forth until the truth became obvious.
I started
out a catholic, then I became an athiest, now I'm agnostic.
People faced with the obvious truth of evolution, it's
sense -- who then deny it, not on scientific grounds, but on
simple refusal to believe and think that's enough.... people like
you make me sick. There is no compelling evidence against
evolution, just a bunch of non-scientists wishing it away and a
braindead childlike populace that just eats it up.
You
don't even try to question your beliefs, that's what makes me mad.
We're all wrong at some point on something, but if you go through
life, and never question your own beliefs....
I'm so
infuriated with people like that, because it's people like that
who make me hate this world, and I don't like hating this world, I
prefer enjoying it.
This is partly why I didn't want to
have this debate, because of people who, for no good reason,
picked a side. You can see it on the pre-evolution side. Stupid
arguments from people who believe in evolution not because it's
right, but because it's assumed that it goes against religious
beliefs.
Take a moment and wonder if maybe you're wrong!
Question things. Jump from one side to the other and resolve the
interal conflict over time. For christ's sake, don't always eat
what's fed you.
eK, you amaze me. Your
whole argument is based on 1) an appeal to popular sentiment and 2)
upon an appeal to emotion (frustration, anger, ect.). I'm not even
sure if I would go so far as to call it an argument.
If
someone doesn't agree with you or the positions you hold to, you
resort to name calling (stupid, moron, idiot, ect.). You view
yourself as the ultimate standard of reasoning and everyone who
disagrees with you does so on unreasonable and unscientific grounds.
Any evidence against evolution, according to you, does not exist or
comes from a bunch of 'non-scientists,' which brings up another
logical fallacy: basing your 'argument' on an appeal to the absence
of, or ignorance of, premises proving the contrary.
Evolution, according to you, is the obvious truth and
undebatable, yet you also tell us to 'take a moment and wonder if
maybe you're wrong!' You say that evolution is unquestionable while
also saying that we need to question our beliefs. When you say that
'we're all wrong at some point on something' does that exclude you?
Am I supposed to just eat evolution when it's fed to me without
question? Before you become infuriated with more people that don't
believe what you do, maybe you should heed some of your own advice:
'Question things.' Even, I might add, the 'unquestionable.'
I believe creation not because I don't like evolution. I
believe evolution is scientifically wrong and I have posted as much.
You simply dismiss my arguments as 'unscientific' and 'stupid' and
don't even answer them. This is supposed to be a debate, not a
name-calling session. Some other people here are trying to have a
rational debate and you cutting in, getting angry and frustrated,
and throwing around such names and accusations is unprofitable and
irritating. Please stop.
Quote:
Second: Uppy, about mathematics. You replied to
someone(therealdopefish?) about not believing in anything that
can't be measured or seen or something, and used mathematics as an
example of something that can't be measured. Mathematics is a
model that we use to make living easier. Note: MODEL, not anything
concrete. For example if you have 250 apples that you have to
divide betweem a group of 46 evenly, you'll have a hard time
approximating how many apples each should get without mathematics.
Oh, but it is
'concrete,' if you will. Two plus two will always equal four. Why is
this? Because there are certain mathematical laws that must be
followed. Use a different model if you want to, but as you said
before, when calculating bomb trajectories, two plus two must always
equal four.
Quote:
And as for god/religion, religion is a model in it's own way. The
thing wrong with it is that it's based solely on blind belief, and
it doesn't really explain anything. It just says that stuff is and
you need to believe in that. Science on the other hand,
provides a model that it's not based solely on blind belief, but
has "proof". Proof as in the net of hypotheses and theories based
on perceptions that everyone can see with their own eyes -
hypotheses and theories that all make sense and support each other
and thus make science the most reasonable model for everything.
Science can only deal
with the physical realm; what we can observer with our senses. To
view science as the ultimate authority is a mistake, but science is
merely a tool man can use. Hence, the concept of 'metaphysics.'
Instead of dealing with a very limited field, such as history, or
chemistry, it is used to explain the world as a whole. The Bible
gives us an 'ultimate conceptual framework' used to make sense of
the universe. The Biblical metaphysic is used as a foundation upon
we can then place things such as science and ethics. eK was mistaken
when he said that belief can't stand up to the rigors of science. I
say that the opposite is true. Science without belief is impossible.
The predictability of nature, for example. How do you account for
that? The Christian belief is not a 'blind' one. It is based on the
Bible and has evidence to back it up. I'll start posting some
evidences that the Bible is infallible.
Quote:
Don't you just love the word 'model' ?
Yah, it's so cool.
Quote:
First of all neutrality is possible: these people do not have any
religion; they don't spend their time on thinking about why they
live. They just live. I used to be one and some of my friends have
no opinion about any religion. And this group is growing.
There is a big
difference between not thinking/not knowing and being neutral.
|
Forge315
Grand Intellect Posts: 1368 (4/3/03 11:24 pm) 150.176.82.150 | Del
|
.
Quote:
And that's a bad thing?
In the strictest terms it’s
wrong.
Quote:
We know that Forge, but why did God want them to not comprehend
good and evil? It can't be so that they wouldn't sin, because
they did anyway...so what reason was there?
Hmm … I don’t know with
certainty, but I’ll ask some other Christians about this.
Quote:
Evolution has evidence, religion has none. End of story. PS.
note: evidence, not proof.
Dictionary
time.
Proof: The evidence or argument that compels the mind
to accept an assertion as true.
Oh proof is evidence? Golly,
lets look the other up now.
Evidence: A thing or things
helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was
evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the
evidence for and against a hypothesis.
All your statement did
was express that you think there’s proof for evolution, and evidence
for religion. In what way to do you mean religion has none? Are you
at all talking about creation science here? Anyway it’s a low blow
to disregard religion, I consider evolution a sort of religion but I
at least try not to treat it with disrespect.
If evolution
has creditable proof, bring it forward. Show me how this evidence
works to prove evolution. Remember evolution is the process by which
a life form evolves, and here is where many people get confused.
Changes that occur because of mutation don’t prove evolution, can
you show me how they do with creditable certainty?
UppyII may
have given this link in the past, but here’s an article about the
probability of evolution. http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=49
Quote:
eK: How you can be so stupid as to refute a firmly establish
scientific theory on the moronic grounds that you just simply
don't like it
I can only speak for myself, but
I stand against evolution not as an idea but as a fact.
Quote:
eK: You don't even try to question your beliefs, that's what makes
me mad. We're all wrong at some point on something, but if you go
through life, and never question your own beliefs....
I question my beliefs but
there’s never been lack of a truthful answer, though sometimes a
little patients is needed before it comes. It would be faithless to
abandon your beliefs at the slightest doubt that arises; this is
what defines faith.
I don’t have an answer to everything, but
what I do understand gives me more reason to keep my faith than to
believe in evolution. It’s the foundation that counts, not the many
branches of it; I don’t know everything about evolution and I admit
this, nor do I know everything about God and faith and I reckon
this, but the answer is still the more clear to me and I choose
God.
Perhaps we can meet on one ground, that we both consider
each other fools. So to close here is something once said by
Epictetus.
I think I know what I never knew before – the
meaning of the common saying, a fool you can neither bend nor break.
Pray heaven I may never have a wise fool for my friend! There is
nothing more intractable.—“My resolve is fixed!”—Why so madmen say
too; but the more firmly they believe in their delusions, the more
they stand in need of treatment.
|
Flaose Pooper, King of the Slugs Posts:
881 (4/3/03 11:32
pm) 68.147.124.200 | Del
|
Re: and that's
not bad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by: Xtraverse We know that Forge, but
why did God want them to not comprehend good and evil?
It
can't be so that they wouldn't sin, because they did anyway...so
what reason was there?
Wabam! Another Mormon
answer:
Mormons believe that before they ate the fruit, Adam
and Eve were completely innocent, they were devoid of human
nature/animal desires (lust, greed, etc.)
Remember that there
were two important trees in the Garden of Eden: the Tree of Life (as
long as you ate it you would live forever), and the Tree of
Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Before they ate the forbidden
fruit (from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil), they had no
idea how to have children (no animal desires). Putting these three
paragraphs together, we realize that since Adam and Eve were eating
the fruit from the Tree of Life, they could have been in the Garden
for a long time (millions of years? I dunno).
Anyways, after
Eve was tricked by 'that old serpent', God and Jesus realized that
they would have to boot out Adam and Eve, not only because they
disobeyed a commandment, but also because if they were to eat the
fruit from the Tree of Life, they would become like gods (being
immortal and being able to choose from good and evil). Therefore
they were kicked out and guards were posted outside the
gates.
However, this really isn't as bad as it looks. Since
they had eaten the fruit, they...er...figured out how to have
children, and we're all here!
Hopefully this makes
sense. Important points: two different Super-Trees, the ability
to choose to eat the fruit
(agency), concequences to their choices, punishment that wasn't much
of a punishment (as because of it, we're all here).
Yeah, I
think I covered everything...
-------------------- Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen
Needs. |
ceilick
Vortininja Posts: 169 (4/4/03 1:11 am) 207.252.227.7 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
I know that TheRealDopefish. But the man only adapts better to his
surroundings, he does not and never will become anything but a man.
Still no one has answered my question on how could the men from the
Bible have known scientific truths such as the earth is round, there
are atoms, and that the universe is running down.
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1053 (4/4/03 2:59 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: and that's
not bad?
Uppy, there's really no point in me trying to explain things
because when I do, you guys don't listen. You guys seriously have no
idea how evolution works. Read about it. Don't just say it's wrong
because you don't like the idea that something makes the standard
belief in the bible a bit harder to swallow.
I'm not going to
stand here and spit out what ever book I've read or course I've
taken says about evolution. You're the ignorant one, you look it
up.
You think me calling you a moron is part of my argument?
.....
More like I'm just stating a fact seperate from the
others. You ARE a moron. You are one of the worst arguers here, and
the only people who think otherwise argue just as badly as you do.
(ie. Forge). He thinks you're great because you repeat back what he
has always believed - not because you validate your
point.
|
ceilick
Vortininja Posts: 170 (4/4/03 3:09 am) 207.252.227.7 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Ek, I dont meen to be rude but, please answer my question.
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1054 (4/4/03 4:19 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Umm... they didn't know the earth was round, or about atoms, or
about... whatever it is that you're talking about with regards to
the universe... entropy?
|
UppyII Vortininja Posts: 284 (4/4/03 4:54 am) 206.63.170.56 | Del
|
Re: and that's
not bad?
Quote:
Uppy, there's really no point in me trying to explain things
because when I do, you guys don't listen.
I didn't realize that
you had tried to explain anything except that we're all morons.
There is a difference between not listening and not agreeing. You
seem to think that if someone doesn't agree with you then they
didn't listen to you. And what exactly am I supposed to be listening
to? Your name-calling?
Quote:
You guys seriously have no idea how evolution works.
Groundless
observation/accusation.
Quote:
Read about it.
Check.
Quote:
Don't just say it's wrong because you don't like the idea that
something makes the standard belief in the bible a bit harder to
swallow.
Again, I've posted
scientific arguments that contradict evolution. You seem to think
that if I understood evolution then I would believe it.
Quote:
I'm not going to stand here and spit out what ever book I've read
or course I've taken says about evolution.
Well, it would be better
than just standing there spitting out names and getting angry with
people which is all you seem to be doing. As I've said before, this
is a debate (or discussion, if you will), not a name-calling
session.
Quote:
You're the ignorant one, you look it up.
Again, another
groundless accusation. I have and am discussing (trying to) it
here.
Quote:
You think me calling you a moron is part of my argument? .....
I'm saying that it IS
your argument.
Quote:
More like I'm just stating a fact seperate from the others.
Others such as...?
Quote:
You ARE a moron.
There you go again,
resorting to name-calling.
Quote:
You are one of the worst arguers here,
Why would that be? Ah, I
get it. When you can't refute the argument, attack the person
himself...
Quote:
and the only people who think otherwise argue just as badly as you
do. (ie. Forge).
...and the people who
agree with him.
Quote:
He thinks you're great because you repeat back what he has always
believed - not because you validate your point.
This is what? Groundless
observation number three?
Look, my point here is that this is
supposed to be a debate. You're not debating or asking questions so
I really don't see why you're here. (Well, maybe I do) Why can't you
just be quiet and/or leave so the rest of us can have a debate?
|
Forge315
Grand Intellect Posts: 1369 (4/4/03 5:04 am) 68.106.137.215 | Del
|
.
Quote:
We know that Forge, but why did God want them to not comprehend
good and evil? It can't be so that they wouldn't sin, because
they did anyway...so what reason was there?
Went and confirmed my view point
with my father. We both hold, despite your second sentence, that God
didn’t want them to sin.
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1055 (4/4/03 7:27 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: Re:
I don't explain it, because my job isn't to explain evolution --
because I know there are better sources out there for information
than myself. I suggest you take a college level course in it. I'm
trying to get you guys to see reason and perhaps consider that you
MIGHT be wrong, and read the other side's arguments. Evolution
doesn't really have a good counter argument, because it's a very
solid theory. All counter arguments I've ever seen from you guys or
from anyone else from your side rely on an incomplete understanding
and are based on assumptions like evolution magically transforming
one species into another and there being no evidence of
macroevolutionary changes. You guys obviously haven't taken college
biology, and must only read your sides arguments because of the
idiocy of your postulates.
Go, get informed, then I'll talk
to you about it. I really have no interest in explaining all of
evolution to you guys. Why can't you do that yourself? How can you
stand to be so uninformed?
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1222 (4/4/03 10:46
am) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re: and that's
not bad?
Evolution was a part of my study. But I still didn't believe
it. And eK I ask you again to leave this discussion alone if you
don't want to talk but only call people names.
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
LordOfGlobox Vortininja Posts: 145 (4/4/03 1:03 pm) 216.214.12.61 | Del
|
..
I AM INFORMED! You just choose to ignore what we say, so, eK, if
you can (without calling me a name and just gave me damn answer)
tell me this:
General theory of the Universe (?): the
universe had an origin
Theory of Matter & Energy(2):
Energy can not be created or destroyed
Please give me a
scientific reson for the beginning of the Universe? Evoluton can't
of broken a scientific law or wouldn't be scientific. So what
created the universe? A giant cosmic egg (Sorry if I don't buy this
bull crap)
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 403 (4/4/03 2:47 pm) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Oh, my, eK took over my offending while I became a little bit
softer. eK, by saying everyone is an idiot you only make an idiot of
yourself. Sorry to tell you. You can't someone convince of another
religion. Remember my monkey-do? Only a few change their religion or
refuse religion often with their parents shouting that they should
have their religion. My parents thought it would be my age, but I'm
a little bit old to be in
puberty.
Quote:
Science can only deal with the physical realm; what we can
observer with our senses. To view science as the ultimate
authority is a mistake, but science is merely a tool man can use.
Hence, the concept of 'metaphysics.' Instead of dealing with a
very limited field, such as history, or chemistry, it is used to
explain the world as a whole. The Bible gives us an 'ultimate
conceptual framework' used to make sense of the universe. The
Biblical metaphysic is used as a foundation upon we can then place
things such as science and ethics. eK was mistaken when he said
that belief can't stand up to the rigors of science. I say that
the opposite is true. Science without belief is impossible. The
predictability of nature, for example. How do you account for
that? The Christian belief is not a 'blind' one. It is based on
the Bible and has evidence to back it up. I'll start posting some
evidences that the Bible is infallible.
Don't call something
evidence if something is not evidence. Certainly there are probably
things in the Bible which truly did happen(except for the miracles).
But as the Bible was not written directly after it happened. And as
Stories are spreading the story change as everone is talking his
version of the story. Like the story of Mozes: when Mozes
lived(there were indeed evidences he existed) the Red Sea was not a
deep sea like it is today. In fact with the right tide you could
cross the Red Sea. But as this stories get's told generations by
generations before it reaches the Bible the story becomes more
unbelievable and suddenly miracles happened. I still recalled this
from Religion Courses. And I absolutely disagree with Genesis: It's
absolutely funny, but not reality. And without Genesis(I'm not
talking about an old Sega
Console
) believing the Bible makes no sense plus nothing else about how the
earth was created is written in the Bible(after that it starts with
Mozes and the Ark of Noach).
Anyway there has never been
found any fossils of serpents with legs, so the Serpent always had
no legs(if I recall the Bible the Serpent lost his legs because it
betrayed Adam and Eve). I have to look up who would be the ancestor
of the Serpent according evolution. I thought it was some sort of
lizzard(as lizzards and serpents are in the same group of animals:
Squamata if I remembered it correctly).
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 Edited by: therealdopefish
at: 4/4/03 2:53:01 pm
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1232 (4/4/03 3:02
pm) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re: ..
Quote:
Anyway there has never been found any fossils of serpents with
legs, so the Serpent always had no legs(if I recall the Bible the
Serpent lost his legs because it betrayed Adam and Eve).
ahem Dopefish the snake had legs follow the evolution theory and
not follow the bible. The snake couldn't walk straight anymore,
there is no word of legs.
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1909 (4/4/03 3:06 pm) 64.30.37.14 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Actually its quite common I think for the children of religious
parents to convert to Athiesm...however my parents still bring me to
church every week and force me to go to religion classes.
|
Flaose Pooper, King of the Slugs Posts:
884 (4/4/03 3:18
pm) 68.147.124.200 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
Originally Posted by
therealdopefish Anyway there has
never been found any fossils of serpents with legs, so the Serpent
always had no legs(if I recall the Bible the Serpent lost his legs
because it betrayed Adam and Eve).
Err...some snakes still have
legs. They're really tiny, but they're there. Scientists believe the
snake used to walk like a lizard, but for some reason lost that
ability.
-------------------- Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen
Needs. |
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1234 (4/4/03 3:34
pm) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re: Re:
So you could even say that's prove for evolution.
And perhaps snakes really had legs I dunno I believe most things
of evolution, really.
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 406 (4/4/03 4:26 pm) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: ..
Lizzards and Snakes have the same ancestors. Snakes never had legs,
but their ancestors did. I looked up and the ancestors group was
called Sphenodontia. I've found two extincted species who belongs to
this group: the Planocephalosaurus(looks a lot like the lizzard
nowadays) and the Pleurosaurus(an aquatic reptile who did have legs,
but did not use them for swimming. The creature was very long, had
57 eeeh, (What's the English word I'm looking for? Dutch word is
wervels)so it's good to say it was the ancestor of the snake). Is
that your answer on the snakes? But the Bible did say Snakes lost
their legs because of it's betray. I was sure about
that.
Xtraverse, I know what you mean. But my parents were
pretty liberal, so they only get to the church on Christmas and
Easter. And I always had to come with on Christmas. It was so
incredibly boring.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 |
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1913 (4/4/03 4:52 pm) 64.30.37.14 | Del
|
Re: Re:
If you get pissed off that you have to go to church twice a year,
that's pretty pathetic.
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1237 (4/4/03 5:10
pm) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
But the Bible did say Snakes lost their legs because of it's
betray. I was sure about that.
The bible says nothing
about legs however it is not impossible that they meaned legs.
Ow and Xtravers you have at least a good impression about
what Christianity contains.
However perhaps exagerate your parent's a bit
do they know that you don't believe?
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
KeenEmpire Keen's Empire Posts: 540 (4/4/03 5:52 pm) 203.151.38.3 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Quote:
however my parents still bring me to church every week and force
me to go to religion classes.
I would recommend
bringing a good book to read, or having a talkative friend come with
you during these times: if you are bored during these processions,
that is.
Quote:
Use a different model if you want to, but as you said before, when
calculating bomb trajectories, two plus two must always equal
four.
He didn't say that; I
did!
In either case, I might make a post addressing probability
soon. Don't worry; nothing like it has appeared inside any of these
debates as of yet.
The suns were green, the spaceships
tall In ancient days before the fall Of empires of
Parlmtheon, And Shikadine, who now beyond, The Eastern stars
have passed away, Deep space was fair in DemOps' day -A dirty copyright
infringement |
Shadow Grunt Posts: 11 (4/4/03 6:31 pm) 152.163.189.99 | Del
|
Re:
Potassium-Argon Dating
Quote:
More like I'm just stating a fact seperate from the others. You
ARE a moron. You are one of the worst arguers here, and the only
people who think otherwise argue just as badly as you do. (ie.
Forge). He thinks you're great because you repeat back what he has
always believed - not because you validate your point.
ek, how old are you? If
you can't contribute something worthwhile to this discussion then
please, refrain from saying anythying. (Oh, and saying someone is
the worst arguer because they give you the hardest time refuting
their statements doesn't make sense)
Quote:
Potassium-Argon dating: Based on the decay of K-40 into Ar-40. The
ratio of K-40 to Ar-40 is compared and, using the decay rate of
K-40, we're able to date the rock. Works for 100,000 - 2 Billion
years ago.-eK
I read up on K-Ar and
Ar-Ar dating, and it seemed sturdy except for the glaring hole right
smack-dab in the middle of it: Excess Ar-40. According to the
assumption of Potassium-Argon dating, there should be no
Ar-40 in rocks when they form. When measured, all Ar-40 in a rock
is assumed to be produced by radioactive decay during the lifetime
of the rock. However, it is well established that volcanic rocks
(e.g.basalt) contain excess Ar-40, that is, Ar-40 which cannot be
attributed to either atmospheric contamination or radioactive decay
during the life of the rock of K-40. This excess Ar-40 represents
pimordial Ar carried from source areas in the earth's mantle by the
parent magmas, is thus inherited by the resultant volcanic rocks,
and thus has no age significance. However, are all other rocks in
the earth's crust also susceptible to "contamination" by excess
Ar-40 emenating from the mantle? If so, the the K-Ar and Ar-Ar
"dating of crustal rocks would be similarly questionable. (I have
evidence that excess Ar-40 may very well be the norm instead of the
exception, and will post it if you want. I just thought that this
might give you something to chew on for a while.)
Why am I
not on eK's worst arguers list?
Edited by: Shadow
at: 4/4/03 7:01:31 pm
|
Shadow Grunt Posts: 12 (4/4/03 6:39 pm) 152.163.189.99 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Quote:
Go, get informed, then I'll talk to you about it. I really have no
interest in explaining all of evolution to you guys. Why can't you
do that yourself? How can you stand to be so uninformed?
We're not asking you to
explain all of evolution for us. We would just like for you to
give us some sturdy evidence that supports it. Why don't you
inform us if you are so upset at us being uninformed?
I have
studied some evolution and compared it to creationism, but there is
just too much evidence against evolution for me to accept it as a
theory. You should take your own advice and question what you
believe, "everybody's wrong at least once in their life".
|
Shadow Grunt Posts: 13 (4/4/03 6:54 pm) 152.163.189.99 | Del
|
Re: ...
Quote:
So where in the Bible does it say that animals can't have evolved?
Seriously?-Flaose
Genesis 1:21-26 "21
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth,
which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and
every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.22
And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill
the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.23 And
the evening and the morning were the fifth day.24 And God said, Let
the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle,
and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind, and it
was so.25 And God made
the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind,
and everything that creepeth on the earth after his kind: and God
saw that it was good.26 And God said, Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the
sea, and the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over the
earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth across the
earth."
|
UppyII Vortininja Posts: 286 (4/4/03 7:15 pm) 206.63.170.60 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Quote:
He didn't say that; I did! -KeenEmpire
Oops. Heh
You, Xtra, and Baaba seem to be blending into one person...
Quote:
In either case, I might make a post addressing probability soon.
Don't worry; nothing like it has appeared inside any of these
debates as of yet.
Ah, I've been expecting
this. Actually, I was expecting it to come up in the 'Potter'
thread.
|
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1914 (4/4/03 8:06 pm) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re:
Potassium-Argon Dating
Shadow, that still doesn't say that creaures couldn't have evolved
from there.
|
Flaose Pooper, King of the Slugs Posts:
887 (4/4/03 9:00
pm) 68.147.124.200 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Quote:
Originally Posted by: Djaser The bible says nothing
about legs however it is not impossible that they meaned legs.
Genesis 3:14 - And the LORD
God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art
cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon
thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy
life:
Sounds a lot like the serpent used to have legs...
-------------------- Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen
Needs. |
eK Isonian Posts: 1057 (4/4/03 9:14 pm) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: ...
God sure is mean to those poor snakies.
|
KeenEmpire Keen's Empire Posts: 541 (4/5/03 10:50 am) 203.151.38.3 | Del
|
asfd
Quote:
Genesis 1:21-26 "21 And God created great whales, and every
living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth
abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his
kind: and God saw that it was good.22 And God blessed them,
saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the
seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.23 And the evening and
the morning were the fifth day.24 And God said, Let the earth
bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and
creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind, and it was
so.25 And God made
the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their
kind, and everything that creepeth on the earth after his kind:
and God saw that it was good.26 And God said, Let us make man in
our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the
fish of the sea, and the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and
over the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth across
the earth."
That quote states that,
at some point in time, God "made the beasts of the earth after his
kind," not that God created them as they are now, and they
absolutely never evolved. We know that God's beasts are not
absolute, having found examples of extinct species. There is nothing
suggesting, in that quote, that evolution might not also have
occured.
Quote:
Ah, I've been expecting this. Actually, I was expecting it to come
up in the 'Potter' thread.
Hey, hey, don't expect
anything yet: I said "soon", and "might"! Classwork is piling on me
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 408 (4/5/03 11:53 am) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Quote:
If you get pissed off that you have to go to church twice a year,
that's pretty pathetic
They don't force me anymore,
only as a child. But I felt I don't belong there. It's the same as
visiting a gay bar while you're hetero. But then again I'm not
rational. I did not go to the church because "it has to be a part of
your life". I don't drink beer because "you have to drink beer to
make it nice and comfy". I see for my self what I'm doing. Most
people in the Church don't even know what they sing and what it
means, they just sing because "they have to". In fact most people
who claim to "believe" in a certain religion don't even know what
that religion really means.
And Shadow, be a bit more
specific about evidences against evolution. If your evidences are
the bible: do not trust blindly on the Bible. Most Christians don't
believe Genesis(the part about how the earth was created). I can't
find any evidences against evolution. I only see evidences against
creationism(which are called fossils).
Funny, I did know
something from the Bible while most people around here who believes
in the Bible didn't know that(referring to the snakes with legs).
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 |
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1919 (4/5/03 12:16 pm) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Quote:
In fact most people who claim to "believe" in a certain religion
don't even know what that religion really means.
You mean most kids? I think
pretty much all adults that have a religion know what it
means.
And its only fundamentalists that actually believe the
stories in Genesis. Other Christians believe that those are stories
used to explain things the people didn't know at the time.
|
KeenEmpire Keen's Empire Posts: 542 (4/5/03 2:28 pm) 203.151.38.3 | Del
|
w
Well, it depends if the majority of religious people actually
research that religion. It's probably hazardous to make a
supposition in either direction, without more factual statistics.
|
Forge315
Grand Intellect Posts: 1374 (4/5/03 10:06 pm) 68.106.137.215 | Del
|
.
Interesting information about the K40 and Ar40, Shadow. I knew
there was a creationist explanation.
|
chogall Vorticon Elder Posts: 1280 (4/6/03 6:19 am) 217.70.229.39 | Del
ezSupporter
|
Re: .
You would probably be interested in checking Shadow's findings with
your local university's Physics department before swallowing it
whole.
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1060 (4/6/03 8:43 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Just read all this junk.
First of all Shadow, I DO call
people morons because they give me a hard time -- but not because
they argue against me, but because they don't know what they're
talking about and eat everything people with the same beliefs feed
them.
You talk about the problems with K-Ar dating - you're
right, however, that's why they invented Ar-Ar dating, because it
overcomes that problem.
And even if there was no solution to
the problem, there isn't excess Ar-40 in everything, the technique
still works most of the time. Don't expect one flaw in a system to
mean it's useless.
I don't really understand why creationists
attack dating techniques... I can understand evolution, but dating
techniques?! Are you still so backwards that you want to believe
that the world is 10,000 (or something like that) years old? If so -
how could a single flaw in one dating technique that only affects
some of the rocks tested negate the whole thing? The only way the
world could be 10,000 years old would be if God made the earth
appear to be older when he created it, planting fossils of long
extint animals and evidence of pre-10,000 year ago human tools and
cave art (we're talking modern humans from 20,000+ years
ago).
That's why I like Latter Day Saints, they don't covet
the inane notion that when the bible says seven days, that it means
7 rotations of the earth.
Edited by: eK
at: 4/6/03 10:06:45 am
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 410 (4/6/03 10:59 am) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: w
Quote:
You mean most kids? I think pretty much all adults that have a
religion know what it means.
And its only fundamentalists
that actually believe the stories in Genesis. Other Christians
believe that those are stories used to explain things the people
didn't know at the time.
People only know the basis of a
religion. Ask a Christian why they according the Bible they should
visit the Church. They don't know. People don't know why they do
these traditions. Only around 70-80% of the Christians knows why we
celebrate Easter, Christmas and only about 40-50% knows why they
have certain traditions. I don't have this from any source, but I
live in a village which is pretty religious, so it's easy to see
there. Some people on this forum (example: UppyII) believes it:
why do they say that Dinosaurs lived on the 6th day?
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 |
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1247 (4/6/03 11:01
am) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re: w
Quote:
and eat everything people with the same beliefs feed them.
I'm not sure about the
others but I try to don't hower I admit that I tend to do that. But
most of the time I don't agee.
Quote:
I don't really understand why creationists attack dating
techniques... I can understand evolution, but dating techniques?!
Are you still so backwards that you want to believe that the world
is 10,000 (or something like that) years old? If so - how could a
single flaw in one dating technique that only affects some of the
rocks tested negate the whole thing? The only way the world could
be 10,000 years old would be if God made the earth appear to be
older when he created it, planting fossils of long extint animals
and evidence of pre-10,000 year ago human tools and cave art
(we're talking modern humans from 20,000+ years ago).
Depends on what you call
time: human time, Gods time. Whatever my complainment is that people
like YOU make things like carbon date 100% truestable. But nothing
is you can't say that something is 100% true. Because you haven't
been there. Science is great but it has proven numerous times that
not everything they say was true. Or they re-change their opinion
even back. Than how can you be so sure about carbon date?
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1929 (4/6/03 11:05 am) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re: .
Quote:
Only around 70-80% of the Christians knows why we celebrate
Easter, Christmas and only about 40-50% knows why they have
certain traditions. I don't have this from any source, but I live
in a village which is pretty religious, so it's easy to see there.
Heh..maybe your village is
pretty stupid, it's quite different around where I live.
|
KeenEmpire Keen's Empire Posts: 543 (4/6/03 11:28 am) 203.151.38.3 | Del
|
fse
About the varying length of "days" used in the creation of the
earth:
Lets say that one of the seven "days" used to create
the earth actually means one millenia. Some arguments might suggest
that it should actually be a longer time, but this is an okay
starting point.
According to the Bible, God created plants
one day before he created the sun (I forgot my source for this, or
even the specific days, so bear with me). The plants, in other
words, have no sunlight with which to conduct photosynthesis, in the
gap between that time.
If the plants have no sunlight for
only one day, it wouldn't be that great of a problem. If plants are
deprived of sunlight, however, for a
thousand years, you can see the
difficulties in basic survival that would arise.
You can take
this argument to support many different things.
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1063 (4/6/03 1:01 pm) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: w
Quote:
Depends on what you call time: human time, Gods time. Whatever my
complainment is that people like YOU make things like carbon date
100% truestable. But nothing is you can't say that something is
100% true. Because you haven't been there. Science is great but it
has proven numerous times that not everything they say was true.
Or they re-change their opinion even back. Than how can you be so
sure about carbon date?
Umm, I never said Carbon
Dating, or any other form of dating is 100% accurate, but it's
mostly accurate. Our methods are quite precise (I'm using the
scientific definition of precision, meaning reproducable and
consistent) and in most cases, within the margin for error, quite
accurate. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm
stupid. If making me out to be stupid makes you feel more right
about the way you see things, then I guess I understand why you'd
label me as such.
Of course science is wrong many times.
Science once believed the earth was flat -- that the sun revolved
around the earth, and a lot of other stupid things. But with
expiriments, and gathered evidence new, more perfect models to
explain our world were created. Plate techtonics for instance, is a
fairly recent model that describes continental drift and the
creation of mountains, etc. It may one day be replaced my a better,
more accurate model. I find it likely that the main ideas of plate
techtonics, that the earth's surfaced is composed of plates that
move around to create moutains, oceanic rifts, etc, will survive any
sort of change in the underlying theory. Considering the evidence
they've gathered to back this up, locating all the seperate plates
and where they've collided in the past, I find it unlikely that a
completely different theory will suddenly pop up that will demolish
the current one.
Evolution is similar. It's been around even
longer, over a hundred years without any solid evidence against it.
The only weaknesses in Evolutions arguments are the unknowns --
those things that it has been unable to yet explain. I imagine that
eventually many of those unknowns will be explained as more evidence
for the theory is gathered. Considering how fast paced science has
become, for a theory to last over a hundred years is stunning. The
standard model of physics hasn't even been around 50 years. The fact
that the myth that evolution is inherently flawed has persisted for
years shows how little people know about the scientific method and
how science supports it's theories -- or what theories are for that
matter. This problem is especially bad in the United States, which
doesn't really do a proper job of teaching the average person
anything before college.
Edited by: eK
at: 4/6/03 1:07:01 pm
|
chogall Vorticon Elder Posts: 1284 (4/6/03 2:27 pm) 217.70.229.196 | Del
ezSupporter
|
Re: w
Here in Norway, many people are Christian "just for the sake of
it", i.e. they visit the church once a year (on Christmas Eve) and
on special occasions such as childbirths, marriages etc, but that's
the only connection they have with the Christian religions. Of
course, these people are all registered in the State Church rolls,
thus earning the Church extra government fundings and credibility
because of the large number of members.
Edited by: chogall
at: 4/6/03 2:32:21 pm
|
baabis
Gannalech Posts: 175 (4/6/03 3:27 pm) 62.78.239.196 | Del
|
Re: .
I've asked about religion from people in my class, and it appears
that even though only two(me and on other) from our class aren't in
the church, only two others really believe in god. The rest belong
to the church just so they can get lots of money from their
relatives after confessing. It isn't surprising though, as I've
always thought of most of them as somewhat intelligent people.
The board is a mirror of the mind
of the players as the moments pass. When a master studies the record
of a game he can tell at what point greed overtook the pupil, when
he became tired, when he fell into stupidity, and when the maid came
by with tea. |
eK Isonian Posts: 1064 (4/6/03 3:31 pm) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: fse
Baaba, just because someone is religious doesn't mean their
stupid.
Look at Flaose for instance, an excellent example of
an intelligent believer.
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1252 (4/6/03 5:53
pm) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re: .
Quote:
Umm, I never said Carbon Dating, or any other form of dating is
100% accurate, but it's mostly accurate. Our methods are quite
precise (I'm using the scientific definition of precision, meaning
reproducable and consistent) and in most cases, within the margin
for error, quite accurate.
Than we agree.
Quote:
Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm stupid. If
making me out to be stupid makes you feel more right about the way
you see things, then I guess I understand why you'd label me as
such.
Did I say that. As far
as I remember you called us morons.
Quote:
I find it likely that the main ideas of plate techtonics, that
the earth's surfaced is composed of plates that move around to
create moutains, oceanic rifts, etc, will survive any sort of
change in the underlying theory. Considering the evidence they've
gathered to back this up, locating all the seperate plates and
where they've collided in the past, I find it unlikely that a
completely different theory will suddenly pop up that will
demolish the current one.
Not unlikely at all can
you remember Lamarack? He had anothere evolution theory. But Darwin
came up with a better one.
Quote:
Evolution is similar. It's been around even longer, over a
hundred years without any solid evidence against it. The only
weaknesses in Evolutions arguments are the unknowns -- those
things that it has been unable to yet explain. I imagine that
eventually many of those unknowns will be explained as more
evidence for the theory is gathered.
I doubt that as far as I
know these gaps. Some things of evolution are impossible that's why
I don't believe 100% in evolution. But that's just my
opinion.
Ow and Bababis I remember the Nazis who killed
people who had a different opinion or believe. Just because in their
view they were less people. You should remember that before making
an opinion about other group of people.
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- Edited by: Djaser
at: 4/6/03 6:09:44 pm
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1065 (4/6/03 6:03 pm) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: w
...
|
MRC
Marky Vortininja Posts: 305 (4/6/03 7:29 pm) 80.221.15.73 | Del
|
-
Apparently, if some of you have been brought up to strictly oppose
evolution, there is no way for you to overcome your fear. Perhaps
you fear that God will punish you for believing in it? Alright, that
might be reasonable. But would God also punish you for studying the
facts about natural evolution and not just relying on words of
agitation? If so, is life in heaven that reasonable at
all. Science has provided answers to most questions that in the
past have created the concept of religion. The same concept that for
thousands of years led into massacres, insane crusades and pointless
executions for so-called witch-craft and hereticism. I guess without
scientific advancing, we'd be stuck in the same circle of violence
until the end of humanity. And I'm not saying that people are no
longer violent: they will never stop being violent as it is a
natural part of their psychology once it gets triggered. We are less
ignorant, that it is.
And yes, some ancient people were quite
sure that the earth was round. It takes no more but to walk/sail
around ten miles straight line and look at the changes that have
occured in horizon. If someone here still believes that earth is a
flat level with deadly edges, I can only feel sorry for him/her. Did
you know that the ancient, Biblical image of earth did not include
the American continent?
|
Shadow Grunt Posts: 14 (4/6/03 8:37 pm) 206.63.170.75 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Quote:
I don't really understand why creationists attack dating
techniques... I can understand evolution, but dating techniques?!
Are you still so backwards that you want to believe that the world
is 10,000 (or something like that) years old? If so - how could a
single flaw in one dating technique that only affects some of the
rocks tested negate the whole thing?
I am not trying to
debunk dating techniques. I am just trying to get people to
understand them from a creationist viewpoint. If you can explain
things from your side of the fence, than aren't I allowed to explain
them from mine? If a dating technique is questionable, how can you
trust the dates? And yes, I do believe the Earth is around 7,000
years old. Have I given you a hard enough time to be a moron yet? I
have read up a small amount concerning Ar-Ar dating methods. I'll
probably put up a post about it in a few days after I've researched
it more thoroughly. A single flaw is all it takes sometimes. And
does it only affect some of the rocks? How can you be sure which
rocks it affects unless you are working on assumption?
Quote:
The only way the world could be 10,000 years old would be if God
made the earth appear to be older when he created it, planting
fossils of long extint animals and evidence of pre-10,000 year ago
human tools and cave art (we're talking modern humans from 20,000+
years ago).
How do you know how long
the animals have been extinct? How do you know humans made those
tools 10-20,000 years ago? Could it be because they're obviously
made by something intelligent? What's the difference between a stone
arrowhead and a cat's retractable claws? One is more complex than
the other. You see a stone arrowhead and you think, "someone made
this.", yet you look right next to it at the plant using
photosythysis, a complex system, and you say, "look at what came
from a big explosion that came from nothing." It doesn't make sense
to me.
|
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1935 (4/6/03 9:34 pm) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re: .
There is more than enough evidence proving the world is more than
7,000 years old. Granite can take upwards of 100,000 years to
cool...if I had time I'd find some other stuff.
|
kittyyorp Vortininja Posts: 123 (4/6/03 10:00 pm) 209.115.59.180 | Del
|
Re: .
i can
scientifically
prove that the earth is only about
6-7 thousand years old/evolution isn't true (and i know some of
these have aalready been said somewhere, but still):
1st: the
peppered moth thing- the peppered moths doesn't help the theory of
evolution. so some moths changed colors to help camouflage
themselves; that's an adaptation, not a moth changing into a
bird.
2nd: biogenesis- biogenesis says that something living
can NOT possibly come from something nonliving. even if you put a
group of the top scientists together, they couldn't even create a
blade of grass from nonliving matter.
3rd: comets- as the
comets move in space, they gradually wear down. if the universe was
billions of years old, we wouldn't have any comets left.
4th:
the moon- the moon is slowly moving away from the earth at about 1
1/2 inches per year. even if the moon was touching the earth, it
would be impossible for the universe to be billions of years
old.
5th: the sun- the sun is gradually getting smaller by
about 5 feet per hour. the heat the sun created billions of years
ago would have been too intense for
anything
to survive.
6th: the sea- there isn't enough salt in the
ocean for the world to be billions of years old. there isn't enough
mud, either. if the world was billions of years old, the sea would
be extremely salty and packed with
mud. ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ now, come on. all
that info should be worth something...
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1070 (4/7/03 3:31 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: -
Hahahaha.
Wow - gee, you sure got us with that
one.
Bam, we don't stand a chance against your brainy
antics.
lol
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1257 (4/7/03 7:36
am) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Well those points are well thought but because the moons moves 1/2
inches from us every year won't say it always moved. Same fo the
sun. And eK why can't you react serious he at least thought about
what he said.
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
eK Isonian Posts: 1071 (4/7/03 7:53 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: .
You guys are funny - and I was laughing specifically at
kittyorp.
That's some really funny stuff. I love those people
who can "prove" that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Those
people crack me up.
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 412 (4/7/03 8:29 am) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: .
Quote:
i can scientifically prove that the earth is only about 6-7
thousand years old/evolution isn't true (and i know some of these
have aalready been said somewhere, but still):
1st: the
peppered moth thing- the peppered moths doesn't help the theory of
evolution. so some moths changed colors to help camouflage
themselves; that's an adaptation, not a moth changing into a
bird.
2nd: biogenesis- biogenesis says that something
living can NOT possibly come from something nonliving. even if you
put a group of the top scientists together, they couldn't even
create a blade of grass from nonliving matter.
3rd: comets-
as the comets move in space, they gradually wear down. if the
universe was billions of years old, we wouldn't have any comets
left.
4th: the moon- the moon is slowly moving away from
the earth at about 1 1/2 inches per year. even if the moon was
touching the earth, it would be impossible for the universe to be
billions of years old.
5th: the sun- the sun is gradually
getting smaller by about 5 feet per hour. the heat the sun created
billions of years ago would have been too intense for anything to
survive.
6th: the sea- there isn't enough salt in the ocean
for the world to be billions of years old. there isn't enough mud,
either. if the world was billions of years old, the sea would be
extremely salty and packed with mud
There are many, many flaws
in your text. First of all the Universe is much older than the
earth. 1st: Yes, some animals hardly evolved. Besides the living
Coelacanth and some mollusks you have some extincted animals like
the Ammonites who lived for millions of years without hardly any
changes. And a moth changing evolving in a bird would take hundreds
of million years as they're very different from each other. It's the
same as saying that a fish would never evolve in a
kangaroo.
2nd: Yes, so far scientist haven't been able to
create life. But according the Bible God created life from
non-living objects(I thought Adam was created by sand and only Eve
was created by a living object), so that doesn't prove creationism
either.
3rd: Learn where comets come from. According to you
comets were only created after the universe was created. But during
that these billions of years new comets are created as
well.
4th: The earth, nor the moon is as old as the
universe!
5th: learn how stars evolved. A star starts with
gases forming a solid sphere, and in billion of years it becomes a
giant(at it's peak the Sun would have burned the Earth, and also
Mercurius, Venus, Mars and Jupiter and fried Saturnus) and then
become very, very small, until it's so compact that it becomes a
black hole(a black hole is nothing more then a very small object
with a very high density which attracts everything around
it).
6: Mud get's stranded on beaches. Also some animals
extracts the water. You think that the mud and salt stays in the
water forever. And there's a limit of salt on the earth. The earth
is 70% water and there's not enough salt to make the sea very salty.
Reminds me of that movie Water World which is impossible as it's
impossible that almost all the land is flooded.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 Edited by: therealdopefish
at: 4/7/03 8:32:28 am
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1072 (4/7/03 12:15 pm) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: -
Our sun isn't going to go black hole on us, or supernova if I
remember...
There are many different kinds of suns that have
gone through different developement processess. Ours does not have
enough mass to turn into a Black Hole.
|
MRC
Marky Vortininja Posts: 307 (4/7/03 7:13 pm) 194.251.240.106 | Del
|
-
Well eK.. Apparently some of these peers here have a problem with
trying to visualize the concept of billions of years, that's their
incapability.
|
Flaose Pooper, King of the Slugs Posts:
900 (4/7/03 9:13
pm) 68.147.124.200 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Yeah eK, scientists think it will eventually turn into a Red
Dwarf...but that will take countless number of years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by:
therealdopefish I thought Adam was
created by sand and only Eve was created by a living object
Yeah that's
right:
Genesis 2:7 - And the LORD God formed man of the dust
of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living soul.
Eve was made from Adam's
rib...is taht really a living object?
-------------------- Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen
Needs. |
baabis
Gannalech Posts: 177 (4/8/03 5:13 pm) 62.78.239.196 | Del
|
Re: .
Quote:
Baaba, just because someone is religious doesn't mean their
stupid.
Hehe, mostly I was kidding
and referring to the matter that they use their own relatives to get
money.
The board is a mirror of the mind
of the players as the moments pass. When a master studies the record
of a game he can tell at what point greed overtook the pupil, when
he became tired, when he fell into stupidity, and when the maid came
by with tea. |
Grelphy
Vortininja Posts: 232 (4/8/03 7:31 pm) 12.23.198.254 | Del
|
Re: -
Time till the sun goes nova ~ 4-5 billion years.
This topic
is getting way to big for me to even look at it all, not to mention
read and comprehend. Sorry if I missed anything.
|
UppyII Vortininja Posts: 290 (4/9/03 5:46 am) 206.63.170.54 | Del
|
Re: -
Ah, I've been gone for the last few days so it might be a while
before I post again. Just letting you know that I've not given up.
|
Shadow Grunt Posts: 15 (4/10/03 12:30 am) 206.63.170.45 | Del
|
Re: Re:
Quote:
That quote states that, at some point in time, God "made the
beasts of the earth after his kind," not that God created them as
they are now, and they absolutely never evolved. We know that
God's beasts are not absolute, having found examples of extinct
species. There is nothing suggesting, in that quote, that
evolution might not also have occured.
Macroevolution or
microevolution? As far as I have read, The Bible also says: "And
there was evening and there was morning the first day." etc. Does
this sound like God used millions of years?
Quote:
You talk about the problems with K-Ar dating - you're right,
however, that's why they invented Ar-Ar dating, because it
overcomes that problem.
All I have to say here
is that both K-Ar dating AND Ar-Ar dating assume that the only Ar-40
in a rock is caused by radioactive decay during the lifetime of the
rock. (Chogall, if you know more about this then please tell me, as
I don't want to mislead people if I'm wrong.)
I find it
easier to believe that an intelligent creator made the Earth in 6
days, than that energy (where did that come from?) exploded, making
an orderly universe. When does an explosion create anything other
than dissorder? If you blew up a pile of lumber would it create an
apartment building? How many tries do you think it would take you to
do it?
PS. I might not be looking at this poll for a couple
days, so don't worry, I'll be back..."after these messages."
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1087 (4/10/03 12:34 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: .
Um, a pile of lumber isn't subject to powerful gravitational
forces. And uh, the post-big bang matter was.
Pretty
simple.
|
Shadow Grunt Posts: 16 (4/10/03 12:50 am) 206.63.170.45 | Del
|
Re: .
Quote:
2nd: Yes, so far scientist haven't been able to create life. But
according the Bible God created life from non-living objects(I
thought Adam was created by sand and only Eve was created by a
living object), so that doesn't prove creationism either.
Umm, I think there's a
difference between God's abilities and scientist's
abilities.
Quote:
1st: Yes, some animals hardly evolved. Besides the living
Coelacanth and some mollusks you have some extincted animals like
the Ammonites who lived for millions of years without hardly any
changes. And a moth changing evolving in a bird would take
hundreds of million years as they're very different from each
other. It's the same as saying that a fish would never evolve in a
kangaroo.
A fish would never
evolve into a kangaroo. How do you know the "ammonites" lived
millions of years? I say that a moth cannot and will not ever evolve
into a bird. How would the half moth-half bird survive? If evolution
is true why do we have distinct species? Why haven't we found any
transitional (in-between) forms?
PS. The Ammonites were a
nation from biblical times. Maybe you were referring to Trilobites?
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1089 (4/10/03 1:14 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: -
lol
Moths never turned into birds
Moth and birds have
the same, super distant ancestors. Insects are
invertibrates...
Half moth half bird.... hahaha.
|
Shadow Grunt Posts: 18 (4/10/03 1:25 am) 206.63.170.45 | Del
|
Re: -
Quote:
Moth and birds have the same, super distant ancestors. Insects are
invertibrates...
Then how and why did
that "super ancestor" 'evolve' into two different types of
creatures?
|
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1960 (4/10/03 1:35 am) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re: .
Some spread to different areas of the world, and adapted to their
environments differently. I'm sure there are many more reasons.
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 415 (4/10/03 8:00 am) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: .
Oh, yeah these creatures were called trilobites.
Difference between God's abilities and Scientists' abilities?
They do not exist. Only some things are so complex to do that it
would take ages for scientists to find out. With the moth-bird
thingey, this is what I meant: And you said that a moth can't
change into a bird. And if a moth really evolved into a bird(which
is false) it would need a lot of changes, so a moth can't hardly be
an ancestor of a bird. But how can you explain that certain
species extinct and that around the same imte a new species is
"born" which looks almost like that old one, but is superior? How
can you explain all these "cavemen" where the first
one(Austrolophithecus) was more monkey then human and that during
some millions years new "cavemen" came who look more human and less
monkey? How can you explain that the DNA of the Bonobo monkey is 97%
equal to our DNA? You can only explain that with evolution.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 |
LordOfGlobox Vortininja Posts: 148 (4/10/03 5:14 pm) 65.43.152.57 | Del
|
Re: -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ How can you explain all
these "cavemen" where the first one(Austrolophithecus) was more
monkey then human and that during some millions years new "cavemen"
came who look more human and less monkey? How can you explain that
the DNA of the Bonobo monkey is 97% equal to our DNA? You can only
explain that with
evolution. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Let's look
into that logic: (this was posted somewhere else):
Watermelon
= 98% water Cloud = 100% water
watermelon =
cloud?
So the watermelon "evolved" into the cloud, it must of
going by your logic?
|
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1967 (4/10/03 5:25 pm) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re: -
Last time I checked, a cloud is not in the animal kingdom, nor is
it a bacteria, plant, fungi, microbe, or anything like that. It is
simply, a cloud. A watermelon is a plant.
Anyways, there's
quite a large difference between water and DNA.
|
LordOfGlobox Vortininja Posts: 151 (4/10/03 5:30 pm) 65.43.152.57 | Del
|
Re: .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Some spread to different
areas of the world, and adapted to their environments differently.
I'm sure there are many more reasons.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ try me.
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1091 (4/10/03 8:02 pm) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: .
Oh my, this is just too
funny.
|
Grelphy
Vortininja Posts: 238 (4/11/03 12:11 am) 12.23.198.254 | Del
|
...
Geez, I'm trying not to laugh... Why doesn't someone here arguing
against evolution go buy a high-school biology textbook, look for
evidence in that, and spare the rest of us?
Anyway, a
watermelon's not even 90% water. And anything that is pure anything
(i.e., water) is related only to itself and other equally pure
substances.
Quote:
try me.
OK, try this. the
population is split. Half goes one place, half goes another. Lets
say, for the purpose of argument, that our creatures are rabbits and
half lives in a forest and half lives in the desert.
The
desert rabbits have to avoid hawks which fly during the daytime.
Rabbits that blend into the sand and spend more of their time awake
at night survive better, so the population becomes lighter and less
active during the day.
The forest rabbits, on the other hand,
have to contend with night-flying owls. They will tend to become
darker, to blend into the dark forest. They will also become much
more nocturnal, and stay hidden during the day.
Obviously,
both of these adaptations entails some change in DNA. Eventually,
the changes will accumulate and the rabbits will no longer be able
to interbreed. They will then be seperate species.
Since the
"intermediate" rabbits were outcompeted by the "finished product",
they went pretty much extinct, leaving no "intermediate"
specimens.
If this doesn't convince anyone, I don't know what
I'll do. It won't be
pleasent.
You
and all those other mental wimps deserve to die! -Mortimer
Mcmire in Commander Keen 3
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1094 (4/11/03 2:23 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: -
Grelphy, good intentioned, but you need to reread your reasoning.
Some of your conclusions are the opposite of what they should be,
and you didn't flesh your argument out enough and include breeding.
To people like me, I see where you're coming from. But to these
guys, they'll think you're implying a magical change to adapt to the
environment.
|
ceilick
Vortininja Posts: 177 (4/11/03 2:28 am) 207.252.227.7 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Yes i believe the rabbit adapted. No, i dont believe it is a new
specie. It is still a rabbit.
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 417 (4/11/03 7:26 am) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: .
And is it still a rabbit after million of years?
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 |
eK Isonian Posts: 1097 (4/11/03 7:26 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: .
Of course it's still a rabbit.
Multiply these little changes
over millions of years and you DO get new species.
You need
to look at the big picture.
|
LordOfGlobox Vortininja Posts: 153 (4/11/03 12:47 pm) 209.81.165.71 | Del
|
...
THAT WAS A JOKE!! (for gods sakes, I'm not an asshole)
|
Flaose Pooper, King of the Slugs Posts:
916 (4/11/03 7:53
pm) 68.147.124.200 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
Originally Posted by: Grelphy Since the "intermediate"
rabbits were outcompeted by the "finished product", they went
pretty much extinct, leaving no "intermediate" specimens.
Sure the "intermediate"
rabbits would be extinct, but wouldn't there be fossils left over
(of course I suppose the skeleton would remain basically the same,
as it was just colour and behavior change)?
Here's a question
for anyone in the know...I've heard that a horse can breed with a
mule (and create a jack-ass?), is this true? Also, is the horse also
able to breed with the zebra?
-------------------- Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen
Needs. |
Scizor
CT Council
Janitor Posts: 402 (4/11/03 8:42
pm) 67.34.170.115 | Del
|
Re: .
Quote:
Here's a question for anyone in the
know...I've heard that a horse can breed with a mule (and create a
jack-ass?), is this true? Also, is the horse also able to breed
with the zebra?
Horses and donkeys can
breed, and the offspring is a mule. However, mules are sterile, so
you don't have a very big population of them. Oddly enough, zebras
and horses can
breed. I forget what the result is called, but there's a picture of
one in my Biology textbook.
My Remixes: Here! Click
here! |
Xtraverse
Stranded Fish Posts: 1979 (4/11/03 9:29 pm) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re: .
What would it look like if a German Shepherd and a chihuahua bred?
|
Flaose Pooper, King of the Slugs Posts:
920 (4/11/03 11:29
pm) 68.147.124.200 | Del
|
Re: .
Ah I see Scizor. With that in mind, has anyone ever tried breeding
humans with monkeys (disgusting and wrong, I know)?
As for
you Xtra...if the chihuahua was the mother, would the mother even
survive the childbirth??? (what we need is an emotikeen for deep
thought)
-------------------- Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen
Needs. |
eK Isonian Posts: 1100 (4/12/03 5:04 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Flaose, I'm sure someone has, but it's not possible. We're FAR too
genetically dissimilar. There's a huge difference between us and
Chimps, even. We may have been able to breed with some of our early
Homo relatives, like Habilis, Erectus, Ergaster, etc -- but who
knows?
|
chogall Vorticon Elder Posts: 1294 (4/12/03 10:59 am) 130.67.122.149 | Del
ezSupporter
|
Re: .
Quote:
As for you Xtra...if the chihuahua was the mother, would the
mother even survive the childbirth??? (what we need is an
emotikeen for deep thought)
Would she even survive the,
erm, conception?
|
KeenEmpire Keen's Empire Posts: 548 (4/12/03 12:57 pm) 203.151.38.3 | Del
|
sdf;oisdfjio
Quote:
Macroevolution or microevolution? As far as I have read, The Bible
also says: "And there was evening and there was morning the first
day." etc. Does this sound like God used millions of years?
Well, of course if God
used a length of millions of years as a single day, there would be
evening and morning, ablit several million*365 evenings and
mornings...
Macro or micro? I suppose you could say that the
statement in the Bible does not contradict either. In addition,
there is the vague, stupid, but possible probability that "not in
their current form" could be stretched to include that God created
donkeys as something down to.. oh, single-celled animals
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1101 (4/12/03 2:47 pm) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: .
It doesn't matter if it sounds like it or not -- the geological
evidence supports the Earth being over 4 billion years old.
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 419 (4/12/03 4:35 pm) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
Of course it's still a rabbit.
Multiply these little
changes over millions of years and you DO get new
species.
You need to look at the big picture.
Hey, eK I'm also on your side.
It was a question to the people who rejects evolution. People who
rejects evolution doesn't know how long one million year is. For
example: the rabbit example tells of rabbits in the forest and
rabbits in the desert. The rabbits in the desert would probably get
larger ears than the one in the forest. With large ears it's easy to
lose heath which is essential in the desert. On the other side a
rabbit with long ears would have trouble to maneuver through the
forest really fast. I told this before: a child is different from
it's parent. The child of the child is more different and so on.
That's how evolution works. Let's say an animal lives for 25 years.
In one million years you would have 1000000/25=400000 generations
and every time the child is different from it's ancestor. And if
every animal get's annually 1.25 kids in the end there would be
millions of children all entirely different from it's great
great......great grandfather. And the further they are non-relatives
from each other the more they look different from each other and
have a higher chance that they aren't able to breed anymore or do
not consider each other as a same specie.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 |
Shadow Grunt Posts: 20 (4/13/03 1:14 am) 64.12.96.104 | Del
|
Re: Re:"Rabbit
Trails"
*Sigh* Looks like we've taken off on another (pardon the pun)
rabbit trail.
Quote:
It doesn't matter if it sounds like it or not -- the geological
evidence supports the Earth being over 4 billion years old.
Show me some geologic
evidence for evolution please.
Dopefish, your last post
doesn't really make sense due to the fact that there are quite a few
people in the world of different nationalities and origins, and,
get this! They are still purely human beings! (unless of course
your'e being racist
)
About the desert rabbit, It is still a rabbit no matter
what it's environment or how much time is available for it to
change, maybe you are mistaking microevolution (which is real) and
macroevolution? (which no-one has proof of.)
Lordofglobox,
please refrain from using foul language as you are not improving our
reputation, besides, it will not get you anywhere.
From what
I read in the Bible (which I HAVE read through), It says "cattle"
were created after their kind and "whales" after their kind. It
doesn't seem like it is referring to a one-celled organism
here.
You are right, there is a difference between water and
DNA. DNA is much, MUCH, more complex, thank you for supporting our
view there.
PS. sorry about the lack of quotes in this post,
I read that eK doesn't appreciate too much quoting.
Edited by: Shadow
at: 4/13/03 1:16:33 am
|
Shadow Grunt Posts: 21 (4/13/03 1:21 am) 64.12.96.104 | Del
|
Re: Moths
Quote:
Moth and birds have the same, super distant ancestors. Insects are
invertibrates...-eK
So, why and how did this
super ancestor evolve into a vertebrate from an invertebrate? (or
vice versa)
PS. geologic evidence supports a world-wide
flood.
Edited by: Shadow
at: 4/13/03 1:22:18 am
|
Xtraverse
Stranded
Fish Posts: 1988 (4/13/03 1:32
am) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re: .
Quote:
You are right, there is a difference between water and DNA. DNA is
much, MUCH, more complex, thank you for supporting our view there.
Just because something is
complicated doesn't mean it can't be formed naturally over millions
of years.
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1103 (4/13/03 1:53 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Um, I don't think vertibrates evolved from invertibrates. I think
bones evolved, and spines came with them.
As for geological
evidence for evolution. I have no idea what you're talking about --
I'm talking about geological evidence for the age of the Earth.
There is no geological evidence for evolution because evolution
isn't a geological process.
|
KeenEmpire Keen's Empire Posts: 550 (4/13/03 7:08 am) 203.151.38.3 | Del
|
lfsja
How do you mean by "created after their own kind?"
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 420 (4/13/03 11:31 am) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: Moths
Quote:
Dopefish, your last post doesn't really make sense due to the fact
that there are quite a few people in the world of different
nationalities and origins, and, get this! They are still purely
human beings! (unless of course your'e being racist )
That is because the human(Homo
Sapiens) is not millions of years old and has reached a higher
annual age than 25.
The first vertrebrates were larva-like:
they did not have bones, only a spline. There are still creatures
like these living, but I have to search how they were
called.
And Shadow, the fact there's no reference to
micro-cell organism in the Bible is because no persons knew that
there were bacteries when the Bible was written. The Bible is
old-fashioned and dated, you know.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 Edited by: therealdopefish
at: 4/13/03 11:36:16 am
|
baabis
Gannalech Posts: 178 (4/13/03 8:05 pm) 62.78.239.196 | Del
|
Re: .
Quote:
Dopefish, your last post doesn't really make sense due to the fact
that there are quite a few people in the world of different
nationalities and origins, and, get this! They are still purely
human beings! (unless of course your'e being racist)
And in addition to that, the
rabbits mentioned earlier don't change their envinroment; humans do.
All humans build a 'home' naturally, be it a skyscraper or a tent,
one is needed for example for temperature regulation, since we need
to keep ourselves warm. I hope you get my point even though this is
a bit of a bad example, I know that rabbits dig holes as their
'homes' but it's still different. If people are in constant threat
of wild animals, for instance, they make weapons. That way they
don't have to wait for themselves to be changed by evolution to
survive better in the presence of the wild animals. On the other
hand, if you live in a city where there are no dangerous animals,
you don't need weapons. And please, if someone is stupid enough
to start arguing about how a city isn't a natural envinroment, go
sit in a corner for a few days to think about it.
The board is a mirror of the mind
of the players as the moments pass. When a master studies the record
of a game he can tell at what point greed overtook the pupil, when
he became tired, when he fell into stupidity, and when the maid came
by with tea. |
Grelphy
Vortininja Posts: 244 (4/14/03 7:37 pm) 12.23.198.254 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Ha! another proof of evolution!
Okay, this is slightly
mathematical, so get out your calculators. =)
Anyway, you
have to admit that at some point genetic codes are too different for
the creatures with them to reproduce. For the sake of simplicity,
we'll set this at 50% similar, although it's obviously much higher
than that.
Then, we assume that everybody is slightly
genetically different from their parents. (After all, we're not all
clones. =) We'll assume between 1 and .1%
We can also assume
that some genetic changes are recursive; I.E., you may have more of
your grandfather's genes than your fathers. We'll assume that about
half of all genetic changes are recursive, which gives us an average
change per generation of about .275% per generation.
It will
take about 181 generations for the genetic difference to reach the
50% point. If we arbitrarily say that a generation lasts 30 years,
it will take about 5,455 years for a species to reach our 50%
similarity breakpoint.
There's some flaws with this; the
genetic differences between generations are largely cosmetic and do
little of importance. We can safely say, however, that after about
10,909 years an unsuccesful species will have evolved
considerably.
Alright, enough math.
You
and all those other mental wimps deserve to die! -Mortimer
Mcmire in Commander Keen 3
|
Flaose Pooper, King of the Slugs Posts:
926 (4/14/03 8:51
pm) 68.147.124.200 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
Originally Posted by: Grelphy Anyway, you have to admit
that at some point genetic codes are too different for the
creatures with them to reproduce. For the sake of simplicity,
we'll set this at 50% similar, although it's obviously much higher
than that.
.....
It will take about 181 generations
for the genetic difference to reach the 50% point. If we
arbitrarily say that a generation lasts 30 years, it will take
about 5,455 years for a species to reach our 50% similarity
breakpoint.
I don't see how this proves
evolution but maybe I'm missing something.
It seems to me
that we're about genetically 98% similar to chimps (or is it a
mouse, either way, it doesn't matter). Taking your .275% change per
generation, then it should only take about 8 generations, or 264
years for two completely different species to be evolved.
Did
I make a point? I'm not sure...
-------------------- Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen
Needs. |
chogall Vorticon Elder Posts: 1299 (4/14/03 9:24 pm) 130.67.238.239 | Del
ezSupporter
|
Re:
Beliefs
Yeah Grelphy, that stuff doesn't prove much at all.
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1111 (4/14/03 10:54 pm) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: .
it could prove something, if the percentages weren't arbitrary.
|
Grelphy
Vortininja Posts: 246 (4/15/03 12:22 am) 12.23.198.254 | Del
|
arbitrary?
Tey're not arbitrary, just really large. A more realistic average
genetic difference per eneration is about .001%.
You get to
do the math on that one. I personally hate math.
|
Xtraverse
Stranded
Fish Posts: 2007 (4/15/03 12:54
am) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
You hate math, yet you were converting some random number into as
many bases as you could think of on the Keen Voting forum and I
quote "just for fun."
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 422 (4/15/03 9:10 am) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
It seems to me that we're about genetically 98% similar to chimps
(or is it a mouse, either way, it doesn't matter). Taking your
.275% change per generation, then it should only take about 8
generations, or 264 years for two completely different species to
be evolved.
The chimp is not our ancestor
but humans and chimps have the same ancestor. So we're not evolved
chimps as you suggest. And it's the bonobo(who was first considered
as a chimp until scientists found out it is a different specie) who
has 98% similarity in DNA.
There are some weird things about
Genetics: Like my father's grandfather had orange(natural colour,
not painted) hair, my father's father did have blond hair but my
father did have orange hair(now it starts to become gray). And I
have blond hair again. It passed a generation?!?!??
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 |
0
UNFLEEXABLE 0 Vorticon
Elite Posts: 423 (4/15/03 9:38
am) 202.7.209.122 | Del
|
Re: .
I'm a muslim.
And I believe... (THE BIRTH OF
ISLAM)
If you are a christian, it MIGHT offend you. But
please don't be. I'm expressing my thoughts.
God created the
Earth in about 6 or 7 "Special Days" which is heaps longer than a
day on Earth. And he placed creatures on the universe and some
inhabitants were devils & angels in the past that humans cannot
see but we can sometimes feel their presense. And Adam & Eve
(Adam & Hawa in the Islamic Way) And they were not supposed
to eat from a certain tree yada yada yada, and the people have
certain desires and began believing in different things, one of the
messengers (prophets) of god, Jesus (or Isa) was sent to Earth to
tell the idol worshippers about Islam but the people refused and
tried to kill him, One of jesus's traitors wanted him dead. And that
traitor looked just like jesus. So the executions crucified him and
not jesus, and god took jesus to heaven. And the soon-to-be
chrisitians misunderstood everything, And a man named George or
maybe St. George confused the christians and made them misunderstand
the real faith. The final messenger of god (there were about
100,000 altogether), Muhammad, he convinced the world and changed it
forever, and gathered God (or Allah)'s revelations to text and was
continually translated throughout the years.
That is the
creation of Islam, basically.
|
Xtraverse
Stranded
Fish Posts: 2010 (4/15/03 3:15
pm) 64.30.37.14 | Del
|
Re:
arbitrary?
Interesting..not sure why it would offend anyone though. So do you
believe in evolution or not?
|
ceilick
Vortininja Posts: 181 (4/15/03 4:03 pm) 207.252.227.7 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
I dont believe man evolved. God may have allowed animals to
evolve(Which I still do not believe), but not man.
|
Grelphy
Vortininja Posts: 248 (4/15/03 7:02 pm) 12.23.198.254 | Del
|
arbitraryness
I had windoze's neat calculator accesory to convert numbers.
|
UppyII Vortininja Posts: 307 (4/15/03 7:36 pm) 206.63.170.39 | Del
|
Re: .
Quote:
Umm... have you heard of the Miller-Urey Electron Discharge
Expiriment? Essentially, using a closed system including all
elements found to have been on Earth during it's primordial,
pre-life phase and exposing it to energy (electricity, heat) as
one would find at the time in the form of lighning and extreme UV
radiation.
The results, often duplicated, show that these
conditions naturally produce all the building blocks we've found
for life. Including all 20 major Amino Acids, DNA, RNA, Glucose,
etc. The list is quite long. -eK
Hmm, the Miller-Urey
experiment, eh?
Ok, first a little history for those of you
who don't know. In 1953 Dr. Frankenstein, with his assistant
Igor—no, wait. In 1953, Stanley Miller, working with Harold Urey,
combined the ideas of Aleksander Oparin and Harold Urey about the
supposed atmosphere of the primitive earth by making a chamber with
only hydrogen, water, methane, and ammonia. He boiled the water and
exposed it to an electric discharge simulating primitive lightening.
After one week, organic compounds had formed. Miller discovered
alanine, glycine, aspartic, glutamic acid, and others. Since then,
in more recent experiments with more modern equipment, all twenty
types of amino acids have been "created."
Suppose a chef
stated that "random natural processes" could eventually create a
chocolate cake. We wouldn't mind if he took whole plants and put
them next to a hot spring in hopes that the hot water would take the
required amount of materials and cook them, but we would become a
bit suspicious if he were to grind up the plants to produce flour,
sugar, cocoa powder, ect., saying that he didn't have the time to
let them be refined by the heated water. We would shake our heads if
he swapped the hot spring for an electric oven in order to "speed
things up" and we would walk away if he carefully measured the
materials, mixed them in a bowl, placed them in the oven, and cooked
them.
Idea taken from Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe p.
169
Miller reported that his experiment was not the first
one, just the first successful one. Earlier, he had set up
differently and discovered that only oil had been formed. It was
only after he had tweaked his apparatus that amino acids were
formed.
And on top of that, forming proteins—useful ones, is
much, much more difficult than forming amino acids. Amino acids, as
I have previously mentioned, do not naturally link up to form
proteins and water strongly inhibits the formation of proteins.
Amino acids readily dissolve in water and water would extremely
dilute the amino acids making collisions rare. I, and others, would
say that Miller's experiment created more questions than it
answered.
Quote:
How long do you believe the universe has existed Uppy? -Xtra
I was reading back
through the thread and I just noticed this. Sorry 'bout that. I'm
not sure as to exactly how old the universe is, but I can say that
it is less than 10,000 years old.
Quote:
The Bible is old-fashioned and dated, you know. –therealdopefish
And why is that?
Quote:
3rd: Learn where comets come from. According to you comets were
only created after the universe was created. But during that these
billions of years new comets are created as well. –therealdopefish
Read up on Walter
Brown's hydroplate theory.
Therealdopefish:
You have
yet to answer my post about he existence of universal abstract
entities. Until you do so sufficiently, you have no ground upon
which to stand and point out supposed contradictions in the
Christian faith and the creation theory because you can't even
account for the existence of universal laws.
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1121 (4/16/03 12:21 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re:
arbitrary?
Well if you believe the Universe is 10,000 years old, then there's
no hope.
Because it's not 10,000 years old. Again, this isn't
really debatable. I don't see how someone can believe something
completely arbitrary and unsupported over something heavily
supported by scientific data, but whatever.
Believing the
Earth is 10,000 years old is as silly as believing in Greek
mythology.
|
Xtraverse
Stranded
Fish Posts: 2018 (4/16/03 12:32
am) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Hey! Are you doubting Cupid's existance?
|
Flaose Pooper, King of the Slugs Posts:
935 (4/16/03 12:48
am) 68.147.124.200 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
I know I've been
shot by his arrow before.
-------------------- Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen
Needs. |
0
UNFLEEXABLE 0 Vorticon
Elite Posts: 445 (4/16/03 4:46
am) 203.213.59.102 | Del
|
Re: .
Quote:
I know I've been shot by his arrow before.
Is that a joke? Because
I sure got shot.
I DO NOT believe in Evolution. I believe
that God, placed 2 new humans on the earth. We are not evolved we
are a completely new species.
:moon Take that iD for not toasting the
universe! |
KeenEmpire Keen's Empire Posts: 557 (4/16/03 7:29 am) 203.151.38.3 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
It was only after he had tweaked his apparatus that amino acids
were formed.
Can you tell me about
this "tweaking" of the apparatus? I can't really see how it might be
comparable to a chef grinding wheat into flour, especially
since:
Quote:
In 1953, Stanley Miller, working with Harold Urey, combined the
ideas of Aleksander Oparin and Harold Urey about the supposed
atmosphere of the primitive earth by
making a chamber with only hydrogen, water, methane, and
ammonia.
I'm not exactly sure how
you could "grind" hydrogen, water, etc.
The suns were green, the spaceships
tall In ancient days before the fall Of empires of
Parlmtheon, And Shikadine, who now beyond, The Eastern stars
have passed away, Deep space was fair in DemOps' day -A dirty copyright
infringement |
MRC
Marky Vortininja Posts: 312 (4/16/03 3:15 pm) 80.221.5.248 | Del
|
-
What's wrong with this planet being as old as billions of years?
Does that outrule the possible existence of God? Those
"calculations" were done by the same people who claimed the earth is
flat.
|
Shadow Grunt Posts: 22 (4/16/03 5:39 pm) 205.188.208.171 | Del
|
Re:
arbitrary?
Quote:
Well if you believe the Universe is 10,000 years old, then there's
no hope. Because it's not 10,000 years old. Again, this isn't
really debatable. I don't see how someone can believe something
completely arbitrary and unsupported over something heavily
supported by scientific data, but whatever. Believing the Earth is
10,000 years old is as silly as believing in Greek mythology.-eK
eK, if you continue to
argue that there is scientific evidence for the world being over
10,000 years old, and continue to refuse to show us this evidence,
then your arguments are empty and meaningless.
|
Shadow Grunt Posts: 23 (4/16/03 6:18 pm) 205.188.208.140 | Del
|
Re:
Metamorphisis: Evidence against evolution
Most insects (87%) undergo complete metamorphisis; that is, a larva
(ie. a caterpillar) builds a cocoon or chrysillis around itself. Its
body then disentegrates into a thick, pulplike liquid. Days, weeks,
or months later, the adult insect emerges-one that is dramatically
different, amazingly capable, and often beautiful, such as a
butterfly. Food, habitat, and behavior of the larva also differ
drastically from the adult. Evolution claims that: Mutations slightly alter an organism's
genetic material which later generations inherit. On rare occasions
the alterations are beneficial, enabling the offspring to reproduce
more of themselves and the improved genetic material. [Supposedly]after many generations,
dramatic changes, even new organs, accumulate. If this were true, each
organism must be able to reproduce and must be superior, in some
sense, to its ancestors. How then could metamorphisis evolve in many
stages? What mutations could improve a larva? Certainly none that
destroyed its nerves, muscles, eyes, brain, and most other organs,
as occurs within a cocoon. So, even if a larva improved, it later
ends up as "mush". From an evolutionary standpoint, liquefying
complex organs is a giant step backwards. As Pitman wryly noted, Maggots will more or less disolve
themselves when developing into a fly. Was the process
pre-programmed from the first 'production run'? Or was the ancestral
fly a dissolved maggot? The
millions of changes inside the thick liquid never produce something
survivable or advantageous in the outside world, until the adult
completely forms. How did the genetic material for both larva and
adult develop? Which came first, larva or adult? What mutations
could transform a crawling larva into a flying monarch butterfly
that can accurately navigate 3,000 miles using a brain the size of a
pin head? Indeed, why should a larva evolve in the first place,
because it cannot reproduce? Charles Darwin wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any
complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by
numerous succesive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely
break down." Based on metamorphisis
alone, evolution "breaks down". Obviously, the vast information
that directs every stage of a larva's and an adult's developement,
including metamorphisis, must reside in its genetic material at the
beginning. This fits only creation.
If you ignore this
post, I will assume that you are angry, frustrated, and/or unable to
answer.
This post was made posible
through the writings of Walt Brown Ph.D. and from support of viewers
like you.
Edited by: Shadow
at: 4/16/03 6:25:14 pm
|
Shadow Grunt Posts: 24 (4/16/03 8:55 pm) 205.188.208.171 | Del
|
Re: RE:
Kinds
Quote:
How do you mean by "created after their own kind?"-KeenEmpire
What I am saying, is
that a dog comes from a dog and a cat comes from a cat. etc... I
believe that all the thousands of variations of dogs came from one
original pair of dogs. The descendants of these two dogs then spread
out and diversified via natural selection, specialized breedeing,
and other means. This applies to all other animals such as
horses, ducks, sheep, bears, hawks, beetles, ants,
etc...
Ever see a dog that is half cat?
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1127 (4/16/03 9:24 pm) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: -
Ever hear of edit? Don't keep replying to yourself.
Yeesh.
Okay, the whole insect thing is pretty easy to
explain.
First of all, they don't liquify their brain and
everything as far as I know, that sounds silly and stupid. I'm sure
they keep the same organs, but that's beside the point I want to
make.
Anyways -- let's start small, with frogs. They start
out as tadpoles and become normal frogs. Their cells are designed to
self destruct when the reach a certain age -- destroying their tale
while their frog like characteristics take precedence. Frogs are
able to leave their birth habitat and spread out. Being amphibious
allows them to survive the destruction of a pond or lake, since they
can leave the water.
Insects would have started the same way.
Modifying a little over time so that they can survive in multiple
habitats. Insects would be poor survivors in their early stages in
many of the environments they spend their adulthood in, and if they
didn't spend time in those environments they wouldn't be able to
propogate outward into new habitats.
Migration is simply
explained, it's contingent on the magnetic poles. The small brain
somehow (and I'm not quite sure how) picks up on the poles and uses
them for navigation.
As I've said millions of times already,
if someone could disprove darwin evolution so easily, it would have
been tossed out long long ago.
The only thing that frustrates
me about you is your stupid ideas like birds and moths being related
and now cats and dogs. You're one of the worst arguers for your
side, and I don't feel threatened by your reasoning at all. More
bored by it than anything..
and finally, as for evidence
to the contrary of the universe being 10,000 years old. Holy shit
there's a ton of it. First there's the geological evidence. Dating
methods that have proved that the earth is around 4 billion years
old. Then there's the physics evidence. Like the microwave
background radiation (I hope I'm remember the name right) that gives
us a map of the universe as it was billions of years ago in it's
early stages when suns were first forming.
Not to mention
most stars are too far off for the light to have gotten to us yet in
a mere 10,000 years. Unless God created the universe to look older
than it really is? I don't see why He would do that.
|
Shadow Grunt Posts: 25 (4/17/03 1:37 am) 64.12.96.104 | Del
|
Re: -
Quote:
The only thing that frustrates me about you is your stupid ideas
like birds and moths being related and now cats and dogs. You're
one of the worst arguers for your side, and I don't feel
threatened by your reasoning at all. More bored by it than
anything..-eK
I didn't say moths and
birds were related, or cats and dogs. Maybe you are misreading my
posts. Boredom is an awful thing...Maybe you should read a book.
Besides, did I ask you if you felt threatened?
Quote:
Ever hear of edit? Don't keep replying to yourself. Yeesh.-eK
I finish a post and
realize I have more to say. Is it against the rules to have more
than one post in a row?
Quote:
First of all, they don't liquify their brain and everything as far
as I know, that sounds silly and stupid. I'm sure they keep the
same organs, but that's beside the point I want to make.-eK
Maybe you should read up
on your biology. These are some of the components that dissolve
during metamorphosis; brain, eyes, muscles, and nerves. The truth
can sound silly and stupid sometimes, but it is still truth.
Quote:
eK-and finally, as for evidence to the contrary of the universe
being 10,000 years old. Holy sh*t there's a ton of it. First
there's the geological evidence. Dating methods that have proved
that the earth is around 4 billion years old.-edited
First of all, curb the
offensive language please. Second, How can dating methods prove that
the earth is billions of years old when they all have flaws and are
based on assumption?
Quote:
As I've said millions of times already, if someone could disprove
darwin evolution so easily, it would have been tossed out long
long ago.-eK
As I've said before, the
only reason evolution is accepted, is because the only alternative
is creation.
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1130 (4/17/03 2:03 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re:
Metamorphisis: Evidence against evolution
You have no buisiness talking about biology. If you debunk
everything in science that disagrees with your unproved,
evidenceless theory then you really have no right to talk about
anything science related at all.
I don't think anything short
of God swooping down and giving you a good, hard smack on the face
would convince you that you're wrong.
I know I sure can't.
Heck, you didn't even respond to any of the evidence I put forth
(like the light thing) and instead reacted only to my use of the
word shit, my possible lack of knowledge about insect biology (it's
not like I've ever studied it, or even have a particular interest in
it)
Lastly, it's not officially against the rules. But it's
similar to spamming. You posted three times more than you had to.
|
Shadow Grunt Posts: 26 (4/17/03 4:23 am) 205.188.208.140 | Del
|
Re:
Metamorphisis: Evidence against evolution
Quote:
You have no buisiness talking about biology. If you debunk
everything in science that disagrees with your unproved,
evidenceless theory then you really have no right to talk about
anything science related at all.
I take it that you don't
consider metamorphisis evidence against evolution. Very well then,
I'll have to find another example.
Quote:
I don't think anything short of God swooping down and giving you a
good, hard smack on the face would convince you that you're wrong.
Actually, that would
prove that you're wrong...
Quote:
I know I sure can't. Heck, you didn't even respond to any of the
evidence I put forth (like the light thing) and instead reacted
only to my use of the word sh*t, my possible lack of knowledge
about insect biology (it's not like I've ever studied it, or even
have a particular interest in it)-edited
Hey, I'm not an octopus,
I can't get to everything at once! Although, maybe if I evolved six
more arms...
Quote:
Lastly, It's not officially against the rules. But it's similar to
spamming. You posted three times more than you had to.
Actually, it was only
two more times than I had to. I don't want to upset anyone by
posting too much so I'll try to put it all into one post for
you.
eK, Maybe you should take some time out to calm down, as
I don't want to be a part of any 'flame' wars. No offence
meant.
|
KeenEmpire Keen's Empire Posts: 558 (4/17/03 10:40 am) 203.151.38.3 | Del
|
Re:
Metamorphisis: Evidence against evolution
Aye, doubleposting is considered to be similar to spamming, and not
tolerated in many boards. Even if you only make "two times more"
posts that you "[had] to," it still gets very slightly annoying to
read.
Being "created after their own kind" is not necessarily
interpreted in your manner (the obvious flaw is the word "created,"
which seems to suggest that the other dogs were made, not
descended from, the two original dogs). As it is, if the statement
were simply presumed to mean that the structures of dogs and cats
(and etc.) were originally "mapped" after a "master creation plan"
by God, evolution is still not ruled out.
What happens if God
snaps his fingers and creates a dog, exactly as it is now? What
happens if God allows a bacterium to slowly evolve until it becomes
a dog as it is now? Absolutely the same result. Even if God created
these animals "after their own kind;" say, after a model that
resides somewhere in Heaven, he might create it though the immediate
conjuring up of parts, or through the slow actions of *gasp*
evolution, and still derive the same results, mapping it after his
master plan. Keep in mind that God is all-knowing, which means that
he knows under what exact conditions he has to create the Earth, in
order to produce precisely the desired animal result even billions
of years after he originally places cells upon the planet. God, as
he is probably not limited by the Uncertainty Principle, can place
all atoms and molecules exactly where they should be to make,
against all odds, a hugeass ecosystem filled with humans at the
top.
Quote:
Actually, that would prove that you're wrong...
Not necessarily. If,
after slapping you in the face, God revealed that he actually didn't
have anything to do with the earth after all..
Quote:
Hey, I'm not an octopus, I can't get to everything at once!
Although, maybe if I evolved six more arms...
You don't need six arms
to reach every letter on the keyboard (which is all that is required
to type up a complete response).
The suns were green, the spaceships
tall In ancient days before the fall Of empires of
Parlmtheon, And Shikadine, who now beyond, The Eastern stars
have passed away, Deep space was fair in DemOps' day -A dirty copyright
infringement |
eK Isonian Posts: 1131 (4/17/03 1:45 pm) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: -
Umm... the existence of God doesn't disprove evolution.
|
Forge315
Grand Intellect Posts: 1398 (4/17/03 2:07 pm) 150.176.82.150 | Del
|
.
Nor does the idea of evolution make creationism unsubstantiated.
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1132 (4/17/03 3:27 pm) 143.109.58.24 | Del
|
Re:
Metamorphisis: Evidence against evolution
No, of course not.
Creationism is unsubstantiated to begin
with. By that I mean there's no conclusive evidence to back it
up.
Doesn't mean it's false, just without any evidence of any
weight. Nothing scientifically verifiable.
|
Shadow Grunt Posts: 27 (4/17/03 4:34 pm) 152.163.188.194 | Del
|
Re:
Metamorphisis: Evidence against evolution
Quote:
Aye, doubleposting is considered to be similar to spamming, and
not tolerated in many boards. Even if you only make "two times
more" posts that you "[had] to," it still gets very slightly
annoying to read.
As I said before, I will
try not to do this in the future. I am sorry if anybody was annoyed
at my posting more than once in a row.
Quote:
As it is, if the statement were simply presumed to mean that the
structures of dogs and cats (and etc.) were originally "mapped"
after a "master creation plan" by God, evolution is still not
ruled out.
The Bible contradicts
evolution in another way as well. There was no death before Adam and
Eve ate the fruit of good and evil, because there was no sin.
Evolution claims that death had to happen. (ie. natural selection)
The theory of evolution claims that there is no God, or that God
(who is perfect) is a liar.
I think we are getting off
subject. eK, I didn't ask how insects could evolve, I asked how the
process of metamorphosis evolved. In a post earlier in this thread,
you said: "evolution doesn't tell us why it happens, just how." I am
asking how evolution explains how processes of metamorphisis for the
thousands of different insects that use it evolved.
PS. I
will get to the starlight issue after I first get a solid answer for
my question (which I asked first).
Edited by: Shadow
at: 4/17/03 4:38:22 pm
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 423 (4/17/03 4:59 pm) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re:
Metamorphisis: Evidence against evolution
Sorry I was a bit busy with University this week. Therefore I had
no time visiting the forum. Only one week and I have finally some
more free time and can reply as always.
Shadow, in the last
replies you only say to eK that he should read a biology book. How
do you think he would give a proper answer on that? Also you say
that the Bible contradicts evolution as well. But if both are
contradicting each other, then wouldn't it make sense that the most
recent one is probably the most most likely? The Bible is 2000 years
old. In all those years we have seen many things which were not
known in the Bible. And some of these things contradicts the Bible.
Also metamorphis is just a property for an insect/frog. There are
certainly lot's of reasons why an animal would have higher chances
to survive that way. For example: A tadpole is small, so a frog
could easily make hundreds of childs(most are eaten, but it's still
better than starting big). The frog does not have to protect their
children and could live on it's own. You can compare a tadpole with
a child who was born too early. That child would also need many
changes to look like a human.
Quote:
I dont believe man evolved. God may have allowed animals to
evolve(Which I still do not believe), but not man.
So we're all incests. Question:
Do you live perhaps in the Hague in the Netherlands? I know someone
who said that to me as well.
Quote:
I was reading back through the thread and I just noticed this.
Sorry 'bout that. I'm not sure as to exactly how old the universe
is, but I can say that it is less than 10,000 years old.
And we found objects older than
that! The egyptians were already from 6000bc(8000 years) and then
there should be an ice age/bronze age and stone age before it?!?!?
But yes, you CAN say it.
Quote:
You have yet to answer my post about he existence of universal
abstract entities. Until you do so sufficiently, you have no
ground upon which to stand and point out supposed contradictions
in the Christian faith and the creation theory because you can't
even account for the existence of universal laws.
What post? I must have missed
it. I have no time to find the page with that post.
Quote:
What's wrong with this planet being as old as billions of years?
Does that outrule the possible existence of God? Those
"calculations" were done by the same people who claimed the earth
is flat.
Wrong. The fact that people
thought the earth was flat was because some Christians said this
together with the fact that the Sun and all Stars are rotating
around us. And everyone who was against it was murdered. And then I
should just follow those Christians without even thinking what I'm
actually doing? Talking about unrealistic.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 Edited by: therealdopefish
at: 4/17/03 5:09:21 pm
|
ceilick
Vortininja Posts: 183 (4/17/03 5:34 pm) 207.252.227.7 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Actually I live in Washington. What i ment was that God created man
in his image not as a one cell thing that evolved into man.
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1133 (4/17/03 7:54 pm) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re:
Metamorphisis: Evidence against evolution
Shadow: and which I already addressed. But since you didn't get it
the first time, I'll quickly sum it up.
Mutation and Natural
Selection.
The primary catalysts for changes in all organisms
over time. There are other forms of selection, like artificial, but
those two are the primary causes for all evolutionary
changes.
They don't break down in the face of
complexity.
I talked about frogs, who go through a simpler
version of metamorphisis, and about why metamorphasis might be
selected for by nature. No other explination should be needed.
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1328 (4/17/03 8:01
pm) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re:
Metamorphisis: Evidence against evolution
Quote:
Do you live perhaps in the Hague in the Netherlands?
What do you mean? The
Hague
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
Flaose Pooper, King of the Slugs Posts:
947 (4/17/03 10:23
pm) 68.147.124.200 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Here's a question to anyone:
Why would we have evolved from
asexually reproducing 'primordal slime', to sexually reproducing
animals?
Seems to me that asexual reproduction is far more
effecient...I don't think that we'd evolve the need to have sex just
because it feels good.
-------------------- Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen
Needs. |
Grelphy
Vortininja Posts: 253 (4/17/03 10:27 pm) 12.23.198.254 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Sexual reproduction is an excellent way to spread genes. If some
"critter" somewhere has a certain "good" adaption, it is quickly
spread throughout the population. This is assuming, of course, that
the population of "critters" isn't chaste (which most "critters"
aren't).
You
and all those other mental wimps deserve to die! -Mortimer
Mcmire in Commander Keen 3
|
Flaose Pooper, King of the Slugs Posts:
948 (4/17/03 10:30
pm) 68.147.124.200 | Del
|
Re:
Metamorphisis: Evidence against evolution
Oh...that makes a lot of sense then.
-------------------- Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen
Needs. |
Forge315
Grand Intellect Posts: 1401 (4/17/03 10:50 pm) 150.176.82.150 | Del
|
.
Quote:
eK - No, of course not. Creationism is unsubstantiated to begin
with. By that I mean there's no conclusive evidence to back it
up. Doesn't mean it's false, just without any evidence of any
weight. Nothing scientifically verifiable.
The idea of evolution is just a
bunch of false conclusions based on some observations that couldn’t
possibly prove it. You say there’s no scientific evidence for
creationism, however this is false, there’s no scientific evidence
to absolutely prove creationism because it’s based on Christianity
but scientifically and theologically creationism is more practical.
Evolution seeks to discredit God, and is a humanistic ecological
unscientific belief; you may believe what you like but everything
takes belief and Christianity isn’t unpractical or unscientific
because of this. If anything creationism is more scientific,
admitting it’s weaknesses, unlike evolution which innumerable times
has made claims which would have been believed (and still are)
hadn’t some creationist discredited them. I see nothing scientific
about evolution, it’s based off of the concept that things evolve
which hasn’t been proven, so all you have are ideas about nothing;
there can’t be anything since the base isn’t there, evolution
doesn’t scientifically even prove practical. How can it be
practical? You’re observing nothing. If one finds a bird let one
observe the bird but until it has been found, how can one observe
it?
|
Xtraverse
Stranded
Fish Posts: 2028 (4/17/03 10:56
pm) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
Evolution seeks to discredit God
Uhh..evolution and a deity
are quite compatible beliefs.
|
Forge315
Grand Intellect Posts: 1402 (4/18/03 2:44 am) 68.106.137.215 | Del
|
.
Evolution is a belief quite the opposite of creationism &
Christianity. It’s humanistic, and Christianity and humanism aren’t
compatible. Take America now, that’s what humanism has done to us;
no one is quite sure what’s right or wrong, and it all just very
sad.
|
Xtraverse
Stranded
Fish Posts: 2031 (4/18/03 3:12
am) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re: .
Maybe it's just Catholics, but most Christians I know believe in
evolution. I suppose its because they're not fundamentalists, and
believe stories like the seven-day creation were just stories to
explain what people didn't know at that time.
|
UppyII Vortininja Posts: 310 (4/18/03 4:22 am) 206.63.170.49 | Del
|
Re: .
Quote:
Mutation and Natural Selection.
The primary catalysts for
changes in all organisms over time. There are other forms of
selection, like artificial, but those two are the primary causes
for all evolutionary changes. –eK
eK, I can't believe that
you brought up natural selection again...
Evolution is an
increase in genetic information and complexity whereas natural
selection is merely a horizontal shift of already present
information or a profitable loss of genetic information. I don't
have a problem with natural selection. In fact, natural selection
fits nicely within the creationists model. The creationist model
doesn't say that species are fixed; it states that kinds are fixed.
Dogs are dogs, have always been, and will always be dogs even though
there are different varieties of dogs. To say that natural selection
is an adequate candidate for evolution is wrong and
unscientific.
Now, mutations are a loss, or randomization, of
genetic information. I'm not saying that mutations are not
profitable. Some can be—most are not, but a few are. I'm saying that
you don't get an increase in genetic information, an increase in
complexity from a mutation therefore mutations are not adequate
candidates for evolution.
Quote:
There is more than enough evidence proving the world is more than
7,000 years old. Granite can take upwards of 100,000 years to
cool...if I had time I'd find some other stuff. –Xtra
If indeed granite took
100,000 years to cool, there would be no granite. Granite is
composed of different materials with varying densities and if it
were once molten and then cooled, granite would not have formed as
we now know it, but rather a layered-cake-like-rock would have
resulted.
Quote:
Not to mention most stars are too far off for the light to have
gotten to us yet in a mere 10,000 years. Unless God created the
universe to look older than it really is? I don't see why He would
do that. –eK
This statement is based
on the assumption that light travels at a fixed speed and has not
decreased over time. Several theories say that the speed of light
has decreased over time. Decreased, that is, to such a degree that
the speed of light would have been millions of times faster than it
is today. Such theories would explain the apparent galaxies that are
'billions of light-years away.'
Quote:
What post? I must have missed it. I have no time to find the page
with that post. –Therealdopefish
pub128.ezboard.com/fpubli...41&stop=60
Post
#272.
Quote:
Sexual reproduction is an excellent way to spread genes. If some
"critter" somewhere has a certain "good" adaption, it is quickly
spread throughout the population. This is assuming, of course,
that the population of "critters" isn't chaste (which most
"critters" aren't). –Grelphy
So explain how sexual
reproduction arose from a-sexual reproduction. Remember, your
'critter' has to be fully-functional at every step of the way and
your 'hypothesis' has to be in conformity with known laws of
genetics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1330 (4/18/03 7:34
am) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
Sexual reproduction is an excellent way to spread genes. If some
"critter" somewhere has a certain "good" adaption, it is quickly
spread throughout the population. This is assuming, of course,
that the population of "critters" isn't chaste (which most
"critters" aren't).
But than is my question:
Hoe could asexual creatures evolve to sexual creature. Or how could
they even evolve?
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 424 (4/18/03 2:33 pm) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: .
Quote:
Seems to me that asexual reproduction is far more effecient...I
don't think that we'd evolve the need to have sex just because it
feels good.
I've read the answer on this
question somewhere. Grelphy has answered it a little bit. But think
about genetic manipulations. Most genetic manipulations would make
the animal weaker. An asexual creature would just create a clone of
himself thus the weaknesses will be found on the offspring as
well.
Quote:
I see nothing scientific about evolution, it’s based off of the
concept that things evolve which hasn’t been proven, so all you
have are ideas about nothing;
Take America now, that’s what
humanism has done to us; no one is quite sure what’s right or
wrong, and it all just very sad.
It's certainly science: in the
way of Biology and Archaeology. And most Christians do believe in
evolution. In fact most Christians don't know much about the first
Testament and do not believe in the Garden of Eden. Also America
is one of the most religious countries in the world. And it's often
misused with their 'God Bless America'. Is that called
humanism?
Also to UppyII: if you think the world is not that
old, then explain me how coals are made. Wasn't that made in the
Carbon Era 300 millions years ago?
And Djaser: The Hague is
the English name of Den Haag. It would probably have been a
coincidence he had the same opinion. A classmate of mine also thinks
believing in God is unrealistic. He even used the same words as
me.
Quote:
You have yet to answer my post about he existence of universal
abstract entities. Until you do so sufficiently, you have no
ground upon which to stand and point out supposed contradictions
in the Christian faith and the creation theory because you can't
even account for the existence of universal laws.
Oops, almost forgot. OK, let me
say it this way: God is unrealistic and all of you guys take it way
to seriously. What you want to intend to say(in simplistic way) is
that to measure something you need something that does not exist,
because you can't see that. We use numbers with a decimal/lineair
system. Yes, we could also have used an exponentional/binair system.
But basically it stays the same. If I see 2 people, I know what 2
is. But the reason I used the word measured in here is that
otherwise I will get some stupid replies on it like "but you can't
see air, but you know it's there". Hey that was in a Dexter Cartoon.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 Edited by: therealdopefish
at: 4/18/03 2:47:31 pm
|
Xtraverse
Stranded
Fish Posts: 2032 (4/18/03 3:12
pm) 64.30.37.14 | Del
|
Re: .
Quote:
This statement is based on the assumption that light travels at a
fixed speed and has not decreased over time. Several theories say
that the speed of light has decreased over time. Decreased, that
is, to such a degree that the speed of light would have been
millions of times faster than it is today. Such theories would
explain the apparent galaxies that are 'billions of light-years
away.'-UppyII
I'd like to see some
evidence of this.
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1136 (4/18/03 3:55 pm) 143.109.58.24 | Del
|
Re: .
There's no evidence that it went faster, only
hypothesis.
But anyway, wouldn't the rapid expansion of the
universe (an expansion that's accelerating) make up for
this.
say you have two photons spaced out a certain
distance (let's call it
3x):
0xxx0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxE (where 0 is
the photon and x is the distance unit and E is the
earth.)
every million years they both travel four x, but
after every million years, the speed decreases linearly by 1, so 4 x
in the first million and 3x in the second, 2x in the third, etc. At
the same time, every million years the space at all points expands.
So 0 and 0 will become father apart. The universe doesn't just
expand at the edges, the whole thing is growing. Let's say that for
every 10x you add one more x in a million years. So after one
million
years
0xxx0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxE
becomes
xxxx0xxxx0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxE
after
another
million:
xxxxxxx0xxxxx0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxE
The
distance between the initial photons and the earth was 30x. After 1
million years it's 29, then 30 again, and the distance from that
point on will continue to rise because the universe is expanding and
the speed of light is dwindling.
If you ask me, it's more
likely that the speed of light is increasing, rather than decreasing
to compensate for the expansion of the universe.
I know those
are completely arbitrary figures, but I'm only trying to give you an
idea of what the combination of the two would be like.
|
Flaose Pooper, King of the Slugs Posts:
953 (4/18/03 6:11
pm) 68.147.124.200 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
Originally Posted by: Xtraverse Maybe it's just
Catholics, but most Christians I know believe in evolution. I
suppose its because they're not fundamentalists, and believe
stories like the seven-day creation were just stories to explain
what people didn't know at that time.
It won't be long before they
start saying that Jesus wasn't actually the Son of God, just your
everyday prophet...after all, how could a spirit (which Catholics
believe God is) create a child?
-------------------- Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen
Needs. |
Shadow Grunt Posts: 28 (4/18/03 8:24 pm) 152.163.189.99 | Del
|
Re:
Metamorphisis: Evidence against evolution
Quote:
eK-I talked about frogs, who go through a simpler version of
metamorphisis, and about why metamorphasis might be selected for
by nature. No other explanation should be needed.-edit:
explanation
EK, stop avoiding the
issue. I didn't ask about how tadpoles evolved into frogs, I asked
how the complex process of the metamorphosis from caterpillar to
butterfly could have evolved. There are some large differences
between a caterpillar and a butterfly. 1. A butterfly has compound
eyes (often capable of seeing all colors and ultraviolet light in
almost all directions) , whereas a larva (caterpillar) has a few
simple eyes. 2. A butterfly has a sucking tube. a larva has a
chewing mouth. 3.Butterfly: six segmented legs. Larva: no true legs.
4. Butterfly: reproduces. Larva: can't reproduce. 5.Butterfly:
capable flyer. Larva: a crawler. How did the genetic information for
these drastic changes 'evolve'?
PS. I didn't mean to insult
you by telling you to "read up on your biology". I apologize for so
hastily typing it. I hope this public apology makes up for it.
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 426 (4/19/03 2:16 pm) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: .
Quote:
It won't be long before they start saying that Jesus wasn't
actually the Son of God, just your everyday prophet...after all,
how could a spirit (which Catholics believe God is) create a
child?
That's already happening. Less
and less orthodox believers. Less people who do something about
religion, but still claiming they're Christian. Most Christians
don't even know what you celebrate at Easter. And less and less
believe in things written in the Bible. And with some extreme
Muslims and the Pope and preachers trying to force people to get
back to the church religion kills himself very slowly.
And
Shadow as I said : Instead of the motherbutterfly to carry their
young it would release it on an earlier stage. A human baby looks
entirely different in the first stages in the Mother's body: simple
eyes, no legs. And a caterpillar can be seen as a baby who was born
too early.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 Edited by: therealdopefish
at: 4/19/03 2:19:04 pm
|
Xtraverse
Stranded
Fish Posts: 2034 (4/19/03 2:20
pm) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re: .
Well all Catholics I know believe that Jesus was the son of God and
know what Easter is..
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 428 (4/20/03 11:03 am) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Some people think that Easter is that you "celebrate" that Jezus
died for the Christians, which is wrong. Did you never see a
TV-program where they ask people what they celebrate and hear some
very weird answers?
BTW, Happy Easter everyone!
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 |
Forge315
Grand Intellect Posts: 1420 (4/20/03 7:52 pm) 68.106.137.215 | Del
|
.
The same goes for a lot of other Christian celebrations, we made
them so Christians wouldn’t partake in heathen practices. Though
I’ve never studied this and don’t know much if anything about it.
|
UppyII Vorticon Elite Posts: 323 (4/25/03 5:46 am) 206.63.170.39 | Del
|
Re: .
Quote:
There's no evidence that it went faster, only hypothesis. –eK
No evidence?
More
than 164 measurements have been taken about the speed of light in
the past three hundred years using sixteen different methods.
Studies done by scientists such as Barry Sellerfield, M.E.J. Gheury
de Bray, and U.S. Traitskii show that there is no evidence that the
speed of light remains constant, but is decreasing. de Bray
published his findings in the official French astronomical journal
and twice in Nature, "probably the most prestigious scientific
journal in the world." He stated that "If the velocity of light is
constant, how is it that, invariably, new determinations give values
which are lower than the last one obtained...There are twenty-two
coincidences in favour of a decrease of the velocity of light while
there is not a single one against it."
Quote:
But anyway, wouldn't the rapid expansion of the universe (an
expansion that's accelerating) make up for this. –eK
So, why is your universe
accelerating? According to the big bang it should be slowing
down.
Quote:
Also to UppyII: if you think the world is not that old, then
explain me how coals are made. Wasn't that made in the Carbon Era
300 millions years ago? –therealdopefish
www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1137.asp
Quote:
Oops, almost forgot. OK, let me say it this way: God is
unrealistic and all of you guys take it way to seriously.
Just a restatement of your
original argument which I countered.
Quote:
What you want to intend to say(in simplistic way) is that to
measure something you need something that does not exist, because
you can't see that. We use numbers with a decimal/lineair system.
Yes, we could also have used an exponentional/binair system. But
basically it stays the same. If I see 2 people, I know what 2 is.
But the reason I used the word measured in here is that otherwise
I will get some stupid replies on it like "but you can't see air,
but you know it's there". Hey that was in a Dexter Cartoon.
–therealdopefish
I'm not talking about air.
I'm talking about universal abstract entities here. This is not an
answer to the question I asked.
|
LordOfGlobox Vortininja Posts: 160 (4/25/03 11:35 am) 216.214.12.39 | Del
|
..
Praise God! eK is finally anwsering!!!!! (I've been on vacation the
last week)
|
Xtraverse
Stranded
Fish Posts: 2066 (4/26/03 6:37
pm) 205.188.208.139 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
A couple months ago I saw an article in my newspaper that said
scientists had determined that the expansion of the universe is not
slowing down, and will continue forever. I will not be able to find
a source to show you this until Monday, however.
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 430 (4/27/03 12:07 pm) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: .
If that's the Genesis Conclusion how carbon is made: tell me how it
is possible that there are fossils found of so many different
extincted animals which are less deep in the ground than the coals?
That would mean they died after the coal was created. More than
thousands sorts of species all extincted in 4500 years?
And about universal abstract entities: we measure with
things which are from things we see. Like there's somewhere (don't
know where) the original meter bar. A bar which is said is the
actual meter. And with that fact you can create any other entity.
Time entities can be made by using the speed of sound in air with a
pressure(speed of sound in the air with a certain pressure is
constant). Pressure entities can be made by counting the number of
molecules in the air. Entities involving Voltage, Magnetism etc. can
all be found by the number of molecules/electrons etc. So scientists
do measure with something which does exist.
Also another fact
we are not entirely evolved: Tell me why we do have a small bone
sticking out on our back above our butt. Looks like a tail had been
there. And how about the blind indestine(don't know if this is
the correct translation. I live in Holland and it's called 'blinde
darm' there. May be Djaser knows the correct translation?)? What's
the purpose of that? It can only cause inflammation.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 |
eK Isonian Posts: 1161 (4/27/03 6:15 pm) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: .
Coal is the result of plants that died at the end of the Paleozoic
Era during the Carboniferous Period. I took 300 million years for
the plants that died during that time to turn into coal.
|
0
UNFLEEXABLE 0 Vorticon
Elite Posts: 572 (4/27/03 11:24
pm) 203.213.56.154 | Del
|
Re: ..
i can't believe what sort of wierd things you guys believe in. But
who am I to judge?
-- Pinch, Pinch... BLIND, Clamp! -- |
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 431 (4/28/03 8:56 am) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Eh, yes eK I know. That's what I said. But Uppy II think's coal is
only 4500 years old.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 |
eK Isonian Posts: 1163 (4/28/03 1:48 pm) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: .
Uppy thinks a lot of stupid things.
I'm just filling in the
specifics.
|
Flaose Pooper, King of the Slugs Posts:
990 (4/28/03 9:34
pm) 68.147.124.200 | Del
|
Re: .
Quote:
Originally Posted by:
therealdopefish And how about the
blind indestine(don't know if this is the correct translation. I
live in Holland and it's called 'blinde darm' there. May be Djaser
knows the correct translation?)? What's the purpose of that? It
can only cause inflammation.
I think you mean the appendix.
Mine got infected and nearly exploded about two years ago...worst
pain in my life.
-------------------- Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen
Needs. |
UppyII Vorticon Elite Posts: 326 (4/29/03 12:01 am) 206.63.170.93 | Del
|
Re: ..
Quote:
And about universal abstract entities: we measure with things
which are from things we see. Like there's somewhere (don't know
where) the original meter bar. A bar which is said is the actual
meter. And with that fact you can create any other entity. Time
entities can be made by using the speed of sound in air with a
pressure(speed of sound in the air with a certain pressure is
constant). Pressure entities can be made by counting the number of
molecules in the air. Entities involving Voltage, Magnetism etc.
can all be found by the number of molecules/electrons etc. So
scientists do measure with something which does exist.
–therealdopefish
Totally irrelevant. I'm not
talking about rulers or measuring cups. I'm talking about rules and
laws.
Quote:
Also another fact we are not entirely evolved: Tell me why we do
have a small bone sticking out on our back above our butt. Looks
like a tail had been there. –therealdopefish
It's called your coccyx. It is not a vestigial organ. Many
muscles are anchored to it and without it, you wouldn't be able to
use the restrooms.
Quote:
And how about the blind indestine(don't know if this is the
correct translation. I live in Holland and it's called 'blinde
darm' there. May be Djaser knows the correct translation?)? What's
the purpose of that? It can only cause inflammation.
–therealdopefish
I don't believe that
scientists know for sure, but that's not to say that it doesn't have
a function. You can find some information here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v3n1_appendix.asp
Quote:
Coal is the result of plants that died at the end of the
Paleozoic Era during the Carboniferous Period. I took 300 million
years for the plants that died during that time to turn into coal.
–eK
See above.
Quote:
Uppy thinks a lot of stupid things.
I'm just filling in
the specifics. -eK
eK, stop trolling. You're
going to make Cho'gall close this thread as well.
Edited by: UppyII
at: 4/29/03 12:02:40 am
|
Xtraverse
Stranded
Fish Posts: 2084 (4/29/03 12:13
am) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
Coal is the result of plants that died at the end of the Paleozoic
Era during the Carboniferous Period. I took 300 million years for
the plants that died during that time to turn into coal.
You turned into coal? That's
quite a talent eK.
|
UppyII Vorticon Elite Posts: 327 (4/29/03 3:44 am) 206.63.170.101 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
I didn't notice that...
|
ShadowIII Meep Posts: 2 (4/29/03 4:39 am) 205.188.208.69 | Del
|
Re: Circular
Reasoning
Ok, first of all. Is anyone going to answer me on how
the process
of metamorphosis could have evolved gradually over time. (please, no
more views on why evolution would choose metamorphosis, that's not
the question.)
Second. You cannot prove the earth is billions
of years old. What you have is a bunch of major assumptions.
First of all you have your "geologic chart" with all the supposed
dates for the rock layers. You then date the fossils according to to
the rock layers they're in. You date the rock layers with the
assumption that anything that doesn't match up to the chart is
wrong. It's circular reasoning. You have nothing to double-check
your dating methods. How do you know they are valid?
Third.
Did any of you ever think of a world-wide flood? That would create a
lot of fossils in a short period of time. It would also account for
all the coal. How else would you account for the Grand Canyon? I
like how it's a fairy tale if it's instant, but fact if you give it
enough time. Example: the 'frog prince'. According to you, after
'billions' of years kissed it, a frog turned into a prince. Makes
you think, doesn't it?
<---------------<<<
Edited by: ShadowIII
at: 4/29/03 4:46:14 am
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1390 (4/29/03 6:52
am) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re: ..
Quote:
I think you mean the appendix. Mine got infected and nearly
exploded about two years ago...worst pain in my life.
A bit late but.... I'm
pretty sure that's the right word.
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
Xtraverse
Stranded
Fish Posts: 2085 (4/29/03 11:35
am) 64.30.37.14 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
I doubt people evolved from frogs. They probably evolved from a
common ancestor.
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 432 (4/29/03 4:23 pm) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
It's called your coccyx. It is not a vestigial organ. Many muscles
are anchored to it and without it, you wouldn't be able to use the
restrooms.
We're not built for restrooms
but restrooms are built for humans.
Shadow(actually Uppy II), even if the North and South Pole
were entirely melted(90% of all the ice is on Antarctica) it would
still be impossible to flood the entire earth.Only half Europe(well,
the area what it is called now) would be gone, the eastern of the
USA and some islands in Asia/ the Pacific.
Also the spreading
of fossils can say something about the world being older than 5000
years old. How can certain animals live on different continents?
That is only possible if there would have been one big continent.
And it's almost certain that there had been one continent(called
Pangaea in the Triassic era). And if you check the World Map
carefully it looks like they fit on each other. And yes, that makes
me wondering how tribes could have started living on small
Islands(like Easter Island which is a few 1000 miles from the
Coast). as Pangaea is gone for more than millions of years. Perhaps
using primitive ships? Humans always have some scavenging/exploring
in their character.
Kissing frogs resulting in a princess?
That's a fairy tale.
And that ancestor Xtraverse is looking for is the first Amphibia
Ichtyostega.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 |
eK Isonian Posts: 1164 (4/29/03 5:14 pm) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: Circular
Reasoning
Gee yah Shadow, that sure makes me think...
That's some deep
stuff you're throwing out there.
DEEEEEEEEEEEP
You and
Uppy are just cutting through our arguments. I just don't know what
to do anymore. You're too smart for me, both of you. The Earth must
be < 10,000 years old. Damn the evidence! I won't believe
it!
Why don't you guys just play at being right and leave us
alone. You don't care for evidence. Shadow, I gave you all the
evidence you should need. If nature would select for it logically,
then that's the only evidence you'll be able to get. No one sat
around for a few hundred million years documenting the evolution of
insect. We don't know exactly how it happened. All we know is that
given the usefulness of the trait we can understand why it might
have happened. Evolution explains a process, not a case. I've said
this before. Maybe you're too thick and didn't get it the first few
times.
Evolution is a
process. It does not claim to explain specific cases. It doesn't say
how. It says why..
Stop
wasting everyone's time with stupid questions about metamorphasis.
If you're going to argue against evolution, at least know what
you're arguing against.
We already HAVE proved the earth is
over a billion years old. Deal with it. I think you're confusing
scientists with your own brand of christian psuedoscience.
Scientists don't pick and choose the evidence they get. We KNOW the
earth is over a a billion years old. If you can't handle that, go
whine somewhere else.
Uh... How would a world wide flood
magically account for coal? For that matter, how would it account
for the Grand Canyon? The Grand Canyon was created over millions of
years by the river that runs through it... it eroded away at the
walls.
If you aren't going to argue at the very least
logically, then don't even bother. You're throwing out stupid
assuptions as if they're true. Don't question things just because
they're inconvient for you. Our dating methods are tried and true,
we know the percentage error involved in them. They work. You can't
just say they don't because you don't like the results.
|
UppyII Vorticon Elite Posts: 330 (4/30/03 1:34 am) 206.63.170.62 | Del
|
Re: ..
Quote:
Gee yah Shadow, that sure makes me think...
That's some
deep stuff you're throwing out there.
DEEEEEEEEEEEP
[edited by me]
Quote:
You and Uppy are just cutting through our arguments. I just don't
know what to do anymore. You're too smart for me, both of you. The
Earth must be < 10,000 years old. Damn the evidence! I won't
believe it!
eK, comments like these are
not needed here. Please post them somewhere else.
Quote:
Why don't you guys just play at being right and leave us alone.
You don't care for evidence. Shadow, I gave you all the evidence
you should need. If nature would select for it logically, then
that's the only evidence you'll be able to get.
Grammatical errors aside,
eK, you're just plain wrong. You haven't given us any evidence that
supports macroevolution and that's what we're after.
Quote:
No one sat around for a few hundred million years documenting the
evolution of insect. We don't know exactly how it happened. All we
know is that given the usefulness of the trait we can understand
why it might have happened. Evolution explains a process, not a
case.
eK, you've brought up three
very good points here. Let me just restate them in plain English for
everyone else.
1. Evolution is not science; no one was there
to test or document anything and it is not repeatable today. 3.
You don't know how evolution happened. 2. You don't understand
the nature of the creation/evolution debate.
If evolution
explains a process then the process should explain the case or the
whole theory is flawed. Such is the case here.
Quote:
I've said this before. Maybe you're too thick and didn't get it
the first few times.
I've said this before. Maybe
you should lay off the insults and debate with a little
self-control.
Quote:
Evolution is a process. It does not claim to explain specific
cases. It doesn't say how. It says why.. -eK
Yes, tell us again why it is
that evolution happened. Doesn't say how? You don't know how
evolution happened?! So why are you so sure that it did happen?
After all, you yourself stated that no one was there to observe
it.
Quote:
Stop wasting everyone's time with stupid questions about
metamorphasis. If you're going to argue against evolution, at
least know what you're arguing against.
Oh, no. You're not going to
avoid the question that easily. If you're going to argue for
evolution, at least know what you're arguing for.
Quote:
We already HAVE proved the earth is over a billion years old. Deal
with it.
Again, claiming your
ignorance of the nature of the debate. You can't possibly prove that
the earth is over a billion years old.
Quote:
I think you're confusing scientists with your own brand of
christian psuedoscience. Scientists don't pick and choose the
evidence they get. We KNOW the earth is over a a billion years
old. If you can't handle that, go whine somewhere else.
Hmm, well, you would know
better than these 'psuedoscientists,' wouldn't you, Dr. eK? This is
a debate; you're the only one who is whining and it's not very
becoming of you at all. Trust me on this one.
Quote:
Uh... How would a world wide flood magically account for coal? For
that matter, how would it account for the Grand Canyon? The Grand
Canyon was created over millions of years by the river that runs
through it... it eroded away at the walls.
How? Thought you knew all
this, eK. You claimed to have studied both sides of the issue. Makes
one wonder just how well you 'studied' creationism and intelligent
design, doesn't it? You seem to know almost nothing of the
creationist arguments or position. Who is the 'uninformed' one
here?
Quote:
If you aren't going to argue at the very least logically, then
don't even bother.
Logically? I see no logical
fallacy in Shadow's post.
Quote:
"Evolution is a process. It does not claim to explain specific
cases. It doesn't say how. It says why.." -eK
"Evolution
doesn't say why it happens, just how." -eK
Wow, speaking of the
devil... Page #3 if anyone cares to double check.
Quote:
You're throwing out stupid assuptions as if they're true. Don't
question things just because they're inconvient for you.
Actually, we're throwing
down you're assumptions because they're not true. And, yes, we're
questioning your 'unquestionable' theory to which you seem so
emotionally attached. That's the whole point of this debate and if
you can't handle that, well... *points to the exit*
Quote:
Our dating methods are tried and true, we know the percentage
error involved in them. They work. You can't just say they don't
because you don't like the results.
Oh, of course you've tested
your dates against—wait, no, not other dates?! Work? Shadow is
saying that they don't work and has brought forth evidence
supporting his position. The burden of proof rests upon your
shoulders, my friend. It's not good enough to say that 'they work.'
eK, I see what you're doing. You're trying to start a flame
war and close this thread just like the Harry Potter one. Well,
maybe not intentionally, but that is where this is heading. Stop.
Stop it right now. Time and time again you've shown that you can't
argue without your emotions flaring up. Please stop posting in this
debate or it too will get locked.
Edited by: UppyII
at: 4/30/03 1:52:10 am
|
ShadowIII Meep Posts: 3 (4/30/03 1:50 am) 205.188.209.134 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
Gee yah Shadow, that sure makes me think...
That's some
deep stuff you're throwing out there.
DEEEEEEEEEEEP-eK
You really think so? Thanks
for the encouragement!
Quote:
The Grand Canyon was created over millions of years by the river
that runs through it... it eroded away at the walls.-eK
That is the classical
evolutionist idea about the Grand Canyon eK. Unfortunately, it
doesn't hold water. If that 'little' river carved out the Grand
Canyon, then why haven't other, larger, faster rivers done the same
thing? How do you explain the fact that it is a 'barbed' river?
(That is, a river where the tributaries run into, and not from it,
forming backwards tributaries) I should know a little about the
Grand Canyon. After all, I've been there. A world-wide flood's
explanation would be simply; It was washed out by receding flood
waters. Simple enough, right?
Quote:
Uh... How would a world wide flood magically account for coal?-eK
This is how the flood
could 'magically' explain most of the coal in the world: A
world-wide flood would have uprooted most of earth's abundant
vegetation. Currents would then transport much of it to regions
where it accumulated in great masses. During the continental drift
phase of the flood, buried layers of vegetation would be rapidly
compressed and heated, precisely the conditions that laboratory
experiments have shown are required to form coal and
oil.
Quote:
Shadow(actually Uppy II), even if the North and South Pole were
entirely melted(90% of all the ice is on Antarctica) it would
still be impossible to flood the entire earth.Only half
Europe(well, the area what it is called now) would be gone, the
eastern of the USA and some islands in Asia/ the
Pacific.-therealdopefish
Not enough water you
say? Well, maybe not enough [bold]now.[/bold] I don't believe any
real mountains existed before the flood (Or any deep ocean basins) ,
so the water wouldn't have to cover Mt. Everest, because it wouldn't
have existed before the flood. I believe that all large mountains
were formed during the later stages of the flood. Most of the water
for the flood didn't have to come from rain or the poles. (If there
was any ice at the poles before the flood, which I doubt.)
Quote:
If nature would select for it logically, then that's the only
evidence you'll be able to get.-eK; regarding metamorphosis
Answer me this. How would
the species survive during the gradual evolution of metmorphosis?
You've already admitted you don't know.
Question: How
many people here think that the theory of evolution and the Bible
are compatible?
|
Xtraverse
Stranded
Fish Posts: 2090 (4/30/03 2:32
am) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
I don't believe any real mountains existed
before the flood (Or any deep ocean basins) , so the water
wouldn't have to cover Mt. Everest, because it wouldn't have
existed before the flood. I
believe that all large mountains
were formed during the later stages of the flood. Most of the
water for the flood didn't have to come from rain or the poles.
(If there was any ice at the poles before the flood, which I
doubt.)
Faith does not substitute
evidence. We're not going to rely on what you believe for proof.
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1165 (4/30/03 3:37 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: Circular
Reasoning
Yah. Fine. I'm out. I don't really care that much about this
anymore. I allowed myself to get sucked in again.
There's no
point in debating the obvious, and there's no point trying to teach
the blind to see, even if it is a psychosomatic blindness. Man,
stupidity just enrages me like nothing else. I can't stand it at
all. This is the only source of anger in my life. People like you
who are just plain...
But anyway.
Have fun.
|
ShadowIII Grunt Posts: 4 (4/30/03 4:33 am) 205.188.209.134 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
Faith does not substitute evidence. We're not going to rely on
what you believe for proof.-extraverse
I understand what you
mean xtraverse. I'm not asking you to believe it, and I won't call
you an idiot if you don't. I'm just explaining things from a
different view. Evolution operates on faith as well. So you
eventually have to believe something. It's either, God created the
universe, or everything came from a big bang that came from nothing.
Which sounds more reasonable?
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1394 (4/30/03 7:33
am) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
Yah. Fine. I'm out. I don't really care that much about this
anymore. I allowed myself to get sucked in again.
There's
no point in debating the obvious, and there's no point trying to
teach the blind to see, even if it is a psychosomatic blindness.
Man, stupidity just enrages me like nothing else. I can't stand it
at all. This is the only source of anger in my life. People like
you who are just plain...
But anyway.
Have fun.
I don't get you eK. You
discussed this subject before . And you step out the discussion
before too. Why is that if you can't stand these people why do you
bother to come back
?
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
eK Isonian Posts: 1167 (4/30/03 7:40 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Something inside of me thinks I can knock some sense into them. But
at one point I realize that they're never going to change, and that
I'm wasting energy and sanity on them.
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 433 (4/30/03 9:30 am) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: Circular
Reasoning
I do get eK. It is that I have some temper or I might act like him
as well. Anyway the longer this topic is, the more rediculous
Shadows/UppyII answers are. His idea of the entire world flooded
sounds a lot like the movie 'Waterworld'(a movie I have mixed
feelings about) and of course the Ark of Noach. Mountains are
created because continents move. This has been measured already.
Like Great Brittain moves away from Europe every year with one
millimeter. The Himalaya is created because India bumped into asia.
Earthquakes are caused because a continent suddenly moves a little
bit faster. Learn your geography.
As I said before the error
percentage in dating how old something is is only 1 or 2%(with the
best dating method). So if something is rated as 300 million years
then the real answer would never be as different as the value
measured("only" 3-6 million in this example).
And, Shadow I
don't believe in God, but that doesn't automaticaly mean I believe
in the Big Bang. I simply don't know, but I have some better things
to do then bothering how the world was created.
Humans are
evolving: humans nowadays are longer than humans living hundreds of
years ago.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 |
Xtraverse
Stranded
Fish Posts: 2092 (4/30/03 11:16
am) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
There is evidence that there was a large flood some time ago, but I
don't think it was worldwide. I'll have to read up on it.
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1169 (4/30/03 5:43 pm) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Dopefish, I'm sure you mean taller, and that's because of better
nutrition, not because of evolution.
|
Xtraverse
Stranded
Fish Posts: 2096 (5/1/03 7:32
pm) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Shadow, you appear to believe that mountains can form at specific
times, so I'm assuming you believe plate techtonics. Do you believe
Pangea ever existed?
|
Grelphy
Vortininja Posts: 273 (5/1/03 9:51 pm) 12.23.198.254 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
The myth of Noah's Ark may have been caused by a flooding of the
Black Sea at the end of the most recent ice age.
The only
passage from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean and the rest of the
world's water is through a narrow passage. During the ice age, this
passage was blocked by a stone "plug." When the ice age ended, the
Mediterranean rose and overflowed the barrier to the Black Sea. The
barrier was eroded away (probably within hours) and millions of
gallons of water flowed into the Black Sea basin.
Presumably,
the rapidly rising water flooded coastal villiages, and survivors
created stories of a great flood sent "by the gods" as punishment
for something. This story eventually changed into Noah and his
Ark.
You
and all those other mental wimps deserve to die! -Mortimer
Mcmire in Commander Keen 3
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 434 (5/2/03 8:41 am) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Hhhhmm, I start to make many mistakes in my writing. Using 'longer'
instead of 'taller'. What an awful mistake.
I think better nutrition only makes people fatter. It does make
people taller, but it's only a small reason why people start
becoming taller. Genes play a much more important role. It's one of
the critics I have for science: they often give only one reason for
something to explain while there could be more reasons why something
happens.
And about evidences: I once heard that the 9 plagues
of Mozes were described in Egpytian writings, but that they did not
describe Mozes and that all these events were not connected as one
big event. Does anyone know more about that? Also the bright star
in the story of the birth of Jezus was a combination of Mars and
Jupiter shining at the exact same spot in the Sky. This has been
calculated very accurately.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 Edited by: therealdopefish
at: 5/6/03 8:44:21 am
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 435 (5/6/03 8:43 am) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
What's going on? It looks like this topic has died. No replies?
Nothing?
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 |
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1437 (5/7/03 6:04
pm) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
edit
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- Edited by: Djaser
at: 5/7/03 6:04:41 pm
|
LordOfGlobox Vortininja Posts: 163 (5/9/03 7:10 pm) 65.43.172.140 | Del
|
re:
Hullo, I'm back.
|
ceilick
Vortininja Posts: 186 (5/10/03 3:46 am) 207.252.227.7 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
The thing about the bright star is correct, But that doesnt
dissprove anything. the story of Moses can be found in the book of
exodus 1-14 in the bible. The story of Noahs ark can be found in
Genesis 5-9.
When was the end of the most recent ice age,
just out of curiosity?
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 436 (5/10/03 5:23 pm) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Last Ice Age was 130000 year ago. Source: http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html And
it is not known if there will be another ice age over thousands of
years. If another ice age would come, then the raised temperature
might be caused by the climate itself, but that has nothing to do
with beliefs.
But you should think about what I said about
the bright star being two planets overlapping each other: nobody
knew nothing about astronomy. And then suddenly you have a very
bright star in the sky, normally not seen. It would be easy to think
a miracle had happened. It happened 6 B.C. or something like that,
which is not illogical as Augustus died before the year 1(there's no
year 0). Funny thing is that I heard this from a Father years ago
and I've always remembered this.
And Ceilick, I asked for
non-Bible literature referring to the 9 plagues of Mozes and the Ark
of Noah, not where it is written in the Bible.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 Edited by: therealdopefish
at: 5/10/03 5:27:46 pm
|
eK Isonian Posts: 1185 (5/10/03 7:33 pm) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Uh -- you really should READ your sources before you post them. You
got that one ALLL wrong.
|
LordOfGlobox Vortininja Posts: 164 (5/10/03 8:00 pm) 209.81.165.179 | Del
|
..
We all have our own beliefs, as eK is thick in his own way & is
very annoying, but he knows Evolution better than I do & I know
Creationism better than he does. We don't want to give up our own
beliefs that we were taught in school or by our parents. This can't
be done over the internet, that is why I'm out of this discustion.
Though I will come back & reply sometimes.
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 437 (5/11/03 9:51 am) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Uh, yes, I see I've read too fast. Is a bit annoying that source
has all the text underlined. The periods of the climate becoming
warm and cold again is about 130000 years long. Quote from source
about last Ice Age: Cooling again. After about 30,000 years ago,
the Earth's climate system entered another big freeze-up;
temperatures fell, deserts expanded and ice sheets spread across the
northern latitudes much as they had done 70,000 years ago. This cold
and arid phase which reached its most extreme point sometime around
21,000-17,000 years ago (18,000-15,000 radiocarbon years ago) is
known as the Late Glacial Cold Stage (and is also sometimes called
the Upper Pleniglacial).
Quote:
The start of the present warm phase, the Holocene. Following the
sudden ending of the Younger Dryas, about 11,500 years ago (or
10,000 14C years ago), forests quickly regained the ground that
they had lost to cold and aridity. Ice sheets again began melting,
though because of their size they took about two thousand more
years to disappear completely.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 Edited by: therealdopefish
at: 5/11/03 9:53:14 am
|
Xtraverse
Stranded
Fish Posts: 2135 (5/11/03 4:02
pm) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Since Shadow doesn't seem to want to answer my question, I'll ask
it for any other Creationists: Do you believe in plate techtonics
and/or Pangaea.
Never argue
with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you on
experience -- Mark Twain xtravaganza:
http://www.xtraverse.co.nr/ http://www.xtraverse.tk/
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1461 (5/11/03 5:01
pm) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
I don't really follow this discussion anymore but I do beleive in
Pangea I don't remember what that other thing is however.
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
eK Isonian Posts: 1193 (5/12/03 8:29 am) 143.109.91.236 | Del
|
Re: ..
Seems that this topic is dead. If you guys want, I'll close
it.
Then, if your interested in continuing debates, a new
topic can be started. So, if anyone wants this closed, just let me
know.
Or, I could just let it run it's course and fall to the
bottom.
|
Djaser
Holy Monk
Yorp Posts: 1467 (5/12/03 3:21
pm) 212.92.76.33 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
The discussion may be dead but why should we close it......
-----Djaser est un nation prétendue neutre mais, dans la réalité,
il ne l'est pas car il n'arrête pas d'être envahie par les uns et
sauvés par les autres. Djaser est normalement régie par une
féodalité...----- |
Flaose Pooper, King of the Slugs Posts:
1007 (5/12/03 8:57
pm) 68.147.124.200 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
Originally Posted by: Xtraverse Since Shadow doesn't
seem to want to answer my question, I'll ask it for any other
Creationists: Do you believe in plate techtonics and/or Pangaea.
Yes. Any idiot can see that
the continents fit together. It's one of the first thing a kid sees
when he looks at a map of the world. I didn't know that plate
techtonics could even be questioned...
-------------------- Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen
Needs. Eat at
Joes |
Forge315
Grand Intellect Posts: 1452 (5/13/03 6:49 pm) 68.106.137.215 | Del
|
.
The creationist theory and approach to plate techtonics and
perspective is a little different than the norm, it has been a long
while since I have heard the theory though so I only remember little
bits and pieces. Not enough to explain it clearly, but it seemed
reasonable to me at the time; maybe later this year I will be able
to look at it again and argue the creationist side.
|
ShadowIII Grunt Posts: 6 (5/14/03 1:34 am) 206.63.170.47 | Del
|
RE:
Beliefs
Quote:
Since Shadow doesn't seem to want to answer my question, I'll ask
it for any other Creationists: Do you believe in plate techtonics
and/or Pangaea.
Sorry, I've been busy
lately. I believe in what is called the "Hydroplate Theory". How do
you define "Pangaea"? Also, who is ignoring who here? I haven't seen
anyone counter one of our arguments effectively yet.
Quote:
Yes. Any idiot can see that the continents fit together. It's one
of the first thing a kid sees when he looks at a map of the world.
What kind of map? A flat
map of the world is out of proportion by a large amount! To fit
together the continents would require the following: #1 North
America would have to be rotated clockwise to fit with Europe which
would have to be rotated counter-clockwise. #2 Africa would have to
be drastically reduced in size. #3 There could be no Central
America. I think the Continents match up the closest along the
Mid-Atlantic Ridge, wouldn't you agree? Until people start answering
our arguments, I have nothing more to say. #1 How could the process
of metamorphosis evolve gradually over time? #2 How could life
possibly evolve from nothing? #3 Why is there a lack of transient
forms? A new one here: According to evolution, things get more
complex when they evolve. Why is it that a sweet potato has more
chromosones than we do? A tobacco plant has more chromosones than we
do! How do you explain this? Anyway, that is all I have time to post
for now.
|
Xtraverse
Stranded
Fish Posts: 2142 (5/14/03 2:20
am) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
I define Pangaea as the most recent super-continent, when all the
continental areas of the plates were connected as one large
continent, before they separated and moved towards their current
locations.
And the Hydroplate Theory...is really pretty bad.
Check out this page for the silly flaws in it: mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/hydro.html
Never argue
with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you on
experience -- Mark Twain xtravaganza:
http://www.xtraverse.co.nr/ http://www.xtraverse.tk/
|
LordOfGlobox Vortininja Posts: 165 (5/15/03 1:24 pm) 65.43.163.194 | Del
|
..
I wouldn't call it dead, just not much posting, the HP thread did
the same, before Cho'gall iced & then blamed me for it. Lousy
Cho'gall!
|
ShadowIII Grunt Posts: 7 (5/15/03 1:55 pm) 205.188.209.134 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
I define Pangaea as the most recent super-continent, when all the
continental areas of the plates were connected as one large
continent, before they separated and moved towards their current
locations.
The problems with this
are stated above in my last post.
You've answered one of my 5
questions. Now, how about the others? I say no more until the rest
get answered. (logically, of course.)
|
chogall Vorticon Elder Posts: 1311 (5/15/03 6:35 pm) 130.67.182.92 | Del
ezSupporter
|
Re: ..
I think it looks like this thread needs to be closed too. It's up
to you to prove otherwise, LordOfGlobox!
The Harry Potter
thread was closed because people started harassing each other
instead of discussing the matter at hand. If the same happens with
this one, it will be closed as well. And
you
just sent it a large step in that direction.
|
Xtraverse
Stranded
Fish Posts: 2147 (5/15/03 9:01
pm) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re: RE:
Beliefs
Quote:
#1 How could the process of metamorphosis evolve gradually over
time?
There are three categories
of insects: those that have no metamorphosis (the young look exactly
like the adults), those that undergo partial metamorphosis (the
young are what are called nymphs, which look similar to the adults
but there are some differences), and those that undergo complete
metamorphosis (the larva look and function completely different than
the adults). The insects that undergo metamorphism have a lot of
what is called juvenile hormones, which interact with ecdysteroids
in the embyonic stages, as well as the larval and pupal stages of
development. The result is the supressing of adult growth and a
larval stage tends to be the result.
There were many
advantages for a process like this to have formed. There is no
competation between the young and the adult for food, because they
eat completely different foods. They also could live in different
areas of the ecosystem, allowing more diversity which would help the
insect population grow as well.
Quote:
#2 How could life possibly evolve from nothing?
As far as I know, scientists
do not know how life formed. But considering it happened quite a
while ago, and none of us were around to observe it, it's not going
to be a piece of cake deducing the process. Just because something
hasn't been figured out yet doesn't mean that it's impossible, far
from it. I find the idea of some omniscient supernatural being that
has "always existed" quite a bit more unlikely than life forming
from primordial soup.
Quote:
According to evolution, things get more complex when they evolve.
Why is it that a sweet potato has more chromosones than we do? A
tobacco plant has more chromosones than we do!
Evolution does not say that
we evolved from the common day monkeys, but that monkeys and humans
evolved from common ancestors. This means that creatures branched
off into other creatures and the original creature most likely did
not exist anymore. This would create a massive tree of successive
evolutions that mostly only the lowest generation at each branch
would still exist in the world today. Now we can't assume that
everything evolved at the same rate, nature isn't that constant. So
just because a fern has 480 chromosomes and we only have 46 doesn't
mean that one day we'll hopefully evolve into ferns, it means that
the branch where ferns evolved went through new generations of
species faster than the branch our species resulted from. For
example:
----Primate Ancestor 2--------Fern Ancestor
3-- ---------|------------------------|------------ ---------|------------------Fern
Ancestor
2---- ---------|------------------------|------------ ----Primate
Ancestor 1------Fern Ancestor
1---- ---------|------------------------|------------ --------/-\-----------------------|------------ --Chimp---Human----------------Fern----------
Now
obviously there would be more branches, but this was just an
example. The fern went more iterations in the same amount of time,
so it would probably have devoloped more chromosomes in this
process.
I still got to look up some stuff on number 3.
Never argue
with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you on
experience -- Mark Twain xtravaganza:
http://www.xtraverse.co.nr/ http://www.xtraverse.tk/
|
Keengamer Commander Keen Mad Posts: 539 (5/15/03 11:41 pm) 203.123.64.148 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
looks like this topic is becoming more popular than the harry
potter topic
|
ShadowIII Grunt Posts: 8 (5/15/03 11:59 pm) 206.63.170.35 | Del
|
RE:
Beliefs
Quote:
There were many advantages for a process like this to have formed.
There is no competation between the young and the adult for food,
because they eat completely different foods. They also could live
in different areas of the ecosystem, allowing more diversity which
would help the insect population grow as well.
Here we go around the
proverbial "mulberry bush" again. *sigh* I did not ask why it would
have been selected for species preservation, and you did not
answer the question. I want to know how the process of
metamorphosis, including
the liquification of the larva inside the chrysillis (sp?) could
have evolved over time. I say that it is impossible.
Quote:
I find the idea of some omniscient supernatural being that has
"always existed" quite a bit more unlikely than life forming from
primordial soup.
I think that an
all-powerful Creator is more logical than life evolving from a
primordial soup, that came from an explosion, which came from
nothing.
Oh, and Lordofglobox, please don't get this thread
closed yet. thanks.
PS. I am still studying the page on the
hydroplate theory.
|
Xtraverse
Stranded
Fish Posts: 2152 (5/16/03 12:28
am) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re: ..
Heh..Shadow just got the 315th reply
Anyways...maybe I didn't make this clear. What I meant to
say was that a mutation caused more of these juvenile hormones to be
present, starting the beginnings of the metamorphic
process.
More mutations=more juvenile hormones. This caused
them to develop in bursts, instead of smoothly changing to an adult.
This eventually led to the process we know today as complete
metamorphism.
Never argue
with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you on
experience -- Mark Twain xtravaganza:
http://www.xtraverse.co.nr/ http://www.xtraverse.tk/
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 439 (5/16/03 2:24 pm) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: RE:
Beliefs
Shadow, life does not come from an explosion. The earth was already
a billion years old before the first life was found. And the earth
is very young compared to the estimated life of the the universe.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 |
ShadowIII Grunt Posts: 9 (5/19/03 1:07 am) 152.163.252.230 | Del
|
RE:
Beliefs
Quote:
Shadow, life does not come from an explosion. The earth was
already a billion years old before the first life was found. And
the earth is very young compared to the estimated life of the the
universe.
Before the first life
was found? Who found it?
How do you know this? Do you have evidence NOT based on assumption?
According to evolution, you evolved from a rock that came from the
'Big Bang'.
Quote:
Anyways...maybe I didn't make this clear. What I meant to say was
that a mutation caused more of these juvenile hormones to be
present, starting the beginnings of the metamorphic process.
What are you saying?
That the adult came before the larva? Please clarify. How would
additional juvenile hormones go on to become the liquification of
the larva which would cause the species to become extinct? Remember,
through all the "spurts", your caterpillar has to remain fully
functional. A caterpillar cannot reproduce unless it has become an
adult butterfly. This is an interesting topic because it completely
refutes evolution. A simple butterfly is your biggest stumbling
block at this moment.
PS. got anything on the lack of transient forms
yet?
Edited by: ShadowIII
at: 5/19/03 1:13:17 am
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 440 (5/19/03 11:35 am) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: RE:
Beliefs
Quote:
Before the first life was found? Who found it? How do you know
this? Do you have evidence NOT based on assumption? According to
evolution, you evolved from a rock that came from the 'Big Bang'.
Now I really know you don't know
what evolution really is. Evolution does not imply how the first
life started, so evolution does not say that we evolved from a
rock. Fossils from protozoa do exist(I do not know how
archaeologists ever find these, probably just picking a very old
rock and check it with a microscope). They're found on rocks with a
certain age which is determined by all sorts of dating
techniques(and yes, I know you think they're inaccurate, but if a
rock is dated as 1 billion years old, then it's highly unlikely that
rock actually was only let's say 3000 years old. That would mean an
inaccuracy of more than 99%.) Also it takes millions of year before
any life could live on a planet.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 |
ShadowIII Grunt Posts: 10 (5/20/03 4:22 am) 206.63.170.48 | Del
|
RE:
Beliefs
Quote:
Now I really know you don't know what evolution really is.
Evolution does not imply how the first life started, so evolution
does not say that we evolved from a rock.
Evolution doesn't state
that we evolved from a rock? Hmmm. Where did the "primordial soup"
come from?
Quote:
They're found on rocks with a certain age which is determined by
all sorts of dating techniques(and yes, I know you think they're
inaccurate, but if a rock is dated as 1 billion years old, then
it's highly unlikely that rock actually was only let's say 3000
years old.
So, the dating methods
are always right unless they are wrong? Ahhhhh, it's all becoming
clear now! Assumption, assumption, assumption.... So, if I say that
you are a korean by your writing style, then you are korean? If I am
wrong it would be by at least 88%! This proves you are from Korea!
Maybe not the best example, but I think you can pick up on the
point.
|
chogall Vorticon Elder Posts: 1317 (5/20/03 9:28 am) 130.67.71.223 | Del
ezSupporter
|
Re: RE:
Beliefs
Quote:
Evolution doesn't state that we evolved from a rock? Hmmm. Where
did the "primordial soup" come from?
That's right. The theory of
evolution models how new species appear. The origin of the Earth and
the first molecules are a matter of astronomy and geology. As for
where the primordial soup came from, that has been discussed before:
look up the "Miller-Urey experiment".
|
Grelphy
Vortininja Posts: 292 (5/21/03 7:30 pm) 12.173.104.47 | Del
|
Re: RE:
Beliefs
Might as well do the, uh,
formation
of the Earth...
Anyway, according to theory, the Sun and
solar system were originally a big cloud of dust and gas, mostly
hydrogen. Due to "lumpy" distribution in the cloud, or to use the
correct term, nebula, clups started to develop. Eventually these
clumps were pulled together into a huge ball in the middle of the
nebula. As the nebula was pulled together, it flattened out into a
disk and began spinning faster. The remaining nebular material was
still lumpy (it's lumps were the ones that werent sucked into the
central clump) and it began to coalesce into bodies. The
proto-planets eventually were pulled together until there were just
nine left, and one of these was the Earth.
Leftovers from the
formation of the planets float around in the asteroid belt, between
Mars and Jupiter.
You
and all those other mental wimps deserve to die! -Mortimer
Mcmire in Commander Keen 3
|
Xtraverse
Stranded
Fish Posts: 2179 (5/21/03 11:06
pm) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re: RE:
Beliefs
Well, technically there were ten, but one crashed into earth,
forming our moon.
Never argue
with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you on
experience -- Mark Twain xtravaganza:
http://www.xtraverse.co.nr/ http://www.xtraverse.tk/
|
Forge315
Grand Intellect Posts: 1461 (5/22/03 12:52 pm) 68.106.137.215 | Del
|
.
I hope you guys hold all such hypotheses loosely, because without
any evidence they will change over time.
|
chogall Vorticon Elder Posts: 1323 (5/22/03 4:31 pm) 130.67.238.161 | Del
ezSupporter
|
Re: .
Quote:
I hope you guys hold all such hypotheses loosely, because without
any evidence they will change over time.
And that's a good thing,
since it will make those hypotheses better and better.
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 441 (5/23/03 8:09 am) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: RE:
Beliefs
Yes,even hypotheses are evolving.
And Shadow, I did not say the dating techniques were right.
But you assume that dating techniques are very, very, very
inaccurate. You assume that an assumption is incorrect.
RKP series is cursed: people keep comparing it with Isis
2 |
Grelphy
Vortininja Posts: 296 (5/23/03 2:46 pm) 209.74.5.75 | Del
|
Re: RE:
Beliefs
In fact, there is considerable evidence for various hypothesis. If
evidence does come up that contradicts what would be expected by
these hypotheses, they would be modified to fit the new
evidence.
Coincidentally, most Christian "scientists" who
believe evry word in the Bible to be true often continue to believe
something long past it's actual scientific death because the Bible
seems to support it.
Oh, and Xtraverse, there are sevral
theories to account for the formation of the moon. the impact theory
is the one that is the most accepted, but there are others that do
not require an additional planet.
You
and all those other mental wimps deserve to die! -Mortimer
Mcmire in Commander Keen 3
|
Forge315
Grand Intellect Posts: 1463 (5/23/03 7:12 pm) 68.106.137.215 | Del
|
.
There is no contradiction between the Bible and science, never been
proven never will be.
|
Xtraverse
Stranded
Fish Posts: 2181 (5/23/03 7:26
pm) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re: .
Then I'm assuming you don't believe the hydroplate theory Forge, am
I correct?
Never argue
with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you on
experience -- Mark Twain xtravaganza:
http://www.xtraverse.co.nr/ http://www.xtraverse.tk/
|
ShadowIII Grunt Posts: 11 (6/2/03 4:40 pm) 205.188.209.134 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
As for where the primordial soup came from, that has been
discussed before: look up the "Miller-Urey experiment".-Chogall
Refresh my memory, where
was the origin of the primordial soup discussed? Could you post a
link? As for the Urey/Miller Experiments, they are often mentioned
as showing that the 'building blocks' of life can be produced in the
laboratory. Not mentioned in these misleading claims
are:
#1 These 'building blocks' are merely the simpler
amino acids. The most complex amino acids have never been produced
in the laboratory.
#2 Most products of these chemical
reactions are poisonous to life.
#3 Amino acids are as far
from a living cell as bricks are from the Empire State
Building.
#4 Half the amino acids produced have the
wrong-handedness.
#5 Urey and Miller's experimental apparatus
contained components, such as a trap, that do not exist in nature.
(a 'trap' quickly removes chemical products from the destuctive
energy sources that make the products.)
All of the above show
why intelligence and design are necessary to produce even the
simplest components of life.
Xtraverse, have you found
anything on the lack of transient forms yet? Does anyone care to
continue to argue against the "Butterfly Juggernaut"? If you admit
that it is impossible for the process of metamorphosis to have
evolved, then you admit defeat for the entire evolutionary theory.
Or you can just talk around it....ignore
it.....etc.
Dopefish, Are you assuming that I assume an
assumption is true?
Anyway, I am saying that you are assuming an assumption based on an
assumption based on an assumption is true. All the dating methods
are based on the 'geologic column',(which cannot be seen anywhere in
the world except in the textbooks.) or assumptions of other
kinds.
Anyway, That is all for now.....
|
Xtraverse
Stranded
Fish Posts: 2217 (6/3/03 12:49
pm) 64.30.37.14 | Del
|
Re: RE:
Beliefs
Quote:
What are you saying? That the adult came before the larva? Please
clarify. How would additional juvenile hormones go on to become
the liquification of the larva which would cause the species to
become extinct? Remember, through all the "spurts", your
caterpillar has to remain fully functional. A caterpillar cannot
reproduce unless it has become an adult butterfly. This is an
interesting topic because it completely refutes evolution.
You're not listening to me
at all. One of the steps was not the liquification of the
caterpillar into a chrysalis and just staying like that. And I
don't claim to know everything about this topic, but at the moment I
do think that the adult came before the larva.
Never argue
with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you on
experience -- Mark Twain xtravaganza:
http://www.xtraverse.co.nr/ http://www.xtraverse.tk/
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 443 (6/3/03 1:50 pm) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
About ShadowIII's Urey/Miller Experiment: 1. And what does it
mean? The fact that Humans can't recreate complex DNA doesn't mean
it's impossible. According the evolution theory it took millions of
years to create more complex creatures. And you think that you can
create complex DNA with a simple experiment? 2. Yes, they're
poisonous for modern life. But some viruses and bacterries are
immune to many poison molecules. And according the evolution theory
it all started with the simple protozoa. You also do not say the
quantity of the poison. And according the law of "Survival of the
fittest" a creature would adapt to it's environment. That's why I
keep saying that life on Pluto is possible, but it would be entirely
different than Earthlife, what can't live on Pluto. I don't think
there's life on Pluto though. 3. That is just the miracle of
life.
4. Wrong-handedness? What do you mean? 5. And without trap it
wouldn't work? They didn't test it without trap, so they can't
conclude anything from it.
Most genious ideas are found by
accident. Now may be that's how life is originiated. This is
speculation and has nothing to do with evolution(as stated before:
evolution does not say how the first life is created, only why there
are different species). The chance this accident happens is very
small. Now the earth was already billions of years old before the
first life get's on it. Then the chance for this accident to happen
is a lot higher. And as long you say that the earth is only 6000
years old you would be saying it can't be true.
BTW you
assume that all the life is perfect. If life would be perfect
evolution would not be possible, because that is the basis of
evolution(evolution is that because of bad genes new life evolves)
Sadly some people are born with a handicap. It's easy to explain
this with evolution, but there's no reasonable explanation for any
religion.
And metamorphis of caterpillars is just a way of
growing up as a mature. Just like babies growing in eggs and babies
growing in the belly of the mother. All having their own advantages
and disadvantages. A creature changing it's reproduction is because
of accidents and mistakes. Only one small chromoson has to be
different to become a male. So that's probably how asexual creatures
started to have 2 genders.
If Dopefish is for real, what would it be evolved
from? |
chogall Vorticon Elder Posts: 1335 (6/4/03 5:32 am) 130.67.238.216 | Del
ezSupporter
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
Refresh my memory, where was the origin of the primordial soup
discussed? Could you post a link?
You discussed it in this
message.
About the
"wrong-handedness", Shadow means that the amino acids produced in
the Miller-Urey experiment would be a mixture of the D and L forms,
while living organisms today mostly use the L form. This is of
course a moot point, since there is no "magic" rule that says that
only L amino acids can be used in living organisms. The mechanism
that discriminates between D and L amino acids is something that
evolved way later. There is no inherent rule that says D amino acids
cannot be used - in fact, some plants still incorporate the D form
into some of their proteins.
About compounds being toxic to
life: I assume you're talking about the formation of Hydrogen
Cyanide (HCN). Of course, HCN isn't inherently toxic, it's toxic to
modern life forms because it just happens to suppress the cytochrome
system in cells with aerobic metabolism. The cytochrome system
appeared way later than at the time where there was HCN in the
atmosphere, so this is also a moot point.
|
LordOfGlobox Vortininja Posts: 169 (6/4/03 3:03 pm) 209.81.165.62 | Del
|
RE:
1. And what does it mean? The fact that Humans can't recreate
complex DNA doesn't mean it's impossible. According the evolution
theory it took MILLIONS OF YEARS to create more complex creatures.
And you think that you can create complex DNA with a simple
experiment?
-Therealdopefish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So
if everything is given enough time, anything could transform into
anything? (also ad in enviorment) So this is how you justify
evolution? Just given enough time anything can happen? It's not even
PROVEN that macro evolution is true!
And eK, we just take
something call it science, then believe it? You say you can't give
us the answers because that's not for you to tell OR is it because
you don't want evolution to be put to the test? Why don't you even
have faith in your belief?
PS: do any of you know how
evolution became a popular belief?
PPS: My SATs state that
I'm at half way though 12th grade level (and this was last year mind
you), so don't say don't know anything about science! Though I may
not know everything about evolution (though I doubt you do either) I
know enough to guess that it's not a very stable theory.
|
LordOfGlobox Vortininja Posts: 170 (6/4/03 3:09 pm) 209.81.165.62 | Del
|
Lord of the
Rings
Somewhere someone (Xtraverse?) said that Lord of the Rings wasn't
Christian, my response:
I would would kindly ask them to read
the story behind the books before making stupid comments like this.
|
ShadowIII Grunt Posts: 12 (6/5/03 9:22 pm) 205.188.209.134 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Dopefish, The trap in the Urey/Miller experiment removed the rarely
made amino acids from the cycle, so that they would not be destroyed
by the "artificial lightning" that created them in the first place.
Amino acids would be destroyed faster than they could be "made".
About the quantity of the poisonous elements, They were a
significant number greater produced than the amino acids.
Quote:
You discussed it in this message.
I don't follow. Where do
evolutionists believe the primordial soup came from
Chogall?
Quote:
This is of course a moot point, since there is no "magic" rule
that says that only L amino acids can be used in living organisms.
Then why haven't trees
and plants evolved 'wrong-handed' to thwart predators? Also, When
'life first began', half of the population of amino acids would be
right-handed, and half would be left-handed, right? They therefore
could not evolve life's genetic material. In fact, "mixed" genetic
material cannot even copy itself.
Each type of amino acid,
when found in non-living material or when sythesized in the
laboratory, comes in two chemically equivalent forms. Half are
right-handed, and half are left-handed; mirror images of each other.
However, amino acids in life, including plants, animals, bacteria,
molds, and even viruses, are essentially left-handed. No known
natural process can isolate either the left-handed or right-handed
variety. The mathamatical probability that chance processes could
produce merely one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino
acids is virtually zero.
Quote:
The cytochrome system appeared way later than at the time where
there was HCN in the atmosphere, so this is also a moot point.
Again,
assumptions.
About DNA; DNA cannot function without at least
75 preexisting proteins, but proteins are produced by only DNA.
Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the
origin of one must also explain the origin of the other. Apparently,
this entire manufacturing system came into existence simultaneously.
This implies creation.
Xtraverse, How did your butterfly
become an adult in the first place? You say the adult came before
the larva? How? How would your butterfly survive the slow process of
getting metamorphosis right? It's impossible, unless you believe in
creation, which in turn would mean that you believe in God. Also,
anything on transient forms yet?
Anyway, back to my
life.
|
chogall Vorticon Elder Posts: 1340 (6/5/03 11:13 pm) 130.67.252.238 | Del
ezSupporter
|
Re:
Beliefs
Quote:
No known natural process can isolate either the left-handed or
right-handed variety.
This is not true. Because
the right-handed (D) form and the left-handed (L) form are mirror
images of each other, they have opposite orientations in space. The
aminoacyl-tRNA synthethases, enzymes which make sure the right amino
acid is incorporated into proteins which are synthetised, will only
recognize the D form because the L form does not fit into the
enzyme's active seat.
|
grafix5000
Vortininja Posts: 84 (6/6/03 2:24 pm) 80.192.14.121 | Del
|
Re: RE:
After reading the whole of this topic in one day and leaving
regular intervals to let my brain cool off, I will express the same
points that I, and many others, have expressed in these two
topics.
1. Why flame your friends and associates, just
because they disagree with you?
2. Why say: "Your point is
unscientific and non-provable, but mine is," when, at this point in
time,
neither
of these points are scientifically provable to the 100th
percent?
3.
Quote:
A single flaw is all it takes sometimes.
They couldn't have expressed
it better. Think about it. If evolutionary theories have flaws, then
surely the bible must at least have
one flaw?
I mean, maybe someone made a mistake, like this one:
Quote:
I took 300 million years for the plants that died during that time
to turn into coal. -eK
The meaning completely
changes. See?
So those are my points. Neither point is
completely provable at the moment. So stop flaming each other.
OK?
P.S.: I re-read this, and noticed this by eK:
Quote:
Evolution isn't really debatable.
Then why have we spent
numerous threads, years and a lot of good dialup money debating
about it? If it isn't really debatable, explain the Potter
thread. It goes on for 16+ pages about evolution, and you go and say
evolution isn't really debatable? Hmmm...
Keen, Keen,
Keen, Keen, Keen. (it's sugar
free!!!)
Edited by: grafix5000
at: 6/6/03 8:47 pm
|
KeenEmpire Keen's Empire Posts: 581 (6/8/03 10:42 am) 203.151.38.3 | Del
|
Sorry, I was
being disturbed in my grave...
Quote:
PPS: My SATs state that I'm at half way though 12th grade level
(and this was last year mind you), so don't say don't know
anything about science!
Do SATs even test for
science?
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 444 (6/8/03 11:11 am) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
It isn't debatable because in a debate it is the meaning to change
the opponent's opinion. But in the case if you believe in evolution
or not you can't simply change someone's opinion about it. I used to
be a dinofreak as a kid(always knew all these names of all these
dinosaurs, etc. I still know much about it), eK is pro-science.
Don't believe in any God either. So it would contradict if I or eK
would believe in creationism. Plus I think creationism is such a
stupid belief, that there's nothing left to believe then evolution.
If something better is comming then I won't be loyal to the
evolution theory and defend it. ShadowIII believes the world is
less than 10000 years old. It wouldn't make sense if he believed in
evolution. So basically if you want to "win" a debate like this you
would have to change the opponents opinion indirectly.
Quote:
So if everything is given enough time, anything could transform
into anything? (also ad in enviorment) So this is how you
justify evolution? Just given enough time anything can happen?
It's not even PROVEN that macro evolution is true!
I do not say everything is
possible. But as long there's a chance it might happen by
accident.
As I'm not kinda scientific nor biologic, could
someone tell me how a cell can create another cell? Where does it
get these extra amino acids from?
If Dopefish is for real, what would it be evolved
from? |
KeenEmpire Keen's Empire Posts: 586 (6/8/03 11:41 am) 203.151.38.3 | Del
|
sdfdfsfwsfewlwef
Er... when a cell creates another cell, it probably manufactures
more proteins (and amino acids) a la ribosomes. During the cell
cycle, there are about four or five stages:
Gap 1 stage -
Cell grows Synthesis phase - Chromosomes are duplicated Gap 2
phase - Organelles and all the whatnot are replicated Mitosis -
Division of chromosomes, basically Cytokinesis - Actual
separation
So basically, a cell grows bigger and fatter
during the gap stages ("gaps" in the cell division process), and
once they carry enough material to account for about two cells, the
thing splits. Or am I being misguided here?
|
ShadowIII Grunt Posts: 13 (6/28/03 12:49 am) 206.63.170.59 | Del
|
RE: I'm still
around.
If you were wondering, I'm still around. I won't be posting as
often for a while ....too much to do.
I do have a couple of
questions though.
#1 What about the lack of transient
forms?
#2 Why are there living "key fossils"? (ie.
Coelocanth)
#3 Why haven't you come up with a solution to the
metamorphosis question?
#4 How do you double-check dating
methods?
Oh, and Chogall, I think you might be missing
the point...
You would have a better chance of randomly
choosing one pre-ordained atom out of the visible universe than for
a cell to have evolved from non-living material. Evolution is a
faith and un-provable, yet people defend it with "facts" that can
aren't really facts! Evolution hasn't a shred of evidence to support
it. *Gasp* What! No evidence?! That's right, no facts and no
evidence = no science.
BTW, Who here believes in absolutes?
|
Xtraverse
Stranded
Fish Posts: 2325 (6/28/03 11:05
am) 24.48.163.42 | Del
|
Re: Sorry, I was
being disturbed in my grave...
Creationism is a lot more of a faith and a lot more unprovable. And
if you had been listening to me, I did give you an explanation for
that metamorphasis thing.
Never argue
with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you on
experience -- Mark Twain xtravaganza:
http://www.xtraverse.co.nr/ http://www.xtraverse.tk/
|
KeenEmpire Keen's Empire Posts: 637 (6/28/03 4:26 pm) 203.151.38.3 | Del
|
Re:
Beliefs
Probability doesn't matter. I wish I had more time, so that I could
explain that.
Quote:
Just remember that this is the year of the elite
devil.
1337 + 666 = 2003
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 450 (7/2/03 9:55 am) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re:
sdfdfsfwsfewlwef
Sigh, Shadow keeps repeating himself
#1 What about the lack
of transient forms? Listen to the news and you sometimes hear
they found another missing link. At this point there are only a few
real missing links, especially how the first birds evolved. After
the Archaeopteryx there are some missing links before the Ichtyornis
and the Hesperornis.
#2 Why are there living "key fossils"?
(ie. Coelocanth) Ever noticed that they are all marine animals?
76% of our earth is water. If we already miss out many species in
the rain forest, then how can we be sure that we found every living
species in the water. If you mean that the Coelacanth hasn't changed
in all those years then the reason might be that any slight change
would make him weaker and thus have it harder to survive. Humans
might be the end of evolution, because even the weak
survive.
#3 Why haven't you come up with a solution to the
metamorphosis question? Haven't I said this before? Getting kids
makes an animal vulnerable. They could lay eggs, but an egg doesn't
have any self-defense.
#4 How do you double-check dating
methods? Using ancient items where we know how old they are(an
inscription with a year, etc.). A formula can be created with the
data. Of course the older something is, the less accurate it is. But
it's not 99% inaccurate as you think it is.
If Dopefish is for real, what would it be evolved
from? |
LordOfGlobox Vortininja Posts: 196 (7/3/03 1:48 pm) 216.214.12.34 | Del
|
RE:
QUOTE: ------------------------------------------------------- #1
What about the lack of transient forms? Listen to the news and
you sometimes hear they found another missing link. At this point
there are only a few real missing links, especially how the first
birds evolved. After the Archaeopteryx there are some missing links
before the Ichtyornis and the Hesperornis.
-Therealdopefish ------------------------------------------------------- Actually
no, see 99% of those are found incorrect in one way or another, and
the other 1% is on its way to be found wrong.
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 454 (7/7/03 7:53 am) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: Sorry, I was
being disturbed in my grave...
Friday an ancestor of the Sauropods(Sauropods are these longneck
Dinosaurs) is found. Well, that's what I read in the
newspaper
LordOfGlobox, come up with facts instead of denial.
If Dopefish is for real, what would it be evolved
from? Edited by: therealdopefish
at: 7/7/03 7:54 am
|
chogall Vorticon Elder Posts: 1353 (7/7/03 1:52 pm) 130.67.119.224 | Del
ezSupporter
|
Re: RE:
Quote:
Actually no, see 99% of those are found incorrect in one way or
another, and the other 1% is on its way to be found wrong.
Cite?
|
ShadowIII Grunt Posts: 14 (7/9/03 4:38 am) 206.63.170.33 | Del
|
*Sigh*
Quote:
Creationism is a lot more of a faith and a lot more unprovable.
And if you had been listening to me, I did give you an explanation
for that metamorphasis thing.
You and I both know that
your explanation for the metamorphosis issue wouldn't hold ground in
a court of law or even a classroom. You believe that the adult came
before the larva? How does that work? You keep giving me examples of
WHY, I want examples of HOW. More unprovable? Something is either
provable, or it isn't. Do you believe in absolutes?
Quote:
Ever noticed that they are all marine animals? 76% of our earth is
water. If we already miss out many species in the rain forest,
then how can we be sure that we found every living species in the
water. If you mean that the Coelacanth hasn't changed in all those
years then the reason might be that any slight change would make
him weaker and thus have it harder to survive. Humans might be the
end of evolution, because even the weak survive.
What if an Archaeopteryx
was found alive? Would this still be your reasoning? Natives in the
Congo have seen dinosaur-like creatures around 20 ft. long.... What
if a dinosaur was found alive? Would you just say, "Wow! look at how
that dinosaur has remained unchanged for millions of years!" ? "Even
the weak survive", Changing your theory aren't you? What about,
"survival of the fittest"?
Quote:
Haven't I said this before? Getting kids makes an animal
vulnerable. They could lay eggs, but an egg doesn't have any
self-defense.
Again, WHY instead of
HOW.
Gotta go.....
|
Robo
Blue Vortininja Posts:
152 (7/9/03 3:26
pm) 24.187.190.18 | Del
|
Re:
*Sigh*
Any dinosaur that still lives would have to have had some
protection from the cold during the ice age. Also, its unlikely that
the larger Dinos could have survived, because they would be much too
disruptive to ever catch today's paranoid prey. The only possible
creature to survive would be an herbivore that either lives in a
swampy area (to eat ferns, one of the only surviving ancient plants,
or is able to eat flowering plants. Thus, any dinosaurs still living
would be radically changed. Official Keenbound Site
Edited by: Robo
Blue at: 7/9/03 3:29 pm
|
Grelphy Vorticon Elite Posts: 334 (7/9/03 9:43 pm) 209.71.21.212 | Del
|
Re: dino
evolution
Quote:
Something is either provable, or
it isn't. Do you believe in absolutes? -ShadowIII
Can you prove that anything
you say is true? Thought not.
Quote:
Natives in the Congo have seen
dinosaur-like creatures around 20 ft. long.... -ShadowIII
Tabloids are probably not
the best of sources.
Besides, evolutionary pressures
would probably not be against dinosaurs today. If they hadn't been
cold-blooded, they probably wouldn't have died out.
Nowadays,
there aren't many large animals; a handful of land mammals and some
whales. Big dinosaurs are so much bigger than the biggest of land
animals that they would almost certaintly thrive.
After all,
a rhino would probably seem like easy prey if youve grown up
fighting tricerotps...
And before you say that most modern large animals are going
extinct, let me point out to you that: 1)They're being killed
mostly by one species-namely, us 2)Large dinosaurs are a lot
bigger than modern land animals. this means, among other things,
that they are harder to kill (if you try to shoot a brontosaurus,
theres a lot of fat to get through to hit anything vital) and more
dangerous if they get mad. (A T-Rex charging your jeep would be a
whole lot more dangerous than a lion, and not just because it's
teeth are five inches longer.)
There... I hope I made a a
point.
You
and all those other mental wimps deserve to die! -Mortimer
Mcmire in Commander Keen 3
|
Robo
Blue Vortininja Posts:
167 (7/10/03 6:03
am) 24.187.190.18 | Del
|
Re: RE:
Quote:
Nowadays,
there aren't many large animals; a handful of land mammals and
some whales. Big dinosaurs are so much bigger than the biggest of
land animals that they would almost certaintly
thrive. -Grelphy As I stated before, size isnt an
advantage. These creatures would need to consume an incredible
amount of food, and, as I also said before, the preditors would have
to be downright brilliant to sneak up on something. There's no way a
200 ft tall T-rex could catch a deer, or even an elephant, in a
rainforest, the only habitat that could possibly shelter it from
human civilization. Official Keenbound Site
Edited by: Robo
Blue at: 7/10/03 6:04 am
|
Grelphy Vorticon Elite Posts: 341 (7/10/03 3:17 pm) 209.71.20.45 | Del
|
*sighhhhhhh*
Quote:
As I stated before, size isnt an
advantage. These creatures would need to consume an incredible
amount of food, and, as I also said before, the preditors would
have to be downright brilliant to sneak up on something. There's
no way a 200 ft tall T-rex could catch a deer, or even an
elephant,[...] -roboblue
Okay, perhaps large
carnivores are a bit farfetched. Keep in mind that (to my knowledge)
scientists are still unsure about how T-Rex hunted, and if it tried
to outrun it's prey (which was mostly big, slow herbivores, anyway)
it would starve. If, on the other hand, it ambushed it's prey, it
could quite easily hide in a rain forest (just about anything can)
and jump on critters that got too close.
Small carnivores and
herbivores are a completely different story. Many of the small
carnivores were extremely fast. Some hunted in packs like wolves.
Certaintly few of them would have starved in a world where reptiles
have become minor players and nothing watches out for them
anymore.
And what about the herbivores? Many were extremely
large and extremely unlikely to succumb to modern predators. And,
obviously, plants can't run away.
The only risk for most
herbivores is that the kind of plants that they eat either no longer
exist (unlikely) or have adapted to a climate that is too cold,
which is a possibility.
Quote:
...rainforest, the only habitat
that could possibly shelter it from human civilization. -roboblue
I disagree. First, most
dinosaurs are at little or no risk except from concentrated action
by humans. Why?
Well, think about a sauropod. Now think about
what it would take to kill it.
Shooting it is almost entirely
out of the question. First, theres a ton of fat around the body,
which would make it tough to hit the heart or anything critical like
that. Second, think about it's head, the other main (un)weak point.
Remember that (1), it head is about the size of a small car, (2)
it's brain is about the size of a walnut, and (3) everything in this
car-size head not taken up by brain, mouth or various sensory organs
is taken up by skull.
See my point? it would be almost
impossible to kill a sauropod without some sort of extremely
powerful weapon, of the kind that most armys don't let civilians
buy. You can be sure that armys probably think they have better
things to do than kill harmless dinosaurs.
Second, there are
other environments that can shelter dinosaurs, either because they
are (1) heavily forested and good for concealing just about anything
or (2) uninhabited by humans (and still good for concealing just
about anything).
Whew!
Hey, has anybody noticed that
the "sponsors" seem to be in favor of creation?
You
and all those other mental wimps deserve to die! -Mortimer
Mcmire in Commander Keen 3
Edited
by: Grelphy
at: 7/11/03 1:30
pm
|
KeenEmpire Keen's Empire Posts: 649 (7/13/03 1:54 pm) 203.151.38.3 | Del
|
dfoi
Quote:
You can be sure that armys probably think they have better things
to do than kill harmless dinosaurs.
Lol!
|
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 456 (7/25/03 12:40 pm) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: dino
evolution
I'm back from a holiday. Sounds like we are now in Jurassic Park.
Not all dinosaurs were big. And T-Rex might not be a hunter at all
because of it's small arms. It might have lived from dead carcasses.
Another theory is that it acted like a Cheetah where the arms were
small, so nothing would be in its way. And Grelphy is
exaggarating: The biggest skull did not have the size of a car. The
biggest skull found was from the Spinosaurus which was "only" 2
meters long. Those longneck dinosaurs had a head about the same size
as a human.
About "even the weak survive": yes it does
nowadays. Disabled people would not have survived in the Stone Age.
Siamese twins would be banned because they would be the sin of
satan.
Archeaopteryx lived in woody areas floating from tree
to tree(it couldn't fly because it still had regular heavy bones).
With such a way of living it would be hard for such an animal to
hide from humankind.
And it's highly more likely that
Dinosaurs were Warm-blooded animals. Especially the big carnivors
would not be able to survive if they were cold-blooded. Furthermore
Crocodiles, Snakes and Lizzards still live and they're cold-blooded.
The famous meteor who crashed in Yucatan, Mexico 65 million years
ago would have caused a serious change for the environment something
the mammallike reptiles, dinosaurs, pterodactyl and the marine
reptiles could not survive.
Formula 1 was funny this time. A
man walking on the racing track with a sign "The Bible is always
right". That's what I call religion. And if you still think religion
is not supersticious you should play Final Fantasy X and compare
Yevon with Christianity.
If Dopefish is for real, what would it be evolved
from? Edited by: therealdopefish
at: 7/25/03 12:43 pm
|
LordOfGlobox Vortininja Posts: 204 (9/5/03 8:24 pm) 216.214.12.16 | Del
|
Re: RE:
LOL! Everyone is still so stupid, each negating what the other one
said from their minds, damn this is so sad. Anyone know what a
zembuddist is?
|
Flaose Pooper, King of the Slugs Posts:
1246 (9/5/03 11:28
pm) 68.147.109.142 | Del
|
Re: dfoi
You were supposed to be gone forever, now you post in an old
thread. *smack!*
-------------------- Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen
Needs. Eat at
Joes |
LordOfGlobox Vortininja Posts: 210 (9/7/03 5:32 pm) 209.81.165.222 | Del
|
Re: dfoi
I thought I'd come back for a short while, if you read your own
forum you'd know that, dumb @$$. & As far as I know this was
only a few from the top so I thought, wtf, why not?
|
Flaose Pooper, King of the Slugs Posts:
1259 (9/9/03 12:36
am) 68.147.109.142 | Del
|
Re: dino
evolution
I read the forum from the bottom to the top, which is why I didn't
see that you'd come back.
Perhaps this thread was at the top,
but the last actual post was over a month ago. You had nothing to
add, so you shouldn't of posted.
Insulting people's
intelligence will get you nowhere in life.
-------------------- Cerebral Cortex 314 - For All of your Commander Keen
Needs. Eat at
Joes |
therealdopefish Vorticon Elite Posts: 466 (9/15/03 7:02 am) 62.251.83.73 | Del
|
Re: RE:
This topic was being topped, because someone voted on it.
If Dopefish is for real, what would it be evolved
from? |