Gold Community Public Commander Keen Forum
    > Miscellaneous Polls
        > Beliefs
New Topic    New Poll

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
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! :lol


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. :p

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 :barf .
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. :mortlol 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 :evil ?

-----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?:confused

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!:shockshund


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.:shockshund

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!!!!!:wormouth :wormouth

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?":confused

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? :punk :painted

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! :bloody :bloody :bloody :bloody :bloody :bloody

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):lol


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:shockshund

PSS.Hey, I like this one: :helmet

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.:confused
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?:b
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:
:lol :lol :lol

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.:lol

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?:O

-----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. :lol

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 :crazy

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.8)
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:b ) 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).


:lol
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. :b
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.:furious

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 :x 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! :b

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:o 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).:punk :smokin

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. :helmet

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. :blush
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.:garg


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 :p

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. :redeyes


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:confused

-----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? :evil

--------------------
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.. :rolleyes

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?:mortlol

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: ..
:eek 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.:mortlol

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

:D
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
:lol 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.:lol

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. :mortlol 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 :confused ?

-----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. :x
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?:O

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 :mort

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. :lol

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. :p
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 :potter thread. It goes on for 16+ pages about evolution, and you go and say evolution isn't really debatable? Hmmm... :confused



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?

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>


Email This To a Friend Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies Click to receive email notification of replies
jump to:

- Public Commander Keen Forum - Miscellaneous Polls - Cerebral Cortex 314 -



Powered By ezboard® Ver. 7.31w
Copyright ©1999-2003 ezboard, Inc.