AnimeGalleries [dot] NetAnimeWallpapers [dot] ComAnimeLyrics [dot] ComAnimePedia [dot] ComAnimeGlobe [dot] Com


User Tag List

Closed Thread
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: The Great Debate.

  1. #1
    Senior Member Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon's Avatar
    Gil
    4,171.61
    Gender
    Gifts Fuuko Starfish Favorite
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    01-24-2011 09:38 PM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Threads
    8
    Posts
    180
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    432

    Default The Great Debate.

    Ok ok.. You will probably groan at the mere mention of this, but as most of you know out there- 'The Great Debate' is commonly referred to as 'Evolution vs. Creation.'

    Okay, why post a thread? I need your opinions on the matter, this has been a long.. LONG debate I`ve had with a particular group of friends, whenever we get together this always is guaranteed to come up. We are divided in our opinions, some of us are evolutionist, others creationist and there are the few who sit on the fence. Some of us are so passionate of what we believe in.. We get into some hefty arguements with objects bein flung across the table...

    Moving on.

    Evolutionist is what I lean towards more, but being brought up in a family with a strong religious background, I also do tend to question certain aspects for both parties.

    I believe some of the prophecies fore-told in the bible, but I can`t seem to deny scientific fact either.

    So, boys and girls.. Let`s start this one with a big bang shall we?

    What are your thoughts and arguements to back up your opinion?
    Last edited by Armageddon; 10-06-2010 at 10:36 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Anoleis has a reputation beyond repute Anoleis has a reputation beyond repute Anoleis has a reputation beyond repute Anoleis has a reputation beyond repute Anoleis has a reputation beyond repute Anoleis has a reputation beyond repute Anoleis has a reputation beyond repute Anoleis has a reputation beyond repute Anoleis has a reputation beyond repute Anoleis has a reputation beyond repute Anoleis has a reputation beyond repute Anoleis's Avatar
    Gil
    1,268.66
    Gender
    My Mood
    Curmudgeon
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    07-18-2016 04:10 PM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Threads
    41
    Posts
    1,316
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    1701

    Default Re: The Great Debate.

    Evolution
    My reasoning: Common Sense.


  3. #3
    Awaken Skylar1 has a reputation beyond repute Skylar1 has a reputation beyond repute Skylar1 has a reputation beyond repute Skylar1 has a reputation beyond repute Skylar1 has a reputation beyond repute Skylar1 has a reputation beyond repute Skylar1 has a reputation beyond repute Skylar1 has a reputation beyond repute Skylar1 has a reputation beyond repute Skylar1 has a reputation beyond repute Skylar1 has a reputation beyond repute Skylar1's Avatar
    Gil
    1,525,875.76
    Gender
    My Mood
    Fine
    Gifts Mario 1-Up Mushroom Aria Neko Mario Piranha Plant
    Mentioned
    67 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    06-16-2022 04:19 PM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Somewhere in the omniverse
    Age
    33
    Threads
    331
    Posts
    3,594
    Blog Entries
    123
    Rep Power
    5648

    Default Re: The Great Debate.

    Evolution

    We have the fossils and radio carbon dating, so we win.


    Anyone that denies that fact is just in denial imo.
    The Brighter the Light the Darker the Shadow

  4. #4
    Nanobyte's minion SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD's Avatar
    Gil
    87,964.34
    Gender
    My Mood
    Sleepy
    Gifts Luna Cake Lie Soras Keyblade
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    04-20-2017 06:47 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    In your dreams. =0
    Threads
    149
    Posts
    5,980
    Blog Entries
    119
    Rep Power
    6157
    Gamer IDs

    Wii Code: 1596-5790-7816-3407

    Default Re: The Great Debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ericgamer1 View Post
    We have the fossils and radio carbon dating, so we win.
    That's only part of the evidence. The other part would have to come from a test to see whether or not one can make nucleotides out of inorganic compounds. I believe Miller-Urey's experiment covered that. I also have this link which may or may not contain additional info.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Cobra Commander has a reputation beyond repute Cobra Commander has a reputation beyond repute Cobra Commander has a reputation beyond repute Cobra Commander has a reputation beyond repute Cobra Commander has a reputation beyond repute Cobra Commander has a reputation beyond repute Cobra Commander has a reputation beyond repute Cobra Commander has a reputation beyond repute Cobra Commander has a reputation beyond repute Cobra Commander has a reputation beyond repute Cobra Commander has a reputation beyond repute Cobra Commander's Avatar
    Gil
    15,964.12
    Gender
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    10-17-2011 12:15 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Amarillo, Texas
    Age
    39
    Threads
    40
    Posts
    1,864
    Blog Entries
    51
    Rep Power
    2253

    Default Re: The Great Debate.

    I wouldn't know. Science has plenty of compelling arguments. Perhaps, however, life was first created, and then left to evolve? Maybe some supreme being that is beyond our comprehension left all of these things for humanity to discover and tinker with? To that, you might say "well, what about that issue of the time line, creation took place over the course of six days, whereas science proves millions of years of history?"

    Who knows?

    If someone has the right kind of supremacy, then maybe time is relative to that person?

    This thread will probably end poorly.
    Last edited by Cobra Commander; 10-07-2010 at 02:14 AM.

  6. #6
    Nanobyte's minion SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD's Avatar
    Gil
    87,964.34
    Gender
    My Mood
    Sleepy
    Gifts Luna Cake Lie Soras Keyblade
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    04-20-2017 06:47 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    In your dreams. =0
    Threads
    149
    Posts
    5,980
    Blog Entries
    119
    Rep Power
    6157
    Gamer IDs

    Wii Code: 1596-5790-7816-3407

    Default Re: The Great Debate.

    @Cobra Commander: Don't worry about it, it always happens in AF. Most of the time. But at least you stated your opinion and that is all that matters. Sure evolution does prove out to be the most believable theory as to how we were created, but it has some holes as well.

    And creationism just states that humans came about the Earth because they were created by a superior being. It doesn't necessarily mean the the world was created in a week (or does it?).

    Just trying to help with your arguments. The only problem is that there is no evidence, hence not a strong thesis.

  7. #7
    Senior Member brolyx74 has a reputation beyond repute brolyx74 has a reputation beyond repute brolyx74 has a reputation beyond repute brolyx74 has a reputation beyond repute brolyx74 has a reputation beyond repute brolyx74 has a reputation beyond repute brolyx74 has a reputation beyond repute brolyx74 has a reputation beyond repute brolyx74 has a reputation beyond repute brolyx74 has a reputation beyond repute brolyx74 has a reputation beyond repute brolyx74's Avatar
    Gil
    9,989.77
    Gender
    My Mood
    Confused
    Gifts Cds Ice Cream
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    02-11-2012 08:00 PM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Threads
    53
    Posts
    936
    Blog Entries
    29
    Rep Power
    763

    Default Re: The Great Debate.

    I believe in, well,nothing. I don't really care how life came about, all that matters is that we're here now and we should enjoy it.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Furore has a reputation beyond repute Furore has a reputation beyond repute Furore has a reputation beyond repute Furore has a reputation beyond repute Furore has a reputation beyond repute Furore has a reputation beyond repute Furore has a reputation beyond repute Furore has a reputation beyond repute Furore has a reputation beyond repute Furore has a reputation beyond repute Furore has a reputation beyond repute Furore's Avatar
    Gil
    305,306.17
    Gender
    My Mood
    Relaxed
    Gifts Ferrari Soccer Ball Favorite
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    04-17-2012 10:37 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Dapto, Australia
    Age
    34
    Threads
    13
    Posts
    799
    Blog Entries
    8
    Rep Power
    10766

    Default Re: The Great Debate.

    Well if you're a Catholic or of an Orthodox Church that recognises the authority of the Catholic Pope, Pope John Paul II declared Evolution fact back in 1996 I believe.

    Personally, I like Evolutionism more than I do Creationism at this point in time (evidence seems to support most of it quite well), but I refuse to be condescending on anyone with a differing view as even Evolution has the odd hole and Creationism despite it's nature (I refer to the way in which it seems to adapt to advances and presumes a Christian God exists to start with) can be made to tightly fit with what we consider facts. If I can't prove something wrong, acting like it is just strikes me as both unnecessarily condescending and denying the possibility that I could be wrong.

    Really this subject strikes me as one that could be endlessly discussed by people who approach it reasonably as not enough evidence is known to damn either way of thought (seriously, some of the threads I've read with at least one person a side who are intellectual and reasonable were epic) and you'll always get fanatics on both sides acting like they know something to be definitely correct. It's too bad they can't show their undeniable evidence though, I'd be very curious to see this solved once and for all.
    victoria aut mors

  9. #9
    boopaloop! 3pleT has a reputation beyond repute 3pleT has a reputation beyond repute 3pleT has a reputation beyond repute 3pleT has a reputation beyond repute 3pleT has a reputation beyond repute 3pleT has a reputation beyond repute 3pleT has a reputation beyond repute 3pleT has a reputation beyond repute 3pleT has a reputation beyond repute 3pleT has a reputation beyond repute 3pleT has a reputation beyond repute 3pleT's Avatar
    Gil
    20,636.11
    Gender
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    01-20-2011 12:53 PM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Age
    35
    Threads
    4
    Posts
    1,079
    Rep Power
    1619

    Default Re: The Great Debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by ѺϦᵴιᶑιѧϗ ʆʋᶑᶃԑ View Post
    Evolution
    My reasoning: Common Sense.
    This. Makes most sense.


  10. #10
    4: [Classified brah] Eris has a reputation beyond repute Eris has a reputation beyond repute Eris has a reputation beyond repute Eris has a reputation beyond repute Eris has a reputation beyond repute Eris has a reputation beyond repute Eris has a reputation beyond repute Eris has a reputation beyond repute Eris has a reputation beyond repute Eris has a reputation beyond repute Eris has a reputation beyond repute Eris's Avatar
    Gil
    101,951.98
    Gender
    Gifts Tuxedo Mask Rose Mario Question Block Pen
    Mentioned
    301 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    03-06-2015 01:53 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Tau Ceti V
    Age
    37
    Threads
    617
    Posts
    19,697
    Blog Entries
    620
    Rep Power
    14769

    Default Re: The Great Debate.

    There is no debate. There is scientific consensus, and a noisy minority that doesn't understand the scientists, and are intimidated by the threat of what the scientists are saying poses to their world view, and thus are desperately trying to get a debate started.
    Last edited by Eris; 10-07-2010 at 11:03 AM.



    Hey look, Japan made a movie about me!

  11. #11
    Actually bigger than you. miniPhil has a reputation beyond repute miniPhil has a reputation beyond repute miniPhil has a reputation beyond repute miniPhil has a reputation beyond repute miniPhil has a reputation beyond repute miniPhil has a reputation beyond repute miniPhil has a reputation beyond repute miniPhil has a reputation beyond repute miniPhil has a reputation beyond repute miniPhil has a reputation beyond repute miniPhil has a reputation beyond repute miniPhil's Avatar
    Gil
    1,814.98
    Gender
    My Mood
    sunshine
    Gifts Ceiling Cat Violin Cds
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    04-02-2013 07:01 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Flying high in the sky.
    Threads
    78
    Posts
    2,428
    Blog Entries
    109
    Rep Power
    4048
    Gamer IDs

    Steam ID: miniPhil

    Default Re: The Great Debate.

    Not one for arguing this debate. It did inspire a pretty nice tune though.
    This is a Sig. It's horribly out of date.

  12. #12
    みんなで歌おうよ!
    AnimeLyrics Submitter Lv 2
    Aku no Hikari has a reputation beyond repute Aku no Hikari has a reputation beyond repute Aku no Hikari has a reputation beyond repute Aku no Hikari has a reputation beyond repute Aku no Hikari has a reputation beyond repute Aku no Hikari has a reputation beyond repute Aku no Hikari has a reputation beyond repute Aku no Hikari has a reputation beyond repute Aku no Hikari has a reputation beyond repute Aku no Hikari has a reputation beyond repute Aku no Hikari has a reputation beyond repute Aku no Hikari's Avatar
    Gil
    4,801.69
    Gender
    Gifts Baka Squid Cow
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    06-14-2013 06:58 PM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Threads
    47
    Posts
    1,656
    AL Lyrics
    70
    Rep Power
    3511

    Default Re: The Great Debate.

    Note: I am NOT saying this to support creationism. Just for the lulz.

    This debate philosophically makes as much sense as "using C++ vs. programming video games". Why?

    Because evolution does not address the origin of life. It assumes that life exists, and that it's evolving. Which is true. But where did that life come from? Evolution does not know. (sauce.)

    So to speak, evolution does not deny creation, nor does creation deny evolution. A more philosophically meaningful argument would be "creationism vs. [put here a hypothesis that explains how life came into existence]".


    Edit: Forgot to say: [/thread]
    Last edited by Aku no Hikari; 10-07-2010 at 03:48 PM.
     

  13. #13
    Great Witch of Britannia wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90's Avatar
    Gil
    37,489.92
    Gender
    My Mood
    Wicked
    Gifts Eva Penpen Wolf Full Moon
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    12-21-2014 03:53 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, United States
    Age
    33
    Threads
    47
    Posts
    2,029
    Rep Power
    2252
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: DisturbedWiccan PSN ID: Wolfdragon63 Steam ID: Wolfgirl90

    Default Re: The Great Debate.

    Well, it is interesting how this is a "debate" considering how the terms are really exclusive of each other. They are not two theories of the same subject. Evolution explains how primitive life from millions of years ago become life as we know it today, but evolution doesn't explain where life came from, whether it was "created" by some divine force or from chemical reactions (evolution and abiogenesis are ultimately two different things).

    So, for me, as a Pagan, I believe that life was created by the union of the Goddess and God (insert obligatory New Age joke here). However, I also believed that life evolved into different forms because, let's face it, those fossils had to come from some where.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Jesus+with+Baby+Dinosaur.jpg
Views:	22
Size:	98.5 KB
ID:	32861See? Creation and evolution can get along just fine.
    This is my war face.

    This is what happens to trolls who mess with me.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon's Avatar
    Gil
    4,171.61
    Gender
    Gifts Fuuko Starfish Favorite
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    01-24-2011 09:38 PM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Threads
    8
    Posts
    180
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    432

    Default Re: The Great Debate.

    Okay some interesting points guys..
    Let`s go with this..
    Right starting right at the beginning.. Genisis 1:1..

    In the beginning God created the heavens and earth..

    Okay to put it simpler as the time line goes;
    Day 1: creation of light and its separation from darkness.
    Day 2: separation of the sky and oceans.
    Day 3: separation of land from the oceans; spreading of plants and grass and trees across the land.
    Day 4: Creation of the sun, moon, and stars.
    Day 5: Creation of sea animals and birds.
    Day 6: Creation of the land animals.
    Day 7: God rested.

    Many religious fundamentalists believe that the 'day' meant '24-hour day'. Do you believe in that? Geologists estimate that the earth is 4 billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15 billion years old. So, if we go with the theory of the '24-hour' concept. According to Genesis 1:1 to 2:3; Age of the universe, the earth and our age of earliest life form is less than 10,000 years. While according to the evolution theory is what I stated above, as for earliest life forms is about 3.5 billion years. Okay, Lets look at the origin of the word 'day' as described in the bible. The word 'day' originated from the Hebrew word 'Yom' – Yom is translated as; but not limited to 'a period of time'.
    "It can denote: 1. the period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness), 2. a general vague "time," 3. a point of time, 4. a year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)."
    {Interesting note; in 67 verses in the Old Testament, the word 'Yom' is translated into the English word 'time' – For example; And in the process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord – Gen 2:3; I this instance 'Yom is refers to a growing season, which could be several months. } In saying this, God's first day – could have been the billions of years before to his proposed '2nd day' of creation. In theory.. Right now, present day... Is what we are living in is what is considered as still the' 7th day'- God's day of rest. [Just to note also, that 'Yom' is also used in the bible for Year, Age, Age, Always, Season, Chronicles, Continually, Ever, Evermore. {I can keep going and refer you to scriptures, but that can get a little boring.}


    Now, Let`s look at three claims of evolution.
    "Evolution is as much as a fact as the heat of the sun" – Prof. Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Yes, I won`t deny the fact that the Sun IS hot, experiments and direct observations can prove that. But do experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution with the same undisputed support?
    Before answering that read on, please..
    So, you can agree that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly. For example, Humans can selectively breed dogs so that eventually the descendants have shorter legs, longer hair, etc. These by some scientists call this term "Microevolution". However, evolutionists teach that small changes accumulated slowly over billions of years and produced the big changes needed to make, say, fish into amphibians and apelike creatures into men. These proposed big changes are defined as 'Macroevolution'.
    Keep that in mind, boys and girls. There are three claims I want to put of there by evolutionists.

    1. "Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species" - The teaching of Macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations – random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals- can produce not only new species, but also entirely now families of plants and animals.

    2. "Natural selection let to the creation of new species" – Charles Darwin [Author of Origin of species' ] believed that what he called 'natural selection' would favour those life-forms best suited to the environment, where those less suitable would eventually die off. And modern evolutionist go on to claim that species spread and become isolated, natural selection chose the ones with the gene mutations that made them capable to survive the new environment. They speculate, that these isolated groups then eventually develop into a totally new species. Ever heard of 'Darwin's Finches?' - good example there.

    3. "Fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes' - In 1999 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a brochure 'Science and Creationism – Good read and free to download, anyway after reading it, it left me with an impression that the fossils found by scientists more than adequately document macroevolution. It declares (Sorry if this is a little off ) – "So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of decent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species"

    My argument against these..?
    1. Researchers have discovered that mutations CAN produce alterations in the decedents of plants and animals. But my question is; Do mutations really produce entirely new species? So a group of researches spent 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants under the watchful care of Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig and they thought that by inducing and selecting favourable mutations, they could produce new and better plants- and in fact some hoped to produce entirely new species. With well funded research programs scientists in US, Asia and Europe launched themselves into these programs, using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? "In spite of an enormous financial expenditure, the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation, widely proved to be a failure" – Researcher Peter von Sengbusch. Then Lonnig also said "Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned by Western countries, as almost all the mutants died or were weaker than the wild varieties" . So with data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general along with about 70 years of mutation breeding, has enable scientist to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species... Then Lonnig concludes after examining the evidence – " Mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of the mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability" – So in conclusion, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? Well.. That says no. Haha~

    2. Okay, Natural selection. Let`s go with Darwin's Finches – 13 species of finches he studied on the Galapagos Islands. [This is also mention in the NAS brochure] So here was discovered with the finches that after a year of drought on the islands, finches with the larger beaks survived more readily than those with the slimmer ones. The way of determining the 13 different species were by observing the size and shape of their beaks, yet those finding s were assumed to be significant. In the NAS Brochure is goes to say that the they have estimated, that if a droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years. But, it was never mentioned in the brochure that in the years following the drought, finches with the smaller beaks again dominated the population. Researchers found that as the climatic conditions on the island changed, finches with longer beaks were dominant one year, but later those with smaller beaks were dominant. Also notice that finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. They concluded that if the interbreeding continued, it could result in the fusion of two species into just one. So does natural selection really create entirely new species? Evolutionary theorist Jeffrey H. Schwarts wrote that natural selection may be helping species adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new.

    3. Ahh.. Eric. I hope you take a bite out of this one, as you did mention about the foundations of fossilised documentation of evolution. Going back to NAS and the previous statement I quoted up top. It`s a confident one, and a surprising one as well in my opinion. Anyone heard of Nile Eldredge? He is a staunch evolutionist, and he stated that the fossil record shows, not that there is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long periods of time, "Little of no evolutionary change accumulates in most species". Alright, so to date, scientists worldwide have unearth and catalogued somewhat 200 million large fossils and billions of small ones. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species dissapearing as suddenly as they arrived.
    There is no real proof of evolution, take it for humans in this instance. Apes to man, We evolved and adapted from ape. Not questions lie in.. What did the ape evolve from? Or its origin? Why now is there just man and ape and nothing in between of the stages of evolution? Why haven`t we evolved or show any signs of evolving into another species? Why is there a perfect structure to our world? Everything just goes, our earth is perfect. Why is our earth perfectly positioned from the sun for it to survive? It`s orbit is around the sun is almost circular, keeping us roughly at the same distance from the sun year-round? Our moon's diameter measure just over the quarter of that of the earth? It`s the principal cause of our ocean tides, which play a vital role in earth's ecology. The moon also contributes to the plants stable spin axis. Without our 'tailor-made' moon, our planet would wobble like a spinning top, then turning our plant on the side perhaps? Then what? That could cause climatic, tidal and other changes that could be catastrophic..

    So, if evolution occurred, shouldn’t our world still be changing? Yet the system and everything around us – [ except for us mere humans] Is in perfect balance.

    Your thoughts?

    I`ve done alot of my own research, and enjoyed reading and learning bout this in every way. I can show which scriptures in the bible that are flawed and contradict each other, But since a majority is opting for Evolution, please by all means. With my opinions and small amount of research and information, debate with me. :3

  15. #15
    Senior Member Light Buster has a reputation beyond repute Light Buster has a reputation beyond repute Light Buster has a reputation beyond repute Light Buster has a reputation beyond repute Light Buster has a reputation beyond repute Light Buster has a reputation beyond repute Light Buster has a reputation beyond repute Light Buster has a reputation beyond repute Light Buster has a reputation beyond repute Light Buster has a reputation beyond repute Light Buster has a reputation beyond repute Light Buster's Avatar
    Gil
    25,125.78
    Gender
    My Mood
    Fine
    Gifts Systems Xbox 360 American Flag Ribbon AK47
    Mentioned
    376 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    03-30-2016 03:29 PM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Unknown
    Age
    32
    Threads
    143
    Posts
    7,231
    Blog Entries
    59
    AW Wallpapers
    1
    AL Lyrics
    1
    Rep Power
    2267
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: Light Buster PSN ID: Lightbuster88

    Default Re: The Great Debate.

    Evolution = Way of life.

    Creation = Something that man made.

    That's how I see it...
    WARNING: This user is wanted for unauthorized access into Ultratech archives. If you see this user in person, please contact Ultratech immediately.

  16. #16
    Senior Member Anoleis has a reputation beyond repute Anoleis has a reputation beyond repute Anoleis has a reputation beyond repute Anoleis has a reputation beyond repute Anoleis has a reputation beyond repute Anoleis has a reputation beyond repute Anoleis has a reputation beyond repute Anoleis has a reputation beyond repute Anoleis has a reputation beyond repute Anoleis has a reputation beyond repute Anoleis has a reputation beyond repute Anoleis's Avatar
    Gil
    1,268.66
    Gender
    My Mood
    Curmudgeon
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    07-18-2016 04:10 PM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Threads
    41
    Posts
    1,316
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    1701

    Default Re: The Great Debate.



    I find this semi relevant to the topic~


  17. #17
    Senior Member Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon's Avatar
    Gil
    4,171.61
    Gender
    Gifts Fuuko Starfish Favorite
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    01-24-2011 09:38 PM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Threads
    8
    Posts
    180
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    432

    Default Re: The Great Debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by ѺϦᵴιᶑιѧϗ ʆʋᶑᶃԑ View Post


    I find this semi relevant to the topic~
    You`re flippin` hilarious... >_____>;

  18. #18
    Senior Member Cobra Commander has a reputation beyond repute Cobra Commander has a reputation beyond repute Cobra Commander has a reputation beyond repute Cobra Commander has a reputation beyond repute Cobra Commander has a reputation beyond repute Cobra Commander has a reputation beyond repute Cobra Commander has a reputation beyond repute Cobra Commander has a reputation beyond repute Cobra Commander has a reputation beyond repute Cobra Commander has a reputation beyond repute Cobra Commander has a reputation beyond repute Cobra Commander's Avatar
    Gil
    15,964.12
    Gender
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    10-17-2011 12:15 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Amarillo, Texas
    Age
    39
    Threads
    40
    Posts
    1,864
    Blog Entries
    51
    Rep Power
    2253

    Default Re: The Great Debate.

    I wasn't coming in to argue for creationism or intelligent design specifically. My opinion - simplified - is that regardless of which philosophy one chooses, there is actually room for them to co-exist. I can see obvious evidence that humans evolved from apes. I've read some things in the Bible which appear to require an awful lot of foresight for someone living in the early days of Christianity. The idea that humans and all other life evolved from something else does not preclude that there is no supreme deity-being somewhere out of our reach. The idea that such a being "created" man to be in "his image" does not preclude that man did not evolve. Evolution may or may not be part of the plan.

    Hopefully this was more coherent than what I previously posted. In short...I don't know. It doesn't worry me. If I die, and there is nothing, then I will never know the difference. If I die, and believed in nothing, yet God is truly forgiving and loving, then my transgressions will not matter. If I am reborn, then I will not know the difference. In fact, the most devout followers of any given religion are the only ones who SHOULD be worried. They're the only ones who are completely invested in something that may turn out to be false.

  19. #19
    Awaken Skylar1 has a reputation beyond repute Skylar1 has a reputation beyond repute Skylar1 has a reputation beyond repute Skylar1 has a reputation beyond repute Skylar1 has a reputation beyond repute Skylar1 has a reputation beyond repute Skylar1 has a reputation beyond repute Skylar1 has a reputation beyond repute Skylar1 has a reputation beyond repute Skylar1 has a reputation beyond repute Skylar1 has a reputation beyond repute Skylar1's Avatar
    Gil
    1,525,875.76
    Gender
    My Mood
    Fine
    Gifts Mario 1-Up Mushroom Aria Neko Mario Piranha Plant
    Mentioned
    67 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    06-16-2022 04:19 PM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Somewhere in the omniverse
    Age
    33
    Threads
    331
    Posts
    3,594
    Blog Entries
    123
    Rep Power
    5648

    Default Re: The Great Debate.

    Your TL;DR cannot Defeat ME!


    There can be only one!!




    Quote Originally Posted by Armageddon View Post
    Okay some interesting points guys..
    Let`s go with this..
    Right starting right at the beginning.. Genisis 1:1..

    In the beginning God created the heavens and earth..

    Okay to put it simpler as the time line goes;
    Day 1: creation of light and its separation from darkness.
    Day 2: separation of the sky and oceans.
    Day 3: separation of land from the oceans; spreading of plants and grass and trees across the land.
    Day 4: Creation of the sun, moon, and stars.
    Day 5: Creation of sea animals and birds.
    Day 6: Creation of the land animals.
    Day 7: God rested.

    Many religious fundamentalists believe that the 'day' meant '24-hour day'. Do you believe in that? Geologists estimate that the earth is 4 billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15 billion years old. So, if we go with the theory of the '24-hour' concept. According to Genesis 1:1 to 2:3; Age of the universe, the earth and our age of earliest life form is less than 10,000 years. While according to the evolution theory is what I stated above, as for earliest life forms is about 3.5 billion years. Okay, Lets look at the origin of the word 'day' as described in the bible. The word 'day' originated from the Hebrew word 'Yom' – Yom is translated as; but not limited to 'a period of time'. {Interesting note; in 67 verses in the Old Testament, the word 'Yom' is translated into the English word 'time' – For example; And in the process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord – Gen 2:3; I this instance 'Yom is refers to a growing season, which could be several months. } In saying this, God's first day – could have been the billions of years before to his proposed '2nd day' of creation. In theory.. Right now, present day... Is what we are living in is what is considered as still the' 7th day'- God's day of rest. [Just to note also, that 'Yom' is also used in the bible for Year, Age, Age, Always, Season, Chronicles, Continually, Ever, Evermore. {I can keep going and refer you to scriptures, but that can get a little boring.}
    The problem here is that your opinion is based on a interpretation of a romantic text. Which, doesn't work.

    Speculation as to what someone meant by what they said about something else in a artistic manner, (as opposed to there being no room for alternative interpretations. [aka. what is written is how it should be read]*) does not suffice in any way to be taken as serious documentation, nor evidence, as to what has actually occurred.

    Not to mention the fact that no one is ever going to be right or wrong about what the original meaning of the text was made to be due to it being scrambled by loose literary terms and analogies created by many different people spanning a huge time-frame.

    *not to be confused with religious fundamentalists.



    Now, Let`s look at three claims of evolution.
    "Evolution is as much as a fact as the heat of the sun"
    Here's a good example as to what I mean.

    How are we supposed to know what "sun" represents? what kind of "heart" is it? Does he mean the actual core of our parent star?

    Vague romanticismwiki does not make for good theories. And, only serves to hinder and confuse people by not being clear and precise enough for the message to be universally understood.
    – Prof. Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist.
    /implying that because he's a supporter of evolution that it automatically makes him more creditable in his statement.
    Yes, I won`t deny the fact that the Sun IS hot, experiments and direct observations can prove that. But do experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution with the same undisputed support?
    well..
    Before answering that read on, please..
    Oh, sorry. =x

    I'll wait my turn.

    So, you can agree that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly. For example, Humans can selectively breed dogs so that eventually the descendants have shorter legs, longer hair, etc. These by some scientists call this term "Microevolution".
    Indeed, that is the case.
    However, evolutionists teach that small changes accumulated slowly over billions of years and produced the big changes needed to make, say, fish into amphibians and apelike creatures into men. These proposed big changes are defined as 'Macroevolution'.
    this is correct.


    now then, where was I?

    Yes, I won`t deny the fact that the Sun IS hot, experiments and direct observations can prove that. But do experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution with the same undisputed support?
    Yes, they do.

    We can't not actually stick a thermometer into the sun*. All we have to go on are our observations.

    *just one example of an infinite amount of theories that describe the world we live in.

    See, science basically works like this:

    Someone says "hmm, I wonder why that is the way it is", then decides to investigate by creating a hypothesiswiki. But a hypothesis is just speculation (much like the first part of your post was). In order for a hypothesis to gain traction in the 'truth' department, it needs to undergo examination in the form of testing. Specifically designed tests are then created to test the hypothesis, and from that, results are produced in the from of measurable data.

    All of this is then compared with the original hypothesis, and then is determined whether or not the hypothesis was correct or not. If it's in line with what the prediction originally stated, it means that it has some truth* to it, and deserves being investigated further.

    *by "truth" I'm referring to theories; meaning that they are currently the (closest) accurate descriptions of how things actually are. ALL (currently) accepted knowledge is a theory in principle due to the fact that we can never** actually observe something directly.

    **our human senses aren't capable of doing such observations. We can only "see" things using what our biological senses are designed for survival. Even that does not suffice in our ability to really view the world around us. but I digress..

    Darwinian Evolution is currently the most supported theory because it offers the most evidence and describes the origin of life in a way that would be seen as the most accurate one known.

    You can call the whole "it's not completely confirmed stuff", but I'll respond by saying that such sentiment is childish. When something 99.98% correct, calling it out based off of nothing more than the .02%, despite the mountain of evidence, just proves one's immaturity.


    Keep that in mind, boys and girls. There are three claims I want to put of there by evolutionists.
    ?

    1. "Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species" - The teaching of Macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations – random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals- can produce not only new species, but also entirely now families of plants and animals.
    Confirmed.

    wiki:
    Mutations can involve large sections of DNA becoming duplicated, usually through genetic recombination.[8] These duplications are a major source of raw material for evolving new genes, with tens to hundreds of genes duplicated in animal genomes every million years.[9]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_mutation

    2. "Natural selection let to the creation of new species" – Charles Darwin [Author of Origin of species' ] believed that what he called 'natural selection' would favour those life-forms best suited to the environment, where those less suitable would eventually die off. And modern evolutionist go on to claim that species spread and become isolated, natural selection chose the ones with the gene mutations that made them capable to survive the new environment. They speculate, that these isolated groups then eventually develop into a totally new species. Ever heard of 'Darwin's Finches?' - good example there.
    Again, confirmed.

    wiki:
    Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype which gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population (see allele frequency). Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize populations for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

    3. "Fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes' - In 1999 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a brochure 'Science and Creationism – Good read and free to download, anyway after reading it, it left me with an impression that the fossils found by scientists more than adequately document macroevolution. It declares (Sorry if this is a little off ) – "So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of decent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species"
    you can see where I'm going with this.

    Anyways, my point being that; confirmed facts and evidence =/= claims and speculations.

    My argument against these..?
    1. Researchers have discovered that mutations CAN produce alterations in the decedents of plants and animals. But my question is; Do mutations really produce entirely new species?
    Yes they do. (refer to the first wiki quote)
    So a group of researches spent 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants under the watchful care of Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig and they thought that by inducing and selecting favourable mutations, they could produce new and better plants- and in fact some hoped to produce entirely new species. With well funded research programs scientists in US, Asia and Europe launched themselves into these programs, using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? "In spite of an enormous financial expenditure, the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation, widely proved to be a failure" – Researcher Peter von Sengbusch. Then Lonnig also said "Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned by Western countries, as almost all the mutants died or were weaker than the wild varieties" . So with data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general along with about 70 years of mutation breeding, has enable scientist to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species... Then Lonnig concludes after examining the evidence – " Mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of the mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability" – So in conclusion, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? Well.. That says no. Haha~
    Um, wrong. That experiment was done using forced evolution over a very short period of time. During which not even the genome is fully decoded and understood. Not to mention the fact that it was done artificially. Whereas normally, genetic mutations take a long time, and in a lot of cases even naturally, they fail most of the time. (which is why evolution takes an extraordinarily long time.

    Until we can decipher the -entire- genome, and understand what each individual gene does, will the experiment be able to work as would occur naturally. (meaning, we would specifically be able to choose the actually genetic mutations as they occurred.

    2. Okay, Natural selection. Let`s go with Darwin's Finches – 13 species of finches he studied on the Galapagos Islands. [This is also mention in the NAS brochure] So here was discovered with the finches that after a year of drought on the islands, finches with the larger beaks survived more readily than those with the slimmer ones. The way of determining the 13 different species were by observing the size and shape of their beaks, yet those finding s were assumed to be significant. In the NAS Brochure is goes to say that the they have estimated, that if a droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years. But, it was never mentioned in the brochure that in the years following the drought, finches with the smaller beaks again dominated the population. Researchers found that as the climatic conditions on the island changed, finches with longer beaks were dominant one year, but later those with smaller beaks were dominant. Also notice that finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. They concluded that if the interbreeding continued, it could result in the fusion of two species into just one. So does natural selection really create entirely new species? Evolutionary theorist Jeffrey H. Schwarts wrote that natural selection may be helping species adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new.
    again, a conclusion done by an experiment that would be "in the blink of an eye" in actual evolutionary terms, in only one single area as well.

    WHERE WAS THE CONTROL HERE?
    3. Ahh.. Eric. I hope you take a bite out of this one, as you did mention about the foundations of fossilised documentation of evolution. Going back to NAS and the previous statement I quoted up top. It`s a confident one, and a surprising one as well in my opinion. Anyone heard of Nile Eldredge? He is a staunch evolutionist, and he stated that the fossil record shows, not that there is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long periods of time, "Little of no evolutionary change accumulates in most species". Alright, so to date, scientists worldwide have unearth and catalogued somewhat 200 million large fossils and billions of small ones. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species dissapearing as suddenly as they arrived.
    Evolution is relative to each and every species. In places were the environment changes most often, you're going to see higher rates of change, and visa versa. So you're going to find those that change little in a given time-frame, and those that change a lot in the same time-frame.

    Of course, Evolution progresses regardless of the environment. But not all species, again, go by the same accord.


    There is no real proof of evolution, take it for humans in this instance. Apes to man, We evolved and adapted from ape. Not questions lie in.. What did the ape evolve from?
    Apes evolved from lower mammals, which evolved from earlier reptilian creatures, from ocean life, etc. ALL life that exists today is generally thought of to have come from the same source.

    And, If you think that last statement is incorrect, please show me evidence supporting otherwise.

    Or its origin?
    random chemistry would be the culprit behind it all

    Why now is there just man and ape and nothing in between of the stages of evolution?
    There is. hence, Neanderthalwiki

    Of course, that's not the only one.

    Why haven`t we evolved or show any signs of evolving into another species?
    It takes a very, very long time to notice considerable changes. But yes, we are still in fact evolving.

    Every time someone gives birth to another human, evolution has taken place. You just don't notice because the change is so insignificantly small; but, is nonetheless, still there.


    Why is there a perfect structure to our world?
    The anthropic principlewiki may shed some light on the subject.


    Everything just goes, our earth is perfect. Why is our earth perfectly positioned from the sun for it to survive? It`s orbit is around the sun is almost circular, keeping us roughly at the same distance from the sun year-round? Our moon's diameter measure just over the quarter of that of the earth? It`s the principal cause of our ocean tides, which play a vital role in earth's ecology. The moon also contributes to the plants stable spin axis. Without our 'tailor-made' moon, our planet would wobble like a spinning top, then turning our plant on the side perhaps? Then what? That could cause climatic, tidal and other changes that could be catastrophic..
    Our universe may very well not even be the only one that exists. Have you considered that possibility as well?

    Plus, you must keep in mind that those places that do not have those seemingly perfect conditions to support life that would go on to evolve to something like us that has the ability to observe the universe, don't have us. The "perfectness" is just an illusion created out of probability.
    So, if evolution occurred, shouldn’t our world still be changing? Yet the system and everything around us – [ except for us mere humans] Is in perfect balance.
    .. who said it's not changing. Of course it's changing. Every day.

    It's not even one of those things that are un-noticeable either. (global warming for starters much?)

    Your thoughts?
    The theory of evolution is the best one we have thus far. If any other were to take it's place, it would have to do so by presenting even stronger evidence that is both conclusive and finds the flaws in the current understanding.

    Something that I doubt will ever be done since Darwin pretty much hit the nail on the head.


    I`ve done alot of my own research, and enjoyed reading and learning bout this in every way. I can show which scriptures in the bible that are flawed and contradict each other, But since a majority is opting for Evolution, please by all means. With my opinions and small amount of research and information, debate with me. :3
    Whew, that was both very enjoyable, and quite tiring at the same time lol. Good show indeed~

    :3
    The Brighter the Light the Darker the Shadow

  20. #20
    Senior Member Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon has a reputation beyond repute Armageddon's Avatar
    Gil
    4,171.61
    Gender
    Gifts Fuuko Starfish Favorite
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    01-24-2011 09:38 PM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Threads
    8
    Posts
    180
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    432

    Default Re: The Great Debate.

    Oh, looky..

    :3 I`ll shall return with my response.

  21. #21
    Nanobyte's minion SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD has a reputation beyond repute SigmaSD's Avatar
    Gil
    87,964.34
    Gender
    My Mood
    Sleepy
    Gifts Luna Cake Lie Soras Keyblade
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    04-20-2017 06:47 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    In your dreams. =0
    Threads
    149
    Posts
    5,980
    Blog Entries
    119
    Rep Power
    6157
    Gamer IDs

    Wii Code: 1596-5790-7816-3407

    Default Re: The Great Debate.

    @Armageddon: Your post is a bit too long, so I'm not going to quote it, instead I'll respond like this.

    Your arguments against evolution are quite concrete, so I must say very well done. You actually took the time to find and research arguments against evolution, which is pretty impressive. But there are some holes within them.

    1. They may have created different varieties of plants by irradiation, but the fact that they didn't survive just proves that they weren't suited for the environment. They must have been lacking certain genes that other plants had. And you even quoted that they were being mutated by irradiation. With that process, how do you know which genes you are mutating? Is it controlled? Maybe the genes that were mutated were the ones needed to keep the plant alive? You don’t know whether they were actually mutating the plants in order to acquire favorable genes, so therefore the experiment falls flat. Another thing to add is the fact that evolution is variable. There is no set amount of time it can happen. No one knows if it takes hundreds of even thousands of years for a species to evolve to a different one. These people did the experiment for only 40 years and since it didn't work for some reason it disproves evolution? What bothers me most is this: "Mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of the mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability". So just because this not so well drawn experiment failed, they assume mutation can't produce a new species. The experiment was faulty to begin with, so their conclusion isn't really relevant.

    2. Darwin included the Galapagos finches in his book to show how one species can change drastically into many different ones. It was sort of an example if you will, to show how natural selection can work. I don’t know if the finches can or can’t interbreed, but even if they could, how does that disprove evolution? In fact, in only favors it because it is still showing how changes occur and help a species adapt to its environment. Given more time, they could possibly form into a completely new species.

    3. As I mentioned earlier, evolution is variable. Some species have rapid evolution rates and some don’t. Also, evolution is not constant. It may happen rapidly, then slow down (perhaps due to having the same environment in which the same traits are still favorable for survival) and then pick up again. We can’t say evolution takes 500 years or 12,000 because it’s not specific.

    I like how you gave your insight and added sources to each argument. It’s the strongest con-evolution thesis I have ever seen in AF. But you do know the holes in the reasoning.

    Also towards the end you made it seem as if you were going to prove creationism by disproving evolution. I don’t know if that was actually the case or not, but if it was, then you’re just making an illogical fallacy. Appeal to ignorance. You’re basically saying “since x is wrong, y must be right”. In your case it would be like saying “since evolution is wrong, creationism is right.” But its illogical since you haven’t proven creationism right with any evidence, so it doesn’t make it any more correct than evolution.


    And darn you Erics, you beat me to it. *shakes fist* I got logged off trying to write it all, so I had to write it again and condense it.

Closed Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Debate on Reality
    By Skylar1 in forum Miscellaneous Miscellany
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 07-21-2010, 03:09 AM
  2. Debate Day!
    By Frequency in forum Miscellaneous Miscellany
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-10-2005, 12:24 PM
  3. Halo 2: Great game or great disapointment
    By Fantasy fighter in forum Video Games
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-03-2005, 06:02 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts