I couldn't agree more. I personally believe in evolution, but that's just me. It's the conclusion I've come to because it makes the most sense to me based on what I have seen and believe to be true. But I wouldn't presume to say that I, or any human, has enough perspective upon reality as a whole to throw around terms like 'truth', 'fact' and 'indisputable logic' in absolute terms. In objective terms, regardless of our own invented ideals of proof and evidence as we perceive them, no view is objectively more valid than another. One or the other may indeed be correct, pretty sure they can't coexist, but to claim that your choice is inherently better than theirs when you both possess objectively equal perspectives serves no purpose in discussion. This arguably makes science vs. religion (not to be reductive, but you get what I mean) discussions pointless, as the two arguments base themselves on different fundamental principles and methods of reasoning, equally valid, but not compatible for argument. Just remember that whatever view you have, whilst it may be the obvious, single solution to you, but it is still only the view of a single human, with a very narrow perspective in absolute terms. Don't get angry when people don't agree with what you consider indisputable, its unfair and there's no point.
If we lack truth and fact, what do we have? What do we rely upon? Certainly these questions don't lie on the plain of this debate, so take it to pm's if you have an answer for me. We aren't debating religion, at least we shouldn't be. I have no qualms with science and religion being on two separate playing fields, in fact that's the way I prefer it. I don't think anyone has been angry in this thread. At least for several pages. There are only two I can think of that have really oozed anger, in an illiteral sense.
Goddamnnit, this always happens, I post a logical, albeit somewhat lengthy, post and it gets completely ignored... I should just stay away from the debate forum.
No it is not a hard theory to understand. I can read plain english and I can use a dictionary to understand those large words. I understand what you're saying and I understand what the theory of evolution states. I do not accept it as a whole as truth nor fact. I also do not reject logic, I love it. I'm sorry but numbers are there to look pretty. While they hold there own weight, let's get past that. We are this percentage close to apes and this percentage of thus. Well how does it happen, what are the mechanisms involved in evolution? I know full well that my genes are very closely related to Apes. This can be interpreted in one of two ways. Evloution or intelligent design. We are similar therefore we evolved along the same lineage or we are similar becuase of intelligent design. Of course you don't believe in what you view as Santa Claus, so I must be unitelligent or a looney. Either way this style of evidence should be thrown out because even though you may use it to support your viewpoints I will use it to support mine. So, what if I grow older? A baby doesn't come out of the womb looking like their sixty years old. Now what do I accpet? I accept that natural selection occurs in nature. But, I do not believe that a dog will ever become a cat given any length of time. But rusty wait! Speciation does occur! No crap. Two packs of dogs come up to a mountain range. One pack goes one way the other pack the other way. Now by the time they get to the other end of the mountain range one pack is observed to be a Mastiff and the other pack full of weiner dogs. Rusty! see this is evolution in action! No its not. Let's talk about why it is a new species. Picture a Mastiff humping a weiner dog. That's one reason. Here's another, in this case opposites do not attract and neither are these two dogs digging each other. Biologically they are fully compatible. They both have the same number of chromosomes in there sex cells meaning that they can produce viable offspring. They just don't want to mate with if each other therefore they are a new species. Here's another concept, Lumpers vs. Splitters. If you think that these two packs are entirely seperate species because they do not breed together then you are a splitter. If you think that they are still the same species because they can produce viable offspring the you are a lumper. If you split these dogs into different species then think about this. The native Americans could not reproduce with Europeans until the Americas were rediscovered, so did that make the Native Americans a seperate species? One last thing before I go, why did they come out so different? - I'll leave you to think of this, numbers will not help you here, but logic will. Edit: You are talking of the concept of Theistic Evolution. This is not true. While evolution can be manipulated to meet the Bible, the Bible can not be twisted so that you can reconcile the issue. You either believe the Bible as it has been written or you don't. When the Bibles reads quite clearly that God created Adam from dust and breathed life into him, it doesn't mean that God sat on his butt for 3.5 billion years until Adam arrived, it means that God made Adam from dust and breathed life into him. As for the day theory, the Hebrew text does not mean day as in a given length of time, but in a 24 hr. time period. Well if God used evloution then that would undermine his power, becuase if you follow the logic train then a scientist could grab some bacteria go in a cave and stick it in an oven for four 4 billion years and get a brand new baby boy. I.E. the scientist has created complex life therefore he is god. Or God is just too lazy to create us himself and throws some bacteria in some random enviroment and we just happen to be the product. Yep real powerful, becuase since he couldn't create us himself he had to use a pre-existing biological phenomena that he had no control over.
Certainly not truth, but you could at least try fact. Natural selection, blind chance, sheer repeatability, time, etc. Mutation's a *****. Well actually the "same creator, same genes" arguement has been completely destroyed in debates. I haven't seen that arguement in a good while. But theology shouldn't be in this debate. Exactly...what part of my baby to grand dad did you not understand? You will never see that change, expect in photographs. Day to day, you are oblivious. ID states that we did come out of the womb at 60 years old. Evolution would be from baby to death. Metaphorically of course. I completely agree. If we ever saw that the theory would be in serious trouble. Lucky us, eh? That's not speciation. That's how it can occur but a dog species being separated by a range will not produce a breed like you are stating. If separated long enough, it could form a new species, but due to their manuverability I don't think a ring species would be possible with dogs. Also one dog pack being seperated by a range would not make a wiener or a mastiff. They would probably carry the same characteristics when you reintroduced them (realistically). If you did sepearate them for 100,000+ years you could get a new species. Thats only one way a species can form and should not be the entire basis of your arguement. The Theory of Magnetism states opposites do attract. Picturing two dogs ****ing is not high on my priorities. Oh god!, I just pictured it. That doesn't make them a new species. In my lizard's example of XBL, they had the desire to breed, but inability to breed. We could still mate though. We were separated by an ocean, big deal. It doesn't mean we can't reproduce. Just because two species don't come into contact with each other doesn't mean they have become separate species. In your ring species example the two populations were introduced without the ability to breed, in the native american example they had the ability to breed. Of course wieners and Mastiffs are still dogs. Just different breeds. I don't know if it can happen naturally (lol) but they can still produce off spring, due to DNA compatibility. I don't need numbers, but they do show the precision of thousands upon thousands of biologists before us. This theory has withstood intense scrutiny from the scientific community for two hundred years. Any point you raise will have been done so before.
The dogs were just a mere comical illustration if you couldn't pick up on the sarcasm. Now we are getting somewhere. How do organisms change? Let's start off small, let's start with bacteria. How did the bacteria evolve to get a motorized flagella?
Mutation. DNA can't replicate itself perfectly. Every human on this planet is a mutant because it contains DNA, not from the mother and father. About 90% of our DNA is "junk DNA." Meaning it does nothing. So there you go :\ Watch this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w I also recommend watching all of his other videos. He explains evolution very well.
ok if evalution really did happen how comin it is not happening today? the human speiceis has been around for over 2000 years and in that time there has been no eveloution of a sorts. if evelution happend why don't we see new animals today? evelution is just a chance that life started. it is just a chance that everything worked out perfectly. you know the saying if you put monkeys in a room with keyboards eventually one would right the works of shakespear? well that is what evelution is like. so no you say that ha! there is a chance that it is true! well first off the chance is 1 out of +1000000000000000000000000000000000 and higher. that is no chance. ask any great mathmiticion of this centurey. they'll tell you that is no real chance. now if evelution was true show me +10000000000000 creatures that were falures and died of. and by falure i don't mean dinos. dinos were fully developed cretures. what i mean by a falure is a human with out legs and 4 eyes and bones as stong as glass. show me a fossile of a living jelly dino. then maybe we can talk about evalution more likely to be real. it is all a chance. most scientist to day don't agree with evalution but are forced to because it is the ecepted thing among science and are being kicked out of campuses or reasurch facility's do to the fact that they don't beleive. sure i belive in micro evelution, the evelotion that is very small like a bird slowly transforms its beack to a curved one from a strait one, but macro, cells to dinos, i do not belevie in. i would suggest if you want to learn more go to the members of a lolcal church and ask about evelution and why it's wrong. or if you want to learn why evalution is right go to a cellular research fascility. that is all for now, blue feel free to pm me anything about god, evalution, philolosaphy, astrunomy, what ever that is related. i will answer. you can even pm me what is the meaning of life. i have been over this many times. sometimes i answer jokinigly like it's toast. and others seriously. but mostly it is rather a question you get instead of an answer. because the questions are more important then the answers. i hope you will pm me. BECAUSE I COULDN'T PUT MORE THEN ONE VIDEO IN THAT POST I WILL PUT SOME HERE: http://youtube.com/watch?v=cTjt28LJCQg&feature=related
Humans for more than 2000 years...much more. We have several documentations of what you could call evolution, or rather adaptation amongst humans. Nothing that constitutes a new species but there are definite signs of some form of genetic modification to deal with certain environments. There are over 40 recorded events of speciation. Get with the times. While evolution is a building process, making the probability much much lower (1/76), I will give you a hypothetical scenario to better give you an idea of how wrong you are. Lets assume that for all we see to happen naturally the probability would be 1/10000000000000. Here we are today having the discussion about the probability. Because we are here today the probability is reduced to 1/1. It may be that large probability for this to happen again, but it's already happened once so the probability that it happened is 1/1 because it did happen. Of course this all hypothetical. Since the processes that drive our world and the universe are a building process the probability is reduced drastically. While that's not what evolution predicts or what should happen at all, there was a little girl on NatGeo who was born with 4 arms and 4 legs. She had to undergo a complex surgery to save her life, but she did survive. In the wild she would not have lived past the age of 1. Natural selection, though terribly cruel, does what it must. 99.98% of scientists believe that evolution is fact. Not because they are forced to, but because they know it to be fact. I would like some hard evidence to prove me otherwise on this point. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? **** no! Please tell me you're being sarcastic. If not, you're quite possibly the dumbest, most ignorant, ****tard that has ever had the displeasure of coming across me.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kXpSVxVd-8A there... and nitrous i found that offending when you said that stuff that is qouted in "alpha prime" how does speeking/writeing an opinoin become ignorance? how does beliveing what i belive become F***tarded? and just because i belive in god doesn't make me dumb. you sir, are a bad man. this is what i heard you post. [ hmmmm... be kind and courteous... if you want any newspaper artichales or magazine or web stuff just say so. i just thought vids are more intressting... Loading...
It was meant to be offending, not a lot of searching required. The man in the video above is not as smart as he would like to sound. His basic arguement is, well if X couldn't produce something, then Y has to be the answer. Without taking into context the ridiculous nature of Y or how Y operates. Amino acids can form naturally from the environment, which is a component of protein, as stated. And yes, proteins are used in a lot of cellular activity. What the agenda of this was, was to prove that just because a rivet doesn't float, a metal ship won't float either. Early cells would not have used proteins to divide or replicate DNA. That use of protein would have come later in the evolution of the cell, in the some 3.5 billion years it's had time to evolve. Overall the arguement was flawed in its entirety, and any magazine, any newspaper, you bring me, will not withstand the unstoppable force of thought, logic, and reason.
Thanks to reyn, if your talking about god and how he created everything in seven days please read this, I DO believe in god, but this has some good points... "Does God save the millions of people that die each year? Does the "saviour", of so many, do anything other then infect people with lost hope? This being everyone depends on so much has not once shown his face. He has not once spoken to a single being upon this Earth. We are organic. Everything that grows and breathes on this planet, is organic. We evolve, we do not get created by some mythical creature living and dwelling within the clouds. God is just as much a myth as any other children's book telling of tales and creatures that lurk in the night. This image of freedom and life after death is all but a dream. Those that follow this path will only lead themselves into the true valley of the dead. Their nightmares and dependence on something they so strongly believe in will inevitably destroy them in the end. This path should not be followed for it has no other end but disease and infection of ones mind. God will never, and has never existed. Only in others minds will he live. Hope and Faith is only but a dream, where yellow butterflies flutter and the doors to the Other World ceases to exist. A dream where every door you try and open, every time you try and find that specific key, there is no answer but non-existence. There is no answer but self-pity for the life you've lived. For the lie you've so strongly held onto. For everything that you stood for, slowly falling from grip. The door for those that are lost, is glued shut. Nailed shut with the others that were lost along the way, slowly dipping their entirety within the cup of Jesus. Those that are lost, have only themselves to blame." -Alex Beecham
first i'm sorry for what i siad then... but the thoery of evelution states that the first life started only 1 billion years ago. if we shrank the total earth time down to a year starting jan.1 12:00 to dec 31 at 11:59 nov. is when life started to apear. that's not 3.5 billion years. and you maybe right about y and x. but then what is the alternetive????? cause x doesn't work and y is claimed not to work... but in the vid he says that the chacne of binding, not creation of amino acids and protien is very low, .1/65 for just one binded protien and now think of all the other parts of a cimpile cell and to evolve in just 1 billion years to a fully functuanl human being that has over a biilon cells on it's boby?, and in just a flagela it has about a dozen protiens in a chain.(like he said.) once again if option X= wrong and y= the only other theroy what is right? then again... it is unknown what y=
You are absolutely right, and I retract my comment and give you my sincerest apologizes. I acted cruelly and without regards for you. That behavior is certainly not acceptable of an admin, and I hope that it can be overcome in favor of a more civil debate, especially from my side. Once again, I'm sorry. The theory of evolution states nothing of when life started, only how it evolved. Abiogenesis is the study of how life began, and the current scientific consensus is that life formed 3.5 billion years ago. Well if X can't work, and Y doesn't state anything about the topic A, then we must make a new way. Which is where Theory Z comes in and explains everything X did, but allows for the problems of X and explains them thoroughly. In the video they gave you no details. They just say, it can't work by chance. There were no technicalities in that video and it should be ignored as propaganda. It had no scientific grounding. I already posted a video on the flagellum. Just because Y is the only other theory does not mean we can not make up a new one.
that last thing you said i was thinking of... then i had a thought... what if evelution is right... but it is a god controlled thing? such as god was bored with light and planets... so he had some fun and made a little creature... and made sure nothing went wrong but let a special little feature take it's course? it would make sence on why evelotion is a chance and yet it allways is perfect chance! and i'm sorry for what i did too. and i forgive you. now y35 you talked about a loving god that didn't save millions... and he doesn't exist do to the fact we call him our saviour and he didn't save the millions of people. why do you think he wouldn't save us! look what we did! he killed him self to save us! and look how we repay him! shun and belevie he doesn't exist! he forgave the sins of the world and the humans right after the forgiving screw it up again! he is feed up with the way his creation is disobaying us! he has decided to listen but never speak nor act do to what we have done! nothing you will ever do will be able to repay what he did for us. to kill himself. an infinit of death and pain for him just to save us. and we created atheisim and the church of the devil... you really think that he doesn't exist because he didn't save millions of people after he saved everyone? but now i'm getting off the point... i think i'm done with this thread. nitrous has proven points that disagree with my belif. but- holy cow i just noticed the rep is all gone!! ummmmmm... nvm. back to what i was saying. but through the agument it appers option X=wrong and just plain god existing and creating Y=to unrealist to make sence. option W is what i though of wich is the fist paragraph of this post. i am still thinking what other options are...