Forum Closed
The forum is now to new posts. All the historical content is still available to browse.
if you are looking for musicians to play with, please view the Bands Seeking Musicians list, or use the Musicians Directory
You can use our pages on social media to connect:
Evolution Bullshit
| Message Board > General Chitchat > Evolution Bullshit |
| METALHEAD!% User Info... | I just started this thread because for the last few months I have been studying evolution and I have found out that it has never happened. Nothing has ever evolved. There is not one single fossil of something evolving into something else. Not one. In fact, the inconsistencies of evolution are so overwhelmingly obvious it is sick. The main reason we are taught about evolution is that people do not want to admit that we were created. The fact that we were created and all the life on this planet was created by something, anything, is too hard for most people to handle. I am not saying that any bible is true or that aliens put us here, but you have to know that evolution never happened. For instance, for evolution to be true, random inorganic chemicals had to come together and create an organic living cell. Scientists can not do this. The odds of this happening are 10 to the power 40 000. If the earth is 5 billion years old that equates in seconds to 10 to the power 18. Now say the biggest fluke in the entire universe takes place and a single cell is created. That single cell at the most simplest level contains millions of atoms. It has DNA which tells it how to grow. It tells it how to reproduce itself. It has the complete instructions as to how to accuire the sustenance needed to exist. Pretty big fluke that a cell with a series of instructions just magically formed. Did you know that Darwin himslef said "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organism existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, succesive, slight modifications, my theory would break down". That is straight from his book that he wrote 150 years ago. He knew that if no one could find a transitional fossil that his theory would be false. It has been 150 years of people searching for any transitional fossil, guess what, they haven't found one. Now considering the millions of different species on this planet, don't you think they would have found one fossil of a creature turning from one thing to another? I was wondering if any one would like to debate with me that evolution happened. I have so much proof that I can back up, I would like for someone to test me on my knowledge and if I get lucky, ask me a question I can not prove so I have something new to research. Please, if you actually believe that we evolved, or anything has evolved, join in on this. I won't be condesending as 6 months ago that is exactly what I thought. It was the fact that I believed it that made me do all this research. - Sun, 17 Aug 2003 7:24pm | ||
| Sedition User Info... | "The main reason we are taught about evolution is that people do not want to admit that we were created. The fact that we were created and all the life on this planet was created by something, anything, is too hard for most people to handle." We were created? By what? If you can't provide an alternative theory, you shouldn't be trying to disprove one that has been the norm in the scientific community (which has considerably more resources at its hands to do these studies) for over a hundred years. - Sun, 17 Aug 2003 7:27pm | ||
| METALHEAD!% User Info... | Sedition, I don't quite get at what your trying to say. Their are two theories as to how humans and animals came to be: evolution or creation. Their are many different kinds of evolution theories just like there are many kinds of creation theories. I am saying that evolution didn't happen, I do not need to prove that we were created since if evolution didn't happen then we had to be created. There are no other options. And all my information came from scientists and their findings. Thier own research to try to prove evolution is the same research me and so many others use to disprove it. As you can see the only quote I used was from Chales Darwin himself, the author of the 1850 book "The Origin of Species". - Sun, 17 Aug 2003 7:54pm | ||
| Sedition User Info... | Since many creatures on our planet are similarily constructed, I'll choose apes and humans for my argument. The fossils have been found that prove the gradual change in skull shape and brain cavity capacity. Smaller to larger. Ape-like to human-like. The fossils also prove that our primitive ancestors were quadrapedal, gradually moving to bipedal because they began to make more use of their hands and evolving opposable thumb, and they needed to have a higher vantage point when surveying the surrounding terrain for predators. That is all very logical. Animals adapt to their environment, that's why some organisms developed lungs, and others gills. Theories are based on educated and logical speculation, and these 'creation theories' you speak of are based entirely on abstractions and imagination. If I were to write a 'holy book' of my own and manage to get it into mass circulation, it would still just be a deception. - Sun, 17 Aug 2003 9:15pm | ||
| Sedition User Info... | Also, I have observed changes in human mental processes and physical appearance as well. Centuries ago, humans were shorter than they are now. This was due to the fact that they did not have the same availability of nutritious diets that we have now. My small toe, after being encased in shoes for over half my life, has become squished against my foot. Many others have this deformity. I believe that one day, we may just lose this toe, or it will bond with the ring toe beside it. That is the way evolution is supposed to work. - Sun, 17 Aug 2003 9:23pm | ||
| Charles the Clown User Info... | Your wrong Sedition, there are no fossles to prove against what metalhead is saying. What you've heard or seen on TV is only a hypothisis from a small group of scientist trying to pay there college tuition. Creation by "GOD" is the only logical answer. Maybe our lack of intelligent and spiritual awareness is why some of us dont believe in creation. Could it fear? - Sun, 17 Aug 2003 10:01pm | ||
| METALHEAD!% User Info... | Ok did you know that the ape to human theory was created due to just a few incomplete remains? In the last few years many of them have been proven to be anything but missing links. But before I get into that.... Firstly, you instantly assume that if I am arguing that we were created, that I mean by a god. We could have been created by aliens or on another planet, I don't know. That is the exact thinking that makes us want to buy into evolution and why evolution is pushed on us so heavily. Secondly, there are many species of apes and monkeys that are very similar, just like there are many types of fish that are similar. No one has ever seen an ape change into another kind of ape. No one has ever found a fossil of any kind of animal changing into another. There are countless species of animals that are extinct, just because we find a fossil of an extinct monkey that does not mean we are related to it. Thirdly, about humans being taller. Humans were shorter in some parts of the world, and some were much taller. Depending on where you lived it was against most religions and cultures for thousands of years to not breed with other cultures. So while the 'civilized' english and french were short, slavic people were much taller. In the last few hundred years we now have people who come from many different backgrounds and henceforth do not carry the sole traits of one culture. Parents pass on genes to their children and so if you have short people breeding together with no tall people in their lineage, their offspring will be short. Throw a tall person in there and the genes start to change for their offspring and their offspring's offspring etc etc down the line. Now, watch how you word that because there has never been a fossil found of an ape changing into another advanced ape. Ever. Any scientist in the world will tell you this. As soon as there is one fossil of something evolving then it is no longer a theory. Then it is a fact that things evolve. Now onto all the fun science stuff: Now the first off one is a complete hoax. Piltdown man. In 1953 a scientist claimed to have found a skull of a human with an ape like jaw. For many years everyone used this skull to represent one of the transitional stages of ape to man. The thing was that the scientist who discovered it would not let other people examine it. it wasn't until his death that other scientist were able to study the skull to find a modern day ape jaw had been attached to a human skull cap. The scientist who created this super glued wonder had a wealthy life due to his 'discovery' but the damage had been done since science had included him in their theories for decades. Ramapithicus was a group of teeth. A few teeth had been found that resembled human teeth but much larger. With a few teeth and thats it scientists claimed to have found another missing link. Just over ten years ago the teeth were discovered to be an exact match of a modern orangatan. Neanderthal man is based off of human bones discovered in caves, but only two skulls and one leg bone (femur) were discovered. The two skulls had ridged eyebrows and the leg bone was curved slightly. Scientists concluded at first that they probably walked hunched due to the curved leg bone. All the other bones were the exact same as a modern day humans. The reason Neanderthals are being accepted less and less is because when scientists recently did tests to discover how these Neanderthals had died they found an extreme vitamin D defficiency in the bones. The Neanderthals all had rickets. Rickets causes bones to curve and ridged eyebrows. Neanderthal man turns out to be modern man with a disease. Which is also why they can not find any other fossils or skeletons of Neanderthals. My favorite is Nebraska man. A single tooth was discovered in 1922 by Dr. Henry F. Osborn. This was absolutely hilarious because with a single tooth they hired an artist to draw what this Nebraska man looked like, leaving completely up to the artist as they had really no idea. It was the biggest joke in the evolution world as all of our ideas of what cavemen looked like came from that artists representation of the tooth. Of course you can imagine how great Dr. Osborn felt when they discovered it was actually the tooth of an extinct pig. A big one that even national geographic criticizes is 'Lucy'. A few parts of an upper half of a short female ape were found and scientists knew it was a new species of ape. They searched the area over many years to find more remains to hopefully prove a missing link. Over two miles away and two hundred feet deeper in the ground then the upper half they find a partial pelvis and a partial leg bone. The two halves have entirely different properties, and it is virtually impossible to have a skeleton ripped in half and buried 200 feet in the ground two miles away. The skeleton when put together resembles an ape that could stand up, but not walk around like us. How scientists pull off feeding this completely bogus skeleton to the masses on the discovery channel is beyond me. There is reasons why it is very hard to find out information about where scientist dig up their bones and how they put them together. Homo Erectus was exactly like a modern man, but he had a slightly smaller brain then most european men. It was assumed in the late 1800's that this must mean he was evolving a bigger brain. Of course over the last hundred years there have been many cases of humans with brains of different sizes, including brains smaller than Homo Erectus. He was just a human. And then there is Cro Magnon man. A few human skeletons were found in a cave with cave drawings. They are the exact same as us, except that they were around cave drawings considered old. In the evolutionary ladder this is just a social difference, not a physical one in any way. Many cultures had cave drawings, but since the drawings were primitively drawn, scientists believe Cro Magnon man was not as intelligent as us. Well I can't draw worth a damn either, but it doesn't make me a missing link. When we are shown the chart from how evolutionists believe we evolved, it is mostly derived on species that they have long since proven to be defunct, but there is no other chart to go by so that is all they can use. Thanks for debating it though and keep em coming. Or if anyone wants any clarification of what I wrote or any supporting evidence ie:websites, books, etc. Let me know. - Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:01pm | ||
| kornkoiler User Info... | No no! Not my small toe! - Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:38pm | ||
| Korn Koiler User Info... | "Homo Erectus was exactly like a modern man, but he had a slightly smaller brain then most european men." Homo Erectus hey? - Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:39pm | ||
| Korn Koiler User Info... | I study Evolution too. And Ive observed that even if I were to go there every weekend for the rest of eternity, it would never change. no sir, I think Evolution was CREATED to pour cheap drinks into horny girls. - Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:41pm | ||
| The Ref User Info... | Check out "The Whole Shabang" by Timmothy Ferris. Eye opener for sure! - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:52am | ||
| TM User Info... | It seems to be the domain of a few rather close minded 'scientific' types that are so quick to dismiss the idea of a 'creator' or the existence of a spirit world. But cultures who contributed massively to modern science and mathematics (Egyptian, middle eastern etc) didn't have a problem mixing the two. And neither did Einstein, who was very religious. The idea of a creator adds a little sense as we stumble around in the dark, looking for answers. - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 2:09am | ||
| Rael User Info... | Metalhead.... I don't think you understand how the theory of evolution is supposed to work. The reason they've never found the skeloton in the process of changing is because that's not how it works. Offspring with the adventageous features of their parents (longer necks) are born and they will become the norm as their features allow them to live long enough to procreate. - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 2:51am | ||
| Charles the Clown User Info... | Rael, Wouldn't it take more faith to believe that over creation? - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 3:26am | ||
| SweetGrass User Info... | Interesting debate, but I must ask what you think of the hairless chimpanzee born recently at a zoo? Evolution? On a different debate where do crop circles come from...? - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 3:45am | ||
| Shawn User Info... | It was said earlier that it would would be a very unlikely chance for evolution to occur. But wouldn't it be the same unlikely chance for any other outcome? Why does the idea of some magical illogical creator hold a greater chance in comparison to evolution. If evolution has a one in a zillion chance then any other zillion possibilities have the exact same chance. - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 4:13am | ||
| Retrovertigo User Info... | Hmmmmm, this is a compelling anti-evolution argument. You seem well researched, but some of your points seemed a little sketchy to me. "No one has ever found a fossil of any kind of animal changing into another." From what I understand, individual animals don't go through some major metamorphosis process in order to evolve. It happens gradually over many many generations. Not over one individual's lifetime. That would just be bizzare. ..."Throw a tall person in there and the genes start to change for their offspring and their offspring's offspring etc etc down the line." And this, along with climatic changes, etc., leads to the gradual evolution of a species. That is what evolution is. It's not a sudden mutation that happens while you sleep. Though I would love to wake up with wings one day. Hell, I hope your version of evolution is correct! That would be awesome. "Now, watch how you word that because there has never been a fossil found of an ape changing into another advanced ape. Ever". See above. "As soon as there is one fossil of something evolving then it is no longer a theory." No, it would still be a theory, because a fossil in the process of evolving could be looked at as a deformed animal, a new species of animal, or various other anomolies. "Homo Erectus was exactly like a modern man, but he had a slightly smaller brain then most european men. It was assumed in the late 1800's that this must mean he was evolving a bigger brain. Of course over the last hundred years there have been many cases of humans with brains of different sizes, including brains smaller than Homo Erectus. He was just a human. " Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Homo Erectus the only human (discovered) around during that time period, and was his brain not consistantly smaller in size than modern man? (with a few exceptions according to you). If there were no human beings around back then with brains resembling our larger brains, doesn't that imply that the human race has evolved to accomodate a bigger brain, if H.E. is in fact "just a human."? "Thanks for debating it though and keep em coming. Or if anyone wants any clarification of what I wrote or any supporting evidence ie:websites, books, etc. Let me know." I would be interested in seeing your web sources, because it is an interesting topic. For the record, I don't have any hard convictions about evolution, but it remains a very plausible theory in my mind. If we were put here by aliens, there's no reason to disregard the possibility that we evolved to what we are while living on their terrain first. We could also be a less evolved version of them. Anyways, I don't necessarily buy into the latter theory, but it's fun to think about anyways. I'm not sure that the truth can ever be known, but it makes for a good debate. I won't be able to respond to this for another 10 days, unfortunately, since I'll be on vacation. - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 5:42am | ||
| Eddie User Info... | Hey Metalhead!% - A few things: Piltdown man was �discovered� around 1912, and was debunked as a hoax in 1953 after proper testing proved that earlier claims had been a little too eager� The curvature caused by Rickets is distinct from the curvature present for Neanderthal man, and the bones of the Neanderthal man are far denser than those of modern man. DNA testing shows the Neanderthal existed outside of our gene pool. A tooth was sent to Osborn in 1922. Osborn�s own research in Nebraska between 1925-1927 concluded that the tooth belonged to an extinct peccary (a close relative of the pig). The illustration was done for the Illustrated London News independently of Osborn�s work, and was never part of a scientific argument. Incidentally, Osborn had theorized that the tooth belonged to a primate, not a hominid. Many fragments of Australopithecus afarensis skeletons have been discovered. Hundreds of fragments were found at Lucy�s site � there was no repetition of fragments, so that is why Lucy is said to have been one individual. The Australopithecus afarensis� skeletal makeup is apparently conducive to bipedality. Creationist arguments against the pith�s bipedality seem to misleadingly cite Charles Oxnard, who never opposed this view. Homo Erectus had denser bones than we and lacked a protruding chin. It has been acknowledged that larger Homo erectus� brains fit within the range for modern humans. The difference is that the average brain size is thought to have been significantly smaller in Homo erectus than in modern humans. Also, about the unlikelihood of evolution: �For instance, for evolution to be true, random inorganic chemicals had to come together and create an organic living cell. Scientists can not do this. The odds of this happening are 10 to the power 40 000. If the earth is 5 billion years old that equates in seconds to 10 to the power 18. Now say the biggest fluke in the entire universe takes place and a single cell is created� Pretty big fluke that a cell with a series of instructions just magically formed.� Are you saying something is only feasible if scientists can do it? How can you figure odds for the �biggest fluke in the universe�? Why couldn�t this have all happened randomly? - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 6:20am | ||
| Wreaker of Havoc User Info... | And how would you explain what appears to be the de-evolved Mr Hell???? That guy still chews meat off the bone.....or was it he puts big meat bones in his mouth. Ah this is all just too confusing.... - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:23am | ||
| METALHEAD!% User Info... | Ok that sucks. I just spent about half an hour typing shit and then a fucking pop up killed my internet. I am not impressed. Now there have been cases of what is called micro-evolution. Even the christian church says it happens and we all know how accepting they are of evolution. Micro-evolution is when a small change occurs in a species, but that species did not change into something else. If a giraffe's neck grow 3 inches over a million years, it is still a giraffe. If a golden retriever breeds with a black lad, you get a half lab, half retriever. But it is still a dog. It didn't evolve into a new species, that has never happened. If you want some links, here I will give you links to quotes from harvard university proffesors and many other prominary evolutionary scientists. I will give you a couple of quotes, you can click on my links to get countless more. "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." (Gould, Stephen Jay [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA] "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of `seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of `gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (Kitts, David B. [Professor of Geology, University of Oklahoma] http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter5.php http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=148&cr=80 http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=313&cr=72 http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/EvolutionsEmbarrassment.html http://www.harunyahya.com/20evolution01.php http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/ http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid1.htm That is some links to websites, when you have read them, let me know and I will post up a shit load more. Aaron: I must admit you got me stumped. Eddie: Ok onto rickets. Rickets causes greater bone density which is why people get the ridged eyebrows and the curved bones. I will get into DNA at the end of this, but it is complex and will require me to write alot. I was writing that posting by memory when I was tired, so I apoligize about the dates. I got them pretty close though, thanks for the corrections. The representation we have for Homo Erectus comes from the skull of a 12 year old boy, the only other comparison were a few small skull fragments which also varied greatly in size and mass. The body is exactly Homo Sapien aside from the brain differences. I made a typo: Homo Erectus was exactly like a modern man, but he had a slightly smaller brain then most european men. This is reversed. I am not saying it is only feasable if scientists can do it. I was mearly stating the mass improbability of it happening. If you wish I will gladly go into extreme detail of what is required to creata this preambiotic soup and how earth did not have the correct conditions to form this soup even if the fluke could occur. Revertigo: you should read Darwin's The Origin Of Species to grasp the fundamentals of evgolution. If there was very small gradual changes then there would have been hundreds of millions of different changes in many species in order to evolve into all together different species. They can't find any of these fosiils. Micro-evolution occurs within a species, but they remain the same species. it is also to be noted that micro-evolution is very very rare and most species remain the exact same as their first introduction to the fossil record. I am glad you are contributing. Sweetgrass, A hairless monkey is born at a zoo. He is still a monkey. Crop circles, well although I have a good knowledge of crops, no circles have ever appeared in my closet. Rael, I think you are missing the whole grasp of it. I don't mean to sound condesending, because I am not. But there are simply no cases of a species turning into another species. That is the theory of evolution. If many species had these gradual changes into other species then we would have countless species starting to grow wings, or changing from scales to fur. These are the transitional fossils that have never been found. I watch the discovery channel all the time, and I constantly see shows on evolution. In high school we are taught about it. 150 years ago, it was common knowledge that we were created, the idea that we evolved from monkeys was too unbelievable since for thousands of years we were taught that thats how we got here. We live in a generation trying to prove that religion is corrupt, that UFO's are for nerds with no friends. Since there is no proof of evolution, believing in it is just the same as believing in god. However improbable, no one knows, and you have to take it purely on faith either way. - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:34pm | ||
| Sedition User Info... | "Creation by "GOD" is the only logical answer." There is nothing logical about this answer. I see no evidence, and that's required for it to be logical. I'll stick with evolution until someone can provide a more scientifically-viable answer to this question. As for my spirituality, I am very spiritual. I meditate daily for inner calm and to deal with mental inefficiencies. - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 1:45pm | ||
| BBJones User Info... | [too much coffee at work so time to ramble aimlessly...] Bottom line is we (I mean everyone) have no where near enough knowledge or understanding to prove or disprove anything. As soon as your perspective changes, so do your theories. Perhaps one day "we" will have a different level of understanding that enables us to figure more of this stuff out. Until then, all the theories are possible, and so are all of the theories that have yet to be formulated. Make one up off the top of your head. Is it possible? Yup. Sure you can disprove many theories, but perhaps your fundamental understanding of things is skewed... or entirely wrong from the start. Until then, everything is relative. I love that people used to think the world was flat and that Earth was the center of the universe while entire races developed their religions based upon what we now "believe" as natural phenomenon. Now, some people think we evolved or were created by "god". No matter how sure you are about something and no matter how much proof you have, you may be wrong. Remember that "science" trains us to think a certain way our entire lives, it defines rules for us that we believe. Rules that we need to believe to be able to function on a day to day basis. Those rules change as new discoveries are made and it's rediculous for anyone to begin to think that "modern science" is anywhere near to actually figuring things out. Then again, maybe we're nearing the end of discovering how things are... how boring... Didn't the season finale of Star Trek: TNG explain the whole evolution thing? I thought the case was closed? ;) - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 2:11pm | ||
| Indole Derivative User Info... | Hey! lets now have a religious poll! Agnostic slowly converting to wiccan (not sure what path) - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 2:23pm | ||
| ian too late User Info... | i have a couple of comments... one, isnt that "micro evolution" just what evolution is? i mean if you were to change one thing at a time over and over wouldnt u than by millions of years of change be completely different than the original thing?! and also no one has brought up vistigle (spelling?) organs into this debate how do u explain the fact that we have completly useless organs in us if there was no evolution to make them useless? i mean we cant have just had them from the beggining with no use for them...COME ON!! and everyone always uses apes as what we evolved from my biology teacher happens to belieave that we evolved from water creatures can anyone help me understand that? or is he just a crazy old man? - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 2:27pm | ||
| METALHEAD!% User Info... | Nope, micro-evolution does not produce a new species. In order for evolution to work, you have to be related to geese, dogs, rhinocerus, deer, whales, frogs, ants, grapefruit, peanuts, trees, everything. You see, a plant is based on organic life. All plants, bacteria, and animals are living. They all needed to come from that first cell. So that fly eating your shit in some outhouse has actually came from the exact same thing you came from. That is evolution. Us, the plants, the germs, all evolved from the first living cell. Now, even if scientists could find one, heck, one hundred cases of a species turning into something different, then where did all the countless billions of other transformations go? How come they can't find one? No human started to grow fern out of his arm. Yet we are supposed to believe that this is how the world came into existence. There has never been even a hint of an animal turning into a plant or vice versa. There has never been the slightest hint of any animal turning into a new species. Science can prove the bible is more true than evolution. I don't like to argue the science of the bible, because I am not a firm believer in it, but if you want, I can show you a hell of alot more proof of the bible than the fact that scientists can't find one piece of hard evidence for evolution. - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 3:03pm | ||
| Wreaker of Havoc User Info... | I think you could have saved yourself the big rant if you looked up the definition of a 'scientific fact'. Contrary to popular belief a scientific fact is simply a fact that has yet to be disproven by all scientific and logical means. Scientist continually work to disprove their theories and you Brad should go outside and get some air. Im afraid that the hair on your palms will 'evolve' into something scarier than your last boyfriends mustache! - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 3:17pm | ||
| METALHEAD!% User Info... | Well Mr. Havoc, you seem to be missing the point altogether. No matter what the technical term for it is, there is no proof of evolution, but just cause your wrong and it is easy to prove here is the dictionary definition and the link to prove it. http://www.realdictionary.com/S/dir/scientificfact.asp Scientific Fact 1) n :an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final) So as you can see, with noone ever seeing evolution, and no confirmation, evolution is hardly a scientific fact. And I was asking to debate with others, not rant, and you are more than welcome to not contribute. Oh and as for the organs we do not use, the most complex thing in the known universe is the human brain. The reason you can sit there and type on this message board and appreciate things and feel emotions and have though and be able to reproduce while having trillions of cells working in unison while eating plants and animals all because an unknown combination of chemicals mixed together and formed a single cell with its own mathematical properties and the abitlity to reproduce itself and populate an entire world with plants and animals and germs? And people say christians are nuts. - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 4:24pm | ||
| BBJones User Info... | Metalhead, Not that I've read every post here in detail (who has that much time??) but the gist I get from you is that you are saying you have more proof about the Bible than evolution. My question to you then (for the sake of the debate) is does this same proof extend to all forms of religion or just one? Not all cultures use the bible of course, but pretty much all cultures have some form of religion, so are they all correct? Or is just the point of "a higher power" being easier to prove than "natural occurance"? And if "a higher power" is the more plausible theory, can we not then assume that everything we consider to be "from a higher power/supernatual" to simply be a lack of our understanding of our environment as has continually happend throughout history? The more that time passes and science creates new rules for us, the more "supernatual/god-like events" we are able to explain as purely natural occurences. - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 5:05pm | ||
| Ian McG User Info... | Funnily enough, I was just reading an article, before I stumbled on this that sort of backs up metalheads point of view. http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm Check it out if you're at all interested in this stuff. - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 5:11pm | ||
| BBJones User Info... | But why does evolution mean that every species MUST be continually evolving? Perhaps only "man" evolved becuase they reached concious thought? If we could talk to a whale, they might be able to tell us what's going on! Stupid whales! - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 5:19pm | ||
| Ian McG User Info... | Oops just noticed that link was already posted above. Anyway just for the sake of debate, this article briefly outlines the similiaritys between lungfish and tetrapods. So the previous article uses lungfish as an example against evolution, while this one uses the lungfish as an example of evolution, connecting the lungfish with tetrapods (lizards). http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/sarco/dipnoi.html - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 5:20pm | ||
| Wreaker of Havoc User Info... | see Brad now the hair is in your brain. You are de evolving into an ape. Shit by now you probably cant read this.... - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 5:35pm | ||
| The Ref User Info... | An interesting review, certainly dealing with parts of this ongoing discussion: The Whole Shebang A STATE-OF-THE-UNIVERSE REPORT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Book review by Anthony Campbell. Copyright � Anthony Campbell (1999). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There have been many books on cosmology in recent years but this is one of the best. Timothy Ferris, a seasoned science writer, presents an up-to-date and very readable account of what we know, and don't know, about the universe; he also explains the reasons that have led cosmologists to their present views. A recurrent theme, which we first encounter almost at the outset, is the correlation between the very large and the very small. The relativity specialists and the particle physicists seem to be coming together, their joint efforts promising to give rise to a unified theory of the universe. Thus the universe may (or may not) have originated from a singularity (a black hole), while the strings postulated by superstring theory may also be, in some sense, black holes. Ferris presents a particularly good account of dark matter, that puzzling component of the universe which seemingly has to exist to account for the observed behaviour of galaxies yet which no one has identified convincingly. It is surely astonishing that, after all the work that has been done by astronomers, we still don't know what most of the universe is made of. This leads naturally to a discussion of the large-scale structure of the universe. Although the divisions are somewhat artificial, astronomers have identified five levels of structures larger than galaxies: groups, clusters, clouds, superclusters, and supercluster complexes or walls. A sharp distinction can be drawn between clusters and all larger structures, but at a larger scale than clusters the nomenclature becomes somewhat subjective. Some cosmologists think that this structuring go on for ever, at larger and larger scales; in other words, they suggest that the universe has a fractal geometry. However, Ferris says that this appears unlikely. How did all this structure arise as the universe developed? As usual there are no firm answers, but dark matter once again appears to be involved. Ferris has a lot to say about the notion of inflation: the theory that the universe expanded exponentially during the first fraction of a second of its existence. He believes that this may be one of the most fruitful ideas in modern cosmology, partly because it provides elegant solutions for various cosmological puzzles or paradoxes. Actually, inflation comes in various flavours. `Ordinary' inflation goes fast enough, but `chaotic' proceeds immeasurably faster: it provides a radius of the universe so huge that a complete university library would be needed to list all the zeros in the number describing its dimensions. Towards the end of the book we come back to the relation between the very large and the very small. This inevitably requires Ferris to present an account of quantum indeterminacy. Many people have tried to do this in non-mathematical terms, but Ferris's method is as good as most. Instead of talking about `real' properties of the electron such as spin, he uses arbitrary terms, calling the possible electron states sour/sweet and hard/soft. This works rather well. As for interpretations of quantum strangeness, he leans towards David Bohm's `hidden-variables' theory, though he acknowledges its problematic nature. There is a tendency for descriptions of cosmology to slide away into philosophy or even theology, and Ferris doesn't shirk this. The theme emerges in a long chapter on cosmic `evolution'. There is a sense in which the universe may be said to evolve, but what connection, if any, does this have with biological evolution as described by Darwin? Is there such a thing as progress, or is it all in the eye of the beholder? These are deep questions, but it's good that Ferris is prepared to discuss them. Further deep questions are confronted in the final chapter, in which Ferris looks at the cosmological anthropic principle in its several versions and asks if there is any evidence that we are in some sense designed into the universe. The conclusion seems to be: yes, possibly. This question, finally, brings us face to face with theology, which Ferris touches on in an afterword. Physicists who tackle this theme often appear philosophically and theologically naive, with a view of God that they seem to have acquired at Sunday School; Ferris's discussion is a lot better than this. He insists that the science of cosmology tells us nothing at all about God. Whether you believe in God, disbelieve, or are agnostic (as Ferris himself tells us he is), you cannot legitimately support your arguments from modern cosmology, nor will you ever be able to do so. I'd certainly recommend this book to readers who know little or nothing about modern cosmology, but I'd also recommend it to those who have read a fair amount already. It doesn't provide much information that can't be found elsewhere, but it brings a lot of material together in a convenient compass and it does so clearly and elegantly; Ferris is an excellent writer. - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 6:09pm | ||
| METALHEAD!% User Info... | Lets see how simple I can put this: Evolution: Science proves it never occured and that we were created. Scientists mask the facts about evolution because they can not accept the fact that we were created. You can research your own religion and find out what has been proved about it. I am not trying to convert people to religion. Just because we did not evolve doesn't mean there is a guaranteed afterlife. It doesn't mean that there is a god. It does mean something a hell of a lot smarter than us put us and all the plants and animals on this planet for a reason. I never said anything had to be continually evolving, I said nothing has evolved from one species to another species. If a mosquito gains a resistence to DDT then it is not something new, it is still a mosquito. thanks for that Ref, it sounds pretty cool. - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 6:29pm | ||
| The Ref User Info... | I have read it and it's far over my head but some very interesting hypothesis are put to the test. Certainly a few of the topics that you have brought up. The existence of "God". How the Universe and time were created. It not only covers cosmology but several other topics as well. Mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, astrology and others. Some pretty wild stuff. - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 8:10pm | ||
| korn koiler User Info... | Nerd City. Homo Nerdiness With Erectus Penis rules the planet now. - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 8:20pm | ||
| Spark User Info... | Some one mentioned why cant all these religons be true. Some one else mentioned preception is relative. So, here's an idea.... why can't all of it be true? existance is made up of these insane equations that we and every thing around us are built by billions and billions of atoms and things smaller. Why can't it be pluasible that all things are possible. the idea that evolution either exists or it doesn't is only a preception, perhaps it is both. We precieve ideas as either truths or falses, but scientice and math have shown us it can be both. take this math equation: x-y = z if y = x then what must z equal? well, z can equal anything. there is no rule that x must have the same value as x. If x equals 1 that doesn't mean it cant equal every other possiblity as well. only perception allows us to decide that it is not. peace - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 8:39pm | ||
| XY-SATAN User Info... | If you had a firm grasp of the understanding of how science works , you�d see that science is trial and error and thinking Darwin is the bible on Evo. and condemning all evolutional theories because of one book is throwing the baby out with the bath water . Even Darwin himself would come to the conclusion that parts of his theory where not exactly right and maybe dreadfully wrong but that�s how science works , as evolution evolves so does science .By refining it�s theories and ideas and passing it down to other generation for testing and acceptance or dismissal . Also to workout new ideas and theories , science is as simple as that . Oh what a pile of garbage links, even the lungfish one it explains nothing And here�s about one of the authors of metalheads links http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/theauthor.php Talk about being prejudice against science, Nothing but religious babbling as they grasp the muddy slippery slope which is their belief system ! Wake the fuck already , just because the creation story has been disproved, just like the world being flat and the fucking Easter bunny, so has the creation theory ! But that doesn�t mean there isn�t good teachings in the bible or the words of Jesus (well hear say words) , but it sounds like you have no( I think you do) view ? Why not jump off that fence you�re on and impale yourself on the cross or fall on the other side of the fence in the dirt where the real evidence is . No one can prove anything in the bible so that argument is nil void. Now what makes you people think we are rare in the universe? We�re not, in fact we are part of the universe, we�re built from the DNA up from parts of the universe, a constant recycle of material. Sometime in our past we have had introduced into our world the building block to form life, not through holy intervention but through debris cast out from other parts of the universe to create our galaxy and this solar system and then in time landing on earth in rock or ice form. And this has happened forever, that being the age of the universe, over and over and over. Here�s a modern story to prove this fact, I can�t remember the exact spacecraft but bacteria was found to have hitchhiking a ride and discovered upon arrival back on earth. In the lab it was discover that the bacteria was still living and able to reproduce its self, even going through frigid temperatures in space and a heated reentry. Then we can go down to the ocean floor there the thermal vents are spewing out superheated water and deadly chemicals and even life there has formed to its environment. Giving theories to life being under the ice caps on mars, but that�s for another day. Life is not as fragile as you think, in some form or another it has the ability to change and adapt to it�s environment and when it hit�s a good combination it will go with what works . Environments don�t change that quick and when they do, that�s when we have these mass extinctions , but most of the time it�s a slow process and most living things through nature are influenced by moving away from hostile environments to more expectable environments or through adaptations in the genus is improved on by natural selection .That�s why in the last year a discovery of a dinosaur with feathers goes to prove that adaptations come and go nature fitting . Now I�ve been collecting fossils a lot of my life and you should really get a few books on the subject because you have no idea what your talking about except what you�re reading on anti-evolution web sites . Maybe you don�t know this, but the this island (Wrangellia) was formed around the Jurassic period 65-70 million years ago and life before that on the ocean floor some 400 millions of years ago . So there is some great strata here on the island to give proof of the environmental changes and changes in forms of species. In some areas you can take many specimens for instance Bi-valves . This alone you can see the changes . Ok this is getting to long so if you�re really interested tell me and I�ll give you the name of a few good book , man you are sitting on the proof open your mind ! - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 9:23pm | ||
| Sedition User Info... | Well-put Satan. Full agreeance. - Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:46pm | ||
| Curious George User Info... | the theory of evolution does have relevance look at how our blood type has evolved for instance first there was type o, and the a, and then b, and then ab but really it should be coined the theory of adaptation essentially that is what it is does anyone have a theory on how humans will eventually be erased from the planet? the answer is the least obvious! - Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:41am | ||
| cynic User Info... | The funny thing is so called common sense.I mean if you ask somebody how a car runs, well we all say internal combustion, but try to build that engine and thats another story....knowledge is shared but not fully understood...my point being ...look how far we have come in such a short period of time...if we dont hurry up building a space station..or biospheres on mars and somthing catastrophic happens its BAM!! back to the stoneage ...think about how primative we can become on any given Saturday night!I know how to play some music...but other than that...I'd be a worker bee...because I cant build engines...I cant build engines - Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:55am | ||
| backstrokin User Info... | God created Evolution - Tue, 19 Aug 2003 2:09am | ||
| The Ref User Info... | Very nice post Satan. And that link you provided was quite funny! Talk about bias and propoganda! - Tue, 19 Aug 2003 9:47am | ||
| Shawn User Info... | The whole basis of this argument is that evolution doesn't seem right so automatically creation must be the correct alternative. That's like saying, well I can't seem to get a girlfriend so I guess I must be gay (cant wait to see the jokers on this board tear that one apart). Also an argument is that we have never seen evolution in progress. Well Satan has tackled the fossil idea rather nicely. But evolution is supposed to occur incredibly slowly over millions of years. And people wonder why we arn't seeing animals evolve in zoos. THese species havn't even been around for millions of years have they? These are just ideas off of the top of my head. I don't have any hard evidence. - Tue, 19 Aug 2003 1:02pm | ||
| Shawn User Info... | Oh and as far as religion and god are concerned. Read "Why Atheism?" (cant remember the authors name), or "The Atheist Debaters Handbook" by BC Johnson. Very interesting. - Tue, 19 Aug 2003 1:11pm | ||
| Ian User Info... | Excellent points Satan. Although vague, I posted the articles on the lungfish, just to show how with a little bit of bias either way, it could be used as an argument for evolution, or as an argument against. It's really all down to how the researcher is inclined or biased - Tue, 19 Aug 2003 2:01pm | ||
| METALHEAD!% User Info... | Ok first I would like to point out that XY-Satan has yet to give even one piece of evidence, actually he has straight up shown that he doesn't understand the topic and that he has no evidence. I am surprised that so many of you could not catch on. Here let me demonstrate: "If you had a firm grasp of the understanding of how science works , you�d see that science is trial and error and thinking Darwin is the bible on Evo. and condemning all evolutional theories because of one book is throwing the baby out with the bath water" First off, xy has not read my posts or he is too stupid to understand them since not once did I condemn evolution over one book or anything of the like, I use science to prove my case. XY then goes on to bad mouth one of my links because the author is religious (and an accomplished author). Well I didn't know that only stupid people believed in god? How could XY be so predjudice against someone for believing in religion? Nice to know how ignorant he is. Then Xy goes on to say this: "Wake the fuck already , just because the creation story has been disproved, just like the world being flat and the fucking Easter bunny, so has the creation theory !" Well he proves he does not understand anything about this topic and should not argue it by claiming that creation has been disproven. I have a message for XY : You wake the fuck up buddy, there is not one single ounce of evidence stating we were not created. It has never been disproven and your ignorance of the subject of science and creationism has shown to me that you are not fit for an intelligent debate. Creation has been disproven? Your nuts. So XY then shows everyone that not only he is predjudice against religion, but he actually knows absolutely nothing about it. His attitude on the ignorance of religion again astounds me, since he knows nothing about it, he must hate it. There is much proof in the bible, and there is much historical accuracy. I am not here to argue about the bible, and guessing from his attitude he would probably hate me for actually doing that. Look how much he has condemned me already and I have not once said the bible was the inspired word of god. I have even stated that I am not a firm believer. just the mention of it seems to make him go off. "No one can prove anything in the bible so that argument is nil void." Then he goes on to an x-files version of life in the uiverse when all he proved is that cells exist on more than this planet. That does not prove evolution, that proves that there is bacteria in space. Never did I say that we were alone in the universe and I belive I mentioned the possibility of arriving here from another planet earlier and I also mentioned this is about evolution, not god. But I don't think he read my posts fully, as I mentioned earlier. "We�re not, in fact we are part of the universe, we�re built from the DNA up from parts of the universe, a constant recycle of material." = Well I agree with you completely. Did you know that each piece of DNA has a mathematical instruction as to how to reproduce, feed, repair itself, its lifeline, its colour, its shape, its final forms, what it will pass on to its reproduced cells, etc and every cell needs DNA in order to from. So chemicals somehow learned how to program themselves? I will bring this up again in a later post about how DNA proves a lack of evolution. The rest of XY's paragraph is highly speculatory and has no meaning, henceforth no debating. "That�s why in the last year a discovery of a dinosaur with feathers goes to prove that adaptations come and go nature fitting ." = I have to say I love this one! Ok fist off XY does not even know what he is debating because it wasn't one dinosaur found last year, it was four feathered dinosaurs and the first one was discovered in 1995. Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, and Beipaosaurus to be exact. I was going to argue about how science has already proven these dinosarus not to be ancestors to birds, since I have read into it, but I will argue that with someone who has actually looked it up, at least once. "Now I�ve been collecting fossils a lot of my life and you should really get a few books on the subject because you have no idea what your talking about except what you�re reading on anti-evolution web sites ." I have asked many fossil questions from my posts and if XY is such an expert then he can answer some and back them up. I doubt this is in his ability since he has already demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge about everything else he has said and I think he is probably the type to bullshit alot. On another note, my research is all done in books. - Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:57pm | ||
| Lazlo User Info... | Some people like to get strung around by one pop scientific thought after the next. If they smoked less crack, maybe they'd be less vulnerable and actually be able to think for themselves. Religion has a horrible name because of the huge number of assholes that preach it. But the idea of a creator is not crazy, or disproven, and makes sense considering matter doesn't come from nowhere. Evolution happens to a degree, but there's still a fucking big leap between that and saying we come from monkeys. For fuck's sakes...go smoke some more crack there, bubba. - Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:16am | ||
| ticklefish User Info... | okay, the defenders of evolution are doing a crappy job, but it doesn't exactly look like this board is populated with biologists.Metalhead, sadly, shows that he has read little more than pop science books, none of which have been published in the past decade, or if so, aren't based on any science done in the past decade or more. Questions for the metalhead: 1) how old is the earth? give me the best estimate here based on what you believe. 2) explain, in the absence of evolution, how the fossil record is neatly ordered, with the least complex lifeforms being found in the oldest strata, and the most complex lifeforms in the newest strata. Also, explain why many old forms have disappeared, and why all sorts of new body plans, new shapes and forms appear as time goes on. 3) Tell me what the difference is in DNA sequence/content between a human and a chimpanzee. Now tell me the difference between a crow and a raven. 4)you mention Piltdown man, Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis), Homo erectus, and Homo neanderthalensis. Have you not heard of Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, A africanus, A. aethiopithecus, A robustus, A boisei, A garhi, , Kenyanthropus platyops, K. rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, H. heidelbergensis,, H. antecessor, Homo habilis.... better bone up on the new findings in human evolution. All those big missing links keep ending up with new fossils to fill in the blanks. 5) Please explain if humans and dinosaurs shared the planet at any point in history. How about any primate at the same time as the dinosaurs? 6) The plant fossil record, by the way, is full of "transitional forms", but you have been to busy reading a few poorly researched anti-evolution books and websites to look that widely have you. If you look at plants, lets forget about animals altogether for now, you will find that evolution is nicely demonstrated by the plant fossil record. - Wed, 20 Aug 2003 1:31am | ||
| XY-SATAN User Info... | Don't forget the Bi- valves ! LOL ! Hey read - West Coast Fossils, By- Rolf Ludvigsen/ Graham Beard it's very in depth, so very fucking interesting !! Life in Stone, also by Rolf Ludvigsen Is another great book ! Please read these book to see how our area has changed and adaptations have brought us to where we are today ! - Wed, 20 Aug 2003 3:43am | ||
| Stalker User Info... | Please read these book to see how our area has changed and adaptations have brought us to where we are today ! - Yeah ever since white man came from across the sea's and brought us pain and misery. - Wed, 20 Aug 2003 5:46am | ||
| alain User Info... | metalhead, you make me laugh, mainly because you seem to be pretty stupid. So this entire debate has mainly one side saying that evolution is possible and another side saying that evolutions is not possible. It's pretty funny that you'd even talk about the pro-evolution people being closed-minded, concidering anti-evolution leaves you closed minded to evolution, and pro-evolution people never saying that creation is impossible. I also find it funny that XY gives all these good points and many agree with him, so you rant about how stupid he is, although you never really disprove anything he says, you just say "then he says this, man that's dumb". What else... oh, yeah, it seems to me that the whole thing where you'd deny evolution by saying a hairless monkey is still a monkey and a mosquito with gained ddt resistance is still a mosquito is quite grey. Because you havn't made yourself very clear on whether or not you think homo erectus existed and whether or not you think it and humans are the same, I'll explain many different ways. You can say that a human going from walking on four to walking on two feet is still a human; you can say that a human growing wings (since it seems popular) is still a human. I don't know if you understand what I mean and if you'll look at that, copy and paste and and say something like "and then he starts rambling about growing wings, what a dumbass" or something, but if you do... sad... What else... Oh yes, you state many times that you have proven through science that evolution is impossible... you havn't, there's not much more for me to say to that, there's just really no proof. Oh, and as for talking about the organs we do not use, I give you a big sarcastic "good job" on that one. I'm not sure how your brain tied into unused organs, and I see the obvious joke, but I'll avoid it and just stick to saying that the fact that there are unused organs that may have once been needed still stands. Also, the way you describe evolution, you do make it sound so convincingly impossible, but really, I strongly doubt that if evolution took place, it would have happened as you described it. Oh, and I don't think that you can take proof from the Bible. It just doesn't work like that. I might as well "prove cloning" with the passage in which he feeds many, many people with that small portion of fish. Many facts you have used are wrong, although I won't go into detail, but I do believe you've stumbled upon some religious propoganda, and yes, that stuff sneaks into school and onto tv. Anyways, hopefully I won't be dubbed dumbass for my views and hopefully there will be some thought put into things before automaticaly denying the possibility of evolution, or any other solutions. Tata for now - Wed, 20 Aug 2003 7:10am | ||
| The Ref User Info... | This is one of the most interesting debates to grace this board in a while. I know absolutely nothing about the topic at hand. All of you have great things to say. Thanks. Ticklefish seems to have some very valid questions for Metalhead. Curious to see the answers. Between Satan, ticklefish and Alain, I seem to be leaning towards science and evolution. I did visit some of the sites suggested and found them to be hugely based on the idea of propaganda. I can only say that I personally feel that belief in science is probably more feasible. The Bible is a work of partial fiction that has (I believe) mutated so many times that it can't be taken as anything but a work of mostly fiction. Thanks for the education guys. I believe that the universe has been born and died many times over. "Big band" then "Big Crunch" then "Big bang" etc...Of course the time line for this is astronomical. Christian Doppler discovered the "Doppler Effect" that is the means to make the discovery that spiral nebulae or galaxies give off light that is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. Hubble then postulated that "if you know the absolute magnitude of a bright star, it should be a simple matter to determine it's distance". The greater the redshift, the more distant galaxies are. Based on "Hubble's Law" (which I won't go into as it's pretty long) there seems to be (based on what I have read and I may be wrong) that the Universe is anywhere between 8 and 15 billion years old. I'll shut up now! Keep it going. Just thought that I would add some thoughts. Cheers! - Wed, 20 Aug 2003 9:06am | ||
| ticklefish User Info... | The Ref said : I believe that the universe has been born and died many times over. "Big band" then "Big Crunch" then "Big bang" etc... I like that, the universe began with a big band....was that Spinal Tap? and was the big crunch the invention of Marshall stacks? - Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:08pm | ||
| Wreaker of Havoc User Info... | Sounds just as good as all the other theories. I think I'll go with the 'Marshall Stack' theory of creation. - Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:16pm | ||
| The Ref User Info... | Haha good one... My typo, sorry. Funny though! - Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:48pm | ||
| ticklefish User Info... | bump... come on metalhead... you started this one, and it is just getting interesting. - Thu, 21 Aug 2003 1:07am | ||
| Nik Olaz User Info... | I think it's hilarious that someone named "Metalhead" is so pro-god. If you can believe that theres a supernatural being from above that has, and will always exist, and all that jazz...you have to be able to believe that the universe has always existed, or at least is in a "Kalpa" which BTW the Buddhists claimed occurs after a long period of time (about 100,000,000 or probably more...i cant remember). A "Kalpa" is the collapse and reopening of the universe. Odd that they figured that eh? And this was told much before any scientifical stuff showed up about evolution. What basis did they have? Who knows, but now this is what scientists have just been able to figure out too. The model of the Universe I most favor is the Cyclical Model. This model was first postulated by the Buddha, based on the "Law of Dependent Origination". This law states, quit simply, that all things must have a Source- no exceptions. Astronomers tell us that the Universe goes through cycles that begin with a Big Bang (Alpha Point) and end with a Big Collapse (Omega Point) which then sparks another Alpha Point...we are further told that this cycle is endless. Buddhists call these cycles "Kalpas". A Kalpa is said to be roughly 100,000,000,000 years. cant remember where i pulled that from, but someone else wrote it... - Thu, 21 Aug 2003 3:00am | ||
| The Ref User Info... | Man! I hope that all the participants of this great thread are out info gathering for the next round. It was great entertainment! Keep it goin'! - Thu, 21 Aug 2003 5:39pm | ||
| Shaggy User Info... | Yer all wrong. We're just a failed alien "project". Evolution/creation...BAH! - Thu, 21 Aug 2003 8:00pm | ||
| Troutbreath User Info... | "So chemicals somehow learned how to program themselves?" Well, yes chemicals do have a built in 'program'. All you need to do is refer to the Table of Elements. They organize hemselves quite well don't you think? To put it very simply this very elegant pattern governs the way molecules form including those of DNA. Better living through chemicals I always say. The line between science and mysticism is getting blurred a subject explored in a very good book "The Dancing Wu Lui Masters" - Thu, 21 Aug 2003 8:22pm | ||
| Spark User Info... | okay, first off, no one commented on my thoery and I would like to know what some of you think about the possibility that reality is only a perception and fact is a variable. secondly, I applaud Metalhead for his convictions and his willingless to go against popular belief. The rest of you (XY, Alian, Troutbreath) are acting strangely smug considering your unwillingness to back your convictions up. It seems rather then rationally debate, you immediately resort to slander and narrow-minded belief. - Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:24pm | ||
| ticklefish User Info... | If you think troutbreath's comment about the periodic table of elements is "narrow minded", then either you didn't attend chemistry class in school, or you failed it. He was commenting on Metalhead's obvious incomprehension of the subject, when he incredulously stated ":what, like chemicals learned to program themselves". Well, molecules are governed by very strict laws, and yes, when you provide the right conditions, shit happens. The infamous Miller/Urey experiment demonstrated that organic molecules will spontaneously form under the right conditions: conditions that likely existed on earth 4-4.5 Billion years ago. As for "reality" being a perception, and that "fact" is a variable. I disagree. There is indeed a subjective reality, and that alters depending on your perception, but there is indeed objective reality too. This earth is real, the chemical properties of H20 are real, the behaviour of DNA is real. - Fri, 22 Aug 2003 1:28pm | ||
| Wreaker of Havoc User Info... | Metalheads textbook is at the end now. He has nothing more to cut and paste. He's the only guy Ive seen break his finger picking his nose. So why are we debating with him again? - Fri, 22 Aug 2003 2:50pm | ||
| DOOMHAMMER User Info... | I dont feel like reading all this, but we have advanced to a state where we no longer need to evolve to survive, where as before we needed to adapt, we have medicines and other bullshit to see us get by. Blah blah blah. - Fri, 22 Aug 2003 9:00pm | ||
| Cordova Bay User Info... | Actually there is a very obvious evolutionary change taking place as we speak, ahem type. It has only been a recent change in technology that allows people to work and sustain themselves even though they have poor eyesight. In our past, people with poor eyesight were unable to sustain themselves and were "selected" out of the gene pool. Now, with technology, eyesight is not much of a deciding factor and more and more people can thrive by relying on technology. I remember in high school - that was just before God created the world - one of the textbooks has a two page (yes, we had the technology) display of skeletal remains of horses from the time they were about the size of a large dog to today. It was a rather interesting set of photos. Another that comes to mind is the "evolution" of the neck in giraffes. Again, they showed the progressive change of several thousand years. God says... if you do it slow enough people wont notice :) - Sat, 23 Aug 2003 5:31pm | ||
| ROSS B AY User Info... | uhhh....listen you dickies. debating religion on this board is the same as wiping your ass with money. leave it alone. fuckos......... - Sat, 23 Aug 2003 6:35pm | ||
| The Grim Reefer User Info... | Religion is for the scared and weak minded. Too many flaws in bibles to be true. - Sat, 23 Aug 2003 9:05pm | ||
| Shaggy User Info... | Pretty broad statement there Reefer. Not all religions are based on bibles or even remote christian beliefs. Christianity as a whole is pretty screwed up, but there are a lot of other belief systems out there that are actually pretty cool. - Sat, 23 Aug 2003 9:52pm | ||
| METALHEAD!% User Info... | Well, I just came back from a fishing trip, and I realize that I responded to XY satan incorrectly, I was tired and nickin out. I realize that it is impossible for me to carry out an actual debate about this topic on here as there is too many posts that are more about insults than the topic on hand. My e-mail is right there and I will continue on with anyone one on one if they so please. And for about the 50th time I AM NOT RELIGIOUS. I stated it over and over, but whatever, I know it is hard to actually READ the posts before you start putting them down. To everyone who argued it up with me, thanks. - Tue, 26 Aug 2003 8:24pm | ||
| Wreaker of Havoc User Info... | put your bible down preacher....How do you explain your face EVOLVING into an ass adapting to all the shit that comes out of that hole you call a mouth.... - Tue, 26 Aug 2003 9:36pm | ||
| METALHEAD!% User Info... | You know, Wreaker might be all the proof I need that at least one of us evolved from monkeys. - Wed, 27 Aug 2003 5:14am | ||
| Wreaker of Havoc User Info... | Indeed I evolved and you......what the hell are you supposed to be anyway??? - Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:14am | ||
| ticklefish User Info... | Hey Metalhead, I never insulted you, and I really would like to know what your answers are to the questions I asked. - Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:28am | ||
| METALHEAD!% User Info... | Well ok. I would have gladly answered your questions, but even Dr. Stephen J. Gould, proffesor and head of zoology and geography at Harvard university says there are no transitional fossils. If for some reason anyone here believes they are more qualified or that they in fact are hiding the millions of transitional fossils, then I am going to go with the harvard university proffesor. In fact, there are no transitional fossils. There is none. No species are turning into other species. There are only abrupt and distinct variations in the fossil record. How old is the earth? Well, seeing as no one really knows that answer, I doubt I am qualified to give one myself. I assume that it is at least 100 000 years old but it could be upwards to 5+ billion. Again your second question is inacurate as there are many fossils of creatures that existed pre-dinosaur and are complex. The lobster has a hard shell, grapling capabilities, above and below sea capabilities, memory, deep sea capabilities, sight, hearing, swimming, natural defences, etc. and is exactly as it first appeared on the fossil record, as one of the oldest fossils ever found on this planet. Now look at the DNA sequence of a raven and a human. Pretty different, especially considering we came from the same cells. Look at the DNA sequence of a tree. If we were creadted, why wouldn't whatever created us use the same general formula? It would make sense to me. You just named some extinct apes. Because the apes are dead, it does not mean we came from them. they are different from us in major ways and they are different from each other in major ways. This makes them different species. A missing link would be an ape changing into a higher evolved ape, or an ape changing into a human. These have never been found, that is why it is called the "missing" link. What do you mean by dinosaurs? Most deffinately we did share the earth with some dinosaurs, it would all just depend on what dinosaur group you are reffering to. Look at the crocodile. As for your last question, I already addressed it, but you yourself should not make such assumptions about where I got my information. You were not with me when I was reading my books, nor did I tell you what books I read. Oh yeah someone was talking about the mathematical equation of chemicals. Yes, they are ordered in accordance to the number of electrons in the nucluei. Each element consists of protrons which give a postitive charge. Elements group together by having equal charges by some having a positive charge and others negative. Ummm, this is not detailed instructions on how to feed, reproduce, etc. Go ahead argue away, but even those who disagree must see that it is pure blind faith to belive that chemicals produced us. Now, I answered your questions, you can answer some for me, that way I can tell who actually know anything about this topic: How many different species of mammals are there? How many different species of fish are there? How many different species of insects are there? How mnay different species of plants are there? How many different reptiles are there? How many different species of birds are there? How many different species are extinct? How many slow, gradual changes would be required to make all of these species? How many billions of missing links would there have to be? What are the odds of the amino acids in our hemoglobin coming together to form this compound? What are the odds of a tornado ripping through a junkyard and creating a fully operational mint condition boeing 747? What is the theory of evolution? What is a theory? - Wed, 27 Aug 2003 3:25pm | ||
| ticklefish User Info... | Number of species (extant today): Insect: 751,000 described non-insect arthropods: 123,151 Plant: 248,428 described molluscs: 50,000 fungi: 46,983 protozoa: 30,800 algae: 26,900 fish: 19,056 flatworms: 12,200 nematodes: 12,000 annelid worms: 12,000 birds: 9,040 coelentera (jellyfish, coral etc): 9,000 reptiles: 6,300 echinoderms (starfish etc) 6,100 porifera (sponges) 5,000 monera (bacteria, blue-green algae): 4,760 amphibians: 4,184 mammals: 4,000 Known extinctions: http://eelink.net/EndSpp/extinction-allknownextinctions.html How many slow, gradual changes would be required? billions of mutations. What is the mutation rate of DNA? roughly 1 in 10,000 gametes (ie sperm, ova, seed, pollen grain etc). Among humans, there are roughly 100M-650M per ejaculation, meaning 10,000 - 65,000 of those have mutations in them. Most of those mutations will be deleterious, resulting in either no fertilization, or spontaneous abortion, it only takes one of those to not be deleterious and be the one that fertilizes the egg. If the mutation is advantageous (say, sickle-cell anemia in Africa, a single-base pair mutation that confers malaria resistance), then this gene will increase in abundance in future generations. In global malarial hotspots, the % of popultion with this gene is 14%+, whereas in the rest of the world, it is 2-4%. There is an advantage right there. No, this doesn't make a new species, but it is evolution. If you were to stir up a bunch of amino acids into a solution, the odds of them coming together to form hemoglobin are virtually nil. If you put ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water together and apply an electrical current (think of a primitive earth, these compounds are simple compounds and are found on other planets in the solar system, and were certainly present on earth, now give it lighting), amino acids form spontaneously. Amino acids in chains, will form proteins. Some of these proteins will do nothing, but other proteins will react with other compounds and change the compounds, while remaining unchanged themselves (catalysts). Amino acids have also been found on meteorites that have not been found on earth (90 have been identified from all sources, 19 of which are found on earth). PROPOSED SEQUENCE OF EVENTS INVOLVED IN EVOLUTION OF ORGANISMS FROM INORGANIC MATERIALS 1. SYNTHESIS OF ABIOTIC SIMPLE ORGANIC MOLECULES (amino acids, sugars, fatty acids, and nitrogen & phosphorous compounds) may have occurred in outer space (simple organic molecules have been detected in interstellar gases & nebulae and in meteorites) 2. BUILDUP OF COMPLEX ORGANIC MOLECULES FROM SIMPLE ONES (polymerization) proteins from amino acids; nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) from sugars and nitrogen & phosphate compounds; lipids from fatty acids and phosphate compounds 3. ASSEMBLY OF THESE COMPLEX ORGANIC MOLECULES INTO PROTO-ORGANISMS 4. DEVELOPMENT OF THE ABILITY TO REPLICATE (inherent in DNA) ALL OF THESE STEPS EXCEPT THE LAST HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED EXPERIMENTALLY. The lack of our ability to create DNA experimentally does not mean it did not occur. On the primitive earth, it had 100s of millions of years to occur by fluke, and an event that is highly improbable, even a 1 in a trillion chance, will happen eventually given enough time. We have only known about DNA for a little more than 50 yrs, and do not have an entire planet surface available to run the experiment on, only a few labs are doing it. The odds of a tornado ripping through a junkyard and replicating a 747 are 0, because numerous reactions are required to transform materials that would not occur in a tornado. This is the same non-sensical argument that an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters with infinite time would write Hamlet...but if there were indeed infinite time/monkeys/typewriters, it would happen. Read Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker" for further clarification on this issue. The Theory of Evolution is that life has evolved through the process of natural selection and sexual selection. Desireable/advantageous traits are maintained through generations, and increase in proportion, deleterious/disadvantageous traits are weeded out as the bearers of these genes die before reproductive age/have fewer offspring. A scientific "theory" is a work in progress. Science progresses through observation-hypothesis testing-experiment. You attempt to disprove your hypothesis, if you cannot, you may have found something. You miss the point of Gould's statement of "there are no transitional fossils". He is not saying there are no intermediate lifeforms, all we have are points in time. If you draw back the lens far enough you start to see that those dots in fact connect like lines., A newspaper photograph is exactly the same thing, it is only dots on a page that our minds fill in the spaces to complete the image. You also miss the point of the crow-human question I asked. A chimp and a human share 98.4 % of DNA, a crow and raven share 97%. We are more like chimps than crows are like ravens. The extinct "apes" you so casually dismiss show a steady progression towards human characteristics, from ape-like small forebrains, and quadripedalism to larger forebrains and bipedalism, and more complex tools being associated with the finds. Carbon dating, and geological strata shows that this is indeed a progressive change The increased complexification of the fossil record you are also misrepresenting. The oldest fossils are of bacteria. The next oldest are of more complex bacteria, then protozoans, then algae, then simple non-vascular plants, vascular plants, flowering plants, woody plants.... increasing complexity, larger genomes. Among animals, older fossils are single cellular things, tehn various multicellular flagellates, sponges, worms, non-chordates (you mention lobster, a good example, that is successful, and has remained in existence), then the chordates appear, and a whole new body plan has evolved: bilateral symmetry, spines, which enable more complex nervous systems, etc. Non-bony fishes are the oldest known chordates, then plated fishes, tehn bony/scaly fishes, tehn we see amphibians, then we get reptiles, then mammals........ it is getting more complex through time. SOme old critters like crocs and lobsters and many insects still exist because they excel in their niches, and haven't been supplanted, but as life gets more diverse through time, the number of niches available increases, which increases the potential for more species to occupy them and specialize in new areas. I don't doubt you have read some interesting stuff, but you need to read more. Check out "adaptive radiation", "sexual selection", read some Dawkins esp. River out of Eden. Come back to this argument when you have more ammunition than "I can't believe it, there is no smoking gun". You're right, there is no smoking gun, but if you look, you will see no shortage of bullets, shells, rifles, spent casings, knives, fossils, geological evidence etc. Then understand physics, chemistry and biology, and you will have a hard time disputing evolution. Gould himself was one of the champions of evolution, it amazes me that you can use his words to attempt to disprove evolution. It would be like trying to take Jesus' words from teh bible to attempt to disprove God. There are many arguments you could use to attempt to disprove evolution, but Gould isn't the best ammo in your gun. The earth, by the way, is 4.5 billion yrs old. Physicists, chemists, biologists, geologists all agree on this. The only ones who dispute it are the young-earth creationists who after calculating all the generations mentioned in the Old Testament, come up with 4,600 years old. They disagree with not only biologists, but all the other scientists who have come up with the 4.5 billion year estimate. However, they love science if it makes their cars run, gets them good doctors, keeps their airplanes in the air, grows their food. These are the laws of thermodynamics they are questioning, but if pressed, they will say that God changed the rules after he created the earth. Some other myths also say different things, but this ain't "evolutionists" saying it is 4.5Billion yrs old, this is a scientific concensus across many disciplines. and as for "improbability", it is a lame way out of any argument in science. It doesn't matter how remote the chance of something happening is. Once it happens, it is a done deal. We wouldn't be here were it not for numerous "improbable" events occuring, but we are. People will tell you not to buy a lottery ticket, because the odds are 1/49*48*47*46*45*44 for winning. People win. The odds of getting hit by lightning are astronomically insignificant, but tell the person that got hit that it was highly unlikely. - Wed, 27 Aug 2003 6:31pm | ||
| Isobellia User Info... | metalHead .....METALHEADD!!!!!! WE GO WAYYY BACK KISS KISS - Mon, 8 Sep 2003 9:59pm | ||
|
|||
Not logged in
Log In / Register (optional)
