Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 108

Thread: Evolution.

  1. #26
    A low to mid functioning sociopath. Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Somewhere on the other side of nowhere
    Posts
    3,846

    Default

    Well well, There's more of a response than I expected. Let me pick out a place to start, but first are we talking about micro-evolution which is proven and allows species to adapt (such as darkening skin and hence "races") or macro-evolution which would result in one thing becoming another (ie monkeys to men).

    Also, I won't be pulling the 12-year old christian thing that was mentioned by pichubro, because one there's plenty of holes to exploit and also because I'd like this to last for a little while. Let me look through the thread and get started now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirby View Post
    Fossils

    You can test it out easily by killing the goldfish you do not like the traits with in a few genrations you hae whatever fucked up goldfish you want.

    Dog breeding
    What about fossils? So far they have yet to find a single "missing link", but they've found plenty of fossils that further complicate their theories.

    And yes, I know about dog breeding and such. By selectively breeding certain plants or animals, you can get certain traits, however, you cannot breed two seperate species to achieve a new one. Also, if you know anything, continuously repeating this selective breeding process actually weakens and loses genetic information, as represented by the deformed and retarded offspring of certain royal families who refused to marry outside of royalty.

    Quote Originally Posted by God View Post
    then of course you have the fact that the fossil record will always have more complex organisms above less complex organisms.

    human chromosome II. atavisms. the discovery of intermediary fossils.

    some easy links
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...hp?topic_id=46
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...nceptions.html

    the better question would be, is there any kind of "evidence" that whatsoever contradicts evolution?


    ps if anyone tries to say something like "well evolution is just a theory" they are the biggest idiot in the entire world
    Funny thing though, there are also instances where these "less complex organisms" are in the same layer or even a higher layer of rock than the "more complex organisms. I'll post some links on this when I'm less pressed for time. Probably after lunch.

    Also, they try to keep it on the down-low, as proven by your apparent lack of knowing, but not one of those "intermediate fossils" has actually been a missing link. I have yet to see an instance where they do not come back and say "Oops, we were wrong".

    In that first link it looked like they were trying to indoctrinate anyone who visited the site.

    Just for you and the sake of this debate I'll entertain the idea that this isn't a theory, but if you ask, even the most die-hard evolutionist will eventually admit that evolution is a theory, and some will admit it's a flawed one at that.
    "I can't explain just how it feels,
    the thoughts of my premature burial.
    Inside this oblong box I lie,
    with the hope I'll be buried alive."



    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com
    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com/ind
    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com/tra

  2. #27
    In Soviet Russia, Editor is protected from YOU!! The Editor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a timeless moment, of perfect balance.
    Posts
    15,996

    Default

    Watch the link I posted, Shadow.

  3. #28
    A low to mid functioning sociopath. Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Somewhere on the other side of nowhere
    Posts
    3,846

    Default

    That was actually going to be the very next post I examined, seeing as I have yet to decide how to respond to tim's vid.

    Quote Originally Posted by God View Post
    also: im not sure if you've noticed this, but there are both black and white people in the world. also hispanic. and asian. and middle eastern and indigenous americans.
    This would be the result of micro-evolution, please note that although there are differences in appearance, these races are all of the same species. Bringing this up would be the same as if you mentioned two different birds, dog, w/e. The end result is that they are of the same species, and give birth to nothing other than creatures of the same species.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Editor View Post
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&h...x=0&playnext=1

    There's a fair bit about evolution in this series of videos.
    At 1 minute 38 seconds into this vid, I have already noticed two major problems. 1, this vid is yet another attack on religion, which I have yet to bring into this thread. And 2, has it occured to you that in both the vid tim posted and the vids you linked to, the people are completely biased. All research they've done was from the starting point of "evolution is true", and therefore, no matter what evidence they recieve, it's going to somehow be manipulated into proof that the ever-changing theory of evolution is true. also, lol @ the religion is for idiots comments. Ever pay attention to how many idiots support evolution despite know nothing other than something about monkeys turned into men?

    Maybe I shall post a vid or two when I get caught up.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Editor View Post
    Nothing is ever proven in science. The more evidence for something the more confident we are in the theory, and even if it has some small flaws in specific circumstances we can still have confidence in the general theory.
    I'm ignoring this post because I don't need a tangent, Might respond in a new thread when this dies.
    "I can't explain just how it feels,
    the thoughts of my premature burial.
    Inside this oblong box I lie,
    with the hope I'll be buried alive."



    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com
    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com/ind
    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com/tra

  4. #29
    *wink* leo33wii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Posts
    3,275

    Default

    We found the missing link:

    http://www.history.com/content/the-link

    It proves that mankind has evolved from some sort of prime-ape.
    Leo 3DS friend Code: 0344 - 9299 - 0936

    ;]

  5. #30
    A low to mid functioning sociopath. Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Somewhere on the other side of nowhere
    Posts
    3,846

    Default

    I'll look at that link shortly, but I already bet that with enough digging you'll find where they came back and said they were mistaken. Again.

    Quote Originally Posted by leo33wii View Post
    Any human can have a child with another human (as long as they are the opposite sex).

    I also want to say that we found the missing link this year. It connects us to chimpanzee's and other primates.
    First, question about this for you die-hards. I'm not yet ready to pose the question of how things got started, but I will ask, If we evolved, wouldn't the first creature have to have been able to reproduce on it's own? And if that's the case how is it an improvement to lose that ability? Two of the biggest reasons not to lose that ability are that 1, you have to find a mate, thus reducing your chances of passing your genes, and 2, by the process of finding a mate, blah blah blah, genetic information is actually lost, not gained as would be required by the evolutionary theory.

    I bet they came back not long after stating that they were once again mistaken.
    "I can't explain just how it feels,
    the thoughts of my premature burial.
    Inside this oblong box I lie,
    with the hope I'll be buried alive."



    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com
    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com/ind
    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com/tra

  6. #31
    In Soviet Russia, Editor is protected from YOU!! The Editor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a timeless moment, of perfect balance.
    Posts
    15,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    1, this vid is yet another attack on religion, which I have yet to bring into this thread. And 2, has it occured to you that in both the vid tim posted and the vids you linked to, the people are completely biased. All research they've done was from the starting point of "evolution is true", and therefore, no matter what evidence they recieve, it's going to somehow be manipulated into proof that the ever-changing theory of evolution is true.
    1) That's fallacy by association (assuming that you're going to disregard all the contents due to a part of it).
    2) Do you have a better theory? No, no you do not. Evolution is the best theory we have and it fits nearly all the evidence. Sure it has kinks, but then so does Newtonian mechanics and we still use that for damn near everything because it is more than satisfactory in 99.9% of situations. There is no theory that competes with evolution. Nothing else explains nearly as much or agrees with as much evidence.

  7. #32
    A low to mid functioning sociopath. Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Somewhere on the other side of nowhere
    Posts
    3,846

    Default

    More posting before I catch up! You all don't like having the ball in your court do you? I haven't finished watching yet, but I will shortly. As it stands though, it's not much different than everyone saying I'm wrong because religion is the base of my arguments if I was using religion as a basis for my viewpoint.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nidogod View Post
    On an unrelated note, pay no attention to the following...
    Funny thing about all that, those birds, although definitely different, were still not different enough to be a new species. In fact, that article looks to me like evidence that mutations truly are more damaging than helpful.
    "I can't explain just how it feels,
    the thoughts of my premature burial.
    Inside this oblong box I lie,
    with the hope I'll be buried alive."



    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com
    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com/ind
    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com/tra

  8. #33
    In Soviet Russia, Editor is protected from YOU!! The Editor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a timeless moment, of perfect balance.
    Posts
    15,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    I'll look at that link shortly, but I already bet that with enough digging you'll find where they came back and said they were mistaken. Again.



    First, question about this for you die-hards. I'm not yet ready to pose the question of how things got started, but I will ask, If we evolved, wouldn't the first creature have to have been able to reproduce on it's own? And if that's the case how is it an improvement to lose that ability? Two of the biggest reasons not to lose that ability are that 1, you have to find a mate, thus reducing your chances of passing your genes, and 2, by the process of finding a mate, blah blah blah, genetic information is actually lost, not gained as would be required by the evolutionary theory.

    I bet they came back not long after stating that they were once again mistaken.
    This really shows how little you know about evolution. Okay, here we go. The main disadvantage of asexual reproduction is that it limits adaptability by reducing the effective gene pool. Every offspring is a clone with only the natural rate of mutation to provide any differences. Sexual reproduction allows advantages that one individual possesses to be merged with different advantages that another individual possesses to produce offspring that have both sets of advantages. This means that a species that reproduces sexually is better able to adapt because beneficial genes can be shared across the species rather than being isolated, thereby giving it an advantage over any species that reproduces asexually should the environment change, which is the main driving force behind evolution.

    Also, what do you mean by "information"? Can you quantify it? If you can, which has more genetic information, a grain of rice or a human? Why? How is that different from the number of letters of DNA they possess? Why is it different? Why do puffer fish possess no junk DNA? Do they have more genetic information or less?

  9. #34
    A low to mid functioning sociopath. Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Somewhere on the other side of nowhere
    Posts
    3,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by leo33wii View Post
    We found the missing link:

    http://www.history.com/content/the-link

    It proves that mankind has evolved from some sort of prime-ape.
    Oh! This couldn't be more perfect or hilarious! Last night I just read an article on that. I think it was a week after the discovery, the very same scientists came back and said they were mistaken. Guess what, that missing link isn't what they were looking for because it's actually closer to lemurs or cats than primates. Of course you wouldn't know that cause the announcement that they were wrong again wasn't very big or flashy.
    "I can't explain just how it feels,
    the thoughts of my premature burial.
    Inside this oblong box I lie,
    with the hope I'll be buried alive."



    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com
    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com/ind
    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com/tra

  10. #35
    *wink* leo33wii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Posts
    3,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    I'll look at that link shortly, but I already bet that with enough digging you'll find where they came back and said they were mistaken. Again.



    First, question about this for you die-hards. I'm not yet ready to pose the question of how things got started, but I will ask, If we evolved, wouldn't the first creature have to have been able to reproduce on it's own? And if that's the case how is it an improvement to lose that ability? Two of the biggest reasons not to lose that ability are that 1, you have to find a mate, thus reducing your chances of passing your genes, and 2, by the process of finding a mate, blah blah blah, genetic information is actually lost, not gained as would be required by the evolutionary theory.

    I bet they came back not long after stating that they were once again mistaken.
    It called mutations and survival of the fittest. There could of been a mutation that caused these organism to have a single gender instead of both. Because of that mutation/change the organisms are forced to adapt to it.
    If an organism is asexual, then it's species will be wiped out due to illness.
    If an asexual organism reproduces, each of it's offspring will have the same exact genetic information. Then if that continues, the grandchildren will too.
    Then if a bacteria/virus comes along that causes that asexual organism to die, that entire species will die (spreading of the illness) because there are no genetic differences amongst the organisms.

    So when a species has different genders, then we can get variations. Those that survive will absorb the bacteria/virus's genetic information with it's own (that's how our immune system works... partly).
    Leo 3DS friend Code: 0344 - 9299 - 0936

    ;]

  11. #36
    A low to mid functioning sociopath. Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Somewhere on the other side of nowhere
    Posts
    3,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Editor View Post
    1) That's fallacy by association (assuming that you're going to disregard all the contents due to a part of it).
    2) Do you have a better theory? No, no you do not. Evolution is the best theory we have and it fits nearly all the evidence. Sure it has kinks, but then so does Newtonian mechanics and we still use that for damn near everything because it is more than satisfactory in 99.9% of situations. There is no theory that competes with evolution. Nothing else explains nearly as much or agrees with as much evidence.
    1) At 3 minutes into the 1st vid, I am about to disregard it as a nonsensical attack on religion unless you can't tell my at which point the vid stops calling religeous followers stupid nutjobs and actually talks about why evolution may be true.
    2) Actually, no I don't. (I hate to get to this part already, but...) And that's because No matter how you look at it, evolution cannot actually explain what it's supposed to. Where do we come from? Monkeys. Okay, Where did they come from? Fish. Where did they come from? Bacteria. Where did that come from? Aliens/greyfolk/whatever bs you can think of. Where'd they come from? See? According to evolution either there was no beginning, or the beginning is so fuzzy not even the best evolutionist could explain it.

    And I swear, I if anyone says anything about the crystal theory I will come through the computer and the end result will be their name getting changed to Special Ed.
    "I can't explain just how it feels,
    the thoughts of my premature burial.
    Inside this oblong box I lie,
    with the hope I'll be buried alive."



    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com
    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com/ind
    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com/tra

  12. #37
    *wink* leo33wii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Posts
    3,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    Oh! This couldn't be more perfect or hilarious! Last night I just read an article on that. I think it was a week after the discovery, the very same scientists came back and said they were mistaken. Guess what, that missing link isn't what they were looking for because it's actually closer to lemurs or cats than primates. Of course you wouldn't know that cause the announcement that they were wrong again wasn't very big or flashy.
    Well, you could easily use your history and post the link to the article to share.
    Leo 3DS friend Code: 0344 - 9299 - 0936

    ;]

  13. #38
    A low to mid functioning sociopath. Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Somewhere on the other side of nowhere
    Posts
    3,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by leo33wii View Post
    It called mutations and survival of the fittest. There could of been a mutation that caused these organism to have a single gender instead of both. Because of that mutation/change the organisms are forced to adapt to it.
    If an organism is asexual, then it's species will be wiped out due to illness.
    If an asexual organism reproduces, each of it's offspring will have the same exact genetic information. Then if that continues, the grandchildren will too.
    Then if a bacteria/virus comes along that causes that asexual organism to die, that entire species will die (spreading of the illness) because there are no genetic differences amongst the organisms.

    So when a species has different genders, then we can get variations. Those that survive will absorb the bacteria/virus's genetic information with it's own (that's how our immune system works... partly).
    So let's get this straight, here's one of those explainations with the fuzzy "there was a mutation..." You're basically saying that the odds worked out in a way that both necessary genders were born within a workable timespan and that resulted in two genders instead of one? Do you realize the odds? Do you realize that there's enough information contained in a strand of dna, that two people could spawn enough children to populate the world at least twice over and not one of those kids would have the same genetic code as another? That explanation is damn near impossible.
    "I can't explain just how it feels,
    the thoughts of my premature burial.
    Inside this oblong box I lie,
    with the hope I'll be buried alive."



    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com
    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com/ind
    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com/tra

  14. #39
    A low to mid functioning sociopath. Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Somewhere on the other side of nowhere
    Posts
    3,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by leo33wii View Post
    Well, you could easily use your history and post the link to the article to share.
    It was a newspaper article, but I will gladly get pictures as well as type out the whole article if I can't find it on the web.
    "I can't explain just how it feels,
    the thoughts of my premature burial.
    Inside this oblong box I lie,
    with the hope I'll be buried alive."



    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com
    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com/ind
    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com/tra

  15. #40
    *wink* leo33wii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Posts
    3,275

    Default

    ... newspaper... I'll do some work on this end and try to find it too.
    Leo 3DS friend Code: 0344 - 9299 - 0936

    ;]

  16. #41
    A low to mid functioning sociopath. Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Somewhere on the other side of nowhere
    Posts
    3,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Editor View Post
    This really shows how little you know about evolution. Okay, here we go. The main disadvantage of asexual reproduction is that it limits adaptability by reducing the effective gene pool. Every offspring is a clone with only the natural rate of mutation to provide any differences. Sexual reproduction allows advantages that one individual possesses to be merged with different advantages that another individual possesses to produce offspring that have both sets of advantages. This means that a species that reproduces sexually is better able to adapt because beneficial genes can be shared across the species rather than being isolated, thereby giving it an advantage over any species that reproduces asexually should the environment change, which is the main driving force behind evolution.

    Also, what do you mean by "information"? Can you quantify it? If you can, which has more genetic information, a grain of rice or a human? Why? How is that different from the number of letters of DNA they possess? Why is it different? Why do puffer fish possess no junk DNA? Do they have more genetic information or less?
    I was asking because no, I don't understand. Yes having two different genders is great and all, but care to actually tell me how we got two genders, let alone one asexual gender to get things started?

    Information as in parts of the genetic code which remain from past generations and possibly tell our bodies how to grow/function.
    "I can't explain just how it feels,
    the thoughts of my premature burial.
    Inside this oblong box I lie,
    with the hope I'll be buried alive."



    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com
    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com/ind
    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com/tra

  17. #42
    In Soviet Russia, Editor is protected from YOU!! The Editor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a timeless moment, of perfect balance.
    Posts
    15,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    1) At 3 minutes into the 1st vid, I am about to disregard it as a nonsensical attack on religion unless you can't tell my at which point the vid stops calling religeous followers stupid nutjobs and actually talks about why evolution may be true.
    2) Actually, no I don't. (I hate to get to this part already, but...) And that's because No matter how you look at it, evolution cannot actually explain what it's supposed to. Where do we come from? Monkeys. Okay, Where did they come from? Fish. Where did they come from? Bacteria. Where did that come from? Aliens/greyfolk/whatever bs you can think of. Where'd they come from? See? According to evolution either there was no beginning, or the beginning is so fuzzy not even the best evolutionist could explain it.

    And I swear, I if anyone says anything about the crystal theory I will come through the computer and the end result will be their name getting changed to Special Ed.
    Just watch the whole playlist. Besides, it's an attack against creationism, not religion in general.

    Number 1 mistake creationists make: assuming evolution attempts to explain how life started in the first place. It doesn't. It was never meant to. Evolution explains how, once life got going, it then diversified from a small sample of tiny bits of protein into the amazing number of species there are today. Evolution has NEVER attempted to explain how life began.

  18. #43
    In Soviet Russia, Editor is protected from YOU!! The Editor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a timeless moment, of perfect balance.
    Posts
    15,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    So let's get this straight, here's one of those explainations with the fuzzy "there was a mutation..." You're basically saying that the odds worked out in a way that both necessary genders were born within a workable timespan and that resulted in two genders instead of one? Do you realize the odds? Do you realize that there's enough information contained in a strand of dna, that two people could spawn enough children to populate the world at least twice over and not one of those kids would have the same genetic code as another? That explanation is damn near impossible.
    It's far more likely that there was a steady shift from asexual to sexual reproduction. Some bacteria have the ability to trade strands of DNA with others. Is it so difficult for DNA to be exchanged before reproduction? And from there it would be beneficial for an organism to produce a reduced cell for the purposes of breeding in order to save some resources while also receiving the benefits for her offspring from being able to take genes from a genepool.

    Do you realise the odds of a very small change happening that happens to be beneficial? They're more than high enough. What you fail to realise is that things don't have to happen in big jumps. Sometimes you can build things up one beneficial piece at a time.

  19. #44
    In Soviet Russia, Editor is protected from YOU!! The Editor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a timeless moment, of perfect balance.
    Posts
    15,996

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    I was asking because no, I don't understand. Yes having two different genders is great and all, but care to actually tell me how we got two genders, let alone one asexual gender to get things started?
    Asexual reproduction: DNA can reproduce itself.

    Sexual reproduction: see previous post.

    Information as in parts of the genetic code which remain from past generations and possibly tell our bodies how to grow/function.
    Care to quantify that? Why do we need 'more'? What indeed is more? Why not different information?

  20. #45
    A low to mid functioning sociopath. Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Somewhere on the other side of nowhere
    Posts
    3,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Editor View Post
    Just watch the whole playlist. Besides, it's an attack against creationism, not religion in general.

    Number 1 mistake creationists make: assuming evolution attempts to explain how life started in the first place. It doesn't. It was never meant to. Evolution explains how, once life got going, it then diversified from a small sample of tiny bits of protein into the amazing number of species there are today. Evolution has NEVER attempted to explain how life began.
    That would explain the constant metioning of christians being idiots...

    And therein lies another problem. If evolution isn't meant to explain how things began. Why do evolutionist constantly attack creationism which is supposed to explain the beginning?
    "I can't explain just how it feels,
    the thoughts of my premature burial.
    Inside this oblong box I lie,
    with the hope I'll be buried alive."



    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com
    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com/ind
    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com/tra

  21. #46
    In Soviet Russia, Editor is protected from YOU!! The Editor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a timeless moment, of perfect balance.
    Posts
    15,996

    Default

    Okay, yes, perhaps he is a little overzealous. But read the title: the foundational falsehoods of creationism. Ultimately that's what that series is about.

    Creationism doesn't attempt to explain the beginning. It attempts to explain the variety of life around us without evolution, and it is wrong. That is why we attack it.

  22. #47
    A low to mid functioning sociopath. Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Somewhere on the other side of nowhere
    Posts
    3,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Editor View Post
    Asexual reproduction: DNA can reproduce itself.

    Sexual reproduction: see previous post.



    Care to quantify that? Why do we need 'more'? What indeed is more? Why not different information?
    That stiil doesn't explain how we go from bacteria that can reproduce on it's own to sentient beings who need a partner in order to reproduce.

    I don't recall saying that we needed more. I was stating that from what I've seen, part of the argument for evolution is that dna builds up and gains new information, not that more info is lost every generation.
    "I can't explain just how it feels,
    the thoughts of my premature burial.
    Inside this oblong box I lie,
    with the hope I'll be buried alive."



    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com
    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com/ind
    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com/tra

  23. #48
    A low to mid functioning sociopath. Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Somewhere on the other side of nowhere
    Posts
    3,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Editor View Post
    Okay, yes, perhaps he is a little overzealous. But read the title: the foundational falsehoods of creationism. Ultimately that's what that series is about.

    Creationism doesn't attempt to explain the beginning. It attempts to explain the variety of life around us without evolution, and it is wrong. That is why we attack it.
    Ok, but How then is evolution the answer? If evolution is true then today we should see new species appearing, not species dieing out.

    I'm not out to prove anything right, I just intend to prove that evolution isn't the answer.
    "I can't explain just how it feels,
    the thoughts of my premature burial.
    Inside this oblong box I lie,
    with the hope I'll be buried alive."



    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com
    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com/ind
    http://rogue-babylon.myminicity.com/tra

  24. #49
    *wink* leo33wii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Posts
    3,275

    Default

    So religion... there are thousands of religions. How do you know that your selected religion is correct?
    Objectively speaking, religion is another theory that you cannot prove; similar to with Darwin's theory. But they do have something in common though:
    They were both contemplated by a single person, it's just an idea.
    Religion is no more better idea than evolution... except that with evolution there is evidence that shows that such things have happened and that evolution IS still happening.
    Leo 3DS friend Code: 0344 - 9299 - 0936

    ;]

  25. #50
    In Soviet Russia, Editor is protected from YOU!! The Editor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a timeless moment, of perfect balance.
    Posts
    15,996

    Default

    Small gradual changes, Shadow.

    The argument isn't that there is 'more' information. The argument is that mutations that are beneficial stick around. Sometimes those mutations will involve what may appear to be a loss of information, sometimes they won't. That's immaterial. All there need to be are mutations and a way to find out if they are beneficial.

    Nowhere does evolution say that species shouldn't die out. In fact what might be happening is that the environment is changing too fast for beneficial mutations to arise.

    So what is your answer? I'd rather have an answer that we can show to be true for nearly all the evidence, that can be corrected over time to agree even more with available evidence, than no answer at all. Religion explains nothing. It doesn't tell you why things happen. All it does is say it happened because it did, and how poor an answer is that? You might as well have given up at "things are here". Religion is a terrible answer to the questions of life, the universe and everything.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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