By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - How many users on these boards actually support "The Theory of Evolution"?

highwaystar101 on 21 June 2009

CHYUII said:

Theory and Hypothesis-

 

My point is that I believe in good science and not the bad- It is not ALL or Nothing with science it is only what is proven and unproven. To say that something that is not proven is a truth is to put faith in an idea, and that is not science but it is human.

Macroevolution and Microevolution are in my spell check and I have pretty old copy of Word Perfect. To argue that Creationist or Intelligent Designers only makes the distinction is ludicrous. Both terms are in my 1978 Webster Dictionary.

My argument has never been against all that Darwin has proposed but against the idea that Natural Selection and Random Mutation bring about great changes in a species over time, in such away the new phylum are created from the accumulations of those processes. What proceeds from this line of thinking is that all life are a common ancestor and “Adam” of a self-replicating single Cell Organism (organized).

The theory of evolution is in fact an "evolution" itself. A theory is a set of facts explaining a law of nature, it is open to change by including new facts and updating the old through further observations. Essentially it is knowing you are on the right tracks and using it as a means to explore the right areas. Theory of relativity as you said may not be proven 100%, but we have the facts and we have done research and it points the right way, we need to explore.

Look at a book about evolution from 100 years ago and look at one today, we have come a long way. It's not that the 100 year old book is wrong about evolution as an idea, it's that the new book has more facts now and the existing facts have been updated. It will continue to do so. But both have the same idea at heart and we know we are on the correct tracks.


The LAWS of Thermo Dynamics –

Common misconception that is always turned into an argument. The second law of thermo dynamics is often misunderstood by creationists who beloieve it offers some kind of proof.

An oversimplified summarty of the arguement is that creationists see the earth as a closed environment with no external source of energy and so entropy can't increase. However the earth is not a closed environment in any way. The sun (the external source) supplies energy to earth 24 hours a day and so entropy can increase, even the occasional asteroid would do it too. The laws of thermo-dynamics in trying to disprove the scientific societies views on this is flawed, but it's a lot more complex than I just explained.

The long message is screwing up my netbook, which isn't very powerful. I'm going to have to do the rest when I get to my PC.



Around the Network
ManusJustus on 21 June 2009
CHYUII said:

MACRO and MICRO are words in use by scientist. It is a way to specify specifically what you mean. Even if you buy all of the theory of evolution, it is good to have to different defintions for the 2 different processes.

The Micro only talks about the Gene Expressions in organisms and mutations and Natural Selection. This is proven science the rest is unproven speculation.

Macro evolution is micro evolution.  All evolution is DNA mutations.  If you admit that micro evolution is true, you admit that macro evolution is true.

I know that, for whatever reason, you have a strong desire for God to exist.  You want God to do things for you, you want to live in an eternal paradise, you want to see loved ones, and you dont want to die.  No one wants to die, but it is a fact of life.  We die and cease to exist, and there is no giant receptacle that catches the brain waves of every person when they die.  The only thing that matters is what you do on Earth for the short time you are here, and the more time you spend promoting regressive ideologies that go against the scientific progress that man has struggled for for thousands of years, the more precious time you waste.

Keep on believing.  If it makes you feel better and helps you cope with the harshness of life, then more power to you.  But dont waste your time trying to disprove solid scientific knowledge with misunderstandings and misrepresentations from others.  Gain an understanding of science on your own, or just leave science alone altogether.



WessleWoggle on 21 June 2009

"My challenge is to you NJ5 is to make something better. All the chemicals in our bodies is known to you (or easily able to be looked up) and you could probably pop over to the store or buy the chemicals over the Internet. Create a Blog where you make a “better man” than man. Show us how easy it is to solve the things that you mention."

Well, those are pretty unfair conditions. God supposedly had all of infinity, and he also was omnipotent. With all of infinity and infinite power, I could come up with something WAY better than humans... That's why I believe if we were created, it wasn't by the highest intelligence, just one higher than us.



ManusJustus on 21 June 2009

Here's a great article of useless human body parts. Obviously, humans weren't designed as we have so many flaws and remnants in our genetic code. Suprisingly, male nipples is often considered the most useless human body part.

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/jun/useless-body-parts/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=



The_vagabond7 on 21 June 2009

If our physical imperfection is a means of making us rely on god, why isn't god performing more appendectomies? He gave us a virtually useless organ that we can easily live without, that does virtually nothing other than get inflamed and kill us. Thanks god, 300,000-350,000 people a year really appreciate letting us have that one.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

Around the Network
WessleWoggle on 21 June 2009
ManusJustus said:
Here's a great article of useless human body parts. Obviously, humans weren't designed as we have so many flaws and remnants in our genetic code. Suprisingly, male nipples is often considered the most useless human body part.

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/jun/useless-body-parts/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=

My nipples certainly aren't useless. Nipples clamps and rubbing can bring forth powerful sensations.... Once I almost made myself orgasm by nipple touching alone...

RockSmith372 on 21 June 2009
WessleWoggle said:
ManusJustus said:
Here's a great article of useless human body parts. Obviously, humans weren't designed as we have so many flaws and remnants in our genetic code. Suprisingly, male nipples is often considered the most useless human body part.

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/jun/useless-body-parts/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=

My nipples certainly aren't useless. Nipples clamps and rubbing can bring forth powerful sensations.... Once I almost made myself orgasm by nipple touching alone...

that's alittle too much information for us there thx for sharing though...



akuma587 on 22 June 2009
The_vagabond7 said:
If our physical imperfection is a means of making us rely on god, why isn't god performing more appendectomies? He gave us a virtually useless organ that we can easily live without, that does virtually nothing other than get inflamed and kill us. Thanks god, 300,000-350,000 people a year really appreciate letting us have that one.

If God exists, he definitely has a pretty twisted sense of humor.  But I can't really blame him.  I mean I would play some pretty funny pranks on people if I had that much power.  I would almost think less of God if he didn't have some fun with it.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

bdbdbd on 22 June 2009

@CHYUII: I remember the ED thread.

To tell you the truth, i did and do skip the longer ramblings in this thread. As i've been participating that kind of discussion for years now and am pretty familiar with the presented argumentation already.
Basically all that you see is copypasting CreationWiki.

Critisizing evolution theory isn't a problem, in science it's done all the time. The problem is, what is offered instead.
Let's imagine for a moment that evolution would be proven false. What would it mean to creationism? Nothing. There wouldn't still be any proof of god or any other supernatural lifeforms.

Microevotion and macroevolution are the same thing. Macroevolution refers to species evolving to another species. Macroevolution as a term brings problems, since it's hard to determine the point where a specie is considered being evolved to another specie.

Nobody is saying you can't believe in what you believe, but they are tired to argumentation that is based on circular reasoning or even liars paradox.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

CHYUII on 23 June 2009
RockSmith372 said:
WessleWoggle said:
ManusJustus said:
Here's a great article of useless human body parts. Obviously, humans weren't designed as we have so many flaws and remnants in our genetic code. Suprisingly, male nipples is often considered the most useless human body part.

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/jun/useless-body-parts/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=

My nipples certainly aren't useless. Nipples clamps and rubbing can bring forth powerful sensations.... Once I almost made myself orgasm by nipple touching alone...

that's alittle too much information for us there thx for sharing though...


FANTASTIC!!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9HN4zSriDs

Tomorrow is the day tomorrow dies.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=69597&page=1

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=69907&page=1