Evolution?

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by mulli_melli, May 2, 2002.

  1. tell me about it. narrowmindedness is the primary cause of following a mainstream religion.
     
  2. Actually, Digit, I am interested in the creation of matter from energy. I understand that after the big bang, particles lost energy and thus gained mass, because with less energy particles were affected by other particles from gravity... At high enough energies one force is indistiguishable from another force, so the energy from the big bang had to cool before gravity could take affect. Is that close? I don't know... but where did the energy come from?
     

  3. Ahhh....GOD probably!!! :)
     
  4. hmm... lets see here. i'm one of those "religious maniacs" in which you are speaking. and let me tell you something... i'm far from narrowminded. i actually used to believe in all that evolution crap too. and as far as the explainations of how it supposedly happened... digit's a bit off.

    the chemicles that are theoretically the cause of the first 1-celled organisms were formed from the chemicals listed by digit, but with the addition of amino acids (deoxyribonucleac icids (or DNA) to be more precise), and they were supposedly brought to life (most likely) by the electricity in the atmosphere, assisted by the sun in some ways (photosynthesis).

    now, you're darwin ape poster has a major flaw in it. where does lucy fit into all this? lucy is the infamous "missing link" that would bridge the gap that separates man from ape, that has never been found (hence the reason it's missing, lol)... now i guess they just kinda 'forgot' to put lucy in this poster because it would bring about a lot of questions concerning darwin's theory.

    also, now here's the belly-buster. in order for an organism to 'evolve' (that is, change from say a 1-celled organism to say a fish, or an amphibian), it would have to GAIN DNA. but studies have shown, and this is fact, that when something changes like that (ex. when a mutation occures, or whatever), the organism LOSES DNA.

    now... it has also been proven that the simplest answer is USUALLY the correct one. so... what sounds more believable. that clumps of asteroids, dust, and other matter collided and stuck to form a planet that's exactly the right size, exactly the right distance from the sun (which just so happens to be exactly the right size, and exactly the right temperature condusive for the formation of life on a planet of ours' size and distance from the sun), the the temperature of the planet was exactly right, these chemicles came together at exactly the right time, under the exactly right circumstances, with all the necessary conditions, AND that over a process of billions of years the the evolutionary track followed the exactly right path that would ultimately lead to our civilization? or would it be easier to believe that God did it all?

    other stuff for you to ponder. i know of a book that tell's the story of how it all came to be. the words of this book have been the same since it was written around 5,000 years ago... the theory of evolution changes constantly. what people say happened today will be different say a year from now. and there's also a story in this book about a huge flood (noah's ark story)... now if this never happened, how do you explain how they've found the fossil of a giant clam over 6,000 feet above sea level up in the apalachian mountains, but yet scientifically speaking, there was never a flood devastating enough to get the water up that high in the area???
     
  5. OOO wait! i forgot about carbon dating! there's also a flaw with this. in order for us to carbon date something, we have to know how much carbon was originally in it when it was first brought into existance. how can this be done on things hundreds/thousands/millions of years old when 1, the technology didn't exist to tell how much carbon was in something, and 2, no one alive was alive back then to tell you how much carbon the thing had to begin with. my point has been proven by people who carbon dated trees that were only 40 years old in actuallity, to be over 9,000 years old according to the carbon dating... so yeah. point proven :)
     
  6. lol.....loved your post Igotcottons!

    I'm with you mate! EVOLUTION just seems to be a big fantasy story. The more I read about it the more I think, what a load of crap!!!!!! It just doesn't make sense....how can people believe it to be the truth behind our existance?
     

  7. woohoo. finally a believer! lol.

    just for clarification purposes... nothing i said was meant in any form of disrespect.
     
  8. The giraffe has a powerful heart almost two feet long to make sure the blood supply gets to his brain. But if he did not have the special valves in his arteries which regulate his blood supply, his brains would explode under the pressure. Also, there is a special sponge underneath the giraffe's brain which absorbs the last pump of blood. Now, when he raises back up, that sponge squeezes that oxygenated blood into his brain, the valves open up, and he doesn't pass out.

    Now, could this mechanism have evolved? No way! If the first giraffe had a long neck and two foot long heart, but no mechanism to regulate it, when he first stooped to get a drink of water, he would have blown his mind. Then, after he had blown his mind, he would have thought to himself, "I need to evolve valves in my arteries to regulate this!" No, he would have been dead! The giraffe's long neck couldn't have evolved; it needed to be completely functional in the first place.

    http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/chapter9/index.htm

    All ya need to know right here :)
     
  9. whoever made that site is a bit confused. i liked the points that were made on evolution, but a lot of the other stuff (what i've seen so far) is really off.

    1 example being the matrix/real world comparison. when agent smith was telling morpheus about the world being perfect, and how we kept trying to wake up from it (like a dream)... they said that man was serving satan in the garden of eden, and that it continued to be paradise as long as adam and eve didn't try to revolt or 'wake up' so to say. the site also said that it was satan who kicked them out of the garden which is so far from the truth.

    if you were to make a like comparason on the two (the matrix, and the garden of eden) it would be better looked at like this. the perfect version of the matrix was the garden of eden. the reason man kept trying to 'wake up' was because man by nature is a sinner. and by being so was naturally inclined to rebel against God. therefore man got kicked out of the garden (or the perfect matrix was destroyed so to say) and the version of the matrix that ended up coming about (or our world today which includes the pain, death, etc. that came with the fall) was made.

    so yeah, be careful when reading stuff on that site. a lot of it is mixed up (too many examples to list now).
     
  10. i only read part of this thread but i just wanted to say that almost all the "inbetween" fossils are being used as natural gas and such these days...
     
  11. I killed jesus.
     
  12. Ok. No one really knows anything, so I don't think there is any point in being adament about anything. That being said, the theory of evolution has flaws, yes, but so does every thing else that man envisions. Math, physics, religions, sciences, ethics... they are all rough ideas as to what is right. They are groups of ideas that find commonalities in the world. Now, evolution has some foundations, obviously, otherwise it would not be accepted by so many, not to say, however, that it is absolutely correct. There are probably factors that we haven't even thought to take into account. The way I see it, the universe is simply a scattering of random masses that have interacted over billions of years in such a way that order has emerged and life forms are simply higher levels of order of mass. To assume a God is the simplest answer is assuming that random order out of choas is complex, which it isn't, it is simply coincidence.
     
  13. . It's true that every belief has flaws, but evolution is so out there I still don't even understand how people can believe in false facts. Ok...lets see. what did they tell me in my science book way back in the day? ok...the evolutionists believe the world was created with the big bang. then there is that ape to man species thing. Like a lot of people have stated, there are NO inbetween specie fossils. If evolution were accurate (and if I could spell) there certainly would be those fossils huh? There is no such thing as evolution. ta da!
     
  14. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH! too many people are writing what i consider to be bullshit! how am i ever to respond to all that! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

    ok, ok.... Deap Breaths.... in.......... out............ in............ out.........

    right...

    Firstly i gotta tackle that whole Giraffe thing.... oh boy was that funny. To asume that *Poof* all of a sudden there are long necked giraffs running around is absurd. And do you think that the giraffe was the first creature to have a long neck that reaches high? Long neckedness in Giraffes may have evolved along side the ability to cope with having a long neck. But u were right about one thing. If a giraffe had a long neck without these systems in place to cope, then the species would simply die out.... that is why there are no giraffes without the big heart and sponge beneath the brain. The only giraffes that survive are the ones who have this.

    Doctor Dizzy, in relation to the big bang theory question... I have to reply with a Homer style muffled "Idunno". I'm not really a subscriber to the big bang theory. I'm more of a Cyclic Multiverse man myself, not that i make any claim that the big bang did not happen either.

    Now that Darwin malarky... I never said that the Darwin Poster was EXACTLY THE EVOLUTION OF HUMANKIND, or anything like that, but it does however, undenyably show snapshots of our evolution... just because Darwin didn't have all the evidence doesn't make him or his theory wrong.

    In order for us to have a better understanding of the universe around us we must accept that the knowledge presented to us in the past may have been wrong or flawed.

    Then Igotthecottons went on to write:

    "now... it has also been proven that the simplest answer is USUALLY the correct one. so... what sounds more believable. that clumps of asteroids, dust, and other matter collided and stuck to form a planet that's exactly the right size, exactly the right distance from the sun (which just so happens to be exactly the right size, and exactly the right temperature condusive for the formation of life on a planet of ours' size and distance from the sun), the the temperature of the planet was exactly right, these chemicles came together at exactly the right time, under the exactly right circumstances, with all the necessary conditions, AND that over a process of billions of years the the evolutionary track followed the exactly right path that would ultimately lead to our civilization? or would it be easier to believe that God did it all? "

    Firstly ... when was it proven? I think the Jury is still out on that one. And even if that were right... Saying that God did it is no explanation at all. What if i were to ask, 'How did god do it' see.... the explanation is yet to come.

    Also .... In that absolute massiveness and vastness of space and all the galaxies we can see, all the stars we see and the probability of other palnets orbiting these stars.... is it not possable that all these conditions would be right at least somewhere out there...? I think i need to publish the drake equation here... i'll leave that for my next post. And besides, it's not as simple as "all the conditions were EXACTLY right", there could be thousands or millions of other sets of conditions that would result in the creation of life. To asume that how life was created here is the only way that life can be created because its the only way we have seen (or rather theorised) life be created, is an ultimate form of dumb logic.

    I wasn't sure about your explanation of carbon dating either... I thought Carbon Dating was a simple measurement of how far it has half lifed. The half life of carbon is at the very heart of carbon dating yet there was no mention of half life when u explained it, but instead "how much carbon". It is a matter of radiation, not mass. Yes there are flaws to carbon dating... but they are nothing like what u mentioned. Can anyone else shed some light on the carbon dating thing, because i have been made unsure by igotthecottons.

    And the other prime slice of Dumb Logic that seems to be kicking about.... Just because there are gaps and these "inbetween fossils" have never been found yet, does not automatically mean it doesn't exist.

    Would u claim the wind does not exist because you cannot see it? No. Because you can see it's effects. ...think.

    And just incase anyone took this the wrong way... No offence intended, it's in the good intentions of truth finding through debate. or somat along those lines! :)

    And elementxero.... what were you thinking!!! Do you realise what you've done...??? you turned him into a martyr! You are responsable for all the pain and suffering that followed. the dark ages, Forced worship, 2 world wars, hypocracy of moder christian society... and a whole load of other shit. (j/k)

    and abe@shagcarpet... what is a false fact? I don't understand how people can beleive in them either... especially when its a contradiction in terms.

    And i think i'll end that little session with a quote...
    - To assume a God is the simplest answer is assuming that random order out of choas is complex, which it isn't, it is simply coincidence. - Dr Dizzy. 2002.
     
  15. Because I just want to throw a couple of my cents in and not get swept up in this arguement, I'm throwing these couple tidbits out.

    Carbon dating is only effective and accurate for approximately 15000 years. Carbon has a very short half life and can only be utilized for relatively young dating procedures. Anthropologists and other socio scientist use this techinque to date oblects. Paleotologist use other radioactive dating techniques with elements that have a much longer half-lives 9such as uranium) to approximate dates back to millions of years ago. As geologist, we tend to approximate things in a few million years this way and a few million that way because we can never truly pin point dates.

    Secondly, don't think of evolution in linear terms. Evolution is more of an exponential thought. One creature does not turn into another and then another and then another. Nothing in life does that nor does evolution explain it in that way. Life is composed of communitys, populations and ecosystems that need the mutually beneficial input of all members to survive. And when one member of a particular niche is gone, Life finds a way to fill the voids and vaccums. Evolution is the means where one life form adapts to fill the void left by another creature.

    Human beings ourself are not solitary creatures but a walking ecosystem of many different creatures. We have over a thousand different type bacteria that live in, on or around us. And we depend on them to live just as much as they need us to live. Without the bacteria in our digestive tract we would never be able to consume, digest, or excrete food.

    And, if you agree with evolution that's fine. And if you don't, well that's fine to. Be strong in your beliefs and have the facts to back them up. Just don't persecute others or tell us we are going to spend an eternity in hellfire damnation because we don't have the same beliefs as you.
     
  16. oooo. i'm gonna have some fun with this one. lol. i'd like to start by saying the whole 'the simplest is uasually the truth' argument was some mixed up logic that i mistook for fact. now... on with my post :)

    the following sets of quotes are from Digit:

    "Now that Darwin malarky... I never said that the Darwin Poster was EXACTLY THE EVOLUTION OF HUMANKIND, or anything like that, but it does however, undenyably show snapshots of our evolution... just because Darwin didn't have all the evidence doesn't make him or his theory wrong."

    snapshots of our evolution? you mean people were around taking photos of the half-monkey/half-human creatures? lol, i'm j/k. but seriously. i've been doing some thinking about this, and the poster is just that... a poster. it's what man thought happened based on the discovery of a very small amount of fossils that resemble creatures that have a combination of human/ape characteristics. anywayz, the poster isn't something i bother arguing much about... so next quote.

    "'How did god do it' see.... the explanation is yet to come."

    for me to argue this, you have to assume (for argument's sake) that there is, infact, a supreme being (God) with all the power of the universe at his figer tips. this is quite simple. how did God do it? easy... he's the controller of the universe... he can do whatever he wants, lol.

    next...

    "Also .... In that absolute massiveness and vastness of space and all the galaxies we can see, all the stars we see and the probability of other palnets orbiting these stars.... is it not possable that all these conditions would be right at least somewhere out there...? I think i need to publish the drake equation here... i'll leave that for my next post. And besides, it's not as simple as "all the conditions were EXACTLY right", there could be thousands or millions of other sets of conditions that would result in the creation of life. To asume that how life was created here is the only way that life can be created because its the only way we have seen (or rather theorised) life be created, is an ultimate form of dumb logic."

    i was saying for things to come about the way they did on earth. scientifically speaking there's many different possibilities for life to form... but the funny thing is, scientists aren't even 100% on how it happened here. some think it happened in the shallow waters immediately off the coasts when the earth was still very young... other's believe it formed near thermal vents deep on the ocean floor where temps. exceed 700 degrees F, and the waters are highly toxic.

    next quote:

    "I wasn't sure about your explanation of carbon dating either... I thought Carbon Dating was a simple measurement of how far it has half lifed. The half life of carbon is at the very heart of carbon dating yet there was no mention of half life when u explained it, but instead "how much carbon". It is a matter of radiation, not mass."

    radiation occurs when elements are breaking down (emitting particles from within themselves), and therefore LOSING MASS. so my previous argument still stands.

    digit also said:

    "And i think i'll end that little session with a quote...
    - To assume a God is the simplest answer is assuming that random order out of choas is complex, which it isn't, it is simply coincidence. - Dr Dizzy. 2002."

    pretty big coincidence if you ask me

    now... on to Big Poppa Puff...

    "Secondly, don't think of evolution in linear terms. Evolution is more of an exponential thought. One creature does not turn into another and then another and then another. Nothing in life does that nor does evolution explain it in that way. Life is composed of communitys, populations and ecosystems that need the mutually beneficial input of all members to survive. And when one member of a particular niche is gone, Life finds a way to fill the voids and vaccums. Evolution is the means where one life form adapts to fill the void left by another creature."

    if this is correct, explain why evolution teaches the beginning of all life that is currently on earth (and all the extinct species) as all originating from 1-celled organisms, (fast-forwarding) to fish, amphibians (sp?), reptiles, birds, mammels, etc? your explaination sounds more like adaptation than evolution.

    and the final quote...

    "And, if you agree with evolution that's fine. And if you don't, well that's fine to. Be strong in your beliefs and have the facts to back them up. Just don't persecute others or tell us we are going to spend an eternity in hellfire damnation because we don't have the same beliefs as you."

    lol. why do i get the feeling this is mainly directed towards me? :)

    anywayz, if you'll notice, i didn't use a single Bible verse, or any logic from any religion... i used all scientific manners in my argument, and i'd like to second what digit said. if anyone takes this in the wrong way, it's not meant that way... just a quest for the truth through debate :)
     
  17. ugh I hate when people are so weak that they need to rely on a falsely created supreme being pulling all the strings to feel purpose.

    SICKENING.
     

  18. weak? is that why roughly 95% of the population of this planet believes in some form of a supreme being or another?
     
  19. Well the majority doesn't dictate reality. I REALLLLLLYY don't want to get into one of these debates because I always end up arguing the same points to the same dead-end recipients.

    But where did you get 95%? I doubt it's that high in reality. Regardless, look where you are, a pro-marijuana forum. This is from memory, but I believe that I heard a recent survey that about 8% of americans regularly smoke pot. So does that mean that you are wrong? Because you aren't a member of the majority? After all, if almost everyone else doesn't smoke regularly thats grounds for your beliefs to be WRONG, by your standards.
     

  20. i got it from a history book that shows the world's religions and percentages of people who practice each. atheists represent roughly 5%, this means that roughly 95% of people on this planet believe in some form of supreme being.

    now to answer your question about being wrong for not being in the majority... a majority of the world can trace their religions and histories to the same origins, and the two most popular religions have much in common, but have differences over certain areas... so when that much of the world agrees on so much and can trace so much of their history back to the same thing... it kinda makes ya wonder...

    what i mean is there are a lot of things that most major religions do agree on... noah's ark for example. now, while there are differences in the story based on which religion you're looking at, every major religion has a story of a major flood, and they all agree on the time frame in which it happened... stuff like that (scientists even have a theory on how it was very possible for the flood to have taken place)... so if that many people hold books of their history and they all tell of such an event, wouldn't one tend to think that it probably happened?
     

Share This Page