Be a Supporter!

Evolution a theory? ...yada yada

  • 1,900 Views
  • 89 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Tri-Nitro-Toluene
Tri-Nitro-Toluene
  • Member since: Jul. 9, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 26
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 26th, 2005 @ 12:10 PM Reply

At 8/26/05 11:04 AM, Drow1 wrote: Who cares what you gotta say? You are also a dumbass who doesn't know what they're talkin bout.

Seriously. if your gonna stoop to name callign Drow I suggest you stop. All you calling people a dumbass does is make YOU look like one.

And as for you saying that FABOLOUS having thos courses means he is book smart and not intelligent...please go and find a thesaurus. I'm pretty sure if you look up the word Intelligent the word Smart will be there as an alternative to use.

And what do you know?
LINK

Being smart and intelligent are one and the same thing and someones grades in courses they've taken are normally a very good indication of how intelligent they are.

Demosthenez
Demosthenez
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 26th, 2005 @ 03:31 PM Reply

At 8/26/05 04:02 AM, Drow1 wrote: LMFAO Your gettin played in a political argument by a 16 yr old!!! : ) Dumbass

Argument? All you have done is call me a dumbass the entire time. You have said "NO RELIGION IS BAD" with nothing to back it up.

Nazism in itself refutes all your religious bullshit. It doesnt take a religious person to be a douche or supress people. It takes people to surpess people. Its like guns dont kill people, people kill fuckin people.

Wow! He has AP corses! WOW! a 4! I don't care about your credentials.

Lol, American History is one of the toughest AP courses you can take. I took it for half a year (I moved half way through junior year). Lets see what you can do.

You wanna know what pissed me off about you? You continually calling me a dumbass.

Consider yourself marked. I will troll the fuck out of you and try my hardest to make you look like the ingorant douche you are in every topic.

MortifiedPenguins
MortifiedPenguins
  • Member since: Apr. 21, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 26th, 2005 @ 04:19 PM Reply

damm isn't it school yet, how come the trolls from general haven't left.


Between the idea And the reality
Between the motion And the act, Falls the Shadow
An argument in Logic

BBS Signature
revexe
revexe
  • Member since: Jan. 17, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 26th, 2005 @ 05:57 PM Reply

I cant believe there is still people who believe in evolution, I mean, leave it to people in the 19th century, but now?

*sigh*


F?

BBS Signature
Drow1
Drow1
  • Member since: Jan. 15, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 26th, 2005 @ 06:49 PM Reply

hey dumbass , there is a difference between actual smarts and book smarts.

Just because someoone can tell you the definition of word or somin , doesn't mean they got those very important critical thinking skillz.

jobelow
jobelow
  • Member since: May. 9, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 26th, 2005 @ 08:32 PM Reply

ok, this has totally derailed, but whatever.

if you wanna talk about how well you do in school in correlation to intelligence, no, there isn't much of a correlation. especially high school and below.

either you're so intelligent that school is a joke and you either blaze through it without any effort or just don't try and flunk out, or you do really good in school because you're really good at doing what you're told, which any domestic dog can do.

i've seen people who were hailed as geniuses in high school with 4.0 and higher gpas totally flunk out of college, not be able to make it in real life, move back in with their parents, etc. I've also seen people who did perfect in school who have no clue about thinking on their own, don't even think to question what they hear from authority figures, don't pick up on anything they are told that conflicts with reality, and basically are total idiots.

the high school AP program leads to the college Honor's program, which is pretty much special education at a college level. Those kids are pampered, put in groups so they don't get lost, and even have classes in their own dorms so they don't have to go out into the world. And in my experience, the vast majority of students in college honor's programs are total idiots. About the only place they tend to excel is dungeons and dragons.

SilentObserver
SilentObserver
  • Member since: Aug. 24, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 26th, 2005 @ 08:55 PM Reply

Let me start off with that I am a Christian who takes the Bible literally.

I love the topic of science, and I know that it should always be approached with an open mind, especially regarding the origins of life.

Dictionary.com says that a "theory" is "a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

And this is exactly what both creation and evolution set out to do, explain the origins of life.

Unfortunately, what people believe highly depends on what they are looking for. If I was looking for facts that point to evolution, I'd find them in no time. If I were looking for facts leading to creation, I'd find them easily.

Ultimately, both creation and evolution are based upon faith. I think that niether can ever be proven absolutely true.

I believe completely in microevolution, but not at all in macroevolution.

The only way to be sure of your belief in the origins of life rests on philosophical grounds.

I look forward to seing what science brings us in the next 25 years.

Btw, if anyone wants to ask anything about my point of view, feel free to.


o.O

BBS Signature
fastbow
fastbow
  • Member since: Sep. 3, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 26th, 2005 @ 08:58 PM Reply

Evolution is a theory.
It has not been proven in any lab condition tests.
Simulations do not count.
Creation is a theory, that requires a little more faith than evolution.
Until looking at the facts.
How could something as complex as the huan body come about totally by chance?
How could every type of creature on the earth be easily classifiable, if they came about by chance?
How could our atmosphere have achieved the perfect balance of gases, by chance?

jobelow
jobelow
  • Member since: May. 9, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 26th, 2005 @ 09:23 PM Reply

At 8/26/05 08:55 PM, SilentObserver wrote: Let me start off with that I am a Christian who takes the Bible literally.

Exactly to what level do you take the Bible "literally," as this could be the subject of very interesting debate?

I love the topic of science, and I know that it should always be approached with an open mind, especially regarding the origins of life.

In one sense that you may in reality view science as not so open minded is that it generally doesn't accept supernatural explanations.

Dictionary.com says that a "theory" is "a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

I would add to and revise this definition (and if you want to dispute me, I could pretty easily cite a source for you later) for the context of the scientific method. Simply, a scientific theory is a model derived from experiment testing a viable hypothesis, specifically the data derived from this experiment and the logical conclusions that may be drawn, used for further research. In this sense, I have yet to have demonstrated to me any theory other than evolution (including argument from intelligent design, etc.)

And this is exactly what both creation and evolution set out to do, explain the origins of life.

I have recently discovered a deliberate deviation between "Creation" and "Intelligent Design" in that ID actually does make a full attempt to show itself as a viable scientific theory that could hold up in secular science. This attempt, to the best of my research, is stil teleological in nature, meaning that it makes extremely arrogant assertions at its very base, on top of its core of reasoning being incomplete and flawed. By contrast, the other end of Evolution Theory is incomplete, being that it is a progressive science, still in the stage of discovery, as all good science should. In simple terms, ID has an open beginning, and Evolution has an open end, in terms of research. In simpler terms, ID doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Unfortunately, what people believe highly depends on what they are looking for. If I was looking for facts that point to evolution, I'd find them in no time. If I were looking for facts leading to creation, I'd find them easily.

"Belief" has no place in science. Assumption is necessary for the forming of a hypothesis, by beyond that, science tends to deal with facts instead of belief.

Ultimately, both creation and evolution are based upon faith. I think that niether can ever be proven absolutely true.

In truth, nothing can be proven "absolutely true," as one can always result to nihilism as a refutal to any assertion. But the overwhelming body of evidence for the hypothesis of evolution, the veracity of its experiments, its flexibility to new data, and the initial falseability of the hypothesis (something not available in intelligent design to the best of my knowledge, though falseability in the hypothesis of intelligent design has been attempted) make evolution a much more viable scientific model.

I believe completely in microevolution, but not at all in macroevolution.

Assuming no presumption of Creationist beliefs, macroevolution is not such a leap of faith from microevolution, but regardless, it can be and has been demonstrated.

The only way to be sure of your belief in the origins of life rests on philosophical grounds.

Life origins are relatively easily studiable in comparison to the objects of true philosophical debate, which are generally less tangible.

I look forward to seing what science brings us in the next 25 years.

Hopefully you will keep yourself well informed if you are indeed as interested as you seem to be, and take all information with as little bias as possible.

Btw, if anyone wants to ask anything about my point of view, feel free to.

If indeed you take the Bible literally, do you believe:

The world was created in 6 24-hour days? (or 6 1000-year days for that matter?)

Noah carried two of every existing species on the ark, and if so, is this feasible?

Why would Noah need two of every parthogenic species?

Why would Noah need only two of colonizing species?

How did carnivores survive on the Ark?

Do you require a naturalistic explanation for Biblical miracles, as do Biblical scholars perscribing to Intelligent Design? And if not, why?

And a big question I'm not asking you to answer, but simply to ponder for a while:

Intelligent Design asserts that an object of specified complexity necessitates an intelligent designer. An intelligent designer would necessarily have to be of specified complexity, and therefore would require a designer, which creates a seemingly irreconcileable paradox in this argument. To the best of my knowledge, the only reply from Intelligent Design is that it is beyond the scope of Intelligent Design to investigate the nature of the designer, which makes no sense, as the projected designer would indeed be an object of specified complexity, which if it truly did exist, would surely be subject to what potentially is a Unified Theory. Why do Intelligent Design researchers refuse to investigate the designer at the core of their assertions? This would require a scientific answer and not a religious one.

A possible correlary would be the fact that study of abiogenesis is beyond the scope of Evolution theory, but can be explained by simple principles of Organic Chemistry, and the crucial initial stages of abiogenesis have been replicated in laboratories.

jobelow
jobelow
  • Member since: May. 9, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 26th, 2005 @ 09:28 PM Reply

At 8/26/05 08:58 PM, fastbow wrote: Evolution is a theory.

A SCIENTIFIC theory. Find out what one is. Preferrably in school. Higher education. In a research university.

It has not been proven in any lab condition tests.
Simulations do not count.

If lab simulations do not count, what kind of proof do you want, a time machine?

Creation is a theory, that requires a little more faith than evolution.

By definition of a scientific theory, Creation is NOT a theory. Intelligent Design by contrast comes close, but still no cigar.

Until looking at the facts.
How could something as complex as the huan body come about totally by chance?

Argument from teleology. Look at it from the other way around. And chance isn't as big of a factor as creationists would have neutral parties believe Evolution necessitates.

How could every type of creature on the earth be easily classifiable, if they came about by chance?

Because they have a Common ancestor, and a successive common ancestor in every class, which by your argument would make Evolution more viable of an argument than Creation.

How could our atmosphere have achieved the perfect balance of gases, by chance?

Again argument by teleology. If you want answers to your questions based on your teleological assumptions, look at talk.origins.

SilentObserver
SilentObserver
  • Member since: Aug. 24, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 26th, 2005 @ 10:45 PM Reply

In response to "jobelow"

Glad you're not flaming; thanks for that. Anywayz.

Exactly to what level do you take the Bible "literally," as this could be the subject of very interesting debate?

I believe in the 6 day, each day being 24-hours creation (yeah, a fundamentalist; have fun ; D )

In one sense that you may in reality view science as not so open minded is that it generally doesn't accept supernatural explanations.

Science can't explain things outside of what we see. That's just a limitation. I think that science is an extremely valuable tool that lets us see His hand and really appreciate Creation.

I would add to and revise this definition (and if you want to dispute me, I could pretty easily cite a source for you later) for the context of the scientific method. Simply, a scientific theory is a model derived from experiment testing a viable hypothesis, specifically the data derived from this experiment and the logical conclusions that may be drawn, used for further research. In this sense, I have yet to have demonstrated to me any theory other than evolution (including argument from intelligent design, etc.)

I invite you to do some research in the field of Flood Geology. There have been many experiments dealing with how the Flood could have shaped the earth we have today. And, yes, that is a more accurate definition of a theory.

I have recently discovered a deliberate deviation between "Creation" and "Intelligent Design" in that ID actually does make a full attempt to show itself as a viable scientific theory that could hold up in secular science. This attempt, to the best of my research, is stil teleological in nature, meaning that it makes extremely arrogant assertions at its very base, on top of its core of reasoning being incomplete and flawed. By contrast, the other end of Evolution Theory is incomplete, being that it is a progressive science, still in the stage of discovery, as all good science should. In simple terms, ID has an open beginning, and Evolution has an open end, in terms of research. In simpler terms, ID doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Extremely arrogant assumptions at its very base? With your open ended evolutionist point of view, can't you say that a God could have started evolution and let it go from there? Intelligent Design has yet to be proved wrong. Generally, evolution has just been revised over and over again to accomodate new discoveries such as punctuated equilibrium. We're standing on the Bible. Evolution is standing on discoveries that we don't even know about yet.

"Belief" has no place in science. Assumption is necessary for the forming of a hypothesis, by beyond that, science tends to deal with facts instead of belief.

Your previous statement said that evolution has an open beginning (as it is progressive). Therefore, isn't evolution more of a belief than fact since that facts it rests on are in the form of new discoveries yet to be made? What we see now does point to evolution because that is what it is, a comelian to the facts of what we see now.

In truth, nothing can be proven "absolutely true," as one can always result to nihilism as a refutal to any assertion. But the overwhelming body of evidence for the hypothesis of evolution, the veracity of its experiments, its flexibility to new data, and the initial falseability of the hypothesis (something not available in intelligent design to the best of my knowledge, though falseability in the hypothesis of intelligent design has been attempted) make evolution a much more viable scientific model.

Assuming no presumption of Creationist beliefs, macroevolution is not such a leap of faith from microevolution, but regardless, it can be and has been demonstrated.

Name one experiment that verifies macroevolution.

Life origins are relatively easily studiable in comparison to the objects of true philosophical debate, which are generally less tangible.

Agreed.

If indeed you take the Bible literally, do you believe:

The world was created in 6 24-hour days? (or 6 1000-year days for that matter?)

Noah carried two of every existing species on the ark, and if so, is this feasible?

Why would Noah need two of every parthogenic species?

Why would Noah need only two of colonizing species?

How did carnivores survive on the Ark?

Do you require a naturalistic explanation for Biblical miracles, as do Biblical scholars perscribing to Intelligent Design? And if not, why?

Ok, this might take a while...

1. I believe that the world was created in 6 24-hour days by God, correct.

2. Yes, given the dimensions of the ark, this would be feasible. Noah would have probably chosen younger animals, in order to save space aboard the ark.

3. Not sure what you're asking.

4. He would only need two because the entire genetic data of that distinct species would be contained within those two animals. For clarity (bear with me), Adam and Eve produced the entire human race. Their DNA contained the genetic information for all mankind. It's just that with each generation, different genes express themselves.

5. Not specified in the Bible, but he probably just brought extra meat along, preserved of course, for the carnivores.

6. No, because we believe in an all-powerful God who can do supernatural acts.

7. That is an interesting question that has bothered me alot, and I am afraid that it can't be answered. That's the whole point, though. We believe in creation through faith. God works in mysterious ways.

=\


o.O

BBS Signature
Draconias
Draconias
  • Member since: Apr. 9, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 26th, 2005 @ 11:31 PM Reply

At 8/26/05 08:58 PM, fastbow wrote: Evolution is a theory.

True

It has not been proven in any lab condition tests.

FALSE!

Evolution has been demonstrated successfully thousands of times in lab experimentation. A favorite demonstration is to take a fast breeding organism (like bacteria) and grow several thousand generations in varied conditions over several months. The bacteria will adapt and change to better suit their environment in undeniable and (often) obvious ways, or at least mutate in significant and measurable ways that make no evolution impossible.

Here is a simple scientific paper I can reference you to:
10,000 Generation Bacteria Experiment

Simulations do not count.

Simulations are simply a computerized form of the prediction equations for any natural law (as we know it), so they would never count.

Creation is a theory, that requires a little more faith than evolution.

FALSE. Creation is not a theory in any sense. It is not a demonstratable hypothesis, and thus no experiment is possible, which means Creation does not meet the criteria for either a "theory" OR "hypothesis" title. Creation is a belief, and calling it anything else is incorrect and often meant to mislead.

How could something as complex as the huan body come about totally by chance?

Who said something as complex as the human body came about totally by chance? In fact, it's the exact opposite. While the first replicating strands of molecules came about by chance in a situation where the probability of such an occurance was around 99%, all the processes that lead to humans were the opposite of chance.

All those proccesses were organisms creating infrastructure, protection, security, alliances, unified organizations, and improved abilities.... just like humanity has done! These things are created out of necessity, regardless of the organism's size.

Example: You've got your self replicating strand of molecules, it makes many copies, but acids in the environment are destroying many of the strands. Random extra reactions are always occuring in the replication and lifespan of the replicating molecules, and eventually the right random reaction lets many of the replicating molecules link together to form long chains. The long chains make many copies, but other, competing chains are consuming all the raw materials. The long chains eventually use the hydrolysis they use during replication on an enemy chain, which is likely considering the close proximity. Suddenly the chains which use hydrolysis to break apart the enemy chains flourish, and the ones that do not diminish. The upgraded chains copy themselves... etc.

This process goes on for millions of years and eventually you reach a complex "civilization" organism where trillions of smaller replicating systems work together to protect their own replication, and that organism is called "humans."

How could every type of creature on the earth be easily classifiable, if they came about by chance?

Classifications are not easy, and are not nearly perfect. Many traits have been haphazardly spread between different ancestral lines and there is frequent discussion of ways to updated and fix the taxonomic classification systems because they are rudimentary and inaccurate due to the endless mix of traits.

Basically, all the creatures didn't come about by chance because they aren't easily classifiable, you just are not educated on that subject.

How could our atmosphere have achieved the perfect balance of gases, by chance?

The composition of the atmosphere is constantly shifting in the long term and short term in localized and global changes. There is no "perfect balance of gasses," there just needs to be enough oxygen for our systems, and enough cardon dioxide for plants... both of which happen to be created in a cycle so that both of us provide the necessary gas for the other!

Basically, the atmosphere isn't perfect, and life simply adapted to work with what it had available. Additionally, all the critical substances are transferred around by all the organisms to create a sustained cycle.

Reality never supports religion, and I wouldn't suggest trying to force religious support out of it. More often than not you discover that what *seemed* like evidence was just your own ignorance of the real situation.

jobelow
jobelow
  • Member since: May. 9, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 26th, 2005 @ 11:38 PM Reply

At 8/26/05 10:45 PM, SilentObserver wrote: In response to "jobelow"

Glad you're not flaming; thanks for that. Anywayz.

You've simply expressed your beliefs in a mature manner, nothing warranting flaming.

I believe in the 6 day, each day being 24-hours creation (yeah, a fundamentalist; have fun ; D )

I may take you up on that later.

Science can't explain things outside of what we see. That's just a limitation. I think that science is an extremely valuable tool that lets us see His hand and really appreciate Creation.

Correction, a good portion of science is the discovery of things we can't see based on things we can. We couldn't see the planet Neptune when science predicted its existence. We couldn't see a round earth or the earth rotating around the sun. From our point of view, the sun seems to revolve around the earth. Only science makes it possible for us to know otherwise.

I invite you to do some research in the field of Flood Geology. There have been many experiments dealing with how the Flood could have shaped the earth we have today. And, yes, that is a more accurate definition of a theory.

I've read a bit about Flood Geology, and it doesn't really seem to hold water (pardon my pun). And good, we have a working definition of theory we both agree on, and that's the first step toward intelligent debate.

Extremely arrogant assumptions at its very base?

Specifically that mankind would be the ultimate end of the creation of our universe and that such an occurance surmounts unsurmountable odds, which is simply not true.

If you want some fairly heavy reading, I could show you proof that the current universe is actually a very simple and probable, if not the most simple and probable, possibility.

With your open ended evolutionist point of view, can't you say that a God could have started evolution and let it go from there?

Open-ended, not open-beginninged. Open-ended in that we admit that evolution has yet to explain everything in its scope (unexplained DOES NOT mean unexplainable by evolution, very much to the contrary), which is why research is still going on in this field. This research is not a search for proof of the entire theory, but study in the mechanisms and how it affects life at the population and individual level.

Intelligent Design has yet to be proved wrong.

Intelligent Design is based on faulty axioms, and is therefore unscientific.

Generally, evolution has just been revised over and over again to accomodate new discoveries such as punctuated equilibrium. We're standing on the Bible. Evolution is standing on discoveries that we don't even know about yet.

Which is why it is science and not religion. Thanks for proving the original point.

Your previous statement said that evolution has an open beginning (as it is progressive).

No, I did not.

Therefore, isn't evolution more of a belief than fact since that facts it rests on are in the form of new discoveries yet to be made? What we see now does point to evolution because that is what it is, a comelian to the facts of what we see now.

Which is why it is science instead of a pre-made construct for which we only seek "proof".


Name one experiment that verifies macroevolution.

http://www.dinosauri..jdp/evol/lizard.html


Life origins are relatively easily studiable in comparison to the objects of true philosophical debate, which are generally less tangible.

Agreed.

cool.

If indeed you take the Bible literally, do you believe:

The world was created in 6 24-hour days? (or 6 1000-year days for that matter?)

Noah carried two of every existing species on the ark, and if so, is this feasible?

Why would Noah need two of every parthogenic species?

Why would Noah need only two of colonizing species?

How did carnivores survive on the Ark?

Do you require a naturalistic explanation for Biblical miracles, as do Biblical scholars perscribing to Intelligent Design? And if not, why?

Ok, this might take a while...

1. I believe that the world was created in 6 24-hour days by God, correct.

2. Yes, given the dimensions of the ark, this would be feasible. Noah would have probably chosen younger animals, in order to save space aboard the ark.

Are you sure of the amount of species living on earth post-flood, and the mass of flesh that would amount from just two of each?

3. Not sure what you're asking.

parthogenic, meaning only females are required for reproduction


4. He would only need two because the entire genetic data of that distinct species would be contained within those two animals. For clarity (bear with me), Adam and Eve produced the entire human race. Their DNA contained the genetic information for all mankind. It's just that with each generation, different genes express themselves.

Colonizing species can't generally survive without workers. The two would have been presumably a queen and a drone, who would starve to death well within 40 days without workers to feed them. But at any rate, your answer actually kind of argues in favor of common descent (evolution)

5. Not specified in the Bible, but he probably just brought extra meat along, preserved of course, for the carnivores.

meat from species they lived on, and a pretty big supply, adding to the bulk on this already very bursting ark.

6. No, because we believe in an all-powerful God who can do supernatural acts.

Then why bother with science, which is based in naturalism, in the first place?

7. That is an interesting question that has bothered me alot, and I am afraid that it can't be answered. That's the whole point, though. We believe in creation through faith. God works in mysterious ways.

power to you, but faith is not science, and has no place in science classes.

SilentObserver
SilentObserver
  • Member since: Aug. 24, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 26th, 2005 @ 11:46 PM Reply

At 8/26/05 11:31 PM, Draconias wrote:
At 8/26/05 08:58 PM, fastbow wrote:
Evolution has been demonstrated successfully thousands of times in lab experimentation. A favorite demonstration is to take a fast breeding organism (like bacteria) and grow several thousand generations in varied conditions over several months. The bacteria will adapt and change to better suit their environment in undeniable and (often) obvious ways, or at least mutate in significant and measurable ways that make no evolution impossible.

The bacteria do not evolve.

The starting pallet of bacteria have several different characteristics. Some are resistant to antibiotics for example.

When the antibiotics are applied to the bacteria, only the ones with resistance to antibiotics survive.

These few that survived reproduce and create a generation of bacteria which are all resistant to antibiotics.

No DNA was ever created.


o.O

BBS Signature
Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 26th, 2005 @ 11:49 PM Reply

At 8/26/05 11:46 PM, SilentObserver wrote:
These few that survived reproduce and create a generation of bacteria which are all resistant to antibiotics.

Well, no duh, because they were resistant in the the first place. I dont exactly see how that's evolving (It's more like comparing that to some people who have certain immunities).

Im not disagreeing, i just dont find evolving in there.

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 26th, 2005 @ 11:50 PM Reply

At 8/26/05 11:49 PM, TimeFrame wrote:
Im not disagreeing, i just dont find evolving in there.

well fuck, i really need to put on my glasses when reading.

revexe
revexe
  • Member since: Jan. 17, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 27th, 2005 @ 01:52 AM Reply

LOL, there is still people defending evolution in here? Come on. Everyone explaining the process except for the begining. Evolution cant have a begining, unless "someone" triggers it. Cant start for itself, because if it did, time wouldnt exists, and therefore, evolution is a lie. Because why was it not triggered before but later, or why not after but before? What caused it start in motion? Where did the first sustance came from? I mean, explotions just dont come outta of nowhere.

Huge, huge flaws.


F?

BBS Signature
SilentObserver
SilentObserver
  • Member since: Aug. 24, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 27th, 2005 @ 01:59 AM Reply

Alrite, after this post, i'm gonna let this thread die =\ i'm too tired now

At 8/26/05 11:38 PM, jobelow wrote:
At 8/26/05 10:45 PM, SilentObserver wrote:

::Science can't explain things outside of what we see. That's just a limitation. I think that science is an extremely valuable tool that lets us see His hand and really appreciate Creation.


Correction, a good portion of science is the discovery of things we can't see based on things we can. We couldn't see the planet Neptune when science predicted its existence. We couldn't see a round earth or the earth rotating around the sun. From our point of view, the sun seems to revolve around the earth. Only science makes it possible for us to know otherwise.

Sry bout that. What I meant to say was things outside the physical universe. The things that we can't ever observe you know?


Extremely arrogant assumptions at its very base?
Specifically that mankind would be the ultimate end of the creation of our universe and that such an occurance surmounts unsurmountable odds, which is simply not true.

I'm pretty sure that mankind will be the last thing to inhabit the earth.

If you want some fairly heavy reading, I could show you proof that the current universe is actually a very simple and probable, if not the most simple and probable, possibility.

Sure, just gimme a link, and I'll take a look.

With your open ended evolutionist point of view, can't you say that a God could have started evolution and let it go from there?
Open-ended, not open-beginninged. Open-ended in that we admit that evolution has yet to explain everything in its scope (unexplained DOES NOT mean unexplainable by evolution, very much to the contrary), which is why research is still going on in this field. This research is not a search for proof of the entire theory, but study in the mechanisms and how it affects life at the population and individual level.

Intelligent Design has yet to be proved wrong.
Intelligent Design is based on faulty axioms, and is therefore unscientific.

I know; it's based upon faith, but has yet to be proved wrong by science.

Generally, evolution has just been revised over and over again to accomodate new discoveries such as punctuated equilibrium. We're standing on the Bible. Evolution is standing on discoveries that we don't even know about yet.
Which is why it is science and not religion. Thanks for proving the original point.

When it comes down to it, it is religion. Nothing can replicate the starting conditions that were required for evolution to have started. You really would need a time machine to prove it.

Your previous statement said that evolution has an open beginning (as it is progressive).
No, I did not.

oops...

I meant that what evolution says about the origins of life are subject to change. They are not absolute; therefore, not fact.


Therefore, isn't evolution more of a belief than fact since that facts it rests on are in the form of new discoveries yet to be made? What we see now does point to evolution because that is what it is, a comelian to the facts of what we see now.
Which is why it is science instead of a pre-made construct for which we only seek "proof".

Name one experiment that verifies macroevolution.
http://www.dinosauri..jdp/evol/lizard.html

That's some pretty interesting stuff right there. However, I still don't see the evidence of new DNA being created. The genes for all of the characteristics of the different lizards were already present in their parents and theirs and so on. Same thing with the Finches. No new DNA was created for the intermediate species. I think I get what you're saying though. But when is a major leap to form a whole new species made?

:: : 2. Yes, given the dimensions of the ark, this would be feasible. Noah would have probably chosen younger animals, in order to save space aboard the ark.


Are you sure of the amount of species living on earth post-flood, and the mass of flesh that would amount from just two of each?

They can reproduce quite fast.

3. Not sure what you're asking.
parthogenic, meaning only females are required for reproduction

4. He would only need two because the entire genetic data of that distinct species would be contained within those two animals. For clarity (bear with me), Adam and Eve produced the entire human race. Their DNA contained the genetic information for all mankind. It's just that with each generation, different genes express themselves.
Colonizing species can't generally survive without workers. The two would have been presumably a queen and a drone, who would starve to death well within 40 days without workers to feed them. But at any rate, your answer actually kind of argues in favor of common descent (evolution)
5. Not specified in the Bible, but he probably just brought extra meat along, preserved of course, for the carnivores.
meat from species they lived on, and a pretty big supply, adding to the bulk on this already very bursting ark.

Not every "kind" of animal was needed to be on board. According to the Biblical text., neither insects nor amphibians would have been taken on board. Only those animals which could not have survived a year long flood needed to be on board. Furthermore, every minor variation of animal (species) was not present. For example, wolves, foxes, coyote, and dogs could have come from an original dog kind.


6. No, because we believe in an all-powerful God who can do supernatural acts.
Then why bother with science, which is based in naturalism, in the first place?

Same reason you do

7. That is an interesting question that has bothered me alot, and I am afraid that it can't be answered. That's the whole point, though. We believe in creation through faith. God works in mysterious ways.
power to you, but faith is not science, and has no place in science classes.

And evolution is not fact, as many schools teach it. It's progressive, and we're still learning more about our universe. Both evolution and creation can be presented as theories.

hope this looks ok


o.O

BBS Signature
revexe
revexe
  • Member since: Jan. 17, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 27th, 2005 @ 02:07 AM Reply

And evolution is not fact, as many schools teach it.

That´s right, my biology book says that the man did not came from the monkey. That it has been proven wrong already.

People say that sciencists supports evolution, but what about the other sciencists that refutes it? There are a LOT of sciencists that says evolution is crap and this people says that science is all for evolution. haha.


F?

BBS Signature
jobelow
jobelow
  • Member since: May. 9, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 27th, 2005 @ 02:18 AM Reply

At 8/27/05 01:52 AM, revexe wrote: LOL, there is still people defending evolution in here? Come on. Everyone explaining the process except for the begining. Evolution cant have a begining, unless "someone" triggers it. Cant start for itself, because if it did, time wouldnt exists, and therefore, evolution is a lie. Because why was it not triggered before but later, or why not after but before? What caused it start in motion? Where did the first sustance came from? I mean, explotions just dont come outta of nowhere.

Huge, huge flaws.

Alright, all your nonsequiturs aside, I'll try to help a little.

Evolution is not a Unified Theory of Everything. It explains the descent of life from the earliest forms of life to current forms to the best of the ability of science to date, providing a model for further research. Evolution works regardless of the initial cause of the universe, and the initial cause of life for that matter.

If you wanna talk about the initial cause of life, we can debate abiogenesis, a separate piece of study outside of evolution theory, and if you want to talk about the origins of the universe, we can talk about big bang if you want, but i'm not really in the mood.

revexe
revexe
  • Member since: Jan. 17, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 27th, 2005 @ 02:31 AM Reply

At 8/27/05 02:18 AM, jobelow wrote: Alright, all your nonsequiturs aside, I'll try to help a little.

Evolution is not a Unified Theory of Everything. It explains the descent of life from the earliest forms of life to current forms to the best of the ability of science to date, providing a model for further research.

Ok. The problem is when evolution tries to explain the begining.

Evolution works regardless of the initial cause of the universe, and the initial cause of life for that matter.

If you wanna talk about the initial cause of life, we can debate abiogenesis, a separate piece of study outside of evolution theory,

Mmh...sounds like what I´m currently seeing in Biochemistry.

and if you want to talk about the origins of the universe, we can talk about big bang if you want, but i'm not really in the mood.

Me neither. Is late, maybe some other time.

The flaws I posted above was about the big bang btw

F?

BBS Signature
jobelow
jobelow
  • Member since: May. 9, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 27th, 2005 @ 02:42 AM Reply

At 8/27/05 01:59 AM, SilentObserver wrote: Alrite, after this post, i'm gonna let this thread die =\ i'm too tired now

maybe you'll feel better in the morning.

At 8/26/05 11:38 PM, jobelow wrote:
Sry bout that. What I meant to say was things outside the physical universe. The things that we can't ever observe you know?

Discussions of multiverse theory aside, by the definition of universe, there is nothing outside the universe.

I'm pretty sure that mankind will be the last thing to inhabit the earth.

Some insects, especially cockroaches, show a higher degree of fitness and the ability to withstand conditions more harsh than those survivable by mankind. Therefore, I would draw the I think reasonable prediction that insects will outlive mankind.

Sure, just gimme a link, and I'll take a look.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

and here's one specifically about abiogenesis that's a bit easier of a read

http://www.talkorigi..ioprob/abioprob.html


Intelligent Design is based on faulty axioms, and is therefore unscientific.
I know; it's based upon faith, but has yet to be proved wrong by science.

Mainly because science doesn't deal with faith. And besides that, modern Intelligent Design movement IS in fact attempting to remove faith from their studies and attempting to make their work more closely resemble secular science. Attempting.

Why would they do this? Take God out of Intelligent Design? So it's easier to get legislated into schools, they're own admission. And then leave it up to students to decide what exactly the designer is. Sure it looks fair on paper, but it's not science still.

When it comes down to it, it is religion. Nothing can replicate the starting conditions that were required for evolution to have started. You really would need a time machine to prove it.

No, it's not religion in the slightest, and no, you wouldn't really need a time machine to prove it any more than we would need a giant eye that can see the whole solar system from the outside to prove that the earth revolves around the sun.

I meant that what evolution says about the origins of life are subject to change. They are not absolute; therefore, not fact.

True, evolution doesn't talk about the original cause of life. It works regardless of the cause. So why aren't you attacking abiogenesis instead?

That's some pretty interesting stuff right there. However, I still don't see the evidence of new DNA being created. The genes for all of the characteristics of the different lizards were already present in their parents and theirs and so on. Same thing with the Finches. No new DNA was created for the intermediate species. I think I get what you're saying though. But when is a major leap to form a whole new species made?

If by new DNA being created you mean genetic drift or mutation, there's plenty more out there about those, and it's pretty easy material to get ahold of and is taught in low-level biology. Beyond that, creation of new DNA would not be a requirement of evolution. It's more about change in old DNA. Arguing that the creation of new DNA can't be demonstrated is to argue against creation.

They can reproduce quite fast.

no, what I mean is, that's a hell of a lot of mass to put on one ark, especially one of the dimensions dicated in genesis.

Not every "kind" of animal was needed to be on board. According to the Biblical text., neither insects nor amphibians would have been taken on board. Only those animals which could not have survived a year long flood needed to be on board. Furthermore, every minor variation of animal (species) was not present. For example, wolves, foxes, coyote, and dogs could have come from an original dog kind.

Even though they are different species? Which would indicate that they evolved?

Then why bother with science, which is based in naturalism, in the first place?
Same reason you do

Explain? What can you do with science that you can't do with religion, if religion has all the answers and science only has lies?

And evolution is not fact, as many schools teach it. It's progressive, and we're still learning more about our universe. Both evolution and creation can be presented as theories.

Well, it has already been discussed that there is both a fact of evolution and a theory of evolution. The fact is common descent. The theory is the working model derived from the fact of common descent.

jobelow
jobelow
  • Member since: May. 9, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 27th, 2005 @ 02:46 AM Reply

At 8/27/05 02:07 AM, revexe wrote:
And evolution is not fact, as many schools teach it.
That´s right, my biology book says that the man did not came from the monkey. That it has been proven wrong already.

Man shares a common ancestor with the monkey, hence the fact that we are both classified as primates.

People say that sciencists supports evolution, but what about the other sciencists that refutes it? There are a LOT of sciencists that says evolution is crap and this people says that science is all for evolution. haha.

True, creationists do have a list of some hundred scientists who are going in directions different from evolution. There are also plenty of scientists not working in the life science field who choose not to believe evolution.

In good humor, the scientific community has compiled a list of some ten thousand scientists who do not think evolution should be thrown out as a working theory all named Steve, about 1% of the scientific population.

SilentObserver
SilentObserver
  • Member since: Aug. 24, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 27th, 2005 @ 11:30 AM Reply

At 8/27/05 02:42 AM, jobelow wrote:
At 8/27/05 01:59 AM, SilentObserver wrote: Alrite, after this post, i'm gonna let this thread die =\ i'm too tired now
maybe you'll feel better in the morning.

At 8/26/05 11:38 PM, jobelow wrote:
Sry bout that. What I meant to say was things outside the physical universe. The things that we can't ever observe you know?
Discussions of multiverse theory aside, by the definition of universe, there is nothing outside the universe.

I agree that there's nothing outside the universe. I'm just saying that science doesn't explain spiritual things such as faith - the unscientific.

I'm pretty sure that mankind will be the last thing to inhabit the earth.
Some insects, especially cockroaches, show a higher degree of fitness and the ability to withstand conditions more harsh than those survivable by mankind. Therefore, I would draw the I think reasonable prediction that insects will outlive mankind.

Good point. If the current conditions of the earth change to that degree, I'd have to say that insects would rule the planet. But for the record, people > bugs.

Sure, just gimme a link, and I'll take a look.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

Good reading. But one thing stuck out to me. He said that, " (1) you cannot get something from nothing, and (2) the order of the universe requires the pre-existence of an active intelligence to do the ordering. I will leave it to the theologians to explain how the postulate of a creator God solves the problem of creation ex nihilo, since God is something that, itself, must have come, uncreated, from nothing."

If all the mass of the universe was contained in one infinitely small, and infinitely dense speck in the beginning (Planck time), could it be possible that God, an infinite being, was there in the beginning? Because, naturally, you cannot get something from nothing. It had to have already been there. Otherwise, I'd be asking, "Where did the matter for the big bang come from?"

and here's one specifically about abiogenesis that's a bit easier of a read

http://www.talkorigi..ioprob/abioprob.html

Link doesn't work =\


Intelligent Design is based on faulty axioms, and is therefore unscientific.
I know; it's based upon faith, but has yet to be proved wrong by science.
Mainly because science doesn't deal with faith. And besides that, modern Intelligent Design movement IS in fact attempting to remove faith from their studies and attempting to make their work more closely resemble secular science. Attempting.

Why would they do this? Take God out of Intelligent Design? So it's easier to get legislated into schools, they're own admission. And then leave it up to students to decide what exactly the designer is. Sure it looks fair on paper, but it's not science still.

When it comes down to it, it is religion. Nothing can replicate the starting conditions that were required for evolution to have started. You really would need a time machine to prove it.
No, it's not religion in the slightest, and no, you wouldn't really need a time machine to prove it any more than we would need a giant eye that can see the whole solar system from the outside to prove that the earth revolves around the sun.

The genesis of life happened in the far past. The evidence that we see today can be interpretted differently to make different explanations. Just because evolution is more simplistic to you doesn't make it true. You have to have some degree of faith in it.

I meant that what evolution says about the origins of life are subject to change. They are not absolute; therefore, not fact.
True, evolution doesn't talk about the original cause of life. It works regardless of the cause. So why aren't you attacking abiogenesis instead?

That's a can of worms I don't want to open.

That's some pretty interesting stuff right there. However, I still don't see the evidence of new DNA being created. The genes for all of the characteristics of the different lizards were already present in their parents and theirs and so on. Same thing with the Finches. No new DNA was created for the intermediate species. I think I get what you're saying though. But when is a major leap to form a whole new species made?
If by new DNA being created you mean genetic drift or mutation, there's plenty more out there about those, and it's pretty easy material to get ahold of and is taught in low-level biology. Beyond that, creation of new DNA would not be a requirement of evolution. It's more about change in old DNA. Arguing that the creation of new DNA can't be demonstrated is to argue against creation.

I'm all for mutations, genetic drift, and destruction of DNA, just not the (natural) creation of it. I just don't see where the leap from genetic drift to another species comes in.

They can reproduce quite fast.
no, what I mean is, that's a hell of a lot of mass to put on one ark, especially one of the dimensions dictated in genesis.

The total area of the ark comes out to about 1,518,750 cubic feet. That's equal to about 522 standard stock cars.


Not every "kind" of animal was needed to be on board. According to the Biblical text., neither insects nor amphibians would have been taken on board. Only those animals which could not have survived a year long flood needed to be on board. Furthermore, every minor variation of animal (species) was not present. For example, wolves, foxes, coyote, and dogs could have come from an original dog kind.
Even though they are different species? Which would indicate that they evolved?

Microevolved, yes.

Then why bother with science, which is based in naturalism, in the first place?
Same reason you do
Explain? What can you do with science that you can't do with religion, if religion has all the answers and science only has lies?

Simply saying that creation happened supernaturally isn't enough for most people to believe. We want evidence of it, and science is how we're gonna try to find it.

Well, it has already been discussed that there is both a fact of evolution and a theory of evolution. The fact is common descent. The theory is the working model derived from the fact of common descent.

Just want to know... how is common descent fact?


o.O

BBS Signature
BAWLS
BAWLS
  • Member since: Apr. 18, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 27th, 2005 @ 12:37 PM Reply

At 8/26/05 11:49 PM, TimeFrame wrote: Well, no duh, because they were resistant in the the first place.

That's how natural selection works. The way a species "moves foreward" is that new traits are always being born out of mutation, which in turn get passed down to their offspring. Organisms who recieve an advantagous trait will florish, while those who get the shitty traits die out.

Jordannguyen
Jordannguyen
  • Member since: Aug. 21, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 27th, 2005 @ 01:04 PM Reply

hey i dont think ANYTHING should be definite in school... many times the overconfidence of the teaching leaves for the lack of open-mindedness and people begin to belive that everything is solved....i mean no matter how much proof a subject has to explain our lives...there may be some details that need to be examined..... this has always been a factor in history....especially the teachings of american history... where such confidence is put into a few peoples words like for example europeanism....im glad that there are other opions out there....and although i believe in the theory of evolution... and i do agree that people are just being scared and irrational for opening up their minds away from religion...i think its still good that there are other beliefs so that opinions wont be so one sided in our world.

Demosthenez
Demosthenez
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 27th, 2005 @ 02:08 PM Reply

At 8/26/05 06:49 PM, Drow1 wrote: hey dumbass , there is a difference between actual smarts and book smarts.

Just because someoone can tell you the definition of word or somin , doesn't mean they got those very important critical thinking skillz.

Where the flying fuck are your critical thinking skills? I HAVE ASKED REPEATEDLY FOR ANYTHING YOU HAVE TO BACK UP YOUR STATEMENT. All you have done and continue to do is insult me. You are looking real smart here, bud.

At 8/26/05 08:32 PM, jobelow wrote: if you wanna talk about how well you do in school in correlation to intelligence, no, there isn't much of a correlation. especially high school and below.

I get the feeling you are insulting me. Ok, lets roll with this.

The only homework I ever did was reports. The rest I either copyed from friends or didnt do. I never studied (except for finals). Barely payed attention in class. Somehow ended up with a 3.7 and 26 hours of college credit going into college. You wanna fuckin call me dumb, just do it. Dont play word games. Yeah, and Im in an honors class in college. I am the only freshmen in my particular one. Those people seem to be pretty fuckin smart if you ask me. But, hey, whadda I know? You obviously have such a superior understanding than me.

You dont wanna believe me? I dont fuckin care. But dont backwardsly insult me. I dont really appreciate it.

Tri-Nitro-Toluene
Tri-Nitro-Toluene
  • Member since: Jul. 9, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 26
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 27th, 2005 @ 02:29 PM Reply

At 8/27/05 02:08 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:
At 8/26/05 06:49 PM, Drow1 wrote: hey dumbass , there is a difference between actual smarts and book smarts.

Just because someoone can tell you the definition of word or somin , doesn't mean they got those very important critical thinking skillz.
Where the flying fuck are your critical thinking skills? I HAVE ASKED REPEATEDLY FOR ANYTHING YOU HAVE TO BACK UP YOUR STATEMENT. All you have done and continue to do is insult me. You are looking real smart here, bud.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

And whislt Jo Below said that he ahs seen people that have got good grades and then flunked college and fiale dta life etc, I dunno what its ike where you re but the people that are consdiered intelligent where I'm from tend to decent in life.

Msot likely the people that Flunked in colege after getting good highschool grades just couldn't cope with the work load or something like that. And that isn't relative to ho intelligent you are. It just shows you have bad organisation skills.

And as for jobelows point that he's seen people that were smart become mindless sheep. That doesn't mean the people who are sheep are stupid. It just means they have been raisedd in such a way that they were not allowed to question authoirty of any sort.

Now that's either the parents fault or the schools fault for not teaching them them to crtically examine topics such as Evolution so they can make up their own mind on the matter.

Flash007
Flash007
  • Member since: May. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 27th, 2005 @ 02:34 PM Reply

At 8/26/05 08:58 PM, fastbow wrote: Evolution is a theory.
It has not been proven in any lab condition tests.

It has been observed that in lab conditions, bacteria will change in genetic structure. This is the only way to view evolution, because evolution happens over many generations, and the only things that reproduce fast enough are microscopic. For a bit of other info, people are taller now than in the middle ages. What caused this? Good eating? Medical advances? Or Evolution?

Simulations do not count.
Creation is a theory, that requires a little more faith than evolution.
Until looking at the facts.
How could something as complex as the huan body come about totally by chance?

It wasn't totally by chance. That is a commen misconception about evolution, that it's all chance. Sure, mutations are all chance. But evolution includes survival of the fittest, which tells us that those best adapted to live in their environment will continue on while others die out.

How could every type of creature on the earth be easily classifiable, if they came about by chance?

Again, not all chance. 2. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by easily classifiable. There is the platipus, which is a mamal, even though it lays eggs and has a duck bill. That wasn't easy to classify. For another, only a limited number of forms can work given the environment, so those forms continue while others die. This leads, after long periods of time, to groups that look fairly similar.

How could our atmosphere have achieved the perfect balance of gases, by chance?

It didn't! The first atmosphere sucked ass. It let all sorts of radiation through, and was completely toxic to virtuallly anything alive today! Then the first plants, really just single celled organisms, managed a trick where they took some of that atmosphere and changed it into oxygen. You ask how the atmosphere could have balanced to us, when in reality, we balanced to it. There are creatures that can "breath" almost anything, up to and including sulfur. When the atmosphere was changed by those creatues living on the planet, more creatures could survive. They changed the atmosphere more and more creatures formed, etc, etc. If you fallow the evolutionary logic, it took a hell of a long time just to form simple organisms, and even at that time, the atmosphere sucked.

We are adapted to our environment, and the atmosphere is part of our environment.

Jordannguyen
Jordannguyen
  • Member since: Aug. 21, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Evolution a theory? ...yada yada Aug. 27th, 2005 @ 02:47 PM Reply


How could our atmosphere have achieved the perfect balance of gases, by chance?
It didn't! The first atmosphere sucked ass. It let all sorts of radiation through, and was completely toxic to virtuallly anything alive today! Then the first plants, really just single celled organisms, managed a trick where they took some of that atmosphere and changed it into oxygen. You ask how the atmosphere could have balanced to us, when in reality, we balanced to it. There are creatures that can "breath" almost anything, up to and including sulfur. When the atmosphere was changed by those creatues living on the planet, more creatures could survive. They changed the atmosphere more and more creatures formed, etc, etc. If you fallow the evolutionary logic, it took a hell of a long time just to form simple organisms, and even at that time, the atmosphere sucked.

We are adapted to our environment, and the atmosphere is part of our environment.

beautifuly said.... and dont forget that we also had a few other atmospheres too.... so no i dont think that god decided to make a wasteland a few billion years ago....got tired of looking at poisonous gas...and then made man.....