Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

And what is the definintion of 'theory' according to the scientific theory?

What does this evolution debate have to do with God?

I think mutation is proven, abiogenesis and macroevolution isn't. The closet thing we have to proving macroevolution are ambiguous fossils.

At 2/28/07 05:40 PM, JakeHero wrote: I think mutation is proven, abiogenesis and macroevolution isn't. The closet thing we have to proving macroevolution are ambiguous fossils.

Abiogenesis basically can't be proven. It's very much possible though.

The fossil record is hardly ambiguous. Given the fact that the earth isn't in a totally steady state, why macroevolution wouldn't occur as a result of continuous microevolution is beyond me, given that microevolution is a result of a species adapting to its environment.

At 2/28/07 05:44 PM, Peter-II wrote: The fossil record is hardly ambiguous. Given the fact that the earth isn't in a totally steady state, why macroevolution wouldn't occur as a result of continuous microevolution is beyond me, given that microevolution is a result of a species adapting to its environment.

Yes. Abiogenesis is like trying to prove an invisible man in the sky, but what kinda annoys me is when they teach it in science classes as if it's proven fact.

Macroevolution is logical, but it doesn't seem plausible at the same time.

Fish - fish - bigger fish - lizard wtf?

At 2/28/07 05:53 PM, JakeHero wrote: Yes. Abiogenesis is like trying to prove an invisible man in the sky, but what kinda annoys me is when they teach it in science classes as if it's proven fact.

Taught as proven fact? Well whatever, I never was but I don't know how it is in America. Still, it's the best we've got. It's a valid, plausible hypothesis and I stand by it even though it can't be proven in the traditional, empirical way.

Macroevolution is logical, but it doesn't seem plausible at the same time.

Fish - fish - bigger fish - lizard wtf?

Haha, not quite....

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transit.htm

At 2/28/07 06:03 PM, Peter-II wrote: Taught as proven fact? Well whatever, I never was but I don't know how it is in America.

In my school district it was. I can't say how it is in the other regions of the US.

Still, it's the best we've got. It's a valid, plausible hypothesis and I stand by it even though it can't be proven in the traditional, empirical way.

Everyone has faith. No need to tell me what you believe in, Peter. Still, I am not kung-ho on this watered down form of evolution that tries to incorporate both creationism and unfettered evolution, but I am neither a fan of either alternatives.

The reason I do not find macroevolution is the fact it leaves too many holes in creature developements or the reason why certain creatures are the way they are. An example I can think off on the top of my head is the tapeworm. All the other theories do the same -- leave too many damn holes.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transit.htm

Two flaws: the creature they listed could be another example of the of an animal related to the Mudskipper. Or even the earlier phase of an amphibian which is developing appendages for it's adulthood; such as the transition between tadpole and frog.

If I sound like Dre-man just tell me. I'm getting tired of government and economic threads so I'll post in religious ones for awhile.

A tadpole turning into a frog is not evolution.

But a tadpole turning into a human... is.

At 2/28/07 05:44 PM, Peter-II wrote:

At 2/28/07 05:40 PM, JakeHero wrote: I think mutation is proven, abiogenesis and macroevolution isn't. The closet thing we have to proving macroevolution are ambiguous fossils.

Abiogenesis basically can't be proven. It's very much possible though.

Abiogenesis is entirely proveable, we just don't know quite enough about the primordial Earth to be sure about it. However, the more we discover about the environment of that time, the more probable the generation of self-sustaining organic reactions has become.

We don't know exactly how lightning works yet either, but we know enough to conclude that it isn't some bearded man throwing bolts. We don't know how gravity works either. Similarily, there might still be some unexplained things in evolution theory, but we know enough about the world to conclude that we all didn't just pop into existence as we are now.

Evolution isn't perfect, no scientific theory is, but it's the best 'guess' we have.

At 2/28/07 08:15 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: A tadpole turning into a frog is not evolution.

OMFG!! You’re right! Now I need to change my entire life!

Seriously though I prefer evolution because it keeps trying to find evidence where as religion.....Stays where it is and leaves things be.

At 3/1/07 01:58 PM, I-have-2-arms wrote:

At 2/28/07 08:15 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: A tadpole turning into a frog is not evolution.

OMFG!! You’re right! Now I need to change my entire life!

Hmm... you somehow took my statement as an attempt to disprove evolution, and what part of your life would it change?

Guess what? a egg turns into a chicken... THERE MUST BE NO GOD!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously though I prefer evolution because it keeps trying to find evidence where as religion.....Stays where it is and leaves things be.

Relligion and evolution are compatible, it is theism vs atheism which is up to debate here.

At 3/1/07 03:53 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: I regularly brush my teeth.

I've given up on this thread. People here are wound so tight you couldn’t pull a pin from their ass with a tractor. Now guess what film I got that from.

well, this may or may not have already have been posted because I just couldnt get through all 24 pages of this topic, but this is my 2 cents for today.

TOPIC: jesus

Do you believe/know that jesus EXISTED?
there is plenty of evidence that jesus at least EXISTED.

one example:
the romans actually kept records of the crucifixion and thats how we know jesus was crucified on a friday

there are many 3rd party (non religious) scholars/commentators/historians/whatever that say Jesus existed and record things that he did.

ok, so I'm pretty sure that I've established that.
Do you think he was at least a GOOD person?

fine
Jesus went around saying that he was the son of God and that he was the king of the Jews.

so was he:

1. a liar?
2. insane?
or 3. telling the truth and that he was actually God?

Not many people claim to be God. But there were a few:
-hitler
-a bunch of other dictators/monarchs/whatever for that matter
-alexander the great
-insane people
-constantine the roman emperor

of course there were more, but out of all the people claiming to be god out there, how many do you think were "GOOD" people that saved lives or sat down and cared for people?

I dont know about you but for me: not many

think what you want, but this is one of the reasons that I believe and at the VERY LEAST that there is a god up there and there are supernatural powers/phenomena that science cant explain.

for the science people:

-what happened before the big bang? what was THERE before the big bang?

-99% of ghost/demonic/UFO/supernatural activity is explainable by science but WHAT ABOUT that other 1%? can you explain those kinds of cases?

-evolution: lets take this little animal called the giraffe. According to evolution, the giraffe shouldve evolved from another short necked animal. fine. but since evolution is a gradual process, his neck should have gradually have gotten longer over generations. By evolution there should be a short, medium. and long necked giraffe, but why is there JUST A giraffe? (a weird angle I know, but it makes sense)

I believe that science and religion in the end wont come into conflict. The bible shouldnt be taken literally, but science cant explain EVERYTHING. I think those two can co-exist.

At 3/1/07 05:28 PM, Korruption wrote: well, this may or may not have already have been posted because I just couldnt get through all 24 pages of this topic, but this is my 2 cents for today.

TOPIC: jesus

Do you believe/know that jesus EXISTED?
there is plenty of evidence that jesus at least EXISTED.

one example:
the romans actually kept records of the crucifixion and thats how we know jesus was crucified on a friday

there are many 3rd party (non religious) scholars/commentators/historians/whatever that say Jesus existed and record things that he did.

What moron thinks he diddnt exist?

ok, so I'm pretty sure that I've established that.
Do you think he was at least a GOOD person?

Many relligions think he was great, not just the ones that believe him.
me, personally, yes.

fine
Jesus went around saying that he was the son of God and that he was the king of the Jews.

Perhaps 'son of God' ment being faithful and good person, not to be taken literaly, like he was a prophet.

so was he:

1. a liar?
2. insane?
or 3. telling the truth and that he was actually God?

Not many people claim to be God. But there were a few:
-hitler

never claimed to be god

-a bunch of other dictators/monarchs/whatever for that matter

a few, moastly anchient ones

-alexander the great

true

-insane people

at least they know what they want to do with there lives.

-constantine the roman emperor

lier, you lied

of course there were more, but out of all the people claiming to be god out there, how many do you think were "GOOD" people that saved lives or sat down and cared for people?

I dont know about you but for me: not many

I know a god, he lives in Minnasota

think what you want, but this is one of the reasons that I believe and at the VERY LEAST that there is a god up there and there are supernatural powers/phenomena that science cant explain.

for the science people:

-what happened before the big bang? what was THERE before the big bang?

-99% of ghost/demonic/UFO/supernatural activity is explainable by science but WHAT ABOUT that other 1%? can you explain those kinds of cases?

errelevent to the topic.

-evolution: lets take this little animal called the giraffe. According to evolution, the giraffe shouldve evolved from another short necked animal. fine. but since evolution is a gradual process, his neck should have gradually have gotten longer over generations. By evolution there should be a short, medium. and long necked giraffe, but why is there JUST A giraffe? (a weird angle I know, but it makes sense)

they evolved duh!

I believe that science and religion in the end wont come into conflict. The bible shouldnt be taken literally, but science cant explain EVERYTHING. I think those two can co-exist.

religion was made to comfort people who faced hardships
in the ancient times life was shitty and many died at a young age, diseases would come and go leaving thousands dead and dying in its wake, and wars where people savagely sliced off limbs and stripped the lives away from fellow humans, this was history until modern time
now religion is weaker than ever before because life is better
in modern times most turn to religion when their is doubt or fear and when there is non it is forgotten
religious beliefs also came to be so certain people could become ruler
"mandate of heaven" in china during the earlier dynasties which stated that the ruler was chosen by god
religion can be true or false nobody knows and or will ever know
one reason i turn to religion is my fear of death and never seeing my loved ones again
is it just blank and nothingness or is there a utopia in the sky
science though has successfully disproved religious details
for example evolution as originally stated
another example of excorsism's which have been proven to just b mental disorders such as bipolar disorder, epilepsy, and schizophrenia or however it is spelt
it is the decisions of the individual whether they want to believe religion or science and no man should have the right to demean anothers beliefs

At 3/1/07 01:45 AM, Togukawa wrote: We don't know exactly how lightning works yet either, but we know enough to conclude that it isn't some bearded man throwing bolts.

lol, I couldn't help but let out a single "ha!" to that.

At 3/1/07 08:37 PM, AIDSextravaganza wrote: Less grammar, more bullshit...

Nice alt.

Science and religion are inseperable. Your entire view of science depends on where your world view is. With a Christian world view, you practice science to appreciate and understand God's world. With any other world view, why practice it?

At 2/28/07 06:45 PM, JakeHero wrote: The reason I do not find macroevolution is the fact it leaves too many holes in creature developements or the reason why certain creatures are the way they are. An example I can think off on the top of my head is the tapeworm.

The tapeworm? Could you elaborate on that?

All the other theories do the same -- leave too many damn holes.

Ah well science isn't infallible.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transit.htm

Two flaws: the creature they listed could be another example of the of an animal related to the Mudskipper.

I doubt it. Take the first one, panderichthys for instance. When compared to the mudskipper, it's an incredibly distant relative, being that they're only part of the same phylum Chordata and aren't even related by class.

Or even the earlier phase of an amphibian which is developing appendages for it's adulthood; such as the transition between tadpole and frog.

Panderichthys, being 90cm in length at the least, is much bigger than an amphibian between the transition between a tadpole and frog.

At 3/2/07 01:58 AM, fastbow wrote: With a Christian world view, you practice science to appreciate and understand God's world. With any other world view, why practice it?

Ask the Ancients...

People used to have gods for everything. A god for the wind, a god for the sun, etc...
They had them so it would explain why things happened or how they happened. In todays world we have science. Now we know why the wind blows, the sun shines, and much more. Why do we still need a god? To be saved? To get laid?

I say to hell with the gods. We don't need them any more. We shouldn't worry about why we are here and just be glad that we are.

At 3/2/07 12:54 PM, Eoewe wrote: People used to have gods for everything. A god for the wind, a god for the sun, etc...
They had them so it would explain why things happened or how they happened. In todays world we have science. Now we know why the wind blows, the sun shines, and much more. Why do we still need a god? To be saved? To get laid?

I say to hell with the gods. We don't need them any more. We shouldn't worry about why we are here and just be glad that we are.

I can say you dont exsist, after all your post doesnt meen you exsist.
Heck everyone on this thread besides me might not exsist, so to hell you people and I shold just be glad that I can use this computer till the time comes my bro makes me get of, same logoc as your post.

Oh man! Dre-Man sent me a message too! he said this:

:My cousin's gay you son of a bitch. I know that the Bible condemns homosexuality but I know that it doesn't mean that all gays are going to hell, and I sure as hell know it's not the troops fault that America accepts gays.

:If you want to insult me for no fucking reason, fine. But don't you dare make unfair generalizations like that just because you happen to not agree with my debating.

I have nothing against Gay people dre-man

At 3/1/07 07:18 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:
Perhaps 'son of God' ment being faithful and good person, not to be taken literaly, like he was a prophet.

oh, he CLAIMED to be god, no doubt about that.

a few, moastly anchient ones

a little more than a "few"

lier, you lied

he did too

they evolved duh!

according to evolution those animals should have short, middle, and long necks because evolution is a gradual process, not a sudden change.

At 3/2/07 08:43 PM, Korruption wrote: according to evolution those animals should have short, middle, and long necks because evolution is a gradual process, not a sudden change.

No. Just... No. Giraffes evolved a longer kneck to reach food that other creatures couldn't, thereby escaping competition. Giraffes with shorter knecks couldn't compete and simply died out over time. It was a gradual process, which we have the end result of (if such a thing could be said of evoloution, there is never an end really except from a subjective point of view). Besides, there is variation in neck length, but it's all relative to the standard giraffe model (I.E. long necks).

At 3/2/07 08:58 PM, Pontificate wrote:

No. Just... No. Giraffes evolved

True

The fact is that it doesnt matter that evolution exsists or not, because what has evolution done for humanity, evolution is a novilty science, despite being true or not.

Evolution can never be important compaired to things like the cure to Polio.

Pay attention, sience and religon are considered oppistites.
They are not. They bolth try to answer the same questions, but they do it differently. The sientific theory of the Big Bang has one flaw that many of noticed, what was force (Or cause) made that ball of energy implode. The christian theory is Genis. When God said "Let their be light," and the universe was made. But the flaw to this theory is, why then?
Alone sience and religon make little sense at times but together the theories combined answer the question perfectly. Watch:
At time Zero (Moment of the Big Bang/Genis) this huge mass of energy imploded and created matter. Who(or what) made this happen? God. He said "Let their be light," and forced the mass to implod. Why then? I can't answer this and then justify it.
Sience and religon are like to different genii (plural form of genuis) trying to answer the same question. The problem? They hate each other and refuse to belive that they, together, can answer the same question. And another problem, they speak difernet languages and can't always understand each other.
I hope I helped.