Jump to content


Who the hell would believe in evolution???

Started by Guest_MichahSimmons , Jan 09 2006 08:34 PM

  • Please log in to reply
1136 replies to this topic

#576 cgfreak

cgfreak

    Get set get wet get fat get fit

  • Active Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,316 posts
Offline
Current mood: Procrastinating
Reputation: 176
Excellent

Posted 13 December 2007 - 01:41 PM

So was Bode's Law.Bode's Law was a astronomical theory that all the planets exist in distances from the sun defined by a special rule. Wiki on Bode's Law Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn all follow the rules. It also predicted a planet between Mars and Jupiter, but there was none, so they figured that they just hadn't found it yet (the area in question is where the asteroid belt is, by the way). It even predicted correctly where Uranus is. "Ha!" all the scientists thought. "Science wins again!"Science lost. Neptune wasn't where it was supposed to be. And Pluto (whether or not it is a planet is beside the point) was even worse.BAM! SCIENCE WAS WRONG!Evidence is great, but all evidence is circumstancal in nature. Don't just assume something is true because it hasn't been proven wrong.

I hope you are aware of the fact the the "Planet X" that was supposed to be Pluto, and the "error" in Neptune was largely due to miscalculations because of the lack of fine measurement systems at the time. Besides, science has been wrong once so they'll be wrong again? That's bulls***.
  • 0
i do remember one thing.
it took hours and hours but.
by the time i was done with it.
i was so involved. i didn't even know what to think.
i carried it around with me for days. and days.
playing little games.
like. not looking at it for a whole day.
and then. looking at it.
to see if I still liked it.
i did.

#577 Poison Shroom

Poison Shroom

    Comrade Shroom

  • Dragon's Elite
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,513 posts
Offline
Current mood: None chosen
Reputation: 2
Neutral

Posted 13 December 2007 - 02:07 PM

All I'm saying is that although there is what evolutionists (in general, mind you) would like to present as substantial evidence in support of evolution, there is also an even greater amount of evidence (though oftenly suppressed or ignored) which has arisen from or been taken as a sample from those same evolutionist's findings!! Ex) the "fossil" record? evolutionists would present that from the fossil record can be found many examples of creatures "evolving" into some state we witness today. However, if a person were to use common sense, taking into account that on the basis of the evolutionists' statements every creature here today is evolved from some previous form, shouldn't we be able to find MILLIONS of such examples, and not just the few we see today???? Just one example of many. Topic open to opinions...Topic discussions include the origin of man, the theory of evolution, the origins of life, the origins of the universe, and creation theory.

And yet the experiment did not create life. And no experiment has. Evolution is the supposed origin of species, a vain attempt to try and disprove God as the origin of the species. While carbon dating can be used to try and date things, there's a whole lot of factors that can throw off the readings, making them appear millions of years old while they are only 4000 or so. Another thing to concider is the rate of decay in which the earths magnetic field decays.. If the earth was millions of years old, the magnetic field would of been so strong at the time of the dinosaurs that life as know it could not exist. Including the dinosaurs. I don't have all the answers. I'm not highly educated. I'm not a scientist. But I do understand that it's impossible for life to just happen.Oh.. And God used dirt. That's why the kabalist legend of the golem also uses dirt.

Fossils, do in fact prove Evolution.Do you know how fossils are made?It literally takes thousands of years.If I remember the process correctly, something like a person/plant has to be trapped under a layer or rock, and if I remember correctly, the subject is fossiled by the amount of friction applied or type of stone.Where do you get the magnetic field thing, I've never heard that.How would it be bad..? I've stood next to giant magnetics, and electromagnets and I've fine.Heck, you're cellphone emits radiation.On the carbon dating, what can throw it off?I've never heard that either, all I've ever seen is that they get a less accurate result.But, not as inaccurate as you think.
  • 0

If you need help with anything PSP related, or a link is down, PM me
Useful Links and List of PSP Games

#578 =-/

=-/

    Ancient Dragon

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,711 posts
Offline
Current mood: None chosen
Reputation: 0
Neutral

Posted 13 December 2007 - 05:52 PM

to be fair, most of the old dinosaur bones are either fossil fuels, buried so deep within the earth, or under the sea, or crushed into powder, destroyed by acts of god, blown up by explosives, used by man to make soup....its already a freaking miracle that the current fossils even exist.... given the many ways that the fossils maybe destroyed
  • 0
I got rid of my awesome sig to mention if you collect ToyFare, SCAN ALL THE TWISTED TOYFARE THEATRE THAT YOU HAVE AND UPLOAD IT TO MEDIAFIRE OR BITTORRENT.
Posted Image
Hey, does anyone have a Tokusatsu userbar? Come on. There's gotta be one right? What's Tokusatsu you say? BLASPHEMY. SPACIUM RAY!
boomp3.com

Sigs
Sosica

#579 Guest_aarrrrrnnn

Guest_aarrrrrnnn
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 13 December 2007 - 10:55 PM

I am going to call you out on a couple of things here. First of all fossils do not prove evolution. They only prove that dinosaurs existed, if that. Fossils show an organism, they don't show it changing. Second, a fossily takes thousands of years depending on the pressure at which it is kept. An event like the flood in the Bible could cause a major increase in pressure underground, speeding up fossil forming, the same theory can be applied to the making of coal. Also, many fossils are simple the outline of an organism in the ground where it died. The organic material is gone and an imprint is left in the ground. That really doesn't have anything to do with evolution or pressure, but it definitely has nothing to do with your explanation of how fossils are made. Second, radiation is not the same as a giant magnetic field. Third, carbon dating is only accurate assuming the original dating was accurate. Carbon dating compares the amount of Carbon-14 left in a organism, then compares that number to an object that is assumed to be found around the same time. Then some calculations and a rough date is found. So if the original date is wrong, the entire carbon dating is wrong, therefore you can't use it for evidence. Also, Carbon Dating is only good for objects that are assumed to be 50,000 years old. Another process called Photoilluminesence is used in cases of object older than than that. It too is inaccurate.

First off, the fact that dinosaurs are no longer alive, and that creatures that aren't dinosaurs are around now makes you wonder where the new animals came from. The only explanation that I can think of that you would possibly accept is that God decided that he didn't like dinosaurs, and made people instead. Wait, that makes it seem like God can make mistakes. You probably wouldn't like that explanation. Sorry, I can think of NO explanation aside from evolution that you, or anyone could accept.Second, that flood idea makes a WHOLE lot less sense than fossils taking millions of years to form. I'm not claiming that the Biblical flood didn't happen, just that it doesn't work in this context. By claiming that the flood could "speed up" fossil forming, you admit that fossils do take a long time to form, and so it's more likely that the fossils formed slowly in the first place, rather than they COULD form slowly, but instead formed quickly.Second (again), there is nothing wrong with this statement, but i think you missed moose!'s point. Radiation is generally considered to be worse for you than magnetism, but you are near objects and areas that emit at least some radiation for most of your life.Third, carbon dating. Carbon dating is the process of taking a fossil, and looking at the half-life of the radioactive Carbon-14 contained within. Half-life of radioactive isotopes is basically the amount of time that it takes for half of the isotope to decompose into a neutral isotope. So if an isotope has a half-life of 10 days (I'm just making these numbers up) and there is originally 100 grams of it, there will only be 50 grams after 10 days, only 25 grams after 20 days, and so on. If you know the mass of the radioactive isotope, and the total mass, radioactive and neutral, and you know the half-life, you just have to plug all of that into an equation, and solve. This was kind of complex and long, but no one on here seemed to understand the way carbon dating works. Thought it should be known.If I'm wrong about the details of carbon dating, tell me. It'd be good to know for sure.

Edited by aarrrrrnnn, 13 December 2007 - 10:58 PM.

  • 0

#580 Guest_aarrrrrnnn

Guest_aarrrrrnnn
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 13 December 2007 - 11:58 PM

The Carbon dating is right, however, they compare the fossil they are examining to something that they have estimatedto be about the same age. If they are wrong about the estimated age of something then they are wrong about the fossil.I didn't not miss the point of Moose's post, I just picked it apart piece by piece. Certain types of radiation are harmful to us. It is a common minsonception that every type of radiation is. Gamma rays are what harms us. I don't know the exact definition of them, but alpha and beta radiation are not harmful to us, which is what most things produce.Next, I never said fossils didn't take millions of years to form. I simply said an event like the flood could have sped up the creating of the fossils we find. In Biblical terms the Earth hasnt' been around long enough for fossils to form, therefore, they would have had to form in the time between the beginning of time and now, and the only event that would have that kind of power would be the flood.Lastly, I never said God could not make mistake. However, I would prefer to think that he can second guess himself. He created the flood to get rid of the evils. He second guessed every human, so he got rid of them.

No, the way I just said is what is right about Carbon Dating. Read a chemistry textbook. Sorry to be so blunt, but it's the way it is.Okay, again, pick up a chem. text. Alpha waves can be stopped by anything as thin as a piece of paper, or your skin. Prolonged exposure to even this low level of radioactivity IS HARMFUL. Beta waves are stronger than alpha, but can still be stopped by something along the lines of a six-inch thick piece of... something, I don't remember the exact example the book gave. Also, your skin stops it, but not as well as it stops alpha waves. Prolonged exposure to beta waves is ALSO HARMFUL. Gamma waves will pass through I believe six feet of concrete AND your body without stopping. That is EXTREMELY HARMFUL. It's not the only kind of harmful radiation.So you're admitting that fossilization is, in general, a very slow process. The more likely explanation is that millions of years passed, and the fossils naturally formed. There are many different climates that Earth has gone through. Some areas that are now dry land were once oceans. Not flooded. Oceans. While there is not definite proof of this, as well as things such as evolution, it takes a lot of rationalization and fact ignoring to consider it to be implausible. Or just people denying the idea of things that don't match what they already know.
  • 0

#581 Guest_aarrrrrnnn

Guest_aarrrrrnnn
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 14 December 2007 - 11:58 PM

Yes, this is pretty enjoyable. If we were just doing this for the download points, we wouldn't be making such long posts. Also, I don't have much else to say, and I'm gonna be away from the interwebs for a month or so. I don't really care how these debates turn out, it's just fun.

No, the way I just said is what is right about Carbon Dating. Read a chemistry textbook. Sorry to be so blunt, but it's the way it is.Okay, again, pick up a chem. text. Alpha waves can be stopped by anything as thin as a piece of paper, or your skin. Prolonged exposure to even this low level of radioactivity IS HARMFUL. Beta waves are stronger than alpha, but can still be stopped by something along the lines of a six-inch thick piece of... something, I don't remember the exact example the book gave. Also, your skin stops it, but not as well as it stops alpha waves. Prolonged exposure to beta waves is ALSO HARMFUL. Gamma waves will pass through I believe six feet of concrete AND your body without stopping. That is EXTREMELY HARMFUL. It's not the only kind of harmful radiation.So you're admitting that fossilization is, in general, a very slow process. The more likely explanation is that millions of years passed, and the fossils naturally formed. There are many different climates that Earth has gone through. Some areas that are now dry land were once oceans. Not flooded. Oceans. While there is not definite proof of this, as well as things such as evolution, it takes a lot of rationalization and fact ignoring to consider it to be implausible. Or just people denying the idea of things that don't match what they already know.

Also, I hadn't slept any the night before when I wrote that ^^^ post, so I really didn't catch what you were trying to say about mine. Sorry about how dumb that sounded.
  • 0

#582 Guest_biscuitboy

Guest_biscuitboy
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 15 December 2007 - 12:05 AM

umm fossilisation takes forever and it needes very special conditions for it to occur.for instance if you want a fossil amminoid (which clearly EVOLVES in sutures and design (uncoiling)) then in order for them to fossilise they need to be burried in a sediment that will be inert, and resistant to erosion not only that but it then takes thousands of years for all the minerals to be replaced.as for your point of no difinitive proof of land being oceans and land all you need do is look at the layers of earth, the uk starts of as a desert as you find very clear layers of DESERT sandstone then goes on to be a tropical sea as you then get MARINE sandstone which is a clear blue colour due to glauconite which is a grean colour and only found in marine environments. so if that is not definitive proof i really do not know what is.
  • 0

#583 Guest_Velour Fog

Guest_Velour Fog
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 17 December 2007 - 12:41 AM

First of all, evolution can be defined as a "change in the gene pool of a population over time". So by that definition, a resistance to pesticide or antibiotics is indeed evidence of evolution. For a fairly famous example of observed speciation, look up Drosophila melanogaster.Secondly, the lack of transitional fossils, which someone alluded to above, is a misconception. They certainly do exist.For more information and a thorough explanation, talkorigins.org collects all the relevant information in one spot
  • 0

#584 Guest_BillDoor

Guest_BillDoor
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 17 December 2007 - 11:13 AM

Pressure is directly related to the the rate at which something composes, such as Carbon 14.

Half true. What they look at is the ratio of different isotopes of carbon to each other. The thing is, this is not ordinary "decay" you're talking about. This is nuclear beta decay, which is very different. Yes, there is an increase in reverse beta-decay at extremely high temperatures and pressures in some materials, but the effect of the water pressure of a flood would not produce a huge difference in a Carbon-14 readout - especially when a timeline can be established from nearby rock strata.Compare the pressure of a flood with the pressure of, say, a MASSIVE LAYER OF ROCK, and you'll see that the claim you're making - that a massive global flood would extend all of our radiocarbon dating dates by huge factors, and simultaneously create fake fossils - is ridiculous.
  • 0

#585 Guest_zathrun

Guest_zathrun
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 17 December 2007 - 11:21 AM

i blive in evolution there is pure evidencePOINTS were deducted for this post by Sir VGPlease refer to the forum rules to find out why your points were deducted.
  • 0

#586 Guest_Beta1440

Guest_Beta1440
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 18 December 2007 - 02:30 AM

All I'm saying is that although there is what evolutionists (in general, mind you) would like to present as substantial evidence in support of evolution, there is also an even greater amount of evidence (though oftenly suppressed or ignored) which has arisen from or been taken as a sample from those same evolutionist's findings!! Ex) the "fossil" record? evolutionists would present that from the fossil record can be found many examples of creatures "evolving" into some state we witness today. However, if a person were to use common sense, taking into account that on the basis of the evolutionists' statements every creature here today is evolved from some previous form, shouldn't we be able to find MILLIONS of such examples, and not just the few we see today???? Just one example of many. Topic open to opinions...Topic discussions include the origin of man, the theory of evolution, the origins of life, the origins of the universe, and creation theory.

I think Animals all evolve together, but not into the same species.
  • 0

#587 Guest_Red Storm69

Guest_Red Storm69
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 24 December 2007 - 12:44 AM

Well looking into the process of evolution it is basically just adaptations over time to become more suitable for the environment the organism is living in. Differences in the environment produce different changes in organisms. A long time ago Cats and Dogs were similar but with differences in environment. And the differences in those environments are what produced small changes over the years. By the way this was an example i went over in school in the 7th grade from a biology book from Houghton Mifflin. I'm sorry i cant get more information for those who would want to look it up but its been a couple years. It had a panda on the cover if i remember correctly.
  • 0

#588 Guest_richardabc

Guest_richardabc
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 24 December 2007 - 01:22 AM

Fossil record is not the only evidence. It is actually a weak evidence today. Most conclusive evidence comes from molecular biology, specifically comparative genetics. The genome of many model organisms such as worm, fly, monkey, and human have been sequenced, and uncanny similarity in the DNA sequences point out to the evolution. Chimpanzee and humans have 98-something % similarity in DNA sequences.
  • 0

#589 Guest_BillDoor

Guest_BillDoor
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 24 December 2007 - 02:29 AM

The fossil record remains pretty strong evidence; look, for example, at the recent uncovering of Tiktaalik, yet another fish that demonstrates a step in the pathway between fins and legs. However, the fossil record is not perfect, in that it takes a very specific set of conditions to generate a clear fossil. That said, the smoking gun is the DNA evidence.Now, an Intelligent Design advocate might say that God would give similar animals similar gene structure. But the problem is that in many cases, we can observe not only similarities, but evidence for slow coding change over time. For example, if a sequence is important and would be selected for by evolution, it will change more slowly than a sequence that doesn't code for any protein or any obvious regulatory purpose. You can compare DNA sequences at several websites, such as the UCSC Genome Browser. Just search for a gene, like beta-catenin, and look at the display rows that show you how similar it is in humans, rhesus monkeys, dogs, mice, zebrafish, and so on. The parts that are heavily conserved will tend to be the coding regions, and the parts that are in between the coding regions will tend to be very similar to us in monkeys, sort of similar in dogs, and less so in fish.This makes no sense from an intelligent design perspective. There's no reason why the similarities between these genome regions should reflect the ancestry we've established from the fossil record... unless there's some line of common descent.
  • 0

#590 Guest_x412sph

Guest_x412sph
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 27 December 2007 - 10:23 AM

If evolution was real then we should have found "missing-links" to all the millions of species of animals that have existed. Also, evolutionists say that life started from simple one-celled organisms. They also say that the process of evolution takes hundreds of years to accomplish. Both these statements make a contradiction in that if say a one-celled organism would possibly evolve then it would have to develop an operational heart which would hypothetically take hundreds of years to develop, not to mention developing a brain, which is the most complex organ, that controls the body of a creature. This my friends has just killed the possibility that there ever was evolution.
  • 0

#591 M1551n9n0

M1551n9n0

    Elite Dragon

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 875 posts
Offline
Current mood: Vegged Out
Reputation: 1
Neutral

Posted 27 December 2007 - 04:55 PM

^ These "missing links" occur when we cannot find the fossils for that organism in the evolution chain. (Or so I think. I'll have to do more research)We haven't found the fossils for every single animal in the universe because fossils are often difficult to find. Not to mention that erosion and sediment piles up in huge layers above the fossils if they're never found. Eventually these fossils make it to the center of the Earth where they're turned into magma. This causes breaks in the chain.Now as for developing organs, not all animals have hearts (like single-celled organisms) but single-celled organisms have nucleii, which is technically the "brain" of that animal. Over time, these single-celled organisms developed various body parts like hearts to change to their surroundings, which takes about a couple hundred years to develop.I think evolution does exsist.
  • 0
Artwork: Check it out Facebook fan page. -- deviantART profile

"If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change"

#592 Guest_Gcuevas1

Guest_Gcuevas1
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 27 December 2007 - 10:19 PM

people who believe in Evolution have a logical point of view, and want to view the idea of how life began only on a scientific perspective. There are many intolerances between both ideas, Evolution and Creation, but there isn't a side the both can't agree.Why can't Evolution and Creation work side by side?Because people don't want to believe in a god or gods and others don't won't to analysis religion

Edited by Gcuevas1, 27 December 2007 - 10:24 PM.

  • 0

#593 M1551n9n0

M1551n9n0

    Elite Dragon

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 875 posts
Offline
Current mood: Vegged Out
Reputation: 1
Neutral

Posted 28 December 2007 - 03:23 AM

^ Because people are ignorant and single-minded. I think that Evolution and Creationism work side by side and there's no way for animals and plants to survive without adapting to their settings. God created all living things to evolve.
  • 0
Artwork: Check it out Facebook fan page. -- deviantART profile

"If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change"

#594 Guest_BillDoor

Guest_BillDoor
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 28 December 2007 - 05:00 AM

The line that there are no transitional fossils is a misleading claim. Whenever two related species are identified - call them A and B - creationists demand a fossil that sits between them. But let's suppose that one is found; we'll call it C. This happens all the time. Now the chain looks like this:A... C... BWhat happens? Do the creationists now admit that a transitional fossil has been found? No. They ask for a fossil between A and C, and another between C and B, and say that there are no transitional fossils. So every time we get a new fossil to fill in a hole in the evolutionary record, the creationists just say "Oh, look, now there are two more holes!"
  • 0

#595 Guest_Raphiela

Guest_Raphiela
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 28 December 2007 - 06:15 AM

Of course evolution hapens; it's just that it happens over a very long period of time, such that we don't even notice it. That's why it's so incredible to find fossils that at first glance are very different to our own structure, but on closer inspection there are a few similarities. Predictably, in the future, more of the human population will be multi-racial- who knows where that'll lead to?
  • 0

#596 Guest_nelson89

Guest_nelson89
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 28 December 2007 - 03:06 PM

I only just finished highschool and the way i understand the whole evolution theory is that yes every particular creature on earth is evolved from another through survival of the fittest. The reason we're not finding millions of different fossils explaining the millions of variations of species is for 2 reasons, it is by pure chance that an animal fossilizes in that it needs the perfect conditions etc, same reason for why diamonds are rare to find, unless the conditions are ideal for an extended period of time, it is highly unlikely something will fossilize. The 2nd reason is that the idea of evolution is slight changes due to environmental factors, deformities etc etc over generations, but who's to say that one particular primary species isn't able to produce any number of deformities to carry on into generations later so that it contributes to many secondary species? I mean, horses and rhino's are related, so are humans and chimps. The whole point of scientific classification is to track similarities between different creatures and plants and classify them accordingly, but if life itself was such a rare occurance, then wouldn't the sheer number of similarities between these different life forms become even rarer? At some point we need to accept that not EVERYTHING is coincidence, in the case of evolution, considering it all as mere coincidence seems to me like someone is trying desperately to deny one of the few theories about life that might actually be onto something
  • 0

#597 Guest_BillDoor

Guest_BillDoor
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 28 December 2007 - 08:08 PM

The reason intermediate species seem rare, I think, is that we don't really notice them, for the same reason that we don't notice air. Species with characteristics that track evolution are everywhere. Whenever you look at a book on, say, mushrooms, you'll find a large number of very similar species and varieties - some so similar to each other that people have trouble deciding whether or not they are separate species, or just subspecies. In other words, we see diversification in progress, but at a rate too slow for us to really appreciate.
  • 0

#598 Guest_chibikonekoneo

Guest_chibikonekoneo
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 28 December 2007 - 08:12 PM

I'm not too sure about macro evolution, but micro evolution is definitely happening
  • 0

#599 Guest_BillDoor

Guest_BillDoor
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 28 December 2007 - 08:52 PM

QUICK QUIZ: What's the difference between macroevolution and microevolution?Answer: According to evolutionary biologists, none. It's a false distinction created by ID people. Speciation can happen in a laboratory, and mutations that produce major changes in body parts (extra fly wings, for example), can also be induced.
  • 0

#600 Guest_pirate34

Guest_pirate34
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 28 December 2007 - 09:37 PM

truthfully I dont see why this debate is open, a debate about evolution quite often leads to religious matters, which leads to fights...which is actually kind of stupid because the majority of all religions are based on peace anyway
  • 0
Back to Debates


  1. DGEmu.com
  2. → DGEmu Social
  3. → Dragon's Den
  4. → Debates
  5. Privacy Policy
  6. Forum Rules ·