PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolution vs Creationism

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All the other topics here are ageing so lets start again.
Everyone knows understands both theorys I presume.
Evolution - Scientific facts can show this to be the case, or gather a diverse group of people such as tall, skinny, fat, strong, inteligent, black, white. Then with this group of people put them into incredibly harsh conditions, and not allow them to work together, after a year the people most suited to that area would be the only surviver (if all food was high and out of reach only the taller people would survive and possibly some of the other people that developed a technique to getting the food). You then let the survivers breed and there that is eveolution.
Creationism - Please give me one arguement for the creation theory, based on fact not on what it says in the bible because that is not fact!


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 6:20 PM on January 2, 2005 | IP
Admiral Valdemar

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationism is no more a theory than me explaining the rotation of the planets by way of fairies in their cores.

Evolution by way of natural selection = observable and testable hypothesis.

Creationism by way of some deity or higher power = untestable and completely inadequate as it doesn't explain jack; merely adds an unnecessary variable.


-------
"An Outside Context Problem was the sort of thing most civilisations encountered just once, and which they tended to encounter rather in the same way a sentence encountered a full stop."
-Iain M. Banks, Excession
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 3:35 PM on January 11, 2005 | IP
monster618

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationism is NOt a theory; it is an ANTI-THEORY. It exists only to disprove evolution, but presents no alternate, testable theories or principles of its own. If one Googles "Creationism," EVERY site one finds will have chapter after chapter dedicated to "debunking" evolution. However, go to an anthropology site, or a biology site (usually university sites), and there will rarely---if at all---be any mention of Creationism.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 12:29 AM on January 25, 2005 | IP
theknuckler_33

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationism is a belief, not a theory. It does not exist "only to disprove evolution". Creationism is important for fundamental Christians because it underscores their unwavering belief in the authority of the bible. Their attempts to disprove evolution are many-fold in my opinion attempting to either convert others to the faith, "protect" their children and future generations from the secular teachings of evolution, and, more pessimistically, to sell books.

It is rediculous to try to "debunk" creationism since its a belief system. Creationists will NEVER accept the evidence for evolution because, like most people, they will hear what they want to hear.

The Creationist has a vested interest in trying to debunk evolution because that would validate their beliefs. Evolutionists on the other hand, have no vested interest in debunking creationism (other than trying to give the "other side" a taste of their own medicine), it serves no purpose.

The thing that I find truely disturbing is that most Creationists are taught that evolution is a theology and this is where much of their argument against lay-people will lie. They will say that we (evolutionists) accept what we are told without question (like faith) and who among us that are lay-people can deny this? I don't have the education to evaluate specific fossils or whatever to agree or disagree with the results. The thing is that I rely on the scientific method to police itself. Sure, there are hoaxes in science and creationists love to point this out, but what they don't point out is that these hoaxes are exposed BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY!!

Well, i think I went all over the place here and I will just say one final thing. I am a Christian who accepts evolution as true and for any fundamentalist Christian who would be so bold as to question my faith or look down on my beliefs, be careful because such behaviour is against biblical teachings.

God created the heavens and the earth... I believe this 100%. I just don't believe Genesis is a history book.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 3:11 PM on February 15, 2005 | IP
Atlantis

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationism vs. Evolution

Creationism: is based on FAITH, if you have FAITH you need no proof! That's the whole point!

Evolution: is the FAITHLESS trying to make sense out of the world around them!

To suppose that DNA randomly formed into an organism that eventually formed into an intelligent human is saying that there is no GOD!

The theories are one and the same!  

So when you argue this,  you are really arguing whether there is a God or not!

Should just change the topic to a poll that reads:  Do you believe in God?  (Y) or (N)

and there's my 2 cents...


-------
"There's no trick to being a comedian when you have the whole government working for you." Will Rogers (1879-1935)
If your a guest, please register and join the discussion!
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 12:29 AM on February 16, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Totally wrong on all counts!

Evolution: is the FAITHLESS trying to make sense out of the world around them!

Demonstratably wrong since most Christians world wide accept evolution, so it's not just the FAITHLESS trying to make sense of the world, it's the FAITHFUL also!

To suppose that DNA randomly formed into an organism that eventually formed into an intelligent human is saying that there is no GOD!

since no scientist believes that DNA randomly formed, your statement is irrelevant.  And why couldn't an all powerful God use evolution to change primitive protobiotic replicators into man?

So when you argue this,  you are really arguing whether there is a God or not!

No, because, once again, most Christians accpet God and evolution.  The theory of evolution says nothing about God.  You can repeat your erroneous claim as many times as you want, that won't make it true!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:19 PM on February 16, 2005 | IP
Atlantis

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have not the energy or time to waste on closed minds!  

If you wish to be alone in death,  then I guess I cannot stop you!

Are all of you Brits non-believer's?

A true christian  does not accept evolution  separate from creationism.

They are together or there's no evolution at all, no other choice!


-------
"There's no trick to being a comedian when you have the whole government working for you." Will Rogers (1879-1935)
If your a guest, please register and join the discussion!
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 8:01 PM on February 17, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are all of you Brits non-believer's?

I'm not a Brit, I'm a citizen of the good old U.S.A.

A true christian  does not accept evolution  separate from creationism.

Many Christians believe that God created through evolution.  The Catholic church has no problem believing this.  I live in New Jersey and many friends and family are other Christian denominations, none of them believe in creationism.  It's kind of ridiculous not to accept the fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, all life evolves, the universe is roughly 13 billion years old and there was no world wide flood.  

They are together or there's no evolution at all, no other choice!

What?  Classic creatinism says life does not evolve, the earth is roughly 6000 years old and the great flood accounts for the fossil record, is this what you mean when you  talk about creationism?  Like I said above, many Christians believe God created everything through natural means.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:08 AM on February 18, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Atlantis at 8:01 PM on February 17, 2005 :
If you wish to be alone in death, †then I guess I cannot stop you!


We'er all going to die "alone", its just I have acepted this, and you havn't.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 7:06 PM on February 18, 2005 | IP
DrAtH

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Any Christian will tell you that God is omnipotent, all-knowing, and a lot of other really impressive stuff.  But they can't tell me what He looks like, how He thinks, what His favorite color is (and not to say He's a guy, but let's just leave that alone).  So how can you presume to say that He, in his all-knowing omnipotence, did not have evolution in his plans.  The bible can only bring you so far into what He may have meant for us, but you cannot say without a shadow of a doubt that God didn't have evolution in mind.

Evolution, by itself, is a theory; some people have used gravity as an example of what a theory is (evolution is more like a baby theory, which is vulnerable and throws a lot of fits).  Evolution is supported by a small list of things that are very hard to prove, mostly because nobody really has the longevity to perform a test on macroevolution.  Creationists resisting evolution have an argument they say brings the downfall of the theory (which just agitates it, and makes it go into another fit).

The dreaded timeline, which says that with the Earth obviously being 6,000 years of age, evolution is impossible.  I fail to see the relevancy of this; whether or not the Earth is 6,000 or 4.5 billion years old shouldn't matter that much.  Evolution can still take place, just not as slowly as previously expected; besides, the time it takes (4.5 billion or whatever) is only ONE thing supporting evolution, nobody should focus on just that.

If carbon dating is so wrong and the earth is 6,000 years old, then the "evolutionary ancestors" we've dug up should be vastly wrong.  With all the dates we've srewed up, we may have incorrectly judged how long macroevolution takes.  But, this is just a theory I've had.  Feel free to make fun of it, at the expense of myself.  


-------
ALL HAIL FOAMY!!! ALL HAIL FOAMY!!! ALL HAIL FOAMY!!!

So what, I'm a sociopath.
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 11:39 PM on February 18, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 6:20 PM on January 2, 2005 :
All the other topics here are ageing so lets start again.
Everyone knows understands both theorys I presume.
Evolution - Scientific facts can show this to be the case, or gather a diverse group of people such as tall, skinny, fat, strong, inteligent, black, white. Then with this group of people put them into incredibly harsh conditions, and not allow them to work together, after a year the people most suited to that area would be the only surviver (if all food was high and out of reach only the taller people would survive and possibly some of the other people that developed a technique to getting the food). You then let the survivers breed and there that is eveolution.
Creationism - Please give me one arguement for the creation theory, based on fact not on what it says in the bible because that is not fact!


How do you know all this?
Creation is not a theory.
I have a question for you.
If life started by chance from chemicals then matter created intelligence.
Please give me an example of that ever happening.







-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:12 PM on April 4, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

sorry from the title of this section I presumed this would be a debate on evolution not the origins of life.

Creationism is not a theory? Realy? in what way? is it fact?


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 10:01 AM on April 5, 2005 | IP
pasha

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all evolution is happenign every singe day, even as you sit in your chair right now. Many people ask 'if evolution is true then why isn't it happening today?"
One example is of Thomas Hunt Morgan's fruit flies, in 1909 he had only one species of fruit flies the "wild type"(all had red eyes) which showed no variants in it and after isolating a  population of the wild type and breeding them for a year he found one variant, a fruit fly with white eyes. after a short time period he found other mutations(SLIGHLY different from other fruit flies, genetically), 85 mutations to be more precice, and the genes of these fruit flies were passed from generation to generation(they will alway exist and may or may not be expressed in their children). Mutations are occurences that happen in nature and over a long period of time give rise to new species.  To put it in simpler and more coherent words, " The demonstration of a spontaneous, inheritable alteration in a gene had consequences far beyond the study of drosphilia(fruit fly) genetics. It suggested a mechanism for the origin of VARIATION that exists within POPULATIONS(such as humans, mice, flies, bacteria and even viruses)--evidence for a vital link in the theory of evolution. If VARIANTS of genes could arise spontaneously, then isolated populations could become GENETICALLY DIFFERENT from one another und ULTIMATELY(SOmetimes in millions of years) give rise to new species."(Cell and Molecular Biology. Gerald Karp. Fourth Edition)
Fruit flies mature in 10 days(to a sexually mature adult)and a fruit fly can produce 1000 eggs withing a lifetime, thats why, with such a population that lives, breeds and dies so quickly, variations can be followed VERY precisely(in the example a bove it took one year to find 85 mutations). Ladies and gentleman, in the following sentce I present to you evolution in all its glory: If enough of these mutations happen within a fruit fly population you can produce a new strain of fruit flies(that look different) that won't even be able to breed and produce offspring with the original fruit flies(wild type) but only with the new strain! Hence, a NEW SPECIES now exists. For mammals such as apes or whales etc. such changes are not as obvious(because we live on average 70-100 years and  produce a few offspring compared to fruit flies!) and the most remarkable or striking evidence of  change come from skeletons of early humans or for early whales(check out the evolution line for whales, its pretty amazing to know what anymal they evolved from).
By the way, fruit fly reaserch is IMMENSE today compared to 1909 and so is reaserch on other animals, so check out some papers or articles online about evolution in progress, evolution is a lot more complex than what I have explained here, I just gave you a run down of the basics. If you are wondering yes, there is an explenation of how and why mutations occur, but understanding these explenation will mean taking university biology, genetics and chemistry courses.

If you want an up to date example of evolution happening everyday(other than some guys' fruit flies in 1909) then let me tell you, it would be impossible to keep AIDS patiens alive today without knowing the theory of evolution. AIDS patients take alot of drugs wich help kill the AIDS virus, but the virus keeps adapting to drugs and ultimately becomes resistant to it, how? The virus EVOLVES!!! Lets say there is a certain virus living in your body, most of the viruses that are in your body are identical copies of one another and a few mutations(variations) of the same virus exist within that population. One drug may kill off a large population of the virus that exists in your body but might not kill, lets say 1%, of of the HIV virus. This 1% is resistand to a certain drug and thus replicates numerously and once again causes infection now we have a new population of the the HIV virus, but its resistand to one type of drug(and genetically different) so you can't use it anymore. If you try another drug, the same thing will happen, a small percentage of varients will survive and give rise to a new, drug resistand virus.

 Some people believe that evolution dictates superiority and inferiority different creatures. That is not true, according to evolution a human being is no more up the ladder than an elephant or a kangaroo, all three of these species are equally complex(biologically). The only thing that seperates us is that we are probably one of of the few species that can interact with each other, we have complex brain(allowing language, which gives us an advantage over other animals) and modify matter around us(Me..made...FIRE!)and we have a complex social structure. All in all, we are still animals, like it or not, you gotta eat, sleep, when its a hot day you will sweat, you have red blood running through your veins(hopefully) like other mammals and most importanly most of us will pass on our genes to propagate the human race, no matter what.
I read in an earlier post something that I find interesting. Anyone who proves that evolutionary theory if fundamentaly flawed, will DEFNINETELY win the nobel prize! If evolution if flawed, so is modern genetics, if thats flawed then so is basic chemistry, if thats flawed, so is modern physics, if thats flawed, so is mathematics!!

Evolution is also about natural selection, Hypothetically: If the earth was scorched today and if the seas would boil(for some reason), 99.999 percent of creatures would die, including all people, the only things left alive would be thermophiles(heat loving bacteria) and the would "win" the race to survival because they would survive to pass on their genes whereas the rest of us would be floating dust.  The modern evolutionary theory is complex, very complex and its based on facts, it is something that you have to study in University before you can comprehend(high school stuff, barely SCRATHCES the surface and in my opinion its inadequately taught in the class room, it should be taught more coherently so that student can understand what it is) you cant pass judgement on it based on preconceptions, modern medicine wouldn't be where it is today and ironically, without the theory of evolution most of you(I am sure) wouldn't be here debating!

 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 1:28 PM on April 10, 2005 | IP
Ezack

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well,

some of your points were quite irrelavent but I'll be happy to debate on this.

I was studying evolutionism in public school although I beleieve in creationism and I will be happy to tell you a complete ontradiction in evolution.

My scientifical studies indicated while I was reading that humans evolved at apprx.=15 billion years at 12:00P.M. while the earth was formed at 12:01 P.M.

Does this sound absurd to you? That means that humans drifted in outerspace and "possibly" crash landed on this planet. The truth is according to these observations I have done Creationism is more of a reality than some "people" crash landing on this planet.

Therefore in conclusion,

Creationism is seemingly more "possible" than evolutionism.

your good friend,



-------
Mr.XXXXX XXXXX
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 8:02 PM on April 25, 2005 | IP
Ezack

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok,

Whoever said the junk about fruitflies,

Their was a scientifical study recently on mice (year 1994)

They cut off the male's tail and mated the mouse. The children had tails.
They cut off the female's tail and breeded the mice. The children still had tails.
They cut off both the male and the female tales and breeded the mice, The children still had tails.

This scientific study proves that the evolution theory was false and nothing but a hoax and provides more points for creationism. I need no arguments when I can simply refute yours.




-------
Mr.XXXXX XXXXX
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 8:08 PM on April 25, 2005 | IP
Ezack

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Excuse me,

Genetic mutations are genetic mutations. They are not evolution. Evolution is when the whole species of the creature evolves which I have seen no proof of in anyone's arguments. But in my arguments I have given examples of facts (facts something I have not seen in anyone's argument's except pasha's who I have just refuted)

The truth is evolution did not happen at any time If their is no DIRECT[color=black][/color][b] evidence of something evolving noew


-------
Mr.XXXXX XXXXX
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 8:14 PM on April 25, 2005 | IP
Ezack

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

AIDS does not evolve Pasha AIDS grows deeper and deeper within the cells and directly multiplies not evolves so that argument is invalid and full of garbage. DId you make that argument yourself because it sounds like your whole speech is that way.However I will continue to read and refute happily. :p. good luck on getting past me!


-------
Mr.XXXXX XXXXX
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 8:19 PM on April 25, 2005 | IP
Ezack

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok,

You said something about bacteria surviving and producing more species "hypothetically"

well that is a mere assumption and you said that argument was based on facts. Like I said that is a mere assumption that you yourself probably made up because before I was interested in evolution and I have read over 100 books on that "theory". Therefore in conclusion your assumption was outweighed and you might as well wad that up and throw it in the dumpster as well.


-------
Mr.XXXXX XXXXX
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 8:23 PM on April 25, 2005 | IP
Ezack

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Pasha,

Your other fact is that humans are animals with complex brains and mumbled on with everything.

FIrst of all humans do not have red blood we have blue blood. When the blood reaches a level of carbon dioxide and oxygen it "appears" red. Also you said if evolution was false than math, chemistry etc. would be false. Actually you forgot one thing we do not as humans know everything. We don't according to studied "analysis" we say that scientifical studies are true but what happens is we as humans do not know what happened on this Earth most assume that we "evolved" from other species but even that own belief contradicts itself because we think that we evolved from monkies or dolphins apparently math,science,chemistry etc. is correct but limited knowledge therefore in conclusion according to your arguments and mere assumptions Evolution is false. By the way I have been a debater in tournaments and I have experience in public debating.

Thank you for the fun debate




-------
Mr.XXXXX XXXXX
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 8:33 PM on April 25, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

AIDS does not evolve

Uh, yes it does...From here:

AidsEvolution

"Evolutionary studies of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the retrovirus that causes AIDS, are of particular interest not only because of the size and severity of the epidemic, but also because of HIV's
particularly high rate of mutation (Preston et al.. 1988. Roberts et al.. 1988. Nowak. 1990) HIV's process of reverse transcription, by which it copies its RNA genome into DNA, is highly error prone. Even within single
infected individuals, multiple strains of the virus have been found (Hahn et al.. 1986: Phillips et al.. 1991: Holmes et al.. 1992).

So AIDS evolves and evolves very quickly, that's an observed fact.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:35 AM on April 26, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They cut off the male's tail and mated the mouse. The children had tails.
They cut off the female's tail and breeded the mice. The children still had tails.
They cut off both the male and the female tales and breeded the mice, The children still had tails.


Hey congradulations, you just disproved Lamarckism!  Too bad you're only about 150 years behind real science.  The inheritence of cut off tails has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and your example in no way disproves evolution!  The theory of evolution is one of the strongest theories in science, it is a virtual fact.  Creationism, on the other hand, was disproven over 200 years ago.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:46 AM on April 26, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Genetic mutations are genetic mutations. They are not evolution.

But genetic mutations are one of the driving processes of evolution.

Evolution is when the whole species of the creature evolves which I have seen no proof of in anyone's arguments.

Then do a little research!  There are numerousspeciation events that we have observed, both in the wild and in the lab.
Check out this link for numerous examples of speciation:
Speciation

And from here, a couple of examples:
SpeciationII

"Apart from the "what-if" of the case of the apple maggot fly, which may not yet have completed the speciation event, there are spectacular examples in the living world where we can confidently say that speciation must have been very rapid.
The fruit flies of Hawaii
Darwin's finches
Stickleback fishes in Canada
The cichlid fishes of the East African lakes"

The truth is evolution did not happen at any time If their is no DIRECTevidence of something evolving noew

So now you have DIRECT evidence of evolution happening.  And I didn't even have to mention living transitional organisms and transitional fossils that can only be explained by evolution!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:57 AM on April 26, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Okay, it's all very well to attempt to disprove the theory of evolution, but how about attempting to prove the theory of creationism? Evidence people, EVIDENCE
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 07:35 AM on April 26, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah considering that none of your evidence came close to diproving evolution, you seem to presume that by disproveing evolution you would prove creationism. However your forgetting how many differnt creation storys there are, all with equaly little proof... nothing...

The whole mice thing is a poor example, as evolution deals with change in the genetic structure which can be passed onto the off spring.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 09:58 AM on April 26, 2005 | IP
deep thought

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You ask for proof yet you can show none for yourself.  I think that the only way to prove either story is stop messing with the small things and jump right to the only species this argument actually means anything to, Mankind.

Humans originated as apes and over time we changed to cope with our environment till we became what we are today.  This is the root of the evolution theory.  It was created by men who noted similarities between us and primates.  This is the only basis for the argument.
For this to occur, according to Darwinís theory, we had small changes over time.  My question is where are the fossils that show this slow progression between our primitive most beings and our present selves?  So far scientists have found no "intermediate" forms of man.

Now for the creationist side of the argument. You ask for proof but say that we must disregard the bible.  I say if you limit that for us then I ask for an equal limitation for your self.  The bible is a record of what people wittiness and what they did.  Sound familiar?  Kind of like every article written in favor of evolution.  The fundamentals in both cases are the same. In both it is a record of what they saw and did.  And even better is that you have no first handed knowledge that itís true.  Guess what we are both working off faith.  Unless you personally have conducted the experiments then you canít quote them.  For the same reason you wont let us use the bible.  



-------
though we delve in the river of Knowledge, our flasks often come up dry.
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 10:41 PM on April 26, 2005 | IP
pasha

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

LOL!

I had a really good laugh when I read Ezack's "refutes". I honestly believe Ezack is a 12 year old kid who replied to my post. Lets go through Ezack's "refutes":

Ezack:"AIDS does not evolve Pasha AIDS grows deeper and deeper within the cells and directly multiplies not evolves so that argument is invalid and full of garbage. DId you make that argument yourself because it sounds like your whole speech is that way.However I will continue to read and refute happily. :p. good luck on getting past me!"

**LOL, what?! Ofcourse the HIV virus evolves! Re-read my post of how the virus evolves! It happens by selection due to different drugs. There have been decades of study on this, do you think Elementary school logic will refute this? There are posts to links on HIV if you want to read up. What you are confused about is how the virus reproduces!! The HIV virus enters a host cell and uses its genetic material to replicate!! Thats something else! The only viruses that replicate are SURVIVING viruses that are resistant to a certain drug.
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 11:52 PM on April 26, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from deep thought at 10:41 PM on April 26, 2005 :
You ask for proof yet you can show none for yourself. †I think that the only way to prove either story is stop messing with the small things and jump right to the only species this argument actually means anything to, Mankind.

Humans originated as apes and over time we changed to cope with our environment till we became what we are today. †This is the root of the evolution theory. †It was created by men who noted similarities between us and primates. †This is the only basis for the argument.
For this to occur, according to Darwinís theory, we had small changes over time. †My question is where are the fossils that show this slow progression between our primitive most beings and our present selves? †So far scientists have found no "intermediate" forms of man.

Now for the creationist side of the argument. You ask for proof but say that we must disregard the bible. †I say if you limit that for us then I ask for an equal limitation for your self. †The bible is a record of what people wittiness and what they did. †Sound familiar? †Kind of like every article written in favor of evolution. †The fundamentals in both cases are the same. In both it is a record of what they saw and did. †And even better is that you have no first handed knowledge that itís true. †Guess what we are both working off faith. †Unless you personally have conducted the experiments then you canít quote them. †For the same reason you wont let us use the bible. †




Okay, let's ask a more to-the-point question:

Which theory makes more
sense? Think about it...
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 03:51 AM on April 27, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You say the bible was written by people who witnessed these events... ok give me a second to find a bible...
Ok its a youth bible so the wording will be simpler but it will mean the exact same...

ok lets start at the start..
Genesis 1:1"In the beginning God created the sky and the earth" Ok so this was witnessed by the author?
but man isn't around until Genesis 1:27"God created human beings in his image."
The basics of what I'm tryin gto say now is...
God created man on the sixth "day" but acording to you they witnessed the creation of the earth, plants,animals etc on the previous five "days"

Oh and you said "My question is where are the fossils that show this slow progression between our primitive most beings and our present selves?  So far scientists have found no "intermediate" forms of man" try doing a little bit of research, there are ALOT of fossils of early man, which really wont be hard to find at all.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 1:56 PM on April 27, 2005 | IP
deep thought

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, plenty of fossils of primitive "man" but no fossils showing that they went through an evolution process, all you see is a old form and a new form nothing in between.  The best proof for that cause was the Arkansas man and if you donít know about that try some research of your own.

As far as the bible argument, I meant that itís mostly a record to there actions, and if you really want to pick up on that fight who saw the evolution process of man, or the big bang take place?

Which theory makes more sense?
I think that the best way to answer that is to describe both. Yours= A near infinite amount of energy that somehow gains momentum (please explain that) and collides at a point about the size of an atom in the middle of space. The as a result matter is formed this matter clumps tighter as the pieces of new matter are flying away at close to light speed.  Then one of them (or more) has particles form together flawlessly thus creating an atmosphere and creatures that are perfectly adapt to sustain that environment.  All this, mind you, has to be simultaneous or the atmosphere will crumble.  Mine= It was created by a being and life was placed on it.



-------
though we delve in the river of Knowledge, our flasks often come up dry.
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 7:22 PM on April 27, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, plenty of fossils of primitive "man" but no fossils showing that they went through an evolution process, all you see is a old form and a new form nothing in between.

This is wrong!  We see fossils of primitive hominds, not primitive homo sapiens.  And of course we see fossils that show the evolutionary process for humans:

Ardipithecus ramidus - 4.4 mya.
Australopithecus afarensis  - 3.9 to 3 mya.
Australopithecus africanus - 3 to 2 mya.
Australopithecus aethiopicus - 2.6 to 2.3 mya.
Australopithecus robustus  - 2 to 1.5 mya.
Australopithecus boisei  - 2.1 to 1.1 mya.
Homo habilis  - 2.4 to 1.5 mya.
Homo erectus  - 1.8 mya to 300,000 years ago.
Homo sapiens (archaic) - 200,000 to 500,000.
Homo sapiens neandertalensis  - 150,000 to 35,000.
Homo sapiens sapiens - 120,000 to ---

Here's a list that is best explained by evolution and nothing else.  Clearly related ancestors of mankind, changing, becoming more and more man like over time.  Pleas provide a better explaination than evolution and present your evidence, or admit you are wrong...

As far as the bible argument, I meant that itís mostly a record to there actions

But time and time again, the bible has been shown to be wrong about historical facts, so it can not be considered an accurate record, heck, it can't be considered a record at all, it's just a collection of myths.

and if you really want to pick up on that fight who saw the evolution process of man, or the big bang take place?

Of course no one saw it, the time span is just too great.  But science NEVER rests on eye witness accounts, they are too unreliable.  Empirical evidence is all that matters to science.  The evidence supporting the Big Bang is significant and the evidence supporting human evolution is enormous and unfalsified.  The evidence supporting the bible, nonexistant.

I think that the best way to answer that is to describe both. Yours= A near infinite amount of energy that somehow gains momentum (please explain that) and collides at a point about the size of an atom in the middle of space. The as a result matter is formed this matter clumps tighter as the pieces of new matter are flying away at close to light speed.

This is a strawman arguement, this does not descibe the Big Bang.  Where does the Big Bang claim energy gained momentum?  What does that mean?  Where did you hear that because it's not true.  "collides at a point the size of an atom in the middle of space"?!?  What the hell does that mean?  Once again, it has nothing to do with the Big Bang.  If you want to argue against the theory, at least learn what it is first!  

Then one of them (or more) has particles form together flawlessly thus creating an atmosphere and creatures that are perfectly adapt to sustain that environment.  All this, mind you, has to be simultaneous or the atmosphere will crumble.  Mine= It was created by a being and life was placed
on it.


Once again, this is meaningless nonsense, it does not describe planetary formation.  Learn what your talking about because right now you sound like a fool!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:21 PM on April 27, 2005 | IP
deep thought

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Then how would you say the Earth was created?  a collision of energy is the only way to create matter, it doesnít just create itself spontaneously.  And if Iím wrong on that point please enlighten me on the process by which matter is formed.


-------
though we delve in the river of Knowledge, our flasks often come up dry.
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 8:37 PM on April 27, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

a collision of energy is the only way to create matter, it doesnít just create itself spontaneously.  And if Iím wrong on that point please enlighten me on the process by which matter is formed.

A collison of energy?  I don't think so.  And yes, it appears that matter and energy can just create themselves.  If you want enlightenment, you'll have to do a whole lot more research, this is some of the most complex physics in existance.  But anyway, here's a starter, from here:
QuantumFoam

"The properties of the Universe come from `nothing', where nothing is the quantum vacuum, which is a very different kind of nothing. If we examine a piece of `empty' space we see it is not truly empty, it is filled with spacetime, for example. Spacetime has curvature and structure, and obeys the laws of quantum physics. Thus, it is filled with potential particles, pairs of virtual matter and anti-matter units, and potential properties at the quantum level."

Once again, just because you and I dont understand it, doesn't mean "Goddidit".


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:12 PM on April 27, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 6:20 PM on January 2, 2005 :
All the other topics here are ageing so lets start again.
Everyone knows understands both theorys I presume.
Evolution - Scientific facts can show this to be the case, or gather a diverse group of people such as tall, skinny, fat, strong, inteligent, black, white. Then with this group of people put them into incredibly harsh conditions, and not allow them to work together, after a year the people most suited to that area would be the only surviver (if all food was high and out of reach only the taller people would survive and possibly some of the other people that developed a technique to getting the food). You then let the survivers breed and there that is eveolution.
Creationism - Please give me one arguement for the creation theory, based on fact not on what it says in the bible because that is not fact!

Before you claim to understand theories you should learn to spell the word IMO.

You grasp of evolution is quite flawed. Only the strong survive has nothing to do do with it.
Put a bunch of diverse people together and the taller ones will survive? Are you a Lamarkist or a Darwinist? Do you know the difference?

You should get a grip on your own theory before challenging someone elses.
There is no way to test macro-evolution , there is no evidence that even proves it's existence . Give me one example of peer reviewed proof of macro-evolution.
You cannot because it does not exist.

Here's some evidence for creation. Dead things do not change , they do not evolve , they in fact tend to stay dead.
The only option besides special creation is spontaneous generation.
That is absurd. Matter cannot create intelligence.

As far as your statement on the Bible please be specific . How do you know it is not fact. Are there any facts in it?
Broad statements like that are meaningless and show prejudice , not forethought.





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:52 PM on April 27, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is no way to test macro-evolution , there is no evidence that even proves it's existence

Dead wrong.  Macro evolution has been observed.  Macro evolution is defined as change at or above the species level, we've seen new species arise.  then there is the direct evidence of transitional fossils and transitional living organisms like the platypus.  
And there are many ways to test for macro evolution, like DNA analysis.  

Here's some evidence for creation. Dead things do not change , they do not evolve , they in fact tend to stay dead

Where in the theory of evolution does it say dead things evolve?!?  Site your sources plese, or admit you are wrong!

The only option besides special creation is spontaneous generation

The correct term is abiogenesis, spontanteous generation is the term the famous evolutionist Pasteur used for dead life spawning new life, not chemical processes becoming more complex until they were living.

That is absurd. Matter cannot create intelligence

Please explain why it's absurd, and give some peer reviewed evidence because so far all you've demonstrated is that you don't understand the theory of evolution.  and what's really absurd is the belief that a magical sky chief who no one has ever seen,  and there is no evidence to support his existance,  "poofed" everything into existance.

As far as your statement on the Bible please be specific . How do you know it is not fact

Because many of it's passages have all ready been proven wrong.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:02 AM on April 28, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Two Questions (perhaps ignorant ones, but...oh well):

Does the Creationist theory allow for the dinosaurs?

and


Does it just involve the whole Adam and Eve thing, or am i missing a more 'up-to-date' Creationist theory?

Sorry, i sound so stupid, but i realised i'm just not sure about these two things...thanx
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 04:11 AM on April 28, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

oh sorry for miss spelling a word, it means nothing...
Ok its good to see you are using classic creationist argument techniques, quoteing out of context. If the conditions were set so only people above a certain hight could servive it is clear than the next generation of people would be taller... only the tallest could reproduce, not that we made them taller during there life (somehow) not changeing there genetic structure and then let them reproduce (I'm not a Lamarkist). I even said only the tall could reproduce. This was a single example and you took my quote out of context and didn't understand what I put.
I admit that wasn't a briliant post to make but read some of my other posts and you will know that I do know what evolution is, unlike many creationists.
Erm... and thats evidence for creation because?
Ok there is no way to prove anything within the bible therefore it cannot be taken as fact... I'm sure they got somthing right... it is a big book (to quote someone else from this forum)

I have to say this, evolution is the acepted theory by the scientific comunity, who know more about this than you or me. So therefore I belive that it is not us who need to prove evolution (which I will add we have done many times already) but you who must prove creation(ism)


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 2:36 PM on April 28, 2005 | IP
mdefab01

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I canít believe we have adults arguing over what came first the chicken or the egg?  Your arguments border on childish.

Creation and evolution MUST co-exist.  Get over it.  You canít have one without the other.  Man no wonder this world is going downhill.

Iím by no means a scientist but reading the BS on this forum makes me laugh.  

What the heck are you guys arguing over?  

Just use your common sense and realize that whatever side your on, your wrong.  

Take a pregnancy for instance.  You have sexual intercourse in order to CREATE another human being.   But before that can be accomplished the male sperm comes in contact with the female egg and the egg EVOLVES into an embryo, which EVOLVES into a fetus, which EVOLVES into a human being.  GET IT?

Bottom line is life is CREATED and EVOLVES over time.

Now the question you children should be asking is who is the creator that started all this?  

It doesnít have to be a deity or creator per se.  It could simply be a comet (which anyone can call the ďcreatorĒ) that had the ďright stuffĒ combined with the right conditions on earth and BAM, life is CREATED and EVOLVES over time to produce such stupid people like you and me.

 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 12:14 PM on May 11, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mdefab01 at 12:14 PM on May 11, 2005 :

Take a pregnancy for instance. †You have sexual intercourse in order to CREATE another human being. † But before that can be accomplished the male sperm comes in contact with the female egg and the egg EVOLVES into an embryo, which EVOLVES into a fetus, which EVOLVES into a human being. †GET IT?


Please. If you think we don't know what we are talking about, the least you could be is not a hypocrite. The aging of an organism is not evolving. Don't attempt to rationalize. If you would like to make a claim, back it up with evidence. Did a book or other source actually inform you that the aging of a human being is evolving? There is a distinct difference between the two (that is, growing and evolution).

And I personally don't want creationism to go away. If it didn't exist, I wouldn't have fun arguing against it. :--)


(Edited by Box of Fox 5/11/2005 at 2:57 PM).
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 2:50 PM on May 11, 2005 | IP
mdefab01

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree poor analogy with the pregnancy thingy but like I said Iím no scientist and I have read pages and pages of debates about this and were still back to square one.

From what I understand about evolution is that time, mutations, organisms and the right conditions and bam, evolution will take hold and eventually an organism will evolve into an ape that will evolve into a human being.

What I find ironic and selfish is to think that the earth can produce a wonder like a human being out of time, mutations and an organism?

For over 4.5 billion years and counting life has not taken hold on any other planet within our solar system?

If you think otherwise then please post about life on other planets without being labeled a loony or conspiracy nut.

Were I draw the line is when someone tells me we evolved from an organism that evolved into an ape that evolved into a human being.

I understand that given enough time evolution will take place but for a species to evolve into a completely different species I just donít agree with that.

O.K.  go easy on me.  Let it rip!!!

 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 3:43 PM on May 11, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



(Edited by Peter87 5/11/2005 at 4:57 PM).


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 4:00 PM on May 11, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mdefab01 at 3:43 PM on May 11, 2005 :
I agree poor analogy with the pregnancy thingy but like I said Iím no scientist and I have read pages and pages of debates about this and were still back to square one.

From what I understand about evolution is that time, mutations, organisms and the right conditions and bam, evolution will take hold and eventually an organism will evolve into an ape that will evolve into a human being.

What I find ironic and selfish is to think that the earth can produce a wonder like a human being out of time, mutations and an organism?

For over 4.5 billion years and counting life has not taken hold on any other planet within our solar system?

If you think otherwise then please post about life on other planets without being labeled a loony or conspiracy nut.

Were I draw the line is when someone tells me we evolved from an organism that evolved into an ape that evolved into a human being.

I understand that given enough time evolution will take place but for a species to evolve into a completely different species I just donít agree with that.

O.K. †go easy on me. †Let it rip!!!



Here is some help: Evolution does not lead to a specific result. There is no reasoning, no goal, behind evolution's process. It it simply an observation and a result.

Also: Things do no "eventually result' in humans. Not all primates will eventually evolve into humans, and humans evolve into a new species. It doesn't work that way. Humans are the result of a variety of selection pressures, and let me assure you: humans did not evolve from chimps. However, we do show a common descent and share an ancestor with the chimpanzee (the chimpanzee, by the way, is not a monkey. It is a primate. Learn the difference or go away).

You should also know what the definition of a species is. See Demon's thread on misconceptions for an accurate, unbiased explanation by him and I. (This may surprise you, but Demon was not particularly tempermental in that thread. Hey, what can I say, Demon :-) )? The explantion of a species will give a clear idea how to tell the differences.

Now your question: How do we get from a single-celled organism to something as intellgent and expansive as a human in such a time period of 4.5 billion years? This will take a while-- I'll be as general as possible, anyone feel free to correct me. I suggest you read the thread I mentioned earlier, otherwise it might be difficult to understand.

---Life on Eath did not occur the moment it came into being. In fact, the oldest rock (meaning a non-metoer rock) is dated around 3.8 billion years ago, and the oldest fossil, called a stromatilite (a single celled organism) is a little bit less than that (3.5 billion, or so). Then, the Earth didn't even have oxygen.

--I'll continue this post a little bit later, I have to finish a context paper on fusion power, brb. :-)
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 5:52 PM on May 11, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all I'd like to tell all of the creationists to sit down. Now, let me explain. Creationism is nothing but religious fundementalism. And as shown in the Iran hostage crisis, that there is no way to curve the mind of a hard lined zealot even if it appears before their eyes, is explained, and recorded. You all are irrational who have the ability to have a rational thought but however I still fight for evolution as long as there is a dissenter among the ranks.

This brings me to my conclusion, I want you to find clear cut proof that god exists and I will wholeheatedly agree with you. If not, I find no reason to bicker with madmen.


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 6:11 PM on May 11, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Now, now, Iorek, you are jumping to conclusions too quickly. First, explain why creationism is religious fundamentalism, and how. You too, could be equally compared to a creationist. You even stated, "There is no way to curve the mind of a hard lined zealot even if it appears before their eyes, is explained, and recorded." You could be fairly interpreted as a zealot yourself. If you can define that term. With evidence.

Please ignore his post. It will probably make you ignore mine.

P.S. Yes, I know I'm pretentious. Sorry, Carl :-)
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 6:22 PM on May 11, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm sorry, I though that we had covered the whole Bible issue.

However, who are you to call yourself pretentious :P


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 6:27 PM on May 11, 2005 | IP
wayneinFL

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Creationism vs Evolution"

I've never seen a group of people debating so fervently about something they could not possibly know for sure.

I mean, which one of you has been there since the beginning to tell us the whole truth?


-------
wayneinFL
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 2:49 PM on May 14, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wayneinFL at 2:49 PM on May 14, 2005 :
"Creationism vs Evolution"

I've never seen a group of people debating so fervently about something they could not possibly know for sure.

I mean, which one of you has been there since the beginning to tell us the whole truth?


You are assuming that if we aren't there to witness the event, it really isn't worth our time to discuss it? Humans are naturally questioning creatures, after all..



 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 2:51 PM on May 14, 2005 | IP
Carns

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i agree with box of fox.

by WayneinFL's reasoning, we shouldn't discuss the holocaust either.. in fact, while we're at it, we better not talk about 9/11.. i mean i wasn't an eye witness to those events, therefore, we can't study them....?!?

human's all need to have an explanation of their origin that they can believe in. we've told kid's they come from storks to answer the question in their minds, it satisfies them at that point much more than the actual truth would. in the same way, each of us has determined which answer to the question of our origins satisfies them, we dont have that parent figure who knows the answer telling us. all we have is evidence and interpretation.

let's say we have earth, population 1, a pregnant mother. all other humans are dead. she give's birth to this child, and shortly thereafter passes away for whatever reason. based on the evidence present (a dead mother, and no similar alive beings) what conclusions will the child come to throughout his life on his origin? do you really think the child will come up with the conception/pregnancy/birth view of his past? in the same way, we struggle to answer the question, but will never be 100% correct, but we must at least satisfy our inquiring minds.

at least we do, not wayneinFL.



-------
Inherent Freedom For All
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 10:45 PM on May 14, 2005 | IP
Dagoth Ur

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A clearly observable example of evolution is the story of the peppered moth in Manchester England.

Some offspring was always born with light-colored wings while others had darker wings. Thus it had been for centuries. These little moths would alight on the light-colored tree trunks, and birds, able to see the darker ones more easily, ate them and tended to ignore the light-colored varieties.

In the 1850s, about 98% of the uneaten peppered moths were the light variety.

By the 1880s in the Manchester, England, area, toxic gases and soot were killing the light-colored lichens on the trees and darkened even more the naturally dark tree trunks. The changeover from light to dark moths began there also. The smoke and smog from the factories darkened the trunks of the trees where the moths rested. This darkening of the trees made the dark-hued moths difficult to see, and the lighter ones quite easy for the birds to spot.

By the 1950s, 98% of the peppered moths were the dark variety.

recent years, the burning of cleaner fuels and the advent of Clean Air laws has changed the countryside even in industrial areas, and the sootiness that prevailed during the 19th century is all but gone from urban England. Coincidentally, the prevalance of the carbonaria form has declined dramatically. In fact, some biologists suggest that the dark forms will be all but extinct within a few decades.

Had the polluted conditions continued, the light-moths would all have been extinict.

This is the clearest example of Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Over time, one variation of the species becomes beneficial, and those with the beneficial trait pass it on to thier offspring. Onver thousands and millions of years, new species form.

Moth Evolution

(Edited by Dagoth Ur 6/4/2005 at 1:24 PM).
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 1:18 PM on June 4, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Dagoth Ur at 1:18 PM on June 4, 2005 :
A clearly observable example of evolution is the story of the peppered moth in Manchester England.


What did they evolve into? Dragonflies?


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 1:22 PM on June 4, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Carns at 10:45 PM on May 14, 2005 :
i agree with box of fox.

by WayneinFL's reasoning, we shouldn't discuss the holocaust either.. in fact, while we're at it, we better not talk about 9/11.. i mean i wasn't an eye witness to those events, therefore, we can't study them....?!?


There is a bit of difference about those events. They are historical facts . We know they occurred.
We can't study particles to people evolution because it is a scenario , not a historical fact.
There were million of witneses to the holocost and tremendous physical evidence.
Your analogy is absurd.


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 1:27 PM on June 4, 2005 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

©†YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.