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
     We were seeded to this planet

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
robert71

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We were seeded to this planet from a more adavanced civilization. We are only a test. they will be back to get us!
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 6:10 PM on January 20, 2009 | IP
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Please, stop spamming. Post if you have evidence. Otherwise, you're just babbling into space.


-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 5:16 PM on January 23, 2009 | IP
robert71

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, where is your proof? Mr. Babbling into space! If your so smart give me the run down. I can babble where ever I want! The Simpsons huh! Your a Clown...
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 12:21 PM on January 25, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all:

There is no such thing as "proof" in science.. Proof indicated that ones answer is the only correct one, and something like that can never be said in science..

Math works with proof. Science works with approaching it as close as possible.


Second, you come with a seeding idea, its your burden to provide evidence or even just an idea of what exactly you mean.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 3:17 PM on January 25, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

robert71 - Why the harsh responce to JSF16? You have to provide evidence for theories (Zucadragon is right about there being no proof in science, instead science works on evidence).
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 4:20 PM on January 25, 2009 | IP
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry, I meant evidence. I agree, creationism has much more evidence than saying ET came down and made us.


-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 5:34 PM on February 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationists tend to use the word "proof" a little too much. We tend to speak of "evidence".

But are you sure, Zucadragon, that "There is no such thing as "proof" in science"?

Someone asked for a "proof" that gene duplication + mutation could add information.

And i think that the proof is:
A=1
(A+B)>1

Am i wrong? I don't see how.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:32 PM on February 7, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You try and prove that 1+1=2. It is suprissingly difficult from to prove it fully and I have herd of people write entire disotations on it. lol.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 04:22 AM on February 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is that so?

But i took good care not to state that.

I think my statement was more cautious.

Is it also difficult to prove?

I guess that any proof is based upon a series of previous conventions...

But if we can all agree that 1+1=2, then my statement could be qualified as proof. Right?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:14 AM on February 8, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yea, I'm just splitting hairs. I have herd it is very hard to prove something as fudemental as that. I mean, what would you use to prove it?
Anyway, although maths and science are very simular they do differ in several ways. Maths works by proof where as science works by evidence and theories.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 12:36 PM on February 8, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think you're referring to Godel's Incompleteness theorem, which is way over my head.Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:50 PM on February 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Remarkable!

It reminds me of Heisemberg's Uncertainty Principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Apoapsis, would you say that i proved that gene duplication + mutation adds information to the genome?

Science does work with evidence, but my statement isn't any prediction, nor does it describe the factual way in which things happened.

I guess it's not even a scientific statement.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:27 PM on February 8, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From an information theory standpoint, there is no question that duplication + mutation adds information.

It could be proven mathematically, but the simplest is to imagine taking a sequence and running it through something like a Zip compression algorithm.  Mathematically information is characterized by how unexpected it is, so even two identical copies of a gene would need at least an extra bit to indicate there is more than one.  Now, if there is a difference between them in even one position, that additional information needs to be indicated with even the most efficient compression algorithm.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:03 PM on February 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What an astounding way to put it!

It's like your own explanation underwent compression for best efficiency in clarity/words.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:12 PM on February 8, 2009 | IP
robert71

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, using the terminology seeded! I meant that were in fact created and have evolved over a vast preriod of time.

No, I really don't think that we were magicaly constructed and strategically placed here from some supposed God or high power who waved his wand and poof we all were here!

Sure, perhaps an ET, a God, a comet, a solor burst, a movement of one species relm to another adapting to earths physical complexities took place!

So how certain are you? You say GOD, I say  prove your theory before you ask me to prove mine!

Definining Create, Creation: Means to bring, or the bringing of something into existence!

We all are creators of something in life! And  what we create does in fact evolve over periods of time.

Throw an apple into your front yard! Look at it's changing and evolving each day that passes!

After a week or so you no longer have an apple. It's physical appearence, chemical compounds, molecules, have evolved or changed into something else. Need I say more?

Deffinining Evolution, or evolve: a gradual developemental process in genetic material, artificial, natural, chemically over a period of time.

If in fact this deffinition is true, seeing how we all use it's meaning everyday in life one way or another. It's logically safe to say that it must be true.

So you really don't have to be a rocket scientist and try to prove some outragious theory to get somewhat of a point across to another. Take the basics first and make scense of those before you write your proclaimer.

I'm certain that there are other certainties, as there always seems to be!
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 10:21 AM on February 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you say apples evolve, that's fine, but we're talking about biological evolution here. DNA and stuff.

Your definition of evolution would be appropriate in other circumstances.

What's with the exclamation marks?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:37 PM on February 23, 2009 | IP
robert71

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, if I understand you correctly, your saying that apples have no biological evolutionary features?

Is that why farmers here in the Midwest of the Apple orchards make the Papples now? They simply took the DNA of the Apple seed and the DNA of the Pear and combined them together and grew a totally new fruit, one of which is sold widely here in our Kroger stores all over!

Now, Although this was a man made genetical creation, it was totally up to the DNA to except this change and adapt to deliberate chemical adjustment. In order for those cells to evolve and create a new fruit they had to change to their surroundings, a genetical mutation so to speak! This mutational change evolved a new fruit, with the help of man of course! But those cells could have died over time, they didn't have to live, and bond their chemical structure together. "The cell said ok I'll change if this is the only way I can live." Kinda silly to put that way but it's kind of like that in a joking manner.

An apple would be a living organizm.... Yes? An would certainly have DNA and other biological chemical features of it's orgins! Just as any other plant form or fruit would have.

So, in knowing this, wouldn't it be as the same as humans? They are alive, they don't have to have a pair of eyes and a mouth to speak to prove this. " hey guys we're alive here, please don't pick and eat us!"

I feel that it's very appropriate in any circumstance to say!

We are talking about creation versus evolution here remember!

Everything on this planet has some kind of DNA, and chemical biological composition of it's orgins, No matter if it's man made or a natural selection created by nature it's self!

The basic fundementals of Biology and Physics it's self states that everything is formed by the atom, cells and membrane,  every thing has a DNA code, not all atoms have the same chemical composition or code, features... et... Not all can bond together because of their chemical or elemental code either. All atoms are living things, all the way down to their protron and neutron.

Your body it's self is made up of Billions of these living atoms. the same DNA that made your heart didn't make your lungs or kidney. Each has a different chemical elemental code.

Explain to me a part on your body that is in fact Dead!

There isn't one!

The whole thing is a living breathing organizm built up by smaller more unique organizms, each one with a different chemical composition of it's total biological construction period.

DNA is in everything.

In a million years from now do actually think we as humans will look the same as we do now?

I really don't think that we will!

As things change around us in years to come so will are genetical chemical composition, as well as our DNA structure and physical traits, this will ensure our fit in nature and it's surroundings that are ever changing.

We will all continually evolve to fit what has changed around us. Just as the Apple has all these millions of years.

That my friend isn't creation that's evolution.


 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 2:23 PM on February 27, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

robert - I have some issues with some of your terminology.

Throw an apple into your front yard! Look at it's changing and evolving each day that passes!



That apple you throw into your front yard isn't evolving - it's decomposing.  That's not evolution.

Now, Although this was a man made genetical creation, it was totally up to the DNA to except this change and adapt to deliberate chemical adjustment. In order for those cells to evolve and create a new fruit they had to change to their surroundings, a genetical mutation so to speak! This mutational change evolved a new fruit, with the help of man of course! But those cells could have died over time, they didn't have to live, and bond their chemical structure together.

You're talking about a genetically engineered fruit - not evolution.  But certainly genetic engineering is an application and benefit that we get from TOE.

An apple would be a living organizm  

The apple tree is the living organism.  The fruit is the vehicle the tree uses to produce more trees, the seeds containing the DNA that instruct how the tree is to develop.

Everything on this planet has some kind of DNA

Actually, some viruses have only RNA, not DNA.  But yes, every living thing has some sort of RNA/DNA.

All atoms are living things, all the way down to their protron and neutron.

I wouldn't go that far.  Atoms aren't capable of self replication - one of the criteria that defines a living organism, the ability to replicate, either asexually or sexually.  So I wouldn't definitely not say that atom are 'alive'.  

Be careful of your terminology.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 2:56 PM on February 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

robert - I have some issues with the point/s you're trying to make: I don't get any.

Please, drop the exclamation marks. It gives me the image of some Robert on cocaine.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:08 PM on February 27, 2009 | IP
robert71

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes the apple you would throw into your yard does evolve into something else. Think about all the bacteria and fungi that grows or evolves from it's chemical decomposition!

Is this not true? Other things happen to that apple before it's totally gone, even still it does not disapear, it's energies simply take another form, transforming it into some other kind of living organizm.

So which came first, the seed or the tree? Certainly we've all pondered over the chicken and the egg factor for years.

Yes, you are right! But...! I had previously stated that, that particular fruit was man made or engineered. This does not mean that their protien chain of DNA molecules had to bond and structure! They could have just as easily died when we were trying to genetically structure them. So there isn't any mistakes as to what I said. I do believe I was very clear in my statement. Certainly my terminologies aren't that far off and can be easily understood by anyone.

Yes, there are some life forms that have only the RNA factors. But...  I was right again by stating everything has some kind of DNA. Sorry, NO.... I didn't add the RNA terminology in my explaination. Yes, you are certainly 100% correct sir. There is an RNA factor to some life forms.

You are right! Atoms do not have the ability to self replicate or mimic themselves. However the cell protiens that they bond and structure do in fact have this ability. So in knowing the common structure of the cell it's self.... it is certainly safe to say that the atom is alive and does change it's bonding structures within the cell mimic. From my understanding, I would most certainly say that the atom is very much alive.

Does the Atom not create energies? Yes, it most certainly does create energy from it's electrons. The Atoms energy is what creates the bonding of those protiens to build such cells. It's the live energy it produces that structures all things.

Also the chemical compositions of such molecuels within the cell must be able to adapt to one anothers changes so they are able to bond. The cancer cell for instance bonds to any cell, and uses the good cell as it's host to devower all the other cells, including the host cell, using their protiens as it's base for mimicing it's self.

This same thing leads to the delvelopement of different cells and structured organizms. Much like the one's growing on that apple in the yard. The new protiens that develope devower up all the other old cells protiens as it rots, using them as it's base of structure, thus the evolution of a new life form. It don't matter if it's a muti celled form of life, or a single celled life form, the thing is still alive and with time can develope even further, later even using it's self as a host to create new protiens for new cell evolutionary development.

With the decomposition of such apple, a different chemical molecular chaperone takes place, new protien chains are evolved and develope into new cells, creating fungi, bacteria and all the other weird shit you see on the apple after it's rotted for a week or so. This is where your RNA or single celled organizms come into play. Even still, it's evolution. Because, the deffined terminology of evolution is simply the developmental process of genectic material over a period of time.

The genectics of something would be it's RNA/DNA code of structured protiens, which are very much capable of evolving, changing their sequencial form over a period of time.

The apple in your front yard, decomposing, is evolution at it's finest.


 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 12:55 PM on February 28, 2009 | IP
robert71

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp,

I'm uncertain of what your statement actually meant. But what I am very certain of, is the fact that your insulting me. I've not said one thing in regard to your posts insulting!

When one makes a statement it's proper Enqlish to punctuate certain things such as an exclamation or an interjection, sometimes even after a command. They are always used in direct speech efforts when written in a proper sentence form.

If my proper English habbits bother you so much Mr. WISP, then don't read my posts! It's up to you to read my statements, no one elses!

So, in knowing this,  good day to you!

No Sir! I'm not a Cocaine user! Yes! At times I wish I were one though, having to deal with certain people with nothing but negative things to say about another.

Thank you Mr. WISP!

Robert...!
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 1:16 PM on February 28, 2009 | IP
Atomicus

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

Quote from robert71 at 12:55 PM on February 28, 2009 :
Yes the apple you would throw into your yard does evolve into something else. Think about all the bacteria and fungi that grows or evolves from it's chemical decomposition! Is this not true?

Err, no. It's most certainly not true. You simply do not understand what evolution is.

So which came first, the seed or the tree? Certainly we've all pondered over the chicken and the egg factor for years.

Err, maybe YOU have pondered this for years, but most people know that it was the egg, obviously. Genetic material does not change during an animal's life, therefore the first bird that evolved into what we would call a chicken, probably in prehistoric times, must have first existed as an embryo inside an egg.

I had previously stated that, that particular fruit was man made or engineered.

The mere fact us humans are able to genetically modifiy fruit comes from our understanding of evolution. If it wasn't for these scientific principles of which scientists have a firm and well researched understanding, things like this simply wouldn't be possible.

Certainly my terminologies aren't that far off and can be easily understood by anyone.

Err, yes they are a LONG way off actually. Understood by you apparently, but unfortunately they are ill-informed, inaccurate and based on fallacy.

From my understanding, I would most certainly say that the atom is very much alive.

Then you quite clearly have no understanding of the matter.

The apple in your front yard, decomposing, is evolution at it's finest.

Err, no. And neither are you robert... on the contrary, I worry that people who think like you with such closed and narrow minds could be the very evidence that goes against the theory of evolution itself... now there's a paradox if ever there was one! ;-)


(Edited by Atomicus 3/5/2009 at 10:33 AM).
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 10:31 AM on March 5, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

Atomicus
Err, maybe YOU have pondered this for years, but most people know that it was the egg, obviously. Genetic material does not change during an animal's life, therefore the first bird that evolved into what we would call a chicken, probably in prehistoric times, must have first existed as an embryo inside an egg.
An egg of what?

Not a chicken egg, obviously.

And if we're not talking about chicken eggs, then what you say is obvious for more reasons than the ones you give. The egg came first because dinosaurs, reptiles and fish were laying eggs long before the chickens.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:42 AM on March 5, 2009 | IP
Atomicus

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 11:42 AM on March 5, 2009 :
Atomicus
Err, maybe YOU have pondered this for years, but most people know that it was the egg, obviously. Genetic material does not change during an animal's life, therefore the first bird that evolved into what we would call a chicken, probably in prehistoric times, must have first existed as an embryo inside an egg.
An egg of what?

Not a chicken egg, obviously.

And if we're not talking about chicken eggs, then what you say is obvious for more reasons than the ones you give. The egg came first because dinosaurs, reptiles and fish were laying eggs long before the chickens.


The "chicken and egg" scenario is a saying... I didn't mean it literally. And yes, ofcourse, you're right in what you say. I was just simplifying for robert's benefit, addressing his ill informed statement.


 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 9:41 PM on March 5, 2009 | IP
robert71

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You guys are really funny, and both very silly to say the least! Your statements and explainations of evolution aren't any better then mine! There was no egg or no chicken in the begining, it was the raw elemates and energy that created everything and it evolved over time into many things including your dino embryo with help from good old water and all the elemates found there in.

There's a big difference in talking about vegitation and an actual animal of some sort. It's a bit more complex then a tree or plant. The genetics and cell formations of animals, humans are far more beyond that of any plant or seed, tree... Guys, come on now!

Yes, genectic materials of animals can in fact change! If not explain mutations? Now who's ill informed about the basics?

Mutations are a genetic change, they take place in both animal and vegitations! Look up the deff. Certainly you guys are both in some some good points but I don't agree with it all.

Yes, I know what evolution is, obviouly it's taking place right here on this message board! Ignorance is turning it into a great big mess!

Yes, I certainly do ponder over a lot of things. You don't?





(Edited by robert71 3/6/2009 at 9:43 PM).

(Edited by robert71 3/6/2009 at 10:02 PM).

(Edited by admin 3/6/2009 at 10:12 PM).
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 9:39 PM on March 6, 2009 | IP
Atomicus

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from robert71 at 9:39 PM on March 6, 2009 :
You guys are really funny, and both very silly to say the least! Your statements and explainations of evolution aren't any better then mine![/b]

Yes, they are. And they're not just 'statements'. They are solid scientific theories backed up by over 100 years of PROPER scientific research and a HUGE wealth of evidence that has been analysed (and agreed with) by some of the finest minds of ours and previous generations. Unfortunately, you cannot say the same about your 'beliefs', which are so called because they don't even qualify as 'theories'!

There was no egg or no chicken in the begining, it was the raw elemates and energy that created everything and it EVOLVED over time into many things including your dino embryo with help from good old water and all the elemates found there in.

Hang on, you're AGREEING with evolution now?

Yes, genectic materials of animals can in fact change! If not explain mutations? Now who's ill informed about the basics?

They key words you missed were "within their own lifetime."

Yes, I certainly do ponder over a lot of things. You don't?

No, I don't ponder over things I KNOW to be true. That would be silly.

(Edited by Atomicus 3/7/2009 at 08:09 AM).
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 08:04 AM on March 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

He's not a creationist.
Just a random talker.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:13 AM on March 7, 2009 | IP
robert71

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I believe in evolution guys! Everything had to start with something, however it sure as hell wasn't the egg! I'm thinking the water and minerals found there in. Scientists have already stated that all life is carbon built! So argue it?

Likewise, everything that I stated in previous posts is scientific fact as well! So what's your point?

Read about the atoms and cell developments, how they start, form, why they shape in certain patterns, how each one is changing and or can change in certain situations, that's evolution.

Yes, your points are strong and perhaps true, but like my points... they're scientific fact, and study that has been proven already by people with fare more brain power then you or I ever thought of having.

I never once said that I didn't believe in evolution, actually to me it's the only thing that really makes sense, with all of the evidence being unearthed each day.

Our debating about how it all come about is totally mute! We neither one know how life dawned upon this planet, everything that we both have stated is all some kind of science of some sort.

My argument was about the apple in the yard! how it evolves into something totally knew over time, as it decomposes, how it changes into something new.

So, I would most certainly say that we both have a strong understanding of evolution, to sum up the situation, we neither one really know nothing as to how it all actually began. We're both rammbling on about science that others have proven.
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 11:20 AM on March 7, 2009 | IP
robert71

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And you still didn't explain mutation! Isn't that genetical change in a living organizm?

You stated that an animal's genetics couldn't change during it's life cycle, then why do some die with disease. Isn't every disease cell related? Yes it is, so, it would be a genetical change that can and could effect animals, humans, and all plants within their cycle of life, causing some kind of pathological symptoms, as well as reconizable disordered abnormalities.

So, knowing this, it's cells had to evolve over a period of time within that certain life form to bring it to it's final stage of evolutionary development, change or destruction.

That too explains that apple! It's developmental destruction> or it's decomposition < enabled it to become something else.
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 11:42 AM on March 7, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
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.