[X] My Assistant

[ninjacookie]

Like I said, I'm okay with admitting I don't know where life came from. But I've seen proof of evolution therefor I believe it to some degree.

Also, you are right, the bible was inspired. Just like how some movies are inspired by true events. It doesn't mean everything in it is what really happened.

And yes, anything could be a lie. That is why it is important to keep your eyes open. Don't blindly assume what someone tells you is true and don't let your emotions cloud you from the truth.

[Cassowary]

I don't believe in Evolution because it is stupid to think we came from a rock.

Anyways... *sobs* And I'm actually genetically related to... things like you?

This post has been edited by RheaDark: May 26 2009, 07:00 PM

[Eric Smith]

I don't believe in Evolution because it is stupid to think we came from a rock.

Anyways... *sobs* And I'm actually genetically related to... things like you?

I LOL'd at that.

However, according to Evolution, we came from primordial soup with came to be from rain on rocks.

[Cassowary]

But we didn't come from rocks themselves. It was a more complex occurence then just the "poof, life" thing you seem to think evolution is like.

I know that the current theory is that we came from some sort of premordial soup. What of it? So what if we came from what nowadays we'd probably describe as "pond scum"?

It's a heck of a lot better than being poofed into existence by some supernatural entity that'll send me to hell when I die because i don't believe in it.

[yupui]

I don't believe in Evolution because it is stupid to think we came from a rock.

Anyways... *sobs* And I'm actually genetically related to... things like you?

I LOL'd at that.

However, according to Evolution, we came from primordial soup with came to be from rain on rocks.

amino acids != rocks, no matter how you slice it

[Sarge]

It doesn't mean no morality, it means bad morality.

Teach someone they are an ape and they will act like one.

Have you heard of the recent scandal of the Irish Catholic Church? The Catholic Church downplays the evils of child abuse. I'm so glad these people are acting like human beings and not like apes!

At any rate, I'm quite proud to be a member of the primate family and do my best to uphold the dignity of this branch, unlike certain members of my species. I'm also very proud of the fact that I am in some way related to all living creatures on this wonderful, beautiful planet.

Really? Like the Piltdown Man? The one that was proved to be a hoax?

Evolution teaches that all life came to be by evolving. That means it has to really on 'Survival of the Fittest'.
That means something has to die out.
Evolution is a religion of death. It has very little to do with life.

1. Piltdown Man was debunked decades ago. Science is revised all the time. Piltdown Man does not disprove evolution, because we have dozens of other REAL fossils that confirm this theory, the latest of which is Ida, although she is probably not part of our line.

2. Evolution does not "teach" us anything about morality. Morality comes from YOU, from YOUR choices about what YOU believe is acceptable and what isn't. Also, evolution is not a "religion," and whoever says it is probably doesn't know very much about what makes a religion and what makes a scientific theory. Are you going to call astronomy a religion, too? How about physics? Is all of biology a religion?

Calling evoultion a religion is as stupid as calling intellegent design a science. Allow me to define the scientific method for you:

Science seeks natural causes and explanations for existing observations. It is conducted following the defined steps of scientific inquiry:
1. Asking a defined question based on observation or researching relevent literature.
2. Proposing a possible answer or explination (hypothesis).
3. Formulating a prediction addressing one experimental variable.
4. Designing a controlled experiment to test the selected variable.
5. Conducting the experiment and collecting the results (data).
6. Analyzing the results.
7. Drawing a logical conclusion as to whether the results support the prediction and hypothesis.

Taken straight from my biology text book. The next two steps are revision and peer review, but those are not listed here. Please, PLEASE point out to me in what way the scientific method relates to religion. Please.

I am certain God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary.
This world could not have happened by chance.

Have you ever studied evolution unbiasedly? I'm an agnostic athiest, meaning that I do not believe any gods exist at this time, but if I were presented evidence that god(s) do(es) exist, well, then I'd be a believer. I've been to church, I've read the bible (to be honest, not all of it), and I've read many articles on creation websites and watched their videos, and nothing they have said has convinced me. I've put my "faith" in evoultion on the line. Have you put your faith in god on the line?

If you are a true believer, then check out books on evolution at the library. Watch videos and documentaries on evolution. Take the steps to understand what evolution really means, how scientists think it occurs, why they think it occurs, and look at the evidence. Do not expect us to present you with the evidence you desire. We can give you the basics, we can explain what WE know, but we are not scientists.

If you truely believe evoultion is impossible, then test your faith. I dare you.

This post has been edited by Sarge: May 27 2009, 07:55 PM

[Eric Smith]

@ ^
There is corruption every where.
Even Christian can be corrupt.

Besides, a TRUE Christian wouldn't do that.

And, I was an evolutionist. I put my faith in evolution on the line and it was destroyed.

Black Holes are fascinating. Does anyone here want to put their 2¢ on that.
Because I want to hear what you know about them. (not attacking you over this)
Considering that that can be used to 'prove' evolution.

Evolution and Creation are THEORIES. No one can prove them.
Why are we at each others throat over the origin of everything???

EDIT: When you create the Big Bang, please let me know.
I would love to watch one. (no joke)

This post has been edited by Grovyle: May 27 2009, 08:32 PM

[King Calamity]

@ ^
There is corruption every where.
Even Christian can be corrupt.

Besides, a TRUE Christian wouldn't do that.

And, I was an evolutionist. I put my faith in evolution on the line and it was destroyed.

Black Holes are fascinating. Does anyone here want to put their 2¢ on that.
Because I want to hear what you know about them. (not attacking you over this)
Considering that that can be used to 'prove' evolution.

Evolution and Creation are THEORIES. No one can prove them.
Why are we at each others throat over the origin of everything???

EDIT: When you create the Big Bang, please let me know.
I would love to watch one. (no joke)

big bangs happen all the time.
maybe not BIG bangs, like the one that supposedly created the universe, but im talking about when stars explode and collapse on themselves, which results in the creation of a new planet.

[Sarge]

Yay! He's back! ^_____^

@ ^
There is corruption every where.
Even Christian can be corrupt.

Besides, a TRUE Christian wouldn't do that.

And, I was an evolutionist. I put my faith in evolution on the line and it was destroyed.

Black Holes are fascinating. Does anyone here want to put their 2¢ on that.
Because I want to hear what you know about them. (not attacking you over this)
Considering that that can be used to 'prove' evolution.

Evolution and Creation are THEORIES. No one can prove them.
Why are we at each others throat over the origin of everything???

Tru dat. Even I believe a true Christan (or Catholic) wouldn't do that. Guess there aren't a lot of those around...

How much did you know about evolution? Did you do the research? I've taken two AP bio classes and just finished a college course in bio 101, and I find Eric Hovid's arguements totally irrational and devoid of any knowelege of how science works, particularly biology.

And, um, no. Nobody uses black holes to prove biological evolution. Nobody. Because they don't. Eric Hovid told you that, right? Yeah, you shouldn't listen to him.

If you want proof if biological evoultion, you should look into transistional fossils (NOT missing links), DNA and genetic evidence, the similarity of embryos of different species, homologus structures, and basicly anything having to do with taxonomy. Astromny has NOTHING to do with biological evoultion. What you're talking about is stellar evoultion, which is completely different and which I do not know enough to debate about. These are completely different concepts.

Well, no one can prove evoultion definitively, this is true. The only way for a theory to become a law is through mathmatics. However, a theory is still the second highest teir in science. It's pretty damn solid! I find it a much better explination for things being the way they are than God did it.

Hey, wanna talk about irreducable complexity??

Oh, dude! We totally have proof of the big bang. Check it out!!

This post has been edited by Sarge: May 27 2009, 08:44 PM

[Eric Smith]

Oh, my school blocked this site AND the power there dropped. (stupid T-Storm)
btw has anyone here felt thunder coming? weird feeling it is.

And black holes and evolution of the universe is what I meant.

... wow... radiation proves the big bang. interesting...
That means I can prove that someone walked into my room by bathing it with x-ray before they do. *evil laugh*

[Sarge]

Oh, my school blocked this site AND the power there dropped. (stupid T-Storm)
btw has anyone here felt thunder coming? weird feeling it is.

And black holes and evolution of the universe is what I meant.

... wow... radiation proves the big bang. interesting...
That means I can prove that someone walked into my room by bathing it with x-ray before they do. *evil laugh*

Well, the evoultion of the universe has nothing to do with the evolution of biological life forms. There are lots of different definitions of evoultion.

Speaking of different definitions, did you know that the passage in which Jesus walked on water may have been mistranslated? The origional Hebrew word could also be translated as "by." Jesus walked on the water. Jesus walked by the water. Wonder which one it is...

And, um, that would probably kill you. There's a reason you wear lead when you go to get x-rayed. They're saying that the explosion EMITTED radiation which should not be there if the big bang did not occur. The radiation came from the big bang; it is there BECAUSE of the big bang.

[Eric Smith]

I didn't mean like from a microwave. I meant in VERY small amounts. (x-rays)

I don't know how anyone can be outside of a boat in the middle of a lake and still walk by the water.

In the 1700's many scientists believed that life spontaneously generated from non-living matter (such as raw meat or sewage). In the 1800's, using careful experimentation, Louis Pasteur proved this concept wrong and verified that life only comes from previously existing life. Ironically, many scientists have once again returned to the belief that life came from non-life...in spite of the fact that there is no experimental evidence to show how that could have happened. The reason this unsupported belief has returned is that science has been defined as to eliminate the consideration of the only other alternative-the creation of life by an intelligent designer.

Even the simplest living cell is an incredibly complex machine. It must be capable of detecting malfunctions, repairing itself, and making copies of itself. Man has never succeeded in building a machine capable of these same functions. Yet most scientists accept the belief that life arose from non-life (in spite of the evidence clearly indicating that it did not and could not happen). This incredible belief is as absurd as finding a complex chemical manufacturing facility on Mars and assuming that it built itself.

One classic experiment which is used to support the belief that life "built itself" is an experiment by Stanley Miller in 1953. In this experiment sparks were discharged into an apparatus which was circulating common gases. These gases reacted to form various organic products which were collected and analyzed. The experiment succeeded in producing only a few of the 20 amino acids required by itself. Furthermore, the dozens of major problems with this experiment as an explanation for the formation of life are seldom reported.

For instance, our early atmosphere was assumed to have no oxygen because this would stop amino acid formation. However, with no oxygen, there would be no ozone shield. With no ozone shield, life would also be impossible. Furthermore, oxidized rocks throughout the geologic record indicate that oxygen has always been present.

In addition to this, the same gases which can react to form amino acids undergo known reactions in the presence of sunlight which remove them from the atmosphere. The required gases would not have been around long enough for life to have developed! In addition, a cold trap was used to keep the reaction products from being destroyed as fast as they formed.

The biggest problem is that the amino acids formed in this experiment are always a 50/50 mixture of stereotypes (L and D forms). Stereotypes are like a drawer full of right-hand and left-hand gloves, identical in every way except a mirror image of each other. Life contains only L stereotypes of these randomly produced amino acids. Yet equal proportions of both types are always produced. How could the first cell have selected only L stereotypes from a random, equally reactive mixture? No answer to this has ever been found.

These are just a few of the problems with the fanciful idea that life generated itself. The linking of these randomly produced amino acids into the required proteins is an even more overwhelming impossibility. No experiment has ever shown that matter has the ability to come alive. The best explanation for life is still that "life only comes from pre-existing life". As you search for truth, perhaps you should consider the possibility that the source of all life... is GOD.
By Bruce Malone

[Cassowary]

The fact that you suggested introducing even a small amount of radiation to your room make me think you should retake your science classes... maybe in a different school too, if all they've taught you is... what you know.

[Sarge]

Well now you've completely lost me.

Anyway, the point of this thread is that evoultion does not lead to immorality, and I aim to prove that a belief in god does is not neccessary for morality either.

Just blew your freakin mind!!

Forgive my obnoxiousness. I haven't taken my meds today and debate makes me hyper. XD

[Eric Smith]

... 0.o
Wow... I knew that.

I think evolution CAN lead to immorality. Like the Columbine Shooting. Those kids were Evolutionists. And did the shooting in the name of evolution.
Why else would they write a letter about taking some black kids chin because 'he doesn't deserve the chin evolution gave him' ?

[Cassowary]

... what?

Anyway, just coming in to post this: http://i42.tinypic.com/2n6dcmt.jpg

[Sarge]

... 0.o
Wow... I knew that.

I think evolution CAN lead to immorality. Like the Columbine Shooting. Those kids were Evolutionists. And did the shooting in the name of evolution.
Why else would they write a letter about taking some black kids chin because 'he doesn't deserve the chin evolution gave him' ?

Because he's a racist douche bag? No duh?

The kid was disturbed. There are pleanty of people who have used god as validation for killing. What about that woman who drowned her children in her bathtub because she thought god was telling her to do it? By your logic, this means that religion can lead to immorality to, and if you look at all the motives for commiting murder and genocide I think you'd find that religion leads the pack far more often than does evoultion.

[Cassowary]

Religion says slavery is okay.

^^ Imma gonna rope me a black guy! *Shot*

But seriously, basing morals off religion is bad. Basing it off a defined set of logically constructed ethics? Better.

[Sarge]

Religion says slavery is okay.

^^ Imma gonna rope me a black guy! *Shot*

But seriously, basing morals off religion is bad. Basing it off a defined set of logically constructed ethics? Better.

Morality can not be based off logic alone. We human beings do have moral compases. The best way for us to be moral and ethical beings is for us to combine our natural ability to feel compassion for others with our ability to use logical thinking.

Not that I have anything against the Vulcans.

[Eric Smith]

^ he put it better than I can. =3

Show me where the Bible allows slavery? Cause I don't believe you.
And don't cut of the next sentence if it shows that slavery is wrong.