A few questions for evolutionsist

Tenchiro · Aug 3, 2003

One more question, if God did create everything, then where did God come from?

brenth · Aug 3, 2003

well, honestly I have no idea how to answer most if not all of those questions (except #34. Who is the most badass monkey around? and the answer of would be me.

)

But the question that you asked, should evolution be taught as fact. I would have to say no. Just like Creationism shouldn't be taught as fact.

http://www.evcforum.net/

Tenchiro · Aug 3, 2003

I guess it is better to teach a theory that may be untrue then to just tell kids "Well, Johnny that's just the way things are." This way it at least teaches kids to think a little. They just need to specify what 'theory' means exactly and to present the material as such.

Tenchiro · Aug 3, 2003

Originally posted by manimal
i agree with you a bit...but, ever watch discovery,pbs.....they refer to history and evolution as fact not as theory so kids are being force fed this info without any offer of alternative theories. why can't creationism be taught as an option? at least brushed over as an idea, no specific religion involved, just the IDEA that perhaps we were CREATED. when you look at all the FACTS, it's actually much easier to believe that someone/thing created us than to believe that we just randomly occured.

I have seen alot of shows on many different religions throughout history, mainly on TLC. Actually I think they have covered just about all of them at one time or another. Most of them are mainly about the history but they do cover belief systems also.

I think that covering both sides of the subject in school is not a bad idea either. As long as both sides of the fence were covered equally and fairly. But seing as there are many religions out there that have different theories about the subject, this might be difficult.

Being as there are just as many short sighted atheists as there are religious types, I don't see this as something that will ever happen. If it really came down to it, most school systems would just drop the theory of evolution from their curriculums.

brenth · Aug 3, 2003

Originally posted by Tenchiro
If it really came down to it, most school systems would just drop the theory of evolution from their curriculums.

Lets face it, your correct, neither side is ever going to compromise this issue.

So lets say it came down to there being no "how things came to be" theories being taught in schools. How much do you think this would matter? what would teachers say when asked?

Silver · Aug 3, 2003

What's wrong with saying, "We're not sure. We're working on it, and here is the best theory we have. As we do more research and acquire more evidence, we'll retool the theory so that it makes sense, or discard it if the evidence is such that the theory does not work anymore."

Take the dogmatism right out of it. Of course, then you'd have creation scientists (the same ones who claim that the earth is 6,000 years old and that fossils were put there by God to test our faith) clamoring for equal time, which is not something I really want to see happen.

MMike · Aug 3, 2003

Creationism is just plain stupid.

(And I have no intention whatsoever of formulating some sort of intelligent argument. So all you religious zealots who had planned on bashing me for "posting such nonsense and not adding anything of value to this thread"......can just cram it. I am merely just stating a fact. So cram it.)

ummbikes · Aug 3, 2003

Really other than the fact it is fun to argue, what possible outcome could come from this?

Is Manimal going to suddenly renounce his beliefs?

Are evolution believers going to suddenly believe in creationism.

All I truly know is my Bible and my Biology textbook have different versions of how we got here.

Darwin's theory does nothing for what we can observe in biology. Cells still replicate in the same way, people, critters and plants still do their thing wether or not you believe in the Biblical version or sciences version.

If, probably when, a better scientific theory arrives all biological matter will still be the exact same.

(Digression- If I recall this correctly Darwin did his stuff around the 1850's right? So for a long time creationism had reign in this issue. So for a 150 or so years evolution has been around and it's time will end too.)

Regardless I enjoy watching the trainwreck these debates turn into
:devil:

ummbikes · Aug 3, 2003

Originally posted by manimal
but like i said before....prove just ONE theory withing evolution as FACT and i'll shut up about teaching it to our kids.

I hear that. I think the issue should be left out.

I found that I could get an A in Biology 101 and 102 and not buy into the evolution theory. Biology works regardless of how we think we got here.

Even in my college biology classes it was about seven pages in a four hundred page book.

My brats will probably end up in a Christian school anyways and by the time they get to college it's up to them to figure it out.

Tenchiro · Aug 3, 2003

Originally posted by manimal
it's easier to believe that buzz lightyear found earth and populated it than to believe evolution.

Hence the reason religion is so popular, it's easier.

Tenchiro · Aug 3, 2003

Originally posted by manimal
easier....and actually has historical fact behind it. there will always be the element of FAITH involved with "religion" but at least the existence of the people/places/things can/has been verified...that's more than evolution can claim.

The people in the bible were probably real people, there is lots of evidence to support that fact. But so are Jim Jones, David Koresh, L Ron Hubbard, the Reverend Moon, etc.

Maybe in 2000 years, Marshall Applewhite will be considered a messiah...

Sideways · Aug 3, 2003

Questions concerning the universe can only be answered (with any form of validity) in terms of what can be witnessed through human's 5 weak senses.
Use of these 5 weak senses in a non subjective manner to answer questions is science.
Any question that can not be answered by science, can not yet be answered by humans.

To say you have the answer, is to say you are full of sh1t.

Toshi · Aug 3, 2003

Originally posted by manimal
Sorry, this may be a bit long...but try to SCIENTIFICALLY answer any of these questions and then answer this: Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?

evolution and science don't claim to have all the right answers. but what it does claim is that the answers that they have are based in experimental evidence and sound logical deduction. _this_ is what separates it from religion, which claims to provide all the answers, but shrouds its methods such that one must accept them blindly.

Originally posted by manimal
HAPPY HUNTING!! (ohio...i know you'll enjoy the research on this one )

how about you provide answers to the best of your knowledge, too, while we're at it? ah, that's what i thought. but i have some time, so here's my stab at it:

Originally posted by manimal
Where did the space for the universe come from?

no one knows this. in fact, it may be beyond our capabilities to ever see this, since we are contained within the system of the universe. thus, science cannot provide an answer. can religion provide one that is any better? the answer to this question is no as well, but if it makes _you_ feel better...

Originally posted by manimal
Where did matter come from?

it is clear how the elements were derived from each other through fusion -- this is still what goes on in stars to this date, and any introductory general chem class should cover this. however, as stated above, no one knows what came before the big bang, or what else there was then, etc. perhaps speculation on why we are here is the proper realm of religion and theology, rather than dabbling in pseudo-science? hmm.

Originally posted by manimal
Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

they arise from the properties of the materials themselves, and how they interact. so the question for the theologist becomes, "for what purpose are these materials how they are?" the answer to that question, which we do not know, in no way has any bearing on the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by manimal
How did matter get so perfectly organized?

i would hardly characterize the universe as being perfectly organized. no one has refuted the second law of thermodynamics to my knowledge, and most of space is empty, with what remains in a highly disordered state. what is your question supposed to mean with this in mind?

Originally posted by manimal
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

see above. disorder increases. initial order came from the starting conditions of the big bang, entropy as a whole has increased since then. note that entropy increasing is for a SYSTEM -- individual components within this system may become more ordered, but rest assured that entropy increases equally if not more elsewhere in that system. found a counterexample to this? prove it and you will be famous. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by manimal
When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

why we don't know. when is answered quite well here: http://www.cas.muohio.edu/~mbi-ws/changethrutime/howdidlifearise.htm . as is how. probably the first steps towards life came when the first self-catalytic enzymes came about through chance. if you are interested, again, take some classes: introductory biology should cover this, my class certainly did.

Originally posted by manimal
When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

for this one, i know why: a self-catalytic enzyme will catalyze itself, as its name so subtly suggests. thus it perpetuates itself, even though it may be just a string of amino acids. soon a cell membrane was formed by chance around one of these systems -- phospholipids form double layered membranes quite readily on their own in water since they want to shelter their inner hydrophobic side from the water, and we have the precursor of a single celled organism, still with this self-catalytic ability. imagine a variety of these self-catalyzing bundles of nucleic acid. now suppose some of them can catalyze their own reactions better using the product of another "cell" as a substrate. if, by chance, the cell membrane of the first engulfed the second, then the unit as a whole would be more successful in reproducing. repeat this ad infinitum with competitive pressure and we have prokaryotes. the path to eukaryotes is quite clear, look up endosymbiosis if you're really interested. which you're not, which is why you're posting this thread. perhaps this will be read by someone else.

Originally posted by manimal
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

ah, sexual reproduction. i am unable to answer this one off the top of my head, so i point you to: http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~redfield/research/RJR-res.html . look halfway down.

Originally posted by manimal
Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

some organisms indeed regulate their reproduction. others, like viruses (cue the interrogation scene from "the matrix") don't. what's your point? the propogation of genetic material, the ultimate goal, is achieved in either end.

Originally posted by manimal
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

this should be quite apparent. mutations affect what genes are transcribed. this effect cascades down through proteins, cells, and manifests itself in different physical and behavioral characteristics. what's the question here?

Toshi · Aug 3, 2003

Originally posted by manimal
Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

it is possible, but not plausible. one can always take the view that "the great deceiver" planted this whole universe for us to find in its current condition. but given that we cannot ultimately know, science provides the most plausible explanation, rather than the sollipsist view that the world is merely a great hoax.

Originally posted by manimal
Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

er, no, natural selection doesn't only lead to stability in a species. you could have two divergent phenotypes for a given species, both of them successful for different reasons (like one is a good swimmer, the other has high body fat so live comfortably in cold climates). or the environment might change, leading to a different phenotype being preferable. that first statement is just wrong. the second appears to be unrelated, and see my explanation of the second law of thermodynamics above. also, note that recombination can include insertions of extra genes too, it's not just reshuffling as the horrible english words != chinese analogy would suggest.

Originally posted by manimal
When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)

http://www.cas.muohio.edu/~mbi-ws/changethrutime/howdidlifearise.htm

there exist organisms now, can act as individual single celled organisms, or, upon starvation, as a "slug" of multiple cells that can break back up to individual cells when fed, or a plant of multiple cells that can't be divided.

http://www.cs.cuc.edu/~tfutcher/Slimemolds.html

Originally posted by manimal
Single-celled animals evolve?
Fish change to amphibians?
Amphibians change to reptiles?
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)

http://bhs.deanza.edu/faculty/kSullivan/timeline.html

Originally posted by manimal
How did the intermediate forms live?

be specific. and note that if you acknowledge intermediate forms, you're just about acknowledging evolution's validity. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by manimal
When, where, why, how, and from what did: [bunch of examples deleted.]

read a book if you're interested, i suggest anything by steven j. gould :rolleyes:

Originally posted by manimal
There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

really. show me one.

Originally posted by manimal
How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

plants mimic what? the wording begs the question and doesn't make sense to boot.

Originally posted by manimal
When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

one explanation: we survive better as a group. feelings give us empathy. with empathy we act as a group.

Originally posted by manimal
*How did photosynthesis evolve?

endosymbiosis of chloroplast precursors, much as aerobic eukaryotes arose through endosymbiosis of mitochondria.

Originally posted by manimal
*How did thought evolve?

that's a heavy question. i suggest you ask your minister. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by manimal
*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?

er, non flowering plants? where's the question in this?

Originally posted by manimal
*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

what are these other kinds?

Originally posted by manimal
What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

that's nice, have a cookie. as this page asks, "why all the fuss?" http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html

Originally posted by manimal
*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

evolution does not _predict_. this question makes no sense.

Originally posted by manimal
*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?

what?

Originally posted by manimal
*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

no. but i do believe that we evolved from simpler beings, and that lineage extends all the way back to a soup of nucleic acids. if that's "nothing", then so be it.

Tenchiro · Aug 3, 2003

Nobody here can prove the origin of the universe or even just human life, we all know this. If anyone here can, they are seriously wasting their time on this board. :monkey:

But don't kid yourself, creationism is just as silly as saying we all evolved from a puddle of goo or whatever. Just because the bible says something does not make it true, and just saying that god made everything leaves a hell of alot of questions unanswered. Not the least of which is "Where did god come from then?".

Even if someone came out tomorrow and systematically proved how all matter in the universe came to be and how all life was created, there would still be religious types denouncing all of his data. The same way that if god parted the heavens and gave a press conference, there would still be people doing their damndest to prove him a him a liar.

Believe what you want, there is no right or wrong answer at this point.

johnbryanpeters · Aug 3, 2003

Manimal,

exactly what do you think the words "scientifically and factually answered" mean?

Science is a method. Make a model, a way of describing some portion of the universe. Use the model to make a prediction of how that portion of the universe will behave under some set of circumstances. Compare the results in the real world to the predictions of the model. Improve the model based on the way the real world behaves. Repeat until you die and the next generation takes over.

Evolution is a theory, and is a model that has proven useful to do practical things. It ain't perfect, no model is, and any model can be misused.

Boyle's "Law", PV = nRT, works only at pressures near a vacuum, so it's useless for predicting when the SCUBA tank in your trunk will explode if you leave the car in the sun. The fact that the law has a limited set of conditions in which it works does not make it unuseful.

Such creation "science" as I have seen has been a bunch of propagandistic hooey. The only argument for teaching it in a school would be to teach the kids how to recognize bullsh1t.

I have no doubt that you managed to drive your instructors around the bend - I sincerely hope that you did not manage to destroy the learning experience in your classes for those who actually were there to gain something.

I think that if you were to behave the same way in, say, a police academy, you'd be out on your ear pretty quick, yes?

J

Toshi · Aug 3, 2003

Originally posted by manimal
Why toshi...does every single one of your responses revolve around "chance"? "chance" does not equate to FACT and every micro-theory within evolution still relies on speculation with no hard evidence; and no, any entry level biology class does not prove this, once again, it is only speculation.

"probably the first steps towards life came when the first self-catalytic enzymes came about through chance. if you are interested, again, take some classes: introductory biology should cover this, my class certainly did."

PROBABLY,CHANCE....i have taken classes, none of them have scientifically and factually answered any of my questions, not even the professors could give a "proven" answer.

whatever. i'm bowing out. if you think that accepting evolution is as much as a leap of faith as believing in creationism, then good for you. i hope it helps you sleep better at night. as i wrote above, i didn't whip off that post to convince you. i just hope that someone else read it, someone with less of an agenda.

ALEXIS_DH · Aug 3, 2003

Originally posted by manimal
I agree, i'll probably put them in private school through elementary, long enough to teach them to always question the textbooks and "do their homework", then set them out to public high school and see what they've learned. i always had fun making my pro-evolution anatomy teacher look like an idiot in class....he could never answer any of my questions but i could always FACTUALLY answer his......i think he absolutely hated me

hmmm, repeating a bible verse or some theological idea is no exactly the FACTUALLY answering.

maybe he got pissed off because u were so obnoxious. i bet there is nothing you know about science or biology or anything, that most science majors dont already know.

ohio · Aug 3, 2003

You realize that the first five questions have nothing to do with evolution, right? And that evolution is not mutually exclusive with the existence of God...

As for the rest of the questions, modern evolutionary theory (interestingly, it has EVOLVED quite a bit since darwin forst threw down his business) answers all of them quite handily. I suggest you come up with something tougher.

ALEXIS_DH · Aug 3, 2003

Originally posted by manimal
that question is irrelevant to the matter. i'm not saying that creationism should be taught as the only theory, i'm simply showing that evolution cannot even answer the most basic questions of how life began, but yet it is being taught as fact in our schools. the religion of evolution requires more faith to believe than any other "theory" out there and it is taught as fact simply because of a lack of something more solid. it has not been proven and never will be proven. i can go on and on spouting FACTS that disprove the evolutionary THEORY but i'll take those on a one-on-one basis. asking "where does God come from" is just a redirection from the original question posed...i have no idea where God came from and it doesn't matter, prove any one of the flaws in evolution to be fact and i'll do my best to answer your question.

well, your questions are long and not few. i'll take the first one about how space come from nothing.

uh, about space, thats a hard question. i was talking with a rabbi about the topic his friday. seems that only fundamentalists have a problem with evolution, not because it doesnt make sense, but because they believe it goes against their literal and fundamentalistic point of view. thats the main problem of evolution, not itself, but people believing it contradicts their why of life.

then again, u have to realize first, that science tells you the hows, but not the whys, because whys are more of a phylosophical, or ultimately theological, question that reflects only your own perspective on the matter.

science will only and always tell you the hows, as its a model for natural events. now if you want to know whys, since there is no fixed point of reference here, u can make up your one own.

thats were phylosophical or theological idea came to existance. each of them tell you a why to live your life. now fanatism makes doesnt realize this, and just puts everything under the same roof, and obviously, they cannot coexist like that. because they aim to answer different things.

well, going back to the space, energy stuff appearing from nothing.

first, nothingness cannot exist, because if something is nothing, then nothing is already something, then being a self-refutable concept. i take this idea from buddhism, kinda like the one hand clap or the zero radius sphere.

but well, lets say u have nothingness, but as i said before nothingness cannot exist. even in this nothing (which actually is not nothing, because u are already givin a name to it) there are some particles that will appear randomly and dissapear.

u ask, how all this came to existance. well, there are a lot of particles we can see in the universe. well in quantum physics, particles are created randomly (this without violation of newtons 1st law), in pairs of particles or antiparticles

sound weird? yeah, it is, but its true. even when u have this nothing thing, there are some particles that will random appear and disappear, out of literally nothing. are they real? are they science? or just some "creation scientific-alike thing"?

well they are quite real, they happen all the time, and are as common as sunrises in quantum physics.

their name is quantum vacuum fluctuations, whose time of existance and total energy has been already meassured and quantified. and even though they randomly appear and dissappear, they dont violate newtons 1st law, because their time of existance and energy are allowed by eisenberg uncertainty principles.

their time of existance is inversely proportional to the energy they seem to have. actually defined in 1930 by Paul Dirac as

delta(energy)*delta(time)=(roughly)h (plancks constant)

and a effect of this, would be the casimir effect which has been validated at University of California in 1998 within an statistical 1% of error, and some other experiment was made in Yale in 1993, which also matched the predictions.

if the energy in the universe is about what we can see now, then a quantum vacuum fluctuation of the size of the universe would have lasted something like 1exp(-42) secs. dont take this number, i dont remember the actual exponent, but it was quite big. hmm, seems the universe is much older than that.

but then

still how you got the energy for those quantum vacuum fluctuations that gave birth to the universe??? the answer is maybe the total energy of the universe is ZERO. it would totally make sense.
now, how come the universe have energy 0???
well, thing about it this way, The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter.

So the total energy of the universe is zero. does that make sense? yeah a lot. it would really explain the how if the big bang and blablabla.

but now, we get to the same point were i started. we may know the how, but WHY?? why are there this quantum vacuum fluctuations??? well, i dunno, u can tell any why u want, and it may be right to you, but that doesnt mean they are universal.
your phylosophy or religion can tell you the whys of this, sicence will never, because its not its matter.

if you feel that the why of this, is because there is a higher being who wants you to do whatever, then go ahead, your problem.
if u want to believe the why is to give you the chance to quest the nirvana, go ahead again.

dont confuse WHY and HOW.

if we teach children this in school, we are teaching the hows of the universe, as how we got here, how mass moves with given acceleration, how mass curves its path in gravity....

it this wrong?? definately no, we already know that a literal account of the bible, hinduism, islam, or whatever fundamentalist wing wants to give you is NOT THE HOW OF THE UNIVERSE.

take the genesis, its impossible, as we know the universe that it came up like that. i mean, and once proven false, then its false until the proof of its falacy is proven false. that doesnt happen yet with science.

this fanatics are extending their WHYS to the HOWS, just to make their beliefs absolute, as fundamentalist they are they need the assertion of thei system of believe as and absolute why. and there is where they are mistaken, WHY is a matter of personal choise.

whether this is the HOW of universe, thats out of question. no serious thinking circle questions it. but if you want to extend your whys of life, to the hows of science, then u are dead wrong!!!!.

there is no hocus pocus in what i just said, those are regular parts on the syllabus of a graduate physics class, or some advanced undergrad class. as weird as they may sound, they are as true to us now, as f=ma.

Alexis

ALEXIS_DH · Aug 3, 2003

Originally posted by manimal
Oh wonderful...the everknowing alexis dh has arrived, gonna start spouting off about subjects you know nothing about again? ie. military. hey wait a minute....weren't you saying the soldiers were idiots for blindly following their leaders into battle?...but yet you simply believe everything that your biology teacher "already knows"? hmmm...
anyway...back to the topic.

when, exactly, did i quote or mention anything about the bible? i'm simply exploring both sides of attempting to explain our existence. spouting bible verses has nothing to do with this, just pure scientific FACTS that have been PROVEN such as:

*The cell principle, excepted in Biology and all science, states that all cells come from only pre-existing cells (life from non-life?)

*There is simply no evidence of partially evolved animals or plants in the fossil record to indicate that evolution has occurred in the past, and certainly no evidence of partially evolved animals and plants existing today to indicate that evolution is occurring at the present

i can go on..but i'm leaving work..will continue tomorrow.

yeah, wonderful i arrived. i stilll think soldiers are idiots who go battle.

ohio · Aug 3, 2003

Originally posted by manimal
Why toshi...does every single one of your responses revolve around "chance"?

I knew that would come up... the simple answer is, take a statistics class.

Every single one of those "chances" is quantifiable... some extremely accurately, some less so. But given enough planets with the proper conditions, and enough time, the statistics show that the spontanteous combination of the correct collection of elements will occur. Once that has happened, there is again a quantifiable probability of the next step occuring at ANY time. Given enough time, it will happen.

[By the way, nice responses Toshi. They done teached you good at that thar fancy school o' yars]

ohio · Aug 3, 2003

Originally posted by manimal
*The cell principle, excepted in Biology and all science, states that all cells come from only pre-existing cells (life from non-life?)

*There is simply no evidence of partially evolved animals or plants in the fossil record to indicate that evolution has occurred in the past, and certainly no evidence of partially evolved animals and plants existing today to indicate that evolution is occurring at the present

* Wrong. See Toshi's answer. You're reading an incomplete principle.

* Also wrong. It's just that creationists refuse to accept ANY species as intermediate and choose to call them distinct. Therefore they don't exist. Great logic. There are clear fossil records of the evolutionary chains for all currently existing plant and animal species.

The scientific classification process encourages distinction where there may be very little to actually distinguish. Additionally, evolution on a measurable scale is not a constant. As Toshi mentioned, it is hastened by environmental changes. It would be ludicrous to hope to find the same quantity of fossils from these periods of rapid change, as from the eras in between that were 100s to 1000s times longer.

Serial Midget · Aug 3, 2003

Originally posted by Tenchiro
One more question, if God did create everything, then where did God come from?

Ditto...

EDIT: I don't think there have to be any absolute answers - so I don't spend my time looking for them.

Manimal: Just as you want to teach your children to question textbooks - I would be inclined to teach my children to question the Bible or any other religious writings as well. To accept the Bible as blind truth seems very foolish to me.

Sideways · Aug 4, 2003

Originally posted by manimal
when did i say i had the answer? ....

I never said that you did have, nor that you presumed to have an answer.
You know as well as I that no living human here on earth has the answer.

Spending time searching for an answer always results in a downward spiral of irrelevant dwelling.

Without a doubt, there is something special about life....this can not be denied.
Therefore, live your own life to its fullest and respect the lives of all other living things.

johnbryanpeters · Aug 4, 2003

Originally posted by Sideways
Spending time searching for an answer always results in a downward spiral of irrelevant dwelling.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you please clarify / expand upon that statement?

J

Andyman_1970 · Aug 4, 2003

Originally posted by MMike
Creationism is just plain stupid.

(And I have no intention whatsoever of formulating some sort of intelligent argument. So all you religious zealots who had planned on bashing me for "posting such nonsense and not adding anything of value to this thread"......can just cram it. I am merely just stating a fact. So cram it.)

Actually you're stating an opinion, yours. Which is what this board is about.

BTW-I used to be a rabid evolutionist until I started looking at it with some critical thinking, now I'm not so sure about it.

Sideways · Aug 4, 2003

Originally posted by johnbryanpeters
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you please clarify / expand upon that statement?

J

Downward spiral of irrelevant dwelling = Forming theories, theories based on theories, and theories based on theories based on theories, etc.

You end up with people working the problem backwards, forgetting that the original problem had no attainable solution.

johnbryanpeters · Aug 4, 2003

Ya, the system of models gets out of control, and people stop thinking of them as models and start regarding them as facts or laws...

J

Damn True · Aug 4, 2003

Liberal contradiction:

Liberals (at least in CA) wish to do away with many objective scoring/grading systems that have been in place for years.

For instance:
They want to get rid of grades ( A, B, C, D, F ) because when one kid in a class gets an A it makes the C and below students "feel bad".

They want to get rid of the practice of keeping score in little league and kids soccer games because it makes the losing kids "feel bad".

They want to get rid of playground games like dodgeball because bigger, stronger, and more atheletic kids usually win which makes the other kids "feel bad".

Now if I'm not mistaken the world is a competitive place. You compete for entry into Universities, you compete for jobs, you compete for promotion, you compete for mates etc. This presents something of an arguement in favor of evolution does it not? The strongest, smartest, best adapted for the environment is most succesfull.

Yet, they wish to take away that which supports their own arguement. While still clinging to the teaching of evolution.

HUH?

A few questions for evolutionsist

Ociffer Tackleberry

Attention K Mart Shoppers

Ociffer Tackleberry

Monkey

Attention K Mart Shoppers

Ociffer Tackleberry

Attention K Mart Shoppers

Monkey

Ociffer Tackleberry

find me a tampon

A fowl peckerwood.

Don't mess with the Santas

Ociffer Tackleberry

Don't mess with the Santas

Ociffer Tackleberry

Attention K Mart Shoppers

Ociffer Tackleberry

Attention K Mart Shoppers

Monkey

Harbinger of Doom

Harbinger of Doom

Ociffer Tackleberry

Ociffer Tackleberry

Attention K Mart Shoppers

Hero

Harbinger of Doom

Tirelessly Awesome

Ociffer Tackleberry

The Fresno Kid

Tirelessly Awesome

Tirelessly Awesome

The Fresno Kid

The Fresno Kid

Al Bundy

Monkey

Hero

Turbo Monkey

Monkey

Hero

Monkey Pimp