TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- creationism vs evolution
Pages (10): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 »

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit well its ramadan and im a bit hungover this morning.. that smile has turned into a frown my friend.. lol

You know what's interesting, it's called Ramazan and not ramadan in my country and instead of "id" it's called "bajram" by the muslims in former yugoslavia. Just a little knowledge I'm sure you can squeeze in your noggin you smart bastard.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit evolution is a scientific theory. The most plausible theory for the progression of organisms. This is analogous with kinematic equations of newton as they describe movement with respect to time. New theories appear and are corrected frequently. Although newton's kinematic equations are faulty, they are still taught, used and are approximations (as we now know that time is relative to the speed of light).

Nobody denies that microevolution occurs.

quote:

There is no better explanation for the origin of species and progression of organisms so we trust in the theory of evolution for classification, genetics and medical advancements such as antibiotics.

There is the explanation of design for the origin of species. As for the progression of organisms, they adapt, but fish don't become non-fish, and dogs don't become non-dogs.

quote:

If there can be some scientific proclaim to intelligent design, perhaps it can be adhered to and in a sense be challenged against the evolution theory. Until this point one should not jump to any conclusion of myth without some sort of empirical evidence to justify. This is not the definition of science.

The problem is, whatever ID has to offer, is rejected out of hand by the naturalist controlled publications and schools.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Nobody denies that microevolution occurs. There is the explanation of design for the origin of species. As for the progression of organisms, they adapt, but fish don't become non-fish, and dogs don't become non-dogs. The problem is, whatever ID has to offer, is rejected out of hand by the naturalist controlled publications and schools.

What is your perspective? what is the ID perspective?

Are you old world or new world creationists?

how do you define a fish between a nonfish?

what about organisms that are inbetween such as the lungfish?

Do smaller fish evolve into bigger or different types of fish?

What is the consensus with ID and organism progression?

Classification of organisms is simply semantics and an organizational system to attempt to differentiate. It is not meant to be a limiting factor intended to completely isolate organisms from one another without an inference of common descent. This is why we have phylogenetics and taxonomic systems, to create realtionships.

The naturalists reject ID since there is no consensus in the ID community on a standard theory. Furthermore, any theory that they may postulate has no testible proof. There is no one out there hindering the ID community in conducting tests and experiementation for their ideologies. The facts are that there are no facts to support their soluble ideas.

What are creationists view on carbon dating?

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi What are creationists view on carbon dating?

its radiometric (usually uranium) dating as carbon's half life is to short to make long predictions.

They believe its highly innacurate and completely unreliable

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit What is your perspective? what is the ID perspective? Are you old world or new world creationists? how do you define a fish between a nonfish? what about organisms that are inbetween such as the lungfish? Do smaller fish evolve into bigger or different types of fish? What is the consensus with ID and organism progression? Classification of organisms is simply semantics and an organizational system to attempt to differentiate. It is not meant to be a limiting factor intended to completely isolate organisms from one another without an inference of common descent. This is why we have phylogenetics and taxonomic systems, to create realtionships. The naturalists reject ID since there is no consensus in the ID community on a standard theory. Furthermore, any theory that they may postulate has no testible proof. There is no one out there hindering the ID community in conducting tests and experiementation for their ideologies. The facts are that there are no facts to support their soluble ideas.

Reptiles don't become birds, and dog-like mammals don't become whales. We'v never seen it happen, and their physiological make up is completely different. These views have been observed. Who has ever seen a dog become something not considered to be a dog?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Reptiles don't become birds, and dog-like mammals don't become whales. We'v never seen it happen, and their physiological make up is completely different. These views have been observed. Who has ever seen a dog become something not considered to be a dog?

This is true.. but your speaking on a grand scale of things. And mammals are whales lol. I'm sure that was just a typo. anyways, he have been able to manually manipulate the features of dogs significantly to the point where they barely even look like their true form (the grey wolf). Think about what nature could do to organisms over an even longer extended period of time.

Remnant bones have been found in whales which are clssified as femurs (rear upper legs) and are remainder for what is presumed to be a walking land mammal. Whales also have lungs and require air to respire.

I still dont have a conclusive argument from your side. What form of intelligent design do you speak of? What time frame am i dealing with?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Who has ever seen a dog become something not considered to be a dog?

LOL. Noone has seen it, seeing as this is something that happens over a period of time longer than any living beings timespan. Guess we'll just have to invent a way to translate the thoughts of rocks and trees and ask them.


Do you really believe in ID or are you just taking the piss?

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit its radiometric (usually uranium) dating as carbon's half life is to short to make long predictions.

ah ok, in norwegian it's called carbon dating. some retards call it the "c-14 method" lol.

quote:

They believe its highly innacurate and completely unreliable

haha of course they do.

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi ah ok, in norwegian it's called carbon dating. some retards call it the "c-14 method" lol. haha of course they do.

well we do have carbon dating .. but you use it to date up to 70,000 years or so

You have to use other isotopes such as uranium for longer periods

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit well we do have carbon dating .. but you use it to date up to 70,000 years or so You have to use other isotopes such as uranium for longer periods

gotcha

oh, and it seems like we can just put this discussion to rest, i found a youtube clip that explains everything..



i mean.. 10-0! you can't just ignore facts such as these..



edit: 70,000 years is still 60,000 years longer than what the creationists believe the earth is.

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi LOL. Noone has seen it, seeing as this is something that happens over a period of time longer than any living beings timespan. Guess we'll just have to invent a way to translate the thoughts of rocks and trees and ask them. Do you really believe in ID or are you just taking the piss?

If species evolve, then it would stand to reason that out of the billions of species on this planet, at least ONE of them would be found to exist in a half-way state. A fish with legs, a small rodent with a dorsal fin, etc.

Then again, maybe we already have those half-way critters. Like the platypus.

What confuses me is something like the whale. Wouldn't any of the half-way whale species have simply gone extinct in their "almost there" forms? How would a creature living on land eventually mutate into a whale, without the entire genetic line dying at the point where the creature can not function on land, or in the water?

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi ah ok, in norwegian it's called carbon dating. some retards call it the "c-14 method" lol. haha of course they do.

its not retarded. they measure the amount of carbon 14 vs carbon 12 since carbon 14 decays over time

quote:

Originally posted by Spam What confuses me is something like the whale. Wouldn't any of the half-way whale species have simply gone extinct in their "almost there" forms? How would a creature living on land eventually mutate into a whale, without the entire genetic line dying at the point where the creature can not function on land, or in the water?

we got seals and walruses and other monstrosities

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail its not retarded. they measure the amount of carbon 14 vs carbon 12 since carbon 14 decays over time

yeah i know what they do, i just find the name "the c-14 method" to be a redonkalaz name. Maybe it's just in norwegian it sounds weird lol.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail we got seals and walruses and other monstrosities

Yes, but they exist and survive because their genetics perfectly fit the environment they live. It seems just a little bit of a grand coincidence that seals and walruses just HAPPENED to mutate into their present form at the shore of the water. Had they mutated just 10km inland, they would have been eaten by a raccoon and would currently be extinct. No?

Or were their ancestors simply fond of the water and enjoyed catching fish. Obviously without their current fins and such, they wouldn't have had much luck catching any fish, so the creatures that mutated fins and the like survived while the original genetic line died off?

quote:

Originally posted by Spam If species evolve, then it would stand to reason that out of the billions of species on this planet, at least ONE of them would be found to exist in a half-way state. A fish with legs, a small rodent with a dorsal fin, etc. Then again, maybe we already have those half-way critters. Like the platypus. What confuses me is something like the whale. Wouldn't any of the half-way whale species have simply gone extinct in their "almost there" forms? How would a creature living on land eventually mutate into a whale, without the entire genetic line dying at the point where the creature can not function on land, or in the water?

I saw a documentary on hippos that each year took their young to a beach in Gabon. Other animals (elephants++) also went there, but they went for some washed up pods that they ate. anyhoo, none of the hippos ate those pods, they just went to stand in the water and noone knows why, but some believe it is evolution in-the-making.

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi I saw a documentary on hippos that each year took their young to a beach in Gabon. Other animals (elephants++) also went there, but they went for some washed up pods that they ate. anyhoo, none of the hippos ate those pods, they just went to stand in the water and noone knows why, but some believe it is evolution in-the-making.

Isn't that akin to committing the same mistake that Atheists accuse religious people of making?

"We don't know, so it must be evolution." sounds very much the same as "We don't know, so it must be God." from where I'm sitting.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam Isn't that akin to committing the same mistake that Atheists accuse religious people of making? "We don't know, so it must be evolution." sounds very much the same as "We don't know, so it must be God." from where I'm sitting.

let me rephrase. there is no apparent reason why the hippos are going great distances to a beach to stand in the water (salt water) when they have perfectly good fresh water ponds to swim in, other than that they are trying to (hmm.. cant find the right word.. ) get used to salt water, so that they one day may be able to live in it.

if that makes any sense.

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi let me rephrase. there is no apparent reason why the hippos are going great distances to a beach to stand in the water (salt water) when they have perfectly good fresh water ponds to swim in, other than that they are trying to (hmm.. cant find the right word.. ) get used to salt water, so that they one day may be able to live in it. if that makes any sense.

Or maybe the salt helps keep their pores clean and kill off any fresh-water parasites. What options have scientists run down? Is there a list somewhere?

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit This is true.. but your speaking on a grand scale of things. And mammals are whales lol. I'm sure that was just a typo. anyways, he have been able to manually manipulate the features of dogs significantly to the point where they barely even look like their true form (the grey wolf). Think about what nature could do to organisms over an even longer extended period of time.

I said dog-like mammal. We have been able to manipulate dogs, but we have not been able to create an animal we wouldn't consider a dog. I don't care how long of time they have, a dog will always give birth to a dog.

quote:

Remnant bones have been found in whales which are clssified as femurs (rear upper legs) and are remainder for what is presumed to be a walking land mammal. Whales also have lungs and require air to respire.

Cockroaches take shits just like us. Doesn't mean we evolved from them.

quote:

I still dont have a conclusive argument from your side. What form of intelligent design do you speak of? What time frame am i dealing with?

I'm giving you very conclusive arguments but it seems like you'r just rejecting my arguments out of hands. Where's you scientific objectivity?

yea thats an awful example karim

i mean alfi

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi LOL. Noone has seen it, seeing as this is something that happens over a period of time longer than any living beings timespan. Guess we'll just have to invent a way to translate the thoughts of rocks and trees and ask them.

Have you seen a dog give birth to anything other than a dog?

quote:

Do you really believe in ID or are you just taking the piss?

LOL, hell no. I'm just playing devil's advocate since there are no creationists around. I graduated from a fundamentalist Christian school so I know the creationist's arguments very well.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Have you seen a dog give birth to anything other than a dog?

I'm pretty sure that chihuahuas are rodents.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam Or maybe the salt helps keep their pores clean and kill off any fresh-water parasites. What options have scientists run down? Is there a list somewhere?

That might be, i didn't say that it necessarily was "evolution in the making", but this is most likely how whales came to existence when they went back into the oceans.

Anyhoo, Im too drunk to reason properly right now, but I'll see if I can find the name of that documentary. It was pretty interesting, even if you believe in evolution or not.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.