You are not logged in.
This thread is evidence of that.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
Darwinism is present today. Adapt and survive or die.
If there is an invisible man in the sky he has a warped sense of humor.
Vincent
Argument expected.
I don't require agreement when presenting new ideas.
-Dana Johnson
Offline
The thing about these arguments is that they never get anywhere. They destroy the forums, and for that reason I believe that this thread should be locked. I am now deleting all of my posts in this topic.
DELETED
-Josh
Offline
Also, only religious fundamentalists call evolution "Darwinism." As if the theory could be reduced to one person. It's like calling the theory of gravity "Newtonism." And they only do it so that they can attack Charles Darwin as a person (he wasn't exactly a saint) instead of the theory.
Fan of [url=http://www.red-oasis.com/]Red Oasis[/url]
Offline
OMG there no question about it, evolution.
ID is just some convoluted shit which by no mean can call it self science.
Offline
So, you haven't given me any evidence whatsoever for Darwinism/Evolution, you've just slagged off all proponents of Intelligent Design. Very scientific, if someone disagrees with you, don't give them evidence for your theory, just insult them.
ID is just some convoluted shit which by no mean can call it self science.
Unlike you, I actually give evidence for what I say. The other insults are more subtle.
Name me one GOOD piece of Evidence for Evolution.
ID vs Darwinism isn't even a valid scientific debate anymore. Most scientists (98%) are darwinists. The other 2% are fervent christians.
And did know you know that you didn't source it?
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
i thought you were asking an unbiased question.
Offline
I was actually looking for reasonable discussion, not have people slag off intelligent design without bothering to provide any evidence against it.
What question? Do you see a question mark in the title? Because I don't.
When you say unbiased, do you mean you thought I was coming at it trying to have a balanced discussion? I was, but you people don't seem to know what one is.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
Name me one GOOD piece of Evidence for Evolution.
If you are actually interested, you can read about the evidence here ...
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Fan of [url=http://www.red-oasis.com/]Red Oasis[/url]
Offline
I was actually looking for reasonable discussion, not have people slag off intelligent design without bothering to provide any evidence against it.
What question? Do you see a question mark in the title? Because I don't.
When you say unbiased, do you mean you thought I was coming at it trying to have a balanced discussion? I was, but you people don't seem to know what one is.
Give me a GOOD piece of ID evidence that does not revolve around A) The bible says, B) flagelum and C) Irreducible complexity, the two having been more than discredited and A being just a literary work IMO.
Offline
I wonder why science needs proof and ID just needs faith, sounds like a good deal to me.
Vincent
Argument expected.
I don't require agreement when presenting new ideas.
-Dana Johnson
Offline
ID is just some convoluted shit which by no mean can call it self science.
Actually, its the cornerstone of agriculture.
Why is it so difficult to believe that we are the product of it?
And of course we know the definition of "day" varies depending on were you are.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
It would have been beter if it had offered convincing evidence on the first 1.5 pages.
Let's talk about, say, the origin of life. We'll go back to the basic origin of life. Say I take all the ingrediants neccersary for life, the DNA and all the rest, and I dump it in a test tube, subject it to the conditions of the Early Earth, how far am I from creating a living cell? Incredibly far. The chemicals aren't going to spontaneusly join up into a cell and start reproducing.
That's excluding how I got all the DNA in the first place. Take an accurate representation of the Early Atmosphere. You can't even get Amino acids from it.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
The thing about these arguments is that they never get anywhere. They destroy the forums, and for that reason I believe that this thread should be locked. I am now deleting all of my posts in this topic.
DELETED
-Josh
Offline
Actually, as I have mentioned in another thread, the experiment for the heterotroph hypothesis, when subjected to heat and UV over just TWO WEEKS formed minute quantities of G, A, T, C, U(racil) These are the five nitrogen bases.
Before you get to the point of saying, yet again, terraformer,
I don't even know why I come to these forums, its all talk and nothing ever gets done.
Firstly, give up ID, it's the most senseless nonsense ever made up, and second, I will remind you, as previously, that this is new MARS, so that is what we are mostly here to talk about.
If you want, say, a NEWCERES, you can make a forum, and if you tell me the address, I guarantee that I will join.
So, if I took all of Earths oceans and put them in the Atmosphere, with no Ozone layer (it would have to be artificially stopped from being created) UV would still be able to get through? That's a lot of Hydrogen and Oxygen we're talking about. UV is really going to be able to penetrate through all that. An Ozone layer: how is it produced? The action of Radiation on O2 molecules? Would have been plenty of that around, what with massive amounts of Water in the atmosphere being disassociated.
Evolution is supoposed to happen incrediblily quickly; too quickly in my opinion. What happened to slow, gradual change? You can't get from one phyla to another in the space of one million years (reference to the Cambrien explosian.) If you could, humans would be split up into subspecies by now. Everyone rational knows that's nonsense.
Give up Darwinism. Why don't you all look at the evidence? Are you scared that you'll realize that what you've been believing in is, to borrow a quote from zhar2
is just some convoluted shit which by no mean can call it self science.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
The thing about these arguments is that they never get anywhere. They destroy the forums, and for that reason I believe that this thread should be locked. I am now deleting all of my posts in this topic.
DELETED
-Josh
Offline
It would have been beter if it had offered convincing evidence on the first 1.5 pages.
Let's talk about, say, the origin of life. We'll go back to the basic origin of life. Say I take all the ingrediants neccersary for life, the DNA and all the rest, and I dump it in a test tube, subject it to the conditions of the Early Earth, how far am I from creating a living cell? Incredibly far. The chemicals aren't going to spontaneusly join up into a cell and start reproducing.
That's excluding how I got all the DNA in the first place. Take an accurate representation of the Early Atmosphere. You can't even get Amino acids from it.
So how would you defend ID?
And remember dont take opinions as fact, things that seem may seem unlikely to you can infact be true as many things over the years that where seen as unlikely have become true.
Plus they way you assume in creating life as above is unlikely it would have happened in earth, first you say earthlike conditions but when life formed he earth was far from earthlike with a hot thick CO2, methane and water vapour.
Second amino acids are common in the universe (eg: comets), which by the aid of phosphates from salts could have joined togeather to form early RNA (dna would have come much later), those RNA molecules may ave formed some sort of self relicating ribosome (there are examples or ribosomes with quite few bases able to reproduce themselfs).
And anyway life did not evolve into larger forms billions of years latter when the early self replicating molecules could evolve by simple mutations into larger and more complex form (obviously some mutations would have failed).
Offline
Evolution is supoposed to happen incrediblily quickly; too quickly in my opinion. What happened to slow, gradual change? You can't get from one phyla to another in the space of one million years (reference to the Cambrien explosian.) If you could, humans would be split up into subspecies by now. Everyone rational knows that's nonsense.
About 4 billion years too quick for you?
i would say the genesis version of 10 days is absurd in comparison.
Give up the darwinism word, as even the theory of darwin isnt it self used but an "evolution" of it.
And the supposed evidence for ID is by far Weak to be quoted as evidence unlike the TONS of evidence for evolution, and "faith" and the bibble as eviece for ID does not count at all.
Offline
In the Pre-Cambrian all there was was sponges, jellyfish, and other such soft-bodied creatures. In about 1 million years suddenly all these vertebrates and other animals appeared. That's quick.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
Actually you are wrong, the edge of the pre cambrian and the cambrian age are arbitriary regarding, they do not mean sudently everything was one way and then instantly changed, they in reality merge by a few tens of millions of years, and the cambrian vertebrates would have not appearead early in the age but towards the middle and end, plus becouse of a changing enviroments natural selection accelerated evolution as the organisms that adapt or survive are the only ones able to pass on their genome.
Offline
The thing about these arguments is that they never get anywhere. They destroy the forums, and for that reason I believe that this thread should be locked. I am now deleting all of my posts in this topic.
DELETED
-Josh
Offline
Actually you are wrong, the edge of the pre cambrian and the cambrian age are arbitriary regarding, they do not mean sudently everything was one way and then instantly changed, they in reality merge by a few tens of millions of years, and the cambrian vertebrates would have not appearead early in the age but towards the middle and end, plus becouse of a changing enviroments natural selection accelerated evolution as the organisms that adapt or survive are the only ones able to pass on their genome.
Just because the enviroment is a lot more harsher, it does not mean mutations happen any quicker. You still haven't explain how life went from one phyla to another in a few tens of million years. It supposadly took 5 million years for humans and chimps to diverge. Times that by ten and it still isn't long enough to go from one Phyla to another.
To think about it, Terraformer is a funny name for an ID proponent to have. Playing god, I suppose?
I've been imbued with creative qualities by my creator. What do you expect?
Maybe your right. Maybe Darwinists *are* descended from Chimps.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline
The thing about these arguments is that they never get anywhere. They destroy the forums, and for that reason I believe that this thread should be locked. I am now deleting all of my posts in this topic.
-Josh
Offline
Me too, im just fior the sake of harmony im going to stop too.
Atleast im content that ive been able to show people the right way concerning (pro eveolution) this in out of the forum nd they have embraced it.
Offline
This is the biggest confirmation I have that you have lost the debate.
Use what is abundant and build to last
Offline