| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:29 am |
|
Neither creationism nor evolution have enough info to completly support them that is why it is the THEORY of creationism/evolutionism.  And seeing as everyone is holding strongly to their side, there really isn't any point in arguing about this anymore. Neither side can prove the other side compleltly wrong.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 11:13 am |
|
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | | And seeing as everyone is holding strongly to their side, there really isn't any point in arguing about this anymore. Neither side can prove the other side compleltly wrong. |
Bah. I knew the outcome of this debate before it even begun, I knew that I would never convince those on the opposing side. The point is that we debate for debate's sake. I just love debating, I love the intellectual challenge of bringing up supports for my points.
Oh my . . . I just realized that my above paragraph could mean that I also love writing essays. NOOOOOOOOOO! Don't let my English teacher find out!
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 3:00 pm |
|
| Gondor Girl wrote: | They aren't extinct by any fault of their own. It was because the Great Flood changed the climate so that the oxygen wasn't pure enough for their tiny nostrils to inhale enough oxygen to sustain them.
Evolution doesn't have proof. No one has found missing links, until they do evolution will continue to not have any proof. Evolution cannot be proven true until they find missing links, and not just one or two, but all of them. A whole composite of them. If they don't, then one could simply think that it was the fossil of a man born due to incest or something. According to the theory of evolution, man was in the stages between ape and man for millions of years. This would mean that there should be a large amount of men in that state. Another thought. Why are there still apes around if we evolved from them? And if you're going to say that it's because they're the next generation of humans or something like that, why don't we still have the half-human half-apes walking around? They could just as easily be the "next generation" of humans. |
I know it's not their fault that they all went off and died. What I meant behind that was that we can study chimpanzees and see similarities, do tests, etc.
I'd call 95% some pretty amazing proof. I mean it's impossible that we'd share that much DNA by chance. Why would there have to be a large amount? Not everything is fossilized.
As you said before, you belive that some species adapt to suit their environment. Why not chimps? Perhaps some where seperated and had to adapt to survive, sparking evolution. Who knows.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Kyre
Commodore
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 1263
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 8:05 pm |
|
| Gondor Girl wrote: | | And I have never seen or heard of a chimp that has made a tool for itself. They may have used a stick to poke into a hole, but they've never actually created their own tools. |
That in itself is the creation of a tool. A stick is just a stick. But if I pick it up and use it to gather food from a previously unreachable place, it is now a tool. And I am now quite an intelligent being for figuring that out.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 8:33 pm |
|
| Kyre wrote: | | Gondor Girl wrote: | | And I have never seen or heard of a chimp that has made a tool for itself. They may have used a stick to poke into a hole, but they've never actually created their own tools. |
That in itself is the creation of a tool. A stick is just a stick. But if I pick it up and use it to gather food from a previously unreachable place, it is now a tool. And I am now quite an intelligent being for figuring that out. |
Indeed. Furthermore, they coat the stick in sap so that termites stick to it. They are creating a tool, shaping their environment for their own needs. After all, fountain pens cannot write unless we dip them in ink, therefore turning them into an even more useful tool.
|
|
|
Gondor Girl
Princess of Ithilien
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
Posts: 3966
Location: Henneth Anun, Ithilien
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:34 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Gondor Girl wrote: | They aren't extinct by any fault of their own. It was because the Great Flood changed the climate so that the oxygen wasn't pure enough for their tiny nostrils to inhale enough oxygen to sustain them.
Evolution doesn't have proof. No one has found missing links, until they do evolution will continue to not have any proof. Evolution cannot be proven true until they find missing links, and not just one or two, but all of them. A whole composite of them. If they don't, then one could simply think that it was the fossil of a man born due to incest or something. According to the theory of evolution, man was in the stages between ape and man for millions of years. This would mean that there should be a large amount of men in that state. Another thought. Why are there still apes around if we evolved from them? And if you're going to say that it's because they're the next generation of humans or something like that, why don't we still have the half-human half-apes walking around? They could just as easily be the "next generation" of humans. |
I know it's not their fault that they all went off and died. What I meant behind that was that we can study chimpanzees and see similarities, do tests, etc.
I'd call 95% some pretty amazing proof. I mean it's impossible that we'd share that much DNA by chance. Why would there have to be a large amount? Not everything is fossilized.
As you said before, you belive that some species adapt to suit their environment. Why not chimps? Perhaps some where seperated and had to adapt to survive, sparking evolution. Who knows. |
Why would they have to adapt to survive? We still have chimps around today. On almost all landmasses. Why would chimps be so stupid as to wander off to a part of a landmass where they'd die. They would die, not mutate. I still hold firm to my question, "Why do we still have chimps today? And why don't we have transitional stage men still around if we evolved from them?"
Also, I know that not everything has been fossilized, but you could still find the bones. And besides. There are a lot of fossils. You'd think that at least one of them would indicate that there was once a couple of these "transitional stages." Heaven knows that ever other creature has had at least one of them fossilized.
-------signature-------
Gondor! Gondor, between the mountains and the sea
West wind blew there; the light upon the Silver Tree
Fell like bright rain in the gardens of the Kings of old
O proud walls! White towers! O winged crown and throne of gold...
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:46 pm |
|
| Gondor Girl wrote: | Why would they have to adapt to survive? We still have chimps around today. On almost all landmasses. Why would chimps be so stupid as to wander off to a part of a landmass where they'd die. They would die, not mutate. I still hold firm to my question, "Why do we still have chimps today? And why don't we have transitional stage men still around if we evolved from them?"
Also, I know that not everything has been fossilized, but you could still find the bones. And besides. There are a lot of fossils. You'd think that at least one of them would indicate that there was once a couple of these "transitional stages." Heaven knows that ever other creature has had at least one of them fossilized. |
Actually, chimpanzees only live in Africa, and are endangered, mostly because humans poach chimpanzees and are using up their habitat.
They would not adapt if they suddenly changed environment, no. But they would evolve gradually over time as their enivronment changed around them.
Humans have adapted to their environments. Most indigenous peoples of Africa have darker skin because increased melatonin will protect your skin longer from the sun, of which there is plenty in Africa.
Conversely, people in the colder regions of the world have fairer skin.
|
|
|
Gondor Girl
Princess of Ithilien
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
Posts: 3966
Location: Henneth Anun, Ithilien
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 11:05 pm |
|
Yeah, but you see. I was born in the Mojave desert in California (stinkin' hot there), and consequently, I have the worst coloring to withstand heat and sun that a person could possibly have. My environments had no effect on my birth at all.
I notice, however, that everyone is ignoring my big question. "Why are there still chimps and no transitional forms between us and chimps still around?" I have the answer, but I want to hear what you buys have to say.
-------signature-------
Gondor! Gondor, between the mountains and the sea
West wind blew there; the light upon the Silver Tree
Fell like bright rain in the gardens of the Kings of old
O proud walls! White towers! O winged crown and throne of gold...
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 11:14 pm |
|
| Gondor Girl wrote: | Yeah, but you see. I was born in the Mojave desert in California (stinkin' hot there), and consequently, I have the worst coloring to withstand heat and sun that a person could possibly have. My environments had no effect on my birth at all.
I notice, however, that everyone is ignoring my big question. "Why are there still chimps and no transitional forms between us and chimps still around?" I have the answer, but I want to hear what you buys have to say. |
Because humans did not evolve from chimps. Chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor, as did monkeys, as did gorillas. What we're looking for is a common ancestor. 
|
|
|
Gondor Girl
Princess of Ithilien
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
Posts: 3966
Location: Henneth Anun, Ithilien
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 11:21 pm |
|
That's not the argument I've been hearing. Does anyone even know what this "common ancestor" is supposed to have looked like, or is it just something scientists made up because they needed a reason why we still have chimps around now. You guys keep changing your story. That should be saying something about the truthfulness of your theory right there.
-------signature-------
Gondor! Gondor, between the mountains and the sea
West wind blew there; the light upon the Silver Tree
Fell like bright rain in the gardens of the Kings of old
O proud walls! White towers! O winged crown and throne of gold...
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 11:30 pm |
|
| Gondor Girl wrote: | | That's not the argument I've been hearing. Does anyone even know what this "common ancestor" is supposed to have looked like, or is it just something scientists made up because they needed a reason why we still have chimps around now. You guys keep changing your story. That should be saying something about the truthfulness of your theory right there. |
First of all, I do not keep on changing my story. I've always blatantly stated that we haven't evolved from monkeys or apes, because it makes me mad to hear something like that.
Indeed it is just a reason that some scientists made up. It is possible theory. Until we find proof, it remains just theory.
The point is, however, that science and religion cannot compete in that arena. Religion can never be proved, because proof precludes faith--why do you need evidence if you believe?
Both science and religion are complete tautologies, I agree, and are just different ways of explaining the world.
If significant proof is submitted against a fundamental theory of science, such as the theory of Relativity or the theory of Evolution, then obviously scientists will drop it. We no longer believe in Newton's views of "absolute time" because Einstein provided a theory that more suitably coincides with our observations of space-time.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Sun Aug 29, 2004 10:40 am |
|
| Gondor Girl wrote: | | So, you've proven interstellar drift. I didn't doubt that the stars moved around. Nothing seems to hold still in this universe, but can you prove that the universe is actually expanding rather than just moving around? |
I have another point to make. If it takes billions of years for light to get here how do we not know that the world is actually moving in again. Also how fast are we traveling in space, because we could be out of sight of all stars now, as the light we are getting is soooo old.
| Kyre wrote: | | That in itself is the creation of a tool. A stick is just a stick. But if I pick it up and use it to gather food from a previously unreachable place, it is now a tool. And I am now quite an intelligent being for figuring that out. |
There are some birds that use small sharp twigs to get grubs out of cracks in wood, which they can't reach with their beaks. Crows in Japan put nuts on the road so that cars drive over them and break them open, but they put them at pedestrian crossings so when people cross they go and eat the nut inside the shell. Are these birds smart and intellegent?
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | Both science and religion are complete tautologies, I agree, and are just different ways of explaining the world. |
Not really, religion is the way, science is how.
|
|
|
Kyre
Commodore
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 1263
|
| Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:04 am |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | | There are some birds that use small sharp twigs to get grubs out of cracks in wood, which they can't reach with their beaks. Crows in Japan put nuts on the road so that cars drive over them and break them open, but they put them at pedestrian crossings so when people cross they go and eat the nut inside the shell. Are these birds smart and intellegent? |
Possibly. But it may just be highly evolved instinct.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:15 am |
|
The crows can't be, seeing as cars have only been around for about 100 years. Also herons use pieces of bread in ponds as bait for fish.
|
|
|
gilbert3729
Commander
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 390
Location: New England, USA
|
| Thu Sep 02, 2004 6:13 pm |
|
| Gondor Girl wrote: | | Oh, I was referring to something that someone said earlier (I think) but anyhoo. They aren't all that different from each other, they just have different beaks. That's pretty much the only difference. That was micro-evolution a slight mutation of a species having a little feature changed, but it's not one species slowly changing to another. |
I remember from biology class about a type of whale that changed into a land animal. Over thousands of years it began growing legs and forarms. i forget the reason that it began to evolve but they have skelleton records of this animal over the course of its evlution. Actual skelletons which show change of a creature's physique is proof that is hard to ignore.
-------signature-------
Soylent Green is people!!!
John Kerry...
Bringing complete sentences back to the White House.
|
|
|
Gondor Girl
Princess of Ithilien
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
Posts: 3966
Location: Henneth Anun, Ithilien
|
| Thu Sep 02, 2004 10:00 pm |
|
If you are referring to the coelecanth, that was proven to be 100% fish. If you're not referring to the coelecanth, then I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never heard of any fossil having been found. A big problem that is with evolution is that a lot of the transitional forms that supposedly existed for a long period of time had no possible way of living for very long. Imagine the transitional form between a bat and a rat. It would have no wings but very long fingers that would make it impossible to move, or it'd constantly be tripping over them. It wouldn't be able to move yet alone reproduce. This supposed transitional form between a whale and a land creature (first off, you don't even know what kind of creature it was) would not be able to survive for very long either. It would either have developed lungs and lost it's blowhole and still had fins, leaving it to die on shore, incapable of walking, or it would have gained legs and still have to be underwater to breathe making it very awkward in the water and easy prey to predators. All in all, this theory is very flawed.
-------signature-------
Gondor! Gondor, between the mountains and the sea
West wind blew there; the light upon the Silver Tree
Fell like bright rain in the gardens of the Kings of old
O proud walls! White towers! O winged crown and throne of gold...
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Fri Sep 03, 2004 1:50 am |
|
Tadpoles do the same thing, all in one lifetime. When they hatch, if you take them out of the water they die, yet they change into adults and gain legs and the ability to breathe air without being in water. If you were to put one underwater for a very long time while it was an adult it would drown. It's clearly possible.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Fri Sep 03, 2004 1:28 pm |
|
I somehow think the scale is rather different. Whales are rather larger than tadpoles.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Fri Sep 03, 2004 1:29 pm |
|
So what? I don't see how size makes a difference.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Fri Sep 03, 2004 1:35 pm |
|
Because the body would have to restructure itself and the cells change etc. If there is only a few changing ie the tadpole then it's quite simple. For a whale though there would have to be massive changes and so on.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Fri Sep 03, 2004 1:37 pm |
|
Okay, size. I still don't see how it matters.
A tadpole's DNA is just as complicated as a whale's. The changes will be larger, but the thing required to change them, isn't.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Fri Sep 03, 2004 1:57 pm |
|
But for the whales structure to change in a few years!?!? I don't quite think so.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Fri Sep 03, 2004 4:08 pm |
|
I do quite think so,  My point was that this whale creature thing could survive long enough to reproduce, and therefore adapt.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
gilbert3729
Commander
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 390
Location: New England, USA
|
| Mon Sep 06, 2004 3:08 pm |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | | But for the whales structure to change in a few years!?!? I don't quite think so. |
I dont think that anyone was saying that the change would take place in a few years. Evolution takes a few thousand years, maybe even more.
-------signature-------
Soylent Green is people!!!
John Kerry...
Bringing complete sentences back to the White House.
|
|
|
jbering69
Lieutenant
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 137
Location: Canada
|
| Tue Sep 07, 2004 1:32 am |
|
Evolution can take place over short or loooonnnnggg periods of time. Don't forget the fruit fly experiment. Take a batch of fruit flies. Place half in one jar with food suspended in the middle of the jar. Take the other half, place in jar with food on bottom. Voila!! Time passes fruit flies lose wings because they no longer need them to acquire food.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
