Scratch

lilacfuzz101 wrote:

i am throughly suprised that this topic hasn't been shut down. 

+1

I always thought life got here because something carrying cells hit the earth. And obviousely, without cells, we aren't organisms nor would we exist. Wouldn't that sort of make sense?

Thehero wrote:

Sunrise-Moon wrote:

Thehero wrote:

Most of you would say the first human beings on earth are Adam and Eve, but really they are not.

You really don't know that for sure. You shouldn't say stuff like that on Scratch because you might offend someone.

Sorry, but I'm filled with fact only. There is no proof the first humans were Adam and Eve. People just have to face the truth, thats how the universe came to be.

I would then guide you to research Biblical inerrancy.

Thehero wrote:

Sunrise-Moon wrote:

Thehero wrote:

Most of you would say the first human beings on earth are Adam and Eve, but really they are not.

You really don't know that for sure. You shouldn't say stuff like that on Scratch because you might offend someone.

Sorry, but I'm filled with fact only. There is no proof the first humans were Adam and Eve. People just have to face the truth, thats how the universe came to be.

Just because you don't have proof doesn't mean it isn't true.

And... (although this is a bit of a stretch, admittedly) just because you have proof doesn't mean it is true. I mean, what if the mighty creator of the universe (whoever he/she/it is or isn't) put false "proof" on the Earth to tempt humans into believing something other than what is actually true?  Or... our fabulous scientists could have misinterpreted data (probably not though.)

Really, I'm not sure what I believe. Personally, I think illusionist's post is a pretty good option. 

Last edited by scmb1 (2011-01-24 19:14:32)

Calebxy_Test wrote:

16Skittles wrote:

z55 wrote:

I always thought life got here because something carrying cells hit the earth. And obviousely, without cells, we aren't organisms nor would we exist. Wouldn't that sort of make sense?

Actually, with an experiment, a jar with a period simulation of the atmosphere had a current run through it. the result? the essential proteins needed for life.

That's not what he was talking about. He was talking about Stephen Hawking's theory. You're talking about Richard Dawkin's theory. And also, you're wrong. 20 amino acids are needed for life (to create a protein, in other words)... the experiment at best got seven. And also, they had to protect the amino acids from the current, otherwise they would have been destroyed. And even if they did get the 20 amino acids, do you have any idea what the probability is that the amino acids will join together in the right order? So, just to clarify what zz5 was talking about, he was talking about the theory that life came to earth from an asteroid.

and amino acids form proteins. so a person who just heard of this once isn't allowed to get anything wrong?

IDC if people believe in creation, but to deny that any evolution takes place is just illogical. when you think of it more as natural selection, it makes perfect logical sense.

This topic is inevitably going to be shut down. I can sence it.

P.S. nice username hero.

Last edited by Targethero (2011-01-25 10:40:05)

Just so you all know, I'm a Jehovah's Witness, so I do believe in Adam and Eve.

Kileymeister wrote:

illusionist wrote:

A. and E. were the first people, which means the first humans to have souls. Their ancestors were the mindless apes of evolution.

God > BOOOOOM > Planets n' stuff > life > single cell > fish > amphibians > reptiles > dinosaurs > mammals > apes > humans > PEOPLE


So, we come to a logical and healthy agreement?

Are you implying every other creature besides man has no soul and is inferior?

Honestly, there's no difference between a man or a bug.

Apart from the fact that we can speak and are a lot more intelligent as well as other things that differentiate us from them.

Last edited by Calebxy_Test (2011-01-25 16:05:14)

Andres-Vander wrote:

Kileymeister wrote:

illusionist wrote:

A. and E. were the first people, which means the first humans to have souls. Their ancestors were the mindless apes of evolution.

God > BOOOOOM > Planets n' stuff > life > single cell > fish > amphibians > reptiles > dinosaurs > mammals > apes > humans > PEOPLE


So, we come to a logical and healthy agreement?

Are you implying every other creature besides man has no soul and is inferior?

Honestly, there's no difference between a man or a bug.

Are you serious? Comparing bugs to men?

But anyways the discussion of souls falls under the religion category so can we keep it to a minimum? Meh, maybe we should just close the topic altogether, it's gone too far into a science vs. religion debate. The theory of evolution should be treated as a religious topic. As with the big bang theory.

Well, actually the big bang theory isn't that bad. It's just a matter of how it happened, who/what caused it. After all, the Bible says that God created everything "due to an abundance of dynamic energy."

Last edited by Calebxy_Test (2011-01-25 16:08:24)

Calebxy_Test wrote:

Andres-Vander wrote:

Kileymeister wrote:

Are you implying every other creature besides man has no soul and is inferior?

Honestly, there's no difference between a man or a bug.

Are you serious? Comparing bugs to men?

But anyways the discussion of souls falls under the religion category so can we keep it to a minimum? Meh, maybe we should just close the topic altogether, it's gone too far into a science vs. religion debate. The theory of evolution should be treated as a religious topic. As with the big bang theory.

Well, actually the big bang theory isn't that bad. It's just a matter of how it happened, who/what caused it. After all, the Bible says that God created everything "due to an abundance of dynamic energy."

The theory doesn't involve God so that's why it would be a religious debate topic. Can someone report this then?

agscratcher wrote:

Andres-Vander wrote:

Meh, maybe we should just close the topic altogether, it's gone too far into a science vs. religion debate.

+1

Sunrise-Moon wrote:

[Anyways, might as well close this thread. It's veering off topic as well as becoming a religious debate.

+1

(+1) + (+1) = (+2)

Really, you should stop doing that.

@Andres-Vander:  And yes I was, and not just bugs, any living thing man deems inferior to himself (aka everything).

Last edited by Kileymeister (2011-01-25 16:29:15)

Kileymeister wrote:

agscratcher wrote:

Andres-Vander wrote:

Meh, maybe we should just close the topic altogether, it's gone too far into a science vs. religion debate.

+1

Sunrise-Moon wrote:

[Anyways, might as well close this thread. It's veering off topic as well as becoming a religious debate.

+1

(+1) + (+1) = (+2)

Really, you should stop doing that.

@Andres-Vander:  And yes I was, and not just bugs, any living thing man deems inferior to himself (aka everything).

Well, we are obviously dominate, even if not "better." Are you religious?

Kileymeister wrote:

Calebxy_Test wrote:

Kileymeister wrote:

Really, you should stop doing that.

@Andres-Vander:  And yes I was, and not just bugs, any living thing man deems inferior to himself (aka everything).

Well, we are obviously dominant, even if not "better." Are you religious?

How so?  We are outnumbered a million to one by certain insect species (if we were the most numerous my argument would still be the same), we are not the largest beings (again, if we were it wouldn't change matters), intelligence means squat in terms of significance, and there is nothing we can deem as significance compared to other creatures.

Religion is not connected to my argument.

We're not the largest or have the largest numbers, but we're the smartest. Don't bring dolphins into this, that isn't really evidence.