Scratch

soupoftomato wrote:

777w wrote:

calebxy wrote:

Lol.

No it hasn't.

Yes it has. There is evidence all over.

I believe in adaptation but believe the millions of years while God made us theory for evolution. Well I really don't know about the "beginning" of Earth. But nothing about it's been proved.

I was once called evil fro believing in adaptation. o.o

Adaptation IS evolution, just on a smaller scale. If adaptation is proven, so is evolution.

777w wrote:

soupoftomato wrote:

777w wrote:

Yes it has. There is evidence all over.

I believe in adaptation but believe the millions of years while God made us theory for evolution. Well I really don't know about the "beginning" of Earth. But nothing about it's been proved.

I was once called evil fro believing in adaptation. o.o

Adaptation IS evolution, just on a smaller scale. If adaptation is proven, so is evolution.

Not to be terribly religious, but just an argument for the "Evolution is proven" just because we adapt now doesn't mean God CAN'T just have poofed us from nowhere.

tomicool wrote:

That's like saying "let's make a topic about *insert political party here*". Let's remember, anyone can view it, of any age, any religous views or any political views. Because of this, it's bound to get interupted and ruined.

No, we're discussing science, not religion.

777w wrote:

calebxy wrote:

777w wrote:

Adaptation IS evolution, just on a smaller scale. If adaptation is proven, so is evolution.

No, All that proves is that it can happen ever so slightly.

But if it keeps happening slightly, over time it will create bigger changes.

No, it doesn't work like that. An animal can only change so much. For instance, there's a type of dog (I'm not sure what it is) that's really small. It's that way because it has a disorder in it's legs, which makes them really small. Now, the legs can change however much they want, but it'll still be a dog.

Life tries incredibly hard to prevent change. For instance: Cells can read their own DNA and check for errors. If that fails to work, neighbour cells within the same organism can compare that cell's structure to their own and destroy ones which don't 'fit in'. If that fails, then in organisms which reproduce sexually, there's a 50% chance that the mutation won't even pass on (two halves make a whole and all that). If it is passed on, it is diluted by the other, non-mutated parent, and this dilution compounds thru generations.

Now if THAT doesn't work, then many organisms are programmed to destroy those that don't fit a perceived 'normality' (e.g. paint a chicken's head blue and the others will peck it to death to preserve the blood line). And if THAT doesn't work, then organisms which are too genetically different become sterile and cannot reproduce.

Last edited by calebxy (2011-07-30 13:33:48)

tomicool wrote:

calebxy wrote:

tomicool wrote:

That's like saying "let's make a topic about *insert political party here*". Let's remember, anyone can view it, of any age, any religous views or any political views. Because of this, it's bound to get interupted and ruined.

No, we're discussing science, not religion.

Yes, I know, but Christians who beleive that God created the world may home in on this topic, and thus a flame war is egnited.

Well, I'm a Jehovah's Witness, and so I believe that God created life, but I can contain myself. 

calebxy wrote:

I was wondering, just hypothetically speaking, would someone be allowed to make a topic about evolution? You see, I know we're not allowed to have religious discussions, but if we were just talking about evolution, and had no mention whatsoever of the Bible or God or anything. Just discussing a scientific theory? Would that be allowed?

Since we can't make religious topics, I don't think it would be fair to make a topic about evolution. Evolution is a belief and so is religion, so I think it's wrong. That's just my opinion.

777w wrote:

calebxy wrote:

777w wrote:

But if it keeps happening slightly, over time it will create bigger changes.

No, it doesn't work like that. An animal can only change so much. For instance, there's a type of dog (I'm not sure what it is) that's really small. It's that way because it has a disorder in it's legs, which makes them really small. Now, the legs can change however much they want, but it'll still be a dog.

Life tries incredibly hard to prevent change. For instance: Cells can read their own DNA and check for errors. If that fails to work, neighbour cells within the same organism can compare that cell's structure to their own and destroy ones which don't 'fit in'. If that fails, then in organisms which reproduce sexually, there's a 50% chance that the mutation won't even pass on (two halves make a whole and all that). If it is passed on, it is diluted by the other, non-mutated parent, and this dilution compounds thru generations.

Now if THAT doesn't work, then many organisms are programmed to destroy those that don't fit a perceived 'normality' (e.g. paint a chicken's head blue and the others will peck it to death to preserve the blood line). And if THAT doesn't work, then organisms which are too genetically different become sterile and cannot reproduce.

But how did life come to deny change? Eventually, creatures didn't need to change. When the world was new, so were creatures. therefore they were probably subject to change. Anyway, why did you want to discuss evolution if you keep trying to prove it has no proof?

"Discussing" evolution isn't just saying "Wow, evolution's brilliant!" "Have you heard the new theory?!" "It's amazing!" What I'm doing counts as discussing.

PandaGuy wrote:

777w wrote:

calebxy wrote:

No, it doesn't work like that. An animal can only change so much. For instance, there's a type of dog (I'm not sure what it is) that's really small. It's that way because it has a disorder in it's legs, which makes them really small. Now, the legs can change however much they want, but it'll still be a dog.

Life tries incredibly hard to prevent change. For instance: Cells can read their own DNA and check for errors. If that fails to work, neighbour cells within the same organism can compare that cell's structure to their own and destroy ones which don't 'fit in'. If that fails, then in organisms which reproduce sexually, there's a 50% chance that the mutation won't even pass on (two halves make a whole and all that). If it is passed on, it is diluted by the other, non-mutated parent, and this dilution compounds thru generations.

Now if THAT doesn't work, then many organisms are programmed to destroy those that don't fit a perceived 'normality' (e.g. paint a chicken's head blue and the others will peck it to death to preserve the blood line). And if THAT doesn't work, then organisms which are too genetically different become sterile and cannot reproduce.

But how did life come to deny change? Eventually, creatures didn't need to change. When the world was new, so were creatures. therefore they were probably subject to change. Anyway, why did you want to discuss evolution if you keep trying to prove it has no proof?

+1

Although I don't believe evolution, I'm not going to start trying to prove it wrong. That's the worst thing to do. The best thing to do here is to not even touch the subject to begin with.

Actually, I thought he believed in evolution, as you usually don't discuss it if you don't believe.

777w wrote:

PandaGuy wrote:

777w wrote:

But how did life come to deny change? Eventually, creatures didn't need to change. When the world was new, so were creatures. therefore they were probably subject to change. Anyway, why did you want to discuss evolution if you keep trying to prove it has no proof?

+1

Although I don't believe evolution, I'm not going to start trying to prove it wrong. That's the worst thing to do. The best thing to do here is to not even touch the subject to begin with.

Actually, I thought he believed in evolution, as you usually don't discuss it if you don't believe.

Alright then, to clarify: I'm a Jehovah's Witness, so I believe that God created everything. I don't believe in evolution.

Hope that helps.

PandaGuy wrote:

-it will start arguments, which will eventually cause it to be closed

It might not.

PandaGuy wrote:

-people will probably be offended (some might even start hating you)

People should be able to deal with other people disagreeing with them.

PandaGuy wrote:

-people will be trying to prove you wrong

And? I'm ok with that.

PandaGuy wrote:

-people might start making fun of your religion

I'm fine with people throwing irrational statements at me.

Last edited by calebxy (2011-07-30 14:31:22)

shamrocker wrote:

My veiws on evolution:

Something, maybe God, maybe Ra, maybe even a giant purple turtle, made the universe. We don't know what it is. It made the universe, and all the stuff in it. A minuscule portion of that stuff collided and fused, making a rough draft of Earth. Stuff banged against it, and shaped it, and melted the ice, froze the water, and a lot of other stuff, so we have a livable planet. But it's missing something - heat. And so, we're hurtling around in space, and suddenly, we're caught by the gravitational pull of the Sun. We start rotating around it, at exactly the same distance away as we are now. Single-celled organisms pop up after a while. They grow and grow, until they are the dinosaurs, or whatever was the first living things, not including the single-celled organisms, on earth. and they get hit by something, and die. But remember - all the land on Earth once was one super continent, Pangaea. So if they die out on one continent, well, that's it. Then other sets of single-celled organisms became primates. They evolved into us. Then we evolved more, our brains advancing, our bodies evolving, until here we are! 2011, with cellphones and laptops.


And if your wondering how old I am, I'm 10.

Interesting.

Rexpup wrote:

777w wrote:

Rexpup wrote:

Evolution is not a scientific theory.  It is a faith.  Evolution involves so many axioms, it is a religion.

No, it is a theory. A well supported theory, at that.

Well supported by people.  Poorly suported by real evidence.  Just because you find a bone in the ground does not mean it's 10 bajillion years old.

That's something very interesting, actually. A friend of mine (the same friend who explained the "Cells can read their own DNA and check for errors" thing) was talking to me about this, and he said something incredibly... well, I don't know. Clever, I suppose.

When scientists are working out the age of a fossil, what they actually do is work out the age of the rocks the fossil was found in. So they work out that it's the rocks that are x million years old (even though carbon dating doesn't work for things older than about 7 thousand years). Now, my friend explained to me how really, that just doesn't work. There are rocks all around us that are millions of years old. The rocks on the beach, for instance.

If I died on the beach, I would eventually get covered by more of those rocks. Then, some considerable time later, some scientists would dig me up. So, of cause, they'd work out how old the rocks around me are, and think I'm from x million years ago. It just doesn't work.

Last edited by calebxy (2011-07-31 04:28:23)

calebxy wrote:

GarSkutherGirl wrote:

calebxy wrote:

The same problem applies to Stephen Hawking's theory that animo acids came to Earth on an asteroid.

And this is the theory SPORE uses, but I have a feeling they're ALL correct.

So, my theory:

Amino acids and the other molecules used to create life came from space. Then, they all came together at one point, creating the perfect sample of prehistoric DNA, therefore creating life.

My point is, that's extremely unlikely to happen, because you'd first need ALL 20 amino acids, and they'd also need to be in the right order.

but who says that the order from when life was started is the same as it is now? If evolution is true, there is no reason why life couldn't have started as a HORRIBLY inefficient form, just barely capable of survival. then, it started to mutate itself into better, more effective forms.

Also, just saying this for thought: (Mods, if you find this removable, just snip this off)
If God created the universe, then what created God? And if God could have always been there, why couldn't the universe have always been there?