God

[Tesseract]

Nature--> You act as if I don't believe in evolution. I believe in controlled evolution which clearly points to a creator with knowledge. I certainly don't believe in evolution controlled by luck that’s just irrational in my opinion. I think both, me and you would agree that every creature has some sort of ability and tool which helps it survive in the environment they live in, was it an accident that different animals in different environments have different tool and ability which can only help them in the environments which they live in?? For example a fish, it has lungs which helps it live under water. How did evolution know that a creature needs a different type of lungs to survive outside the water??, this is why I say that the evolution is controlled.

No shit evolution is controlled. But not by an intelligence.

I find it funny that people always think evolution is "blind luck". It's not. It's natural selection. There is a difference. And if you disagree, please give me a rational argument. Let's see... Creature gains a genetic mutation. This mutation either helps it or doesn't. It doesn't, the creature goes... If it does, the creature eventually out-produces its ancestors, or simply lives with them.

...I mean the chances of life were like what? 1 in a trillion...

Aye. And look at the sky. Oh, how many stars dyu reckon there are in the universe, now? Let's say... I dunno... 1 000 000 000 000 000? That's pretty conservative... Now, Let's say 0.1% of stars develop planets? That still leaves, what, 1 000 000 000 000 stars... And then maybe only 0.1% of those stars have planets that fall within the correct orbit for them to possibly develop life? Oh, look, 1 (short) billion stars left... Quite a good chance of life to develop, don't you think? The actual chances might have been smaller. The original number of stars is probably considerably larger.

[mannos]

i hope we find dinasaurs on another planet, or giant spiders. it would be an awesome safari!!!

[Dale]

Just started reading



Awesome book so far (Y)

If you beleive in God, you probably won't after reading the first chapter of this.

[Tesseract]

Have read that...

..atm am reading Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion"

[L0neW0lfe]

what about the mistakes and freaks of nature?
did god make a horrible mistake, or was the sick bastard just fucking about?

why have i got an apendix? why is the exact centre of everyones field of vision obscured? from a random evolutionary point of view, they can be explained. but from a design point of view, with a higher being its just stupid

oh, you believe in evolution? alright, why does the Bible say that the earth in 25000 years old (or whatever it is) when there is clear evidence from fossiles, ice core samples, rock samples and about a billion other things that the earth is billions of years old.
is this god's giant game of spore? was earth just sitting here waiting for him to finish populating some other planets to start playing with this one?

btw, fish have gills, not lungs

This argument is finished you idiot. Evolution is proven wrong by science as I said before "the missing links has still not been found". Don't act smart and don't bring dead arguments back to life.

The same goes for Tesseract, please don't waste my time.

Because they are always trying to shove their religion down our throats and they are always saying that they are correct and everyone else is wrong (like you).

Religion is pointless, Christianity more so than any other. It's beliefs are flawed and are constantly being disproved by science/ archeology and new findings.

And the evenagelist culture I particularly despise, you know, the "YOU'RE ALL GOING TO HELL" people. Like this guy http://www.eveningservice.com/Video and no, that guy is not a joke, he is actually an intolerating(sp?) cunt.

Like me, wow, what have I shoved up your throat. The argument was over evolution, which to me was irrational. It seems you are scared of hell, if you don't believe in it than why are you annoyed by the idea of hell and heaven.

[mannos]

This argument is finished you idiot. Evolution is proven wrong by science as I said before "the missing links has still not been found". Don't act smart and don't bring dead arguments back to life.

The same goes for Tesseract, please don't waste my time.

lol
are you serious? sorry if im reacting to some really abstract sarcasm, but yes there isnt A missing link, there are several. we didnt just turn from chips into the 'missing link' and then into humans in a day. and they have found lots of links, they are just looking for all the links so they can study how the evolution process works.

im guessing you dont believe that animals lived millions of years ago? well heres a clue that they did: they pump a million gallons of oil up in Iraq every day, and guess what oils made of? enough evidence for you?


oh,and im not acting smart, i am smart... well, compared to you anyway.

[L0neW0lfe]

lol
are you serious? sorry if im reacting to some really abstract sarcasm, but yes there isnt A missing link, there are several. we didnt just turn from chips into the 'missing link' and then into humans in a day. and they have found lots of links, they are just looking for all the links so they can study how the evolution process works.

im guessing you dont believe that animals lived millions of years ago? well heres a clue that they did: they pump a million gallons of oil up in Iraq every day, and guess what oils made of? enough evidence for you?


oh,and im not acting smart, i am smart... well, compared to you anyway.

You idiot I am not a Christian.

There is apsolutely no empirical scientific evidence which support Darwin's theroy once again don't waste my time and post sources, none of the fossils found recently supports Darwin's theory or are the missing links. Hopefully you will post some sources and proove me wrong, I don't mind.

[mannos]

uh.... at no point did i said that your a part of any religion or sect

anyway, heres just a little bit of info for you. i'll look for some evidence if i have time
"
There are a number of common misunderstandings about evolution, some of which have hindered its general acceptance and form the basis of various objections to evolution. Critics of evolution frequently assert that evolution is "just a theory", a misunderstanding of the meaning of theory in a scientific context: whereas in colloquial speech a theory is a conjecture or guess, in science a theory is "a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that we make". Critics also state that evolution is not a fact, although from a scientific viewpoint evolution is considered both a theory and a fact. A related, more extreme claim is that evolution is a "theory in crisis", generally based on misrepresenting the scientific support and evidence for evolutionary theory.
Another common misunderstanding is the idea that one species, such as humans, can be more "highly evolved" or "advanced" than another. It is often assumed that evolution must lead to greater complexity, or that devolution ("backwards" evolution) can occur. Scientists consider evolution a non-directional process that does not proceed toward any ultimate goal; advancements are only situational, and organisms' complexity can either increase, decrease, or stay the same, depending on which is advantageous, and thus selected for.
Evolution is also frequently misinterpreted as stating that humans evolved from monkeys; based on this, some critics argue that monkeys should no longer exist. This misunderstands speciation, which frequently involves a subset of a population cladogenetically
It is also frequently claimed that speciation has only been inferred, never directly observed. In reality, the evolution of numerous new species has been observed. A similar claim is that only microevolution, not macroevolution, has been observed; however, macroevolution has been observed as well, and modern evolutionary synthesis draws little distinction between the two, considering macroevolution to simply be microevolution on a larger scale.
Other widespread misunderstandings of evolution include the idea that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, which applies to isolated systems, not open systems like the earth, which absorbs light from the sun and radiates heat to space; and that evolution cannot create new physical information, although this regularly occurs whenever a novel mutation or gene duplication arises. splitting off before speciating, rather than an entire species simply turning into a new one. Additionally, biologists have never claimed that humans evolved from monkeys—only that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, as do all organisms."

[L0neW0lfe]

uh.... at no point did i said that your a part of any religion or sect

anyway, heres just a little bit of info for you. i'll look for some evidence if i have time
"
There are a number of common misunderstandings about evolution, some of which have hindered its general acceptance and form the basis of various objections to evolution. Critics of evolution frequently assert that evolution is "just a theory", a misunderstanding of the meaning of theory in a scientific context: whereas in colloquial speech a theory is a conjecture or guess, in science a theory is "a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that we make". Critics also state that evolution is not a fact, although from a scientific viewpoint evolution is considered both a theory and a fact. A related, more extreme claim is that evolution is a "theory in crisis", generally based on misrepresenting the scientific support and evidence for evolutionary theory.
Another common misunderstanding is the idea that one species, such as humans, can be more "highly evolved" or "advanced" than another. It is often assumed that evolution must lead to greater complexity, or that devolution ("backwards" evolution) can occur. Scientists consider evolution a non-directional process that does not proceed toward any ultimate goal; advancements are only situational, and organisms' complexity can either increase, decrease, or stay the same, depending on which is advantageous, and thus selected for.
Evolution is also frequently misinterpreted as stating that humans evolved from monkeys; based on this, some critics argue that monkeys should no longer exist. This misunderstands speciation, which frequently involves a subset of a population cladogenetically
It is also frequently claimed that speciation has only been inferred, never directly observed. In reality, the evolution of numerous new species has been observed. A similar claim is that only microevolution, not macroevolution, has been observed; however, macroevolution has been observed as well, and modern evolutionary synthesis draws little distinction between the two, considering macroevolution to simply be microevolution on a larger scale.
Other widespread misunderstandings of evolution include the idea that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, which applies to isolated systems, not open systems like the earth, which absorbs light from the sun and radiates heat to space; and that evolution cannot create new physical information, although this regularly occurs whenever a novel mutation or gene duplication arises. splitting off before speciating, rather than an entire species simply turning into a new one. Additionally, biologists have never claimed that humans evolved from monkeys—only that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, as do all organisms."

im guessing you dont believe that animals lived millions of years ago?

This is what Christians believe.

Thanks for posting this information, the fact is that I don't know much biology except simple genetics. I did not choose biology as a subject in highschool therefore I have to learn it over the internet. I am still learning and reading online articles about Darwin's theory so I can't say much more yet.

I will post my opinion in this matter when I have learned more, I should have enough information on Darwin's theory and biology in couple of days to conclude.

[Tesseract]

Oh, how funny... You disclaim Evolution as not having any empirical evidence, and then you say you don't know anything about it? How... amusing.

I will post my opinion in this matter when I have learned more, I should have enough information on Darwin's theory and biology in couple of days to conclude.

Looks like you've already posted it, sugar.

Oh, and you seem to change your view very quickly... You say

There is apsolutely no empirical scientific evidence which support Darwin's theroy once again don't waste my time and post sources, none of the fossils found recently supports Darwin's theory or are the missing links. Hopefully you will post some sources and proove me wrong, I don't mind.

And yet, you said earlier...

Nature--> You act as if I don't believe in evolution. I believe in controlled evolution which clearly points to a creator with knowledge. I certainly don't believe in evolution controlled by luck that’s just irrational in my opinion. I think both, me and you would agree that every creature has some sort of ability and tool which helps it survive in the environment they live in, was it an accident that different animals in different environments have different tool and ability which can only help them in the environments which they live in?? For example a fish, it has lungs which helps it live under water. How did evolution know that a creature needs a different type of lungs to survive outside the water??, this is why I say that the evolution is controlled.

...Curious, no? And, as far as I know, there has been no recent evidence that Evolution is wrong, otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument... Maybe it was when me and Mannos blew your Intelligent Design theory out of the water (Don't deny it. It IS intelligent design)