Started By
Message
re: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:42 am to NATidefan
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:42 am to NATidefan
quote:Of course we're mammals, according to such classification. I never said otherwise. Humans and monkeys are also living organisms, but that's a very broad classification compared to being in the same species.
Really? Because Monkey's and Human's are still mammals.. or are we no longer mammals?
1
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:43 am to GeorgiaFan
quote:If by "everyone" you mean the only two humans alive at the time, then yes. I don't think all creatures were alive for very long prior to that event, though.
So everyone used to be immortal until we started committing sins? Or did I misinterpret that?
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:45 am to Kentucker
quote:Does DNA really show that all life came from the same source, or does it show that all life share the same building blocks arranged in different ways with more or less information (comprised of the same basic blocks)? Because those aren't the same things.
But DNA study shows that every bit of life came from one source. There is no variation in the basics of DNA for all organisms. Only additions.
ETA: Signing off, folks. I'll rejoin this wonderful,discussion tomorrow.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:48 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Not sure why we need to give up physics. The world operates pretty reliably at this time so I don't know why we should assume it will change any time soon (if ever). That doesn't mean we should assume it has always operated as it does today if there is reason to believe differently (such as an eye-witness account from the creator). You can choose not to believe it if you wish, but I wouldn't advocate giving up physics.
shite man, according to you God changed physics around 6000 years ago. You really think we should base SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo many things on it if he might just up and decide to change it... I guess I just need to have faith he won't.
I love how God has become this mean vindictive arse that goes around planting fossils, changing physics, etc... just so the book about him written by man stays true to it's word. Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:50 am to FooManChoo
quote:
but that's a very broad classification compared to being in the same species.
Who the frick said we were the same species?
Do you even know what the definition of the same species is?
This post was edited on 4/9/14 at 12:52 am
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:50 am to NATidefan
quote:I think the part in bold is really the key issue here. But we're also talking about a hypothetical, since it is assumed that the two fish were exactly the same but changed to a different class of fish.
Really? Because Monkey's and Human's are still mammals.. or are we no longer mammals?
I'm still waiting on this one, because fish currently fall into three classes, while mammals are only one class.... Now, the two fish I described would be closer than chimps and humans obviously...
But to say it's believable because they are still fish, but to say it's not believable eventhough they are still mammals is pretty strange.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:53 am to FooManChoo
quote:
I think the part in bold is really the key issue here. But we're also talking about a hypothetical, since it is assumed that the two fish were exactly the same but changed to a different class of fish.
No the issue is you know zero to little about evolution and the classification of the animal kingdom.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:53 am to NATidefan
quote:Mock if you like. You have your own assumptions about the past to make sure your theories fit nicely.
shite man, according to you God changed physics around 6000 years ago. You really think we should base SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo many things on it if he might just up and decide to change it... I guess I just need to have faith he won't.
I love how God has become this mean vindictive arse that goes around planting fossils, changing physics, etc... just so the book about him written by man stays true to it's word.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:54 am to FooManChoo
quote:
You have your own assumptions about the past to make sure your theories fit nicely.
Mine aren't all assumptions and most of them are no longer based on theories.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 12:59 am to NATidefan
quote:No one said we were in the same species (I didn't). You must be getting confused here.
Who the frick said we were the same species?
Do you even know what the definition of the same species is?
I was responding to this quote: "Really? Because Monkey's and Human's are still mammals.. or are we no longer mammals?"
Mammal is a class that includes a lot of different families and species within them.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 1:00 am to NATidefan
quote:Your confusion regarding my posts may be due to a communication breakdown somewhere but you have very little information abut what I do and do not know and understand.
No the issue is you know zero to little about evolution and the classification of the animal kingdom.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 1:01 am to NATidefan
quote:You, like everyone else, have axioms by which all the rest of your beliefs are based. You and I are no different in this regard.
Mine aren't all assumptions and most of them are no longer based on theories
Posted on 4/9/14 at 1:08 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Mammal is a class that includes a lot of different families and species within them.
Yeah... so are fish... actually fish contain multiple classes... but you have no issues with a certain species of fish splitting into two different species... but you have an issue with a species of mammal splitting into different species. And then I assume splitting again, and again, and again, until you have chimps over here and humans over there.
Yet, fish can split, cause they are still fish...
Why can't ape-ancestor split into ape-ancestor A and ape-ancestor B... then A splits into A-1 and A-2 and B splits into B-1 and B-2. and on and on and on... until you have A-55 (chimp) and B-55(human). they look enough alike, have plenty of genentic and physical similarities... But nope... not possible.. but if the fish did it... then.... maybe... Amirite?
Posted on 4/9/14 at 1:13 am to NATidefan
And if you want some examples of B1-B55 (55 is just a number I'm throwing out there btw) then here you go... LINK
ETA- if the money and interest was there i bet we could find some examples of A1-A55 as well... and chimps might know more about their heritage.
ETA- if the money and interest was there i bet we could find some examples of A1-A55 as well... and chimps might know more about their heritage.
This post was edited on 4/9/14 at 1:17 am
Posted on 4/9/14 at 1:15 am to FooManChoo
quote:
FooManChoo
To let you know I don't think you're dumb or anything we just have different views.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 1:16 am to FooManChoo
quote:
FooManChoo
FWIW, I don't think you are dumb either... Blinded by the light maybe, but not dumb.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 1:28 am to NATidefan
What's really interesting, is that it appears to me that human's have become so good at adapting and surviving, we aren't really evolving that much anymore. The strong take care of the weak, so both the weak and the strong genes are being passed on. It'll probably take a huge catastrophe for it to be seen. Which, surprise surprise, has been studied, theorized, and somewhat proven as reasons for huge evolutionary changes within our ancestors in the past.
however, a girl's ability to twerk may be much more common in the future.
however, a girl's ability to twerk may be much more common in the future.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 3:01 am to NATidefan
This last post of mine isn't exactly correct... our ability to adapt and survive is a part of our evolution.... the fact we have become so good at it has made the mutation part of it obsolete to an extent... but that doesn't necessarily make evolution obsolete... the ability to learn, adapt, teach, etc... always pushes our species forward, you don't need mutations for this to occur.
Posted on 4/9/14 at 6:30 am to FooManChoo
quote:
My point is that you breed one type of dog (wolf) with another type of dog and you'll get another kind of dog. It won't produce a cat (or something within the felidae family)
Do you not realize how stupid you sound? Your comprehension of evolution is laughable. If you want to know why scientists laugh at you, this quote is pretty much it. If you remotely understood evolution, you would never ask why a dog can't produce a cat.
This post was edited on 4/9/14 at 6:59 am
Posted on 4/9/14 at 6:58 am to FooManChoo
You'd give up on physics because radiometric dating becomes unusable and you have no explanation why it all of the sudden stops working past 6000 years, when we know for a fact that it is the most reliable dating method there is. You'd give up on Physics because the speed of light and all of relativistic mechanics can not possibly be true because the light reaching this planet is far older than a mere 6000 years.
Page 20 of 49
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News