warri0r45

I can help you on the first one there, Baron. Yes, from memory, if the finches didn't become different species or anything that drastic, (although I think they would have become different species now I think of it) it would be an example of simple natural selection and microevolution. Basically, microevolution involves small changes that don't cause the organism to change so much that it is considered a different species, while macro evolution is evolution that does eventually caused speciation or divergance of an organism into one or more different species. I'm sure BlueLancer can help you out too. :)

I challenge you to disprove it then. As far as we know, aside from religious belief, the Earth was created about 5 bilion years ago and humans came to exist less than 100,000 years ago. And Jesus is the prophet of God, not God Himself. I was making a statement rather than a question. I was using it to prove my point that really, there's nothing provable when it comes to a forum situation here. All people are going to do is post links as their best evidence (and there's nothing wrong with that). That's what I really mean. I what I wrote after that. As I've said before, these topics are useless (especially when it comes to people trying to prove things). We need to agree to disagree. The only reason why people won't accept evidence is if they are narrow minded or can't be bothered trying to see things from someone elses perspective because it may upset thier deep seeded beliefs. No one should let belief get in the way of science. It's incredibly narrow minded and counter intuitive. Just becuase you don't like this topic or think evidence is useless here dosen't mean I'm going to concede defeat and just say ok, nevermind about science or trying to find the truth, just believe whatever your parents tell you. Humans are questioning in nature and you shouldn't let a supernatural belief quash that for your whole life. Now keep in mind I don't care what people believe in. Science and religion can and should learn to coexist. Also keep in mind science is not a belief (yes, we've been over the whole subjective truth matter and other philosophical points on science before, there's no need to do it again).

I challenge you to disprove it then. As far as we know, aside from religious belief, the Earth was created about 5 bilion years ago and humans came to exist less than 100,000 years ago. And Jesus is the prophet of God, not God Himself. Thanks for posting, but I have to remind you that's not what this topic is about. Thus far there have been only two challangers, one of whom provided two sources which were religously motivated and the other is yet to provide a source for his claim that, seeing as physicists are starting to doubt the contant 'c' as not being so constant, time can be interpreted in different ways and many years can be interpreted as days (or something to that effect :? ). Correct me if I'm wrong anonimu and a source is still required.

At least get what you're writing correct first, before you flame. Even though he may not have the year historically correct, he makes a good point, unless, of course, you don't take the bibal as literal fact.

I need the source of the information, thanks.

:-s Hetero, don't care about homos. :P

I want to buy Madagascar! Then I can say I own Madagascar! :P I'll even name my house Antananarivo. Haha, I would buy south-east Queensland, even though I already live in the real thing. #-o :P

Natural selection and the subsequent breeding of the strongest is a key mechanism to evolution. The natural mutations occuring in DNA replication when forming new sperm and egg cells propogate new (or edited, if you like) information to the offspring. (When I say new information, it's information that wasn't there in the previous generation due to genetic code mispairing, which is natural and undisputed). These variations can be of benefit (a darker colour in moths), thus making them survive longer and be more immune to predation or the harsh nature of thier environment. Each of these things leads to a longer and stronger period of reproduction which ensures they spread thier genes and any possible furthur mutations to the next generation. This is usually dubbed 'micro' evolution by creationists in particular and they don't doubt that it does happen. We have seen this happen in nature and in the lab with fruit flies etc. From memory, I heard that some creationists believe these changes are temporary for some reason and they will change back, which is nonsense as genes don't have a brain or memory to change back to what they were in previous generations. But I digress... Basically, yes, no offence or anything, but I think your knowlege of evolution is lacking. I could send you some sources via PM if you'd like.

I want one of those world Islands!! Quite a few million each no doubt.

Thanks for your support. :) My standing on this topic is the fact that creationists use blatantly false sciece to justify thier claims. It's not a case of trying to prove my stance wrong or right, because the overwhelming majority of the scientific community embrace an old earth and evolutionary theory, no matter what you hear from creationists trying to make you unsure. I'm not trying to fill your head with childish rhetoric of 'I'm right so there!,' I'm trying to rid peoples misconceptions and misuses of science to justify false claims. Wow, that's odd as all the half organised creationist sites I've ever visited concede that 'micro' evolution is true according to natural selection and use that very example to testify to it's truth. Anyway guys, back on track I've had 2 entrants for 0 positive results.

Mark, have a look into radiometric dating. Research it, seriously. And perhaps you would like to take a look at my topic called "the challenge." Give it a look, and give it a go to show us all how right you are.

No worries and thanks. :)

The proper term for science could be Pseudo-Creationism to some. Science is, unlike someone said, a belief. If you believe in science, you believe your empirical senses are infallible. If you see something go one way a million times, it cannot go the other way the next? Statistics lie, experiments in the physical world has a million possible outcomes. If you call it truth, it's because you believe in your senses. I believe in my senses, it's my belief that science tells me the truth. If some people don't want to believe in science, it's like telling me they don't believe in their senses. Nothing else. So I let them say that, more often than not I do not tell them of their non-belief in their senses, but their non-enlightenment is as bas as that of the scientist who does not consider his belief to be just that, a belief. I'm just trying to say that this thread isn't gonna prove anything, kinda meta-discussing it :P For people who believe in science it quite obviously does nothing but maybe reinforce their beliefs, which I don't really think is necessary. And the way to disprove someone who does not believe in their senses is not by using your senses. Wow, what a rant :) Point taken, but theories are designed to be falliable. Science is designed to correct itself and move on. It's, if you believe I suppose, foolproof. Our senses are basically all we have to analyse the natural world and seeing as everyone has them, everyone can see the inner workings of science (in theory). Of course you can break it down to a philosophical level and pick science apart as not being the ultimate truth about everything but that isn't the purpose here. Science is the closest thing we have to an objective device used to uncover truth (if you believe that i suppose). Again, this topic is not about philosophy. Point taken though. :wink:

Dude that sucks, but yeah, the law is always on the side of the truthful (well, 99% of the time :? ).

Are you lowering yourself to the level of a mere animal? That seems a lot like Roman philosophy though, except for the nice touch of cynicism. It's basically dividing the body into parts and naming their functions, i.e. labeling us as not one living thing but a sum of parts, which is false, or at least bad, thinking. (The basic philosophy is eye=for seeing, ears=for hearing, sex organs= for reproducing). Do you really believe that if you have a purpose, it is to be nothing but to be a worthless carrier of genes? Who sais being a carrier of genes is worthless? :P But I see what you're saying. I think purpose should have a biological and an emotional aspect.

Thanks for going into more detail there Bluelancer. To be honest, I wasn't going to go past the fact that the titles are creationism.org and creation fellowship but thanks nonetheless. I feel I need to apologise for this but, I will actually read through any other entrants.

I'm just wondering, with a totally natural approach, how did you get an education or are you homeschooled? It is impossible to get an education without studying at least a bit of biology, and even in a local christian school where I live they teach evolution as a part of the curriculum. Evolution is not an argument against religion. Evolution happens in everything in the nature as a normal biological process, just like you evolve from a child to an adult. That's short term natural evolution, then there's long term evolution. Why do some people think "I'm christian/muslim/mormon/chocolate lightsaber, therefore I must refute certain biological facts such as evolution? Speak for yourself. :roll: I didn't say anything about your last sentence. Reread what I said, I told him to get over the fact that others disagree with him. I'm no trying to prove or disprove anything here at the moment. You can, as well, get over it too. No, seriously, get over it! Move on, deal with it! Nobody CARES WHAT YOU THINK! Seriously. Nobody cares. Eels, I couldn't care less if no one believes what I do. All I'm trying to do is weed out the so called 'science' which creationists seem to think justifies them claiming the world is 6000 years old and evolution is total garbage. They use propoganda to keep people docile, no joke. But hey, you may think a different way and think they speak of absolute truth. Biology and geology aren't beliefs. Science is not a belief and so far I am yet to see anyone submit a qualified entrant. The bold and harsh truth is that, unless you can prove otherwise, that the only people who claim of a young earth and fallacies in evolution are religously motivated. That's no opinion, that's a going trend on all creationist sources which I have ever viewed in my life. As I anticipate a philosophical flame fest from people such as Locke, I must remid you that's not what this topic is about. For starters I haven't once on this topic, told anyone my own personal belief or tried to convert any people. :wink: IF you would like to weed out the "science" behind a creationist beliefs that why not Google it. :wink: Here's a couple of links I found first page of a Google search: Link 1 Link 2 Look around, read it, I'm sure you'll be able to find you're information. :) :wink: Creationism.org and Creation Fellowship, hmm. I'd have to say they do not qualify due to the fact that they are... what do you think I'm gonna say? Religously motivated, impartial, biased. Wouldn't you agree? Sorry if it sounds like I'm brushing you off here Eels, but I have seen a myriad of sources like this before, each with scientific explinations for the 'science' they use. These are nothing special, sorry.

I'm just wondering, with a totally natural approach, how did you get an education or are you homeschooled? It is impossible to get an education without studying at least a bit of biology, and even in a local christian school where I live they teach evolution as a part of the curriculum. Evolution is not an argument against religion. Evolution happens in everything in the nature as a normal biological process, just like you evolve from a child to an adult. That's short term natural evolution, then there's long term evolution. Why do some people think "I'm christian/muslim/mormon/chocolate lightsaber, therefore I must refute certain biological facts such as evolution? Speak for yourself. :roll: I didn't say anything about your last sentence. Reread what I said, I told him to get over the fact that others disagree with him. I'm no trying to prove or disprove anything here at the moment. You can, as well, get over it too. No, seriously, get over it! Move on, deal with it! Nobody CARES WHAT YOU THINK! Seriously. Nobody cares. Eels, I couldn't care less if no one believes what I do. All I'm trying to do is weed out the so called 'science' which creationists seem to think justifies them claiming the world is 6000 years old and evolution is total garbage. They use propoganda to keep people docile, no joke. But hey, you may think a different way and think they speak of absolute truth. Biology and geology aren't beliefs. Science is not a belief and so far I am yet to see anyone submit a qualified entrant. The bold and harsh truth is that, unless you can prove otherwise, the only people who claim of a young earth and fallacies in evolution are religously motivated. That's no opinion, that's a going trend on all creationist sources which I have ever viewed in my life. As I anticipate a philosophical flame fest from people such as Locke, I must remid you that's not what this topic is about.

I'll give you credit for being ambitious, errdoth..

Haha, you guys still going at it? What's being argued now? :? :P

So what's your answer to the problem there slowstorm?

Care to offer ten examples? Should be easy if there's a "ton" Again, care to offer some proof? Both Evolutionists and Creationists claim that there had to have been two people of opposite gender in order to reproduce. Both Adam and Eve are perfectly normal names. Your "obviously" seems to be less obvious than you claim. Let me make sure I'm not misunderstanding this Slowstorm. You're saying that since Adam and Eve are normal names, thier story is plausible? And as for Strowez, I'd like to see a source for what you claim please. Perhaps you may want to take a look at my topic 'the challenge' as well.

What makes you suggest we're going backwards, sumpta? Besides that, say we have developed some problems; who's to say evolution won't ween them out in the future? You see, evolution becomes a different kettle of fish if you like when it comes to humans. We have the ability to determine our environment and to effectively cheat death and keep the weaker of us alive through medications. You could argue those in poverty are the only ones who will continue to evolve measurably and you could argue conversely that genetic variations will be weened out through globalisation. I went through many possibilities of how humans may evolve in the future on a school assignment which I enjoyed very much and which is probably why I'm rambling on :P . I would like a respone to my first question, though.

Fundamentalism is not restricted to religious fanatics. As I see it, scientist-fanatics can be/are just as fundamentalist in their beliefs. I often see striking resemblances between two completely opposite enemies: the adamant and unreasonable manner in which they stick to their guns, without considering the other party's feelings and opinions. The difference there is that fundamentalist scientists have basically no evidence to lay base to thier claim (which is basically what science relies on) and as a result no scientist with two shreds of integrity or brainpower will listen to them. Fundamentalist Christians also have no evidence to lay base to thier claim, yet they have the propoganda factor as I call it; raising young kids on a strict diet of 'this is the way it is' and 'never let anyone question the way you think.'

Well written there sumpta, I couldn't agree more. People (the hardcore fundamentalists) take the bible much to literally in sacrifice of common sense it seems.