Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/anime/public_html/banzai/header.php:34) in /home/anime/public_html/banzai/includes/sessions.php on line 254
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/anime/public_html/banzai/header.php:34) in /home/anime/public_html/banzai/includes/sessions.php on line 255
Anime-Source.Com: Forums
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/anime/public_html/banzai/header.php:34) in /home/anime/public_html/banzai/includes/page_header.php on line 499
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/anime/public_html/banzai/header.php:34) in /home/anime/public_html/banzai/includes/page_header.php on line 501
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/anime/public_html/banzai/header.php:34) in /home/anime/public_html/banzai/includes/page_header.php on line 502 Anime-Source.com :: View topic - call to creationists
Joined: Jun 25, 2005 Posts: 206 Location: Somewhere around Meifu...
Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 11:01 am Post subject: .....................*sweat drop*........................
Quote:
HEY! Did anyone notice this thread has wandered far off track from what it should be? Start posting on EVOLUTION! The point of this thread is not the upsides and downsides of religon, as that debate would go on forever.
Well...one thing is for sure...I didnt started it!!!
I just gave you my opinion and you started the debate that still makes me pissed as hell!!!
Anyway, lets get back to track...
Evolution is continuous..
We, humans...consiously or unconsiously will always try to improve ourselves like for example...we undergo social evolution to achieve social high standard bla bla bla...
And we also undergo evolution under consious like for example, our dna bla bla bla whatever inside our body will evolutionize itself to improve us and be benificial for us...
It is said that in a few thousand years...we, humans wont even turn old because of evolution and in other word, it also means we die young!!! (Of course when you dont turn old...you social stamping of old people is maybe 200years old and above so if lets just say in a few thousands time, you die at 104...they will still consider it as dieing young)
Flying fish...giant squid bla bla...all that will evolutionize
I hope thats the topic you want subbergod...cuz i definitely have no clue what kind of evolution that you want!!! And dont flame me if i got this wrong, okay???
kazutaka seems to prefer drawing back and let me get the spotlight but unfortunately without him...i'll just be a lollipop bumbling bouncing bafoon!!! that's what he says... _________________ (*^.^)Yami(^.^*)
It is said that in a few thousand years...we, humans wont even turn old because of evolution and in other word, it also means we die young!!! (Of course when you dont turn old...you social stamping of old people is maybe 200years old and above so if lets just say in a few thousands time, you die at 104...they will still consider it as dieing young)
Time for flaming. First of all, such an evoutionary result would most likey not occur since it would cause massive overpopulation, therefore it would not be an adaption. If something like that were to happen it would be due to medical technologies, not evolutionary benifits.
Second of all, it would take FAR longer than one thousand years. It would take millions. Humans existed thousands of years ago and for the most part we are physically the same. Massive changes don't just happen in a few thousand years.
OH, FLAMED!
Quote:
Pure evolutionist
Evolutionist: Not a word.
Pure evolutionism: Not a phrase.
Conclusion: there is no such thing as a pure evolutionist.
Joined: Jun 25, 2005 Posts: 206 Location: Somewhere around Meifu...
Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 9:16 am Post subject: .....................*sweat drop*........................
subbergod wrote:
Does anyone support the idea of a science sticky?
A science sticky??? What's a sticky???
Let's go back to your flame for my last post...I didnt say A thousand years...I said in a FEW thousand years and by a few it could mean thousand + thousand + thousand + thousand years...got it???
And what do you mean we didnt evolve physically? It is hypothesized that homo sapiens in the past is taller and bigger than now...imagine short little mini us fighting against a t-rex...and since we dont have any treat 10x bigger than our body...that's why we become smaller!!!
AND my theory which is also supported by a few scientist and researchers that said that homo sapien wont turn old...bla bla bla might come true!!!
BUT that can only been taken into account if the end of the world didnt hit us first!!!~(im not going into religion here...it's still under science)
honestly submarine god...how long do you think the earth will last considering the fact that lately we've done nothing but damaging it???
We got a lot of topics to debate about here like the earth magnetic wave, a blackhole, the sun, paranormal creatures(aliens), apoclypse, meteor shower and the list goes on and on and on!!! (ever heard of nostradamus??? we'll debate about him later...after you've done flaming THIS post)
Considering the fact that us humans always finds a solution to everything im sure the problem of the earth dieing is like a mosquito bite...
That's where the theory of living in mars, jupiter or whatever the heck planet they choose comes into motion (which i think is bull anyway!!!...i mean if they want to live in a planet where the storm is 10x worse then ours and the gases is lethal once breath then go ahead...if they want to die in mars, jupiter or whatever then be my guest but why do we need to go to this unhabitable planet when we have earth as the best solution??? talk about DUH!!!!)
Soooooooo....if...i said IF we manage to survive the end of the world...then im sure the unageing homo sapiens is just like a piece of cake...(we do got biotechnology, cloning bla bla bla althought not yet at the major stage)
so there ends my flaming for today!!! hope you can crack your gigantic 8inches of brain to flame me back!!!
Ja!!!!~ _________________ (*^.^)Yami(^.^*)
It's one of the threads that stays at the top of a forum, like the faqs, and is a permanent thread.
Quote:
I said in a FEW thousand years and by a few it could mean thousand + thousand + thousand + thousand years...got it???
It would take more like a few million years.
Quote:
AND my theory which is also supported by a few scientist and researchers that said that homo sapien wont turn old...bla bla bla might come true!!!
That's due to technology, not evolution. Read more than the headline of the articles.
Quote:
honestly submarine god...how long do you think the earth will last considering the fact that lately we've done nothing but damaging it???
At some point we will realise that we are fucking ourselves over, and put in placeradical changes, seeing our wastefull ways cannot continue forever. So how long do I think earth will last? Approx. 6 billion years.
Quote:
That's where the theory of living in mars, jupiter or whatever the heck planet they choose comes into motion (which i think is bull anyway!!!...i mean if they want to live in a planet where the storm is 10x worse then ours and the gases is lethal once breath then go ahead...
There are plenty of places on Mars safe from storms. And what harm are lethal gases? We would have to live in airtight cities anyway. By the way, no one want to live on jupiter, we want to look into it's moon titan, which happens to have water and most likely living organisms as well.
Quote:
why do we need to go to this unhabitable planet when we have earth as the best solution???
Overpopulation. Damaged atmosphere. Cheaper living. Huge possibilities for manufacturing. Possibilities of new metals, meaning mining obs for millions. That's ust to say the least. Why live here when we can live other places too? Our first step to creating a multi-planet empire.
Joined: Dec 17, 2004 Posts: 657 Location: In the rice paddies.... picking rice
Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 11:24 am Post subject:
... sorry for not posting (i went home for the summer... and i have no internets at home... T_T) so now i guess i'll try to do this on a crappy public library computer....
i skipped to the end here; b/c i believe that the past 6 pages would only be full of stuff we aloready know, and also filled with thinly veiled insults and cursing. i had to actually go back 2 pages to find some valid arguements lol
now to steer the thread away from debating teh use of religion, i'mma have to actually answer the "call to creationists"
but first....
to defend the claim of atheism dogmatically, you'd have to know everything in the past, present, and future in order to say with conclusive proof that there is no god. Atheism isn't really a valid dogmatic claim, it's more of an ideal. the more appropriate term would be "agnostic", meaning that you don't/can't know that there is a god.....(i think this makes sense, don't you?)
okok, no more religion, all about science
Darwin claimed himself that he didn't know if the fossil record would validate his theory. He claimed that if future findings didn't validate his theory, then evolution would be dead.
the Cambrain explosion was 520 to 490 million years ago, where all the major phyla of animals occured. if there was a descent from a common ancestor (as taught by evolution), then one organism should lead to 2, then to 4, etc. etc. But science has found that nearly all of the major phyla of the animal kingdom just suddenly appeared during this time, negating macro-evolution's theory of one common ancestor.
im not saying that there isn't any more fossils out there; but just as a thought... these animals didn't just magically appear and evolution couldn't have caused such a diverse, large-scale development.
of course this doesn't even touch on the big bang, or the origin of life (i'll get to that later..... ) _________________ Shepherd the lost sheep
Grant us respite against wolven fangs
And, bestow a crushing blow upon the devil
FINAL FANTASY FOR LIFE
I AM THE Ragnarok Online EXPERT
Finally! I have been waiting for someone to actually post something RELAVENT.
Quote:
now i guess i'll try to do this on a crappy public library computer....
I'm still laughing.
Quote:
to defend the claim of atheism dogmatically, you'd have to know everything in the past, present, and future in order to say with conclusive proof that there is no god.
No. Atheism is the belief that there is no god, based on scientific evidence, NOT conclusive proof as it will be impossible to prove that anytime in the near future. Who are you to define what atheism is?
Quote:
Darwin claimed himself that he didn't know if the fossil record would validate his theory. He claimed that if future findings didn't validate his theory, then evolution would be dead.
Darwin was also from the 1800's. His research was simply the base for modern evolutionary theory. Don't go thinking that whatever was written by Darwin is the premises for evolution.
Quote:
one organism should lead to 2, then to 4, etc. etc.
Not nesseceraly true.
Quote:
the Cambrain explosion was 520 to 490 million years ago, where all the major phyla of animals occured. But science has found that nearly all of the major phyla of the animal kingdom just suddenly appeared during this time, negating macro-evolution's theory of one common ancestor.
What do you mean by "suddenly appeared" Fossils from back then can only be judged to within several million years. That is not suddenly. This was the time when the biggest example of evolution occured. I think you need to read up a bit more, so you will realise why your previous post is so ridiculous. Also, if you are suggesting, as I have a nagging suspicion you are, that that is when god created us all, that would contradict the bible and common sense, seeing as there is proof of organisms from millions and millions of years previous to the Cambrain explosion. Your arguement is greatly flawed.
Quote:
evolution couldn't have caused such a diverse, large-scale development.
That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
Quote:
of course this doesn't even touch on the big bang, or the origin of life (i'll get to that later..... )
How many times must I say it... THAT'S NOT THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD. The topic is evolution only. Not the existence of god, not the big bang, just evolution and creationism.
Cloudblade, thatnk you for posting something on topic and let's try to keep this thread from getting sidetracked in future.
Joined: Mar 26, 2005 Posts: 8282 Location: stuck in tard tard land
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 4:04 am Post subject:
Err...not realy gonna contribute to the topic with this, but just to make clear.... not all atheists strongly believe a 100% that there is no gOd...
There are many who just refrain from believing if one exists or not. That ultimitly, no one can answer that question 100%... rather that they side with the current evidence (or lack of from the arguments for) that there is no GoD, but ultimitly, there is still a possibility that one (or more) exists.
....I think its called weak atheism or somthing.....has a lot to do with appathy towards the debate, they just dont care or refrain from opinion, and dont assert whether one exists or not.
(I'm bad at explaining, so sorry it dont make sence^^'')
Joined: Oct 18, 2005 Posts: 132 Location: Midland, travelling as the Century Slayer
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 5:18 am Post subject:
In the minds of many, the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" are the same. And common day language suggests any distinction is just a matter of semantics. However, they are subtlely different as Cloudblade indicates. This distinction parlty centers on the problem of belief vs. fact. Both have reservations over the existence of God. However, agnostics can believe God does not exist, without citing empirical evidence because this is a belief. Atheists claim God exists, but any claim requires empirical evidence, which unfortunately does not exist. However, this distinction takes nothing away from the atheist position, because any dealing with religion tends to be irrational: any position on religion does not and cannot have any supporting empirical evidence.
Of course, people can choose my position: Pastafarianism. We take the position that a divine being created a universe with trees, mountains, and a midgit (actual spelling according to Bobby Henderson) from which all life arised. We of course are not a satirical religion (perish the thought, you reactionary). We just like to champion idiotic design (not to be confused with Intelligent Design, which entails idiots espousing a theory that an intelligent being created living beings as they are today). Idioic Design is a theory which says intelligent people believe that an Idiotic being (Spaghetti is quite dumb, in case anyone is wondering) created the world and its inhabitants. Of course, this is a pertinent position, despite all the overwhelming evidence, from fossil records to genetic analysis, that evolutionary proponents claim.
Note on the Cambrian explosion: It was an event in which all "presently-existing" major phyla originated. That means all organisms today derive from the phyla which originated then. Hence that suggests certain phyla became extinct at the crossroads between the Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian period. There very well was life prior to the Cambrian period, from which significant changes arose, resulting in the new phyla in the Cambrian. That is evolution. The wiki article on Cambrian explosion that Cloudblade cited also indicated that non single-cellular organisms also may have existed in the Pre-Cambrian. What we can take from fossil records is not that complex life spontaneously arose in the Cambrian. Instead, more complex organisms arosed at a seemingly discontinuity because of a supposedly major quantum leap in complexity, particularly multicellularity. One possible remedy is Stephen Jay Gould's principle of punctuated equilibrium. More recent fossil records have shown rather abrupt changes in physiology of seemingly related organisms ("abrupt" may be the wrong word because the organisms still had many striking similar, related anatomical parts). The same could be hypothesized in reagards to the seemingly large explosion in diversity during the Cambrian.
One problem with Cloudblade's analysis of the Cambrian period is that there seems to be a implication that no life existed prior to the Cambrian. The actual analysis is that everything in today's phyla just originated then. All other phyla did not survive. Fossils dated Pre-Cambrian do have organism remnants, but these samples are of organisms which do not exist today or have "little" closely related modern organisms (little in that scientists subjectively find them significantly unrelated*). Why? They were selected against to survive because of any of numerous environmental stresses (temperature change, sea level changes, food availability). Doesn't that sound like evolution to anyone?
Also, dates going back to the Cambrian period rely on high orders of magnitude with small significant figures. Hence the dating is extremely relative and error on the scale of tens of millions of years. Hence, a large gap in time permitting much evolutionary change is permissible. Nuclear dating or dating by fossil record composition is a tool useful for approximation only.
One thing to note: evolution is not about perfection. It does not entail any perfect organism. The process is about trade-offs. No perfect organism exists. Even the human, despite its gains as a biped, entails in its physiology a penchant for lower back problems. The conclusion: evolution is not about perfection, otherwise life on the Earth would not be dynamic.
Ramen
P.S.: Ann Coulter is a bitch!
*Can anyone explain to me how scientists could have said that Pre-Cambrian organisms were so different from today's and neither phyla were the same? If they did this based on fossil records, genetic material would not have been available to analyze. So then the very subjective categorization be appearance would have resulted. Although such a categorization is not inherently flaw, it would be nice to now if taxonomists used a more empirical method. Unless, organisms of the Pre-Cambrian were so physiologically different on the cellular level....
To those wanting to play devil's advocate, if you challenge the way scientists classify Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian differences in phyla, and choose to say it was a flawed classification, the implication of the argument would be that the Cambrian is not the explosion of diversity scientists have found to be true. Thus, the Cambrian explosion should never been used as fodder, in this scenario, as rationale that evolution is not credible. In truth, all respectable scientists have sufficient empircal evidence to support the veracity of evolution.
Joined: Aug 05, 2005 Posts: 3228 Location: Jack lives here
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:40 am Post subject:
CloudBlade wrote:
to defend the claim of atheism dogmatically, you'd have to know everything in the past, present, and future in order to say with conclusive proof that there is no god. Atheism isn't really a valid dogmatic claim, it's more of an ideal. the more appropriate term would be "agnostic", meaning that you don't/can't know that there is a god.....(i think this makes sense, don't you?)
It's not about conclusive proof. It's about collating all the evidence you have and coming up with an explanation or explanations that fit the facts as snugly as possible.
Joined: Sep 03, 2005 Posts: 3412 Location: In your refrigerator, eating your food
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:21 am Post subject:
Ramen beats spaghetti I agree.
Read Richard Dawkins book "The Ancestor's tale". Very good book.
After that read Josh Mcdonald(?)'s "New Evidence That demands a verdict"
You tell me.
In total, the two books should exceed 1600 pages. Good luck to you. (The latter is longer than the bible, hahahha) _________________ [img:309:200:9b3695521e]http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/8583/dobedobedojs0.jpg[/img:9b3695521e]
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All images and comments are property of their respective owners, all the rest � 2002 by Anime-Source.com.
You can syndicate our news using the file backend.php.
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
