HAGANE NO RENKINJUTSUSHI
HAGANE NO RENKINJUTSUSHI
full metal alchemist
full metal alchemist
 



Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

43 Pages V  « < 39 40 41 42 43 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Evolution? Creation?, What do you believe in?
What do you believe in?
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 207
Guests cannot vote 
GothGirl
post May 14 2007, 02:09 PM
Post #601


Apprentice
**

Group: Members
Posts: 126
Joined: 2-March 07
From: Earth, last time I checked
Member No.: 45,165
Gender: Female



QUOTE
You do realize you've given nothing to support creationism nor anything that debunks Evolution or even throws it into any real doubt, right?
The guys you put in Bold simply said evolution was unlikely and statistically improbable. That doesn't make it impossible by any means.


QUOTE
^ The reason these guys don't admit that evolution is wrong or admit that there is obviously a god is because they personally don't believe those things. However, they really shoudn't let that get in the way of the evidence.

What evidence are you talking about?

I actually agree with Popo (go figure happy.gif). It's foolish to claim that there is no way that humans and plants have created themselves because the chances of it happening is highly unlikely. There have just been so many millions of years where life has had chances to evolve. That's a lot of chances (yes, I know I'm stating the obvious here, but it appeared as if people needed the obvious stated). When a species has had that long to change, with that many chances, having that species develop something amazingly complex, such as the human eye doesn't seem nearly as far-fetched. It's science. Also, those of you who say that humans creating themselves is a crazy concept, and God must have created them, I have a question for you. Who created God? I mean, did someone create him? Or did he just come to be, creating himself? I was just wondering... mellow.gif


--------------------

Thanks to ed_drink_your_milk for this awesome siggy!
Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped. ~Elbert Hubbard
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carnal Malefacto...
post May 14 2007, 02:27 PM
Post #602


Gallery Mod Emeritus
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 11,000
Joined: 24-August 04
From: In your daughter's bedroom, chanting lines from the Necrololicon
Member No.: 526
Gender: Male



Just because something is improbable, doesn't mean it wouldn't happen - especially given the 5-6 billion years that evolution had to take shape.

I could rattle off a list of twenty incredibly improbable things that happened during the last NFL season, for cryin' out loud.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Full Flame Alche...
post May 14 2007, 03:30 PM
Post #603


Apprentice
**

Group: Members
Posts: 240
Joined: 9-January 05
From: The other side of the gate
Member No.: 5,327
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Abstruse Eulogy @ May 14 2007, 10:27 PM) [snapback]543092[/snapback]
Just because something is improbable, doesn't mean it wouldn't happen - especially given the 5-6 billion years that evolution had to take shape.

I could rattle off a list of twenty incredibly improbable things that happened during the last NFL season, for cryin' out loud.


I'm sure evolution is significantly more improbable than anything that happened in 'NFL' (whatever that is tongue.gif). It isn't just 'highly unlikely'. As the first person admits the chance of RNA and DNA (two vital things) forming together at the exact same time couldn't help leading him to think that life could 'never have originated by chemical means'.
Someone a while back mentioned that we all came from a 'mad space gnome'(admittely this is bit a more silly than saying we evolved). Obviously they were joking but nobody can exactly prove it's not true(although with evolution there are plenty of other things to prove it's not true.). Still no self-respecting scientist would put forward this theory because it's just plain silly. The same applies with evolution, it's so improbable that most scientists who closely study it (like the second man that article quoted) would say it was impossible. As he is looking for another reason how RNA and DNA originated. So when I said both those guys still believed in evolution, I was wrong because the second guy doesn't.

I'm not here to make any enemies so thanks for reading my points (and some points which aren't mine tongue.gif). Now I'm off to type NFL into google and see what on earth comes up. And don't think that just because I'm done with my posts now you can say what you like about me, I'll be back to see how you respond to this. And I might even post.


--------------------

Homonculus Rule(except Wrath)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popogeejo
post May 14 2007, 04:27 PM
Post #604


Master Alchemist
******

Group: Members
Posts: 6,914
Joined: 18-February 06
From: Wrapped in my own Ego
Member No.: 31,420
Gender: Male



QUOTE
It isn't just 'highly unlikely'. As the first person admits the chance of RNA and DNA (two vital things) forming together at the exact same time couldn't help leading him to think that life could 'never have originated by chemical means'.
He didn't say that, what he said was:
QUOTE
And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.

This has an entirely different implication. I suggests he has findings that disproves or explains this "first glance analysis."


--------------------

>Click the picture for me gushing over over Summer Wars shenanigans!<
The various works of FKMT are something you should read
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nepharski
post May 14 2007, 05:56 PM
Post #605


State Alchemist (Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,758
Joined: 24-September 05
From: We built this city on bricks and mortar.
Member No.: 23,257
Gender: Male



If this hasn't already been said, improbability is never to be confused with impossibility. A googleplex-to-one chance still has a chance. Of course, once you admit this, the only thing that can be nailed down is that no one can ultimately decry someone else's theory as impossible, and vice versa.


--------------------
Attention Manga Lust fans:
Lust is dead. Finished. Kaput. Joined the Choir Invisible. Roy Mustang incinerated her repeatedly until her Philosopher's Stone dried up and dissolved into nothingness ("Mu" for you Japanese cultural enthusiasts). And she will remain killed off, written out of the plot. Greed was reincarnated because Father saved his Philosopher's Stone and had a guinea pig on hand. Lust is gone. Stop trying to play God with the plot line and bring her back at every possibly junction.
In the event that Hiromu Arakawa can skillfully maneuver around this narrative plot hole, I will eat my words with a pinch of salt.
Nepharski - Our first, last, and hopeful not only line of defense against bad Homunculi theories.

My LiveJournal, because I'm a closet conformist
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Full Flame Alche...
post May 15 2007, 08:28 AM
Post #606


Apprentice
**

Group: Members
Posts: 240
Joined: 9-January 05
From: The other side of the gate
Member No.: 5,327
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Popogeejo @ May 15 2007, 12:27 AM) [snapback]543115[/snapback]
QUOTE
It isn't just 'highly unlikely'. As the first person admits the chance of RNA and DNA (two vital things) forming together at the exact same time couldn't help leading him to think that life could 'never have originated by chemical means'.
He didn't say that, what he said was:
QUOTE
And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.

This has an entirely different implication. I suggests he has findings that disproves or explains this "first glance analysis."


I think the the only reason he said "first glance" is because he believes in evoltuion and doesn't want to admit otherwise. I know we can't prove which one of use is right about what he meant but I'm pretty sure that he wanted to look into it more, rather than already having evidence.

QUOTE
If this hasn't already been said, improbability is never to be confused with impossibility. A googleplex-to-one chance still has a chance.


That is true but I can't imagine any scientist who comes up with a new theory basing it on something which has such a small chance (especially if it's a googleplex-to-one tongue.gif), because nobody would believe it.
I'd also like to add that I'm not basing my entire argument on the fact that it has a near impossible chance of happening. There are lots of other arguments too ( as I'm sure have already been discussed here) but I don't really want to spend forever posting in this thread ( as I'm sure that this argument will keep going on).


--------------------

Homonculus Rule(except Wrath)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popogeejo
post May 15 2007, 08:50 AM
Post #607


Master Alchemist
******

Group: Members
Posts: 6,914
Joined: 18-February 06
From: Wrapped in my own Ego
Member No.: 31,420
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Full Flame Alchemist @ May 15 2007, 04:28 PM) [snapback]543368[/snapback]
I think the the only reason he said "first glance" is because he believes in evoltuion and doesn't want to admit otherwise. I know we can't prove which one of use is right about what he meant but I'm pretty sure that he wanted to look into it more, rather than already having evidence.


http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/orgel.html
Here is the article the quote came from.


QUOTE
There are lots of other arguments too ( as I'm sure have already been discussed here) but I don't really want to spend forever posting in this thread ( as I'm sure that this argument will keep going on).

You keep saying there is evidence that proves evolution is wrong yet you never provide it.


--------------------

>Click the picture for me gushing over over Summer Wars shenanigans!<
The various works of FKMT are something you should read
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carnal Malefacto...
post May 16 2007, 03:04 PM
Post #608


Gallery Mod Emeritus
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 11,000
Joined: 24-August 04
From: In your daughter's bedroom, chanting lines from the Necrololicon
Member No.: 526
Gender: Male



You can't prove a universal negative, anyway.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MonsterEnvy
post May 16 2007, 04:37 PM
Post #609


State Alchemist (Lt. Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 814
Joined: 8-March 06
From: Concord, MA
Member No.: 32,500
Gender: Male



I'd like to quickly hop in and (hopefully) put an end to FullFlame's logical fallacy. First, he argues that the two scientists say that evolution is impossible. This is either a misreading or deliberate misstatement- in fact, they said nothing of the kind. They did, however, say that life evolving in such a way to produce US is highly, highly improbable. Therefore, he assumes that they are saying that evolution is improbable. This is blatantly incorrect. As a matter of fact, the majority of the scientific community finds evolution highly probable, citing the fact that as soon as (on the geologic time scale) the planet was theoretically habitable, basic life began to form, and as soon as (again, geologically) the ground was habitable, basic life began to move out of the oceans. So, it is simply that the specific way which evolution happened to take its course is improbable.

For example, if people tended to have fingers which were a quarter inch longer than they are today, that would have been a slightly different evolutionary trend. One can go as far back as to say that it would have been quite possible for molecules other than adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine to form a macromolecule which performs a similar function to DNA.

So, having gently corrected FF's errant logic, I will continue to discuss why he actually has no real argument whatsoever. Even assuming that these scientists are denying evolution, it means nothing. Anyone could theoretically achieve a degree in science and then deny evolution- this does not change the fact that the theory is accepted by the majority of people. Additionally, even if one accepts the (untrue) idea that evolution has little evidence, it still has more evidence than creationism, which does not have any.

Finally, I will argue, as I have earlier, that this argument is, in some degrees, pointless other than a way to screen out religious nuts and idiots. Creation is untestable, and therefore not a theory, but a philosophy. Evolution could theoretically be disproven, and therefore is more valid.

Cogito ergo sum. Non cogitas ergo tuus procurator sum


--------------------


Sig and tag by Nil-Chan
Punctuation, spelling, and general grammar are our friends! Don't look like an idiot, and be sure not to use numbers in words or toss random Japanese words into sentences where they don't belong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quiddityofquid
post May 16 2007, 05:16 PM
Post #610


Apprentice
**

Group: Members
Posts: 128
Joined: 12-September 05
Member No.: 22,739
Gender: Female



Note: in the previous Latin statement, we are assuming that proxy is a 3rd declension, feminine word. I ask Latin teachers and enthusiasts to please not hate me for this blatant creation of a fake latin noun... (I translated the sentence for ME)
[/spam]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheRainbowConnec...
post Jun 3 2007, 06:52 AM
Post #611


Apprentice
**

Group: Members
Posts: 237
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 45,133



QUOTE(quiddityofquid @ May 16 2007, 05:16 PM) [snapback]544058[/snapback]
Note: in the previous Latin statement, we are assuming that proxy is a 3rd declension, feminine word. I ask Latin teachers and enthusiasts to please not hate me for this blatant creation of a fake latin noun... (I translated the sentence for ME)
[/spam]

...

Attempt to resist correcting your Latin: FAILED. (Nothing personal--I just have an inner classicist that fools itself into thinking it's competent. laugh.gif)

Cogito ergo sum. Non cogitas ergo tuus procurator sum.

More relevant to the topic at hand, I am an agnostic. I believe that evolution is far, far more likely than any sort of intelligent design. However, I also recognize that science tries to explain things in a series of causes and effects, and that when we are talking about the beginnings of the universe, it can be impossible to try to explain it scientifically (Not that it actually does not conform to a set of physical laws but that evidence may be lacking or uncollectable. Empiricism is a b*tch, yo.) Therefore, I am open to the Deist mode of thought--an omnipotent deity somehow created the basic physical laws and initial state of this world, snapped his fingers, and caused the Big Bang. And then left us the hell alone. God may exist, but he sure as hell ain't relevant.

But instead of being a slightly more open-minded atheist, I have come to the conclusion that I don't particularly care if there is a "great beyond". If there is a creator out there who has something in store for me after I die, I'll deal with it when I get there. In the meantime, I'll aspire to the humanistic tradition and aid my fellow man with my own strength than by entreating the omnipotence of some (most likely) mythical figure. It just makes the most sense.

On a sidenote, I think that religion definitely has a place in society and that it can serve a positive social function...but some of the gods that are popular in our world now grate on me somewhat. Seriously. Not cool.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quiddityofquid
post Jun 3 2007, 03:13 PM
Post #612


Apprentice
**

Group: Members
Posts: 128
Joined: 12-September 05
Member No.: 22,739
Gender: Female



Thanks for the latin help tongue.gif

It's not the gods that are causing the problems, it's people taking religious texts in the wrong context, becoming fanatics, and losing sight of what their religion is supposed to be in the first place. (At least, most of the time. Then you have weird cults that are just, well, weird.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sword Alchemist
post Jun 4 2007, 06:44 PM
Post #613


Alchemists
***

Group: Members
Posts: 357
Joined: 22-July 05
Member No.: 17,591
Gender: Female



I voted for Creation.

If evolution was real and we really did evolve from apes then why are there still apes?

As for the so called Big Bang theory, how can anyone say that everything just came together at the right moment creating the universe and everything we see around us? Look at how complex the human body is. Look at how complex the universe is.

Things just dont happen.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Freya-chan
post Jun 4 2007, 06:47 PM
Post #614


Apprentice
**

Group: Members
Posts: 192
Joined: 30-May 07
From: From Rauken with the wolves
Member No.: 46,952
Gender: Female



Evolution
i mean whats the prehencial tail for then scientsits have proof and i belive in science
seriously who can create something out of nothing anyway( ok so mabye edward....)
religion/creationism is a poor mans science


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popogeejo
post Jun 4 2007, 07:00 PM
Post #615


Master Alchemist
******

Group: Members
Posts: 6,914
Joined: 18-February 06
From: Wrapped in my own Ego
Member No.: 31,420
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Sword)
If evolution was real and we really did evolve from apes then why are there still apes?


Evolution takes many paths. Just because we started at the same point doesn't mean we end at the same spot. Different areas allow for different course of evolution, hence the amount of variety in species.

If evolution is wrong then please explain why some viruses have become immune to medicines that would once have gotten rid of them? If the medicine hasn't changed then the viruses must have adapted/evolved to be able to handle them.

QUOTE(Freya-chan)
religion/creationism is a poor mans science

It's not science, poor man's or otherwise.


--------------------

>Click the picture for me gushing over over Summer Wars shenanigans!<
The various works of FKMT are something you should read
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

43 Pages V  « < 39 40 41 42 43 >
Fast ReplyReply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th July 2016 - 10:24 AM



Copyright 2003-2004 PhoenixNetworks, LLC. All rights reserved.
Copyright Notice. Privacy policy. Acceptable Use Policy. Terms of Service.
Page Generation Time: 0.0655 seconds.
Currently Selected Stylesheet: css/default.css