The Debate Thread -

Hobo · #**151** 08-06-2003, 11:13 AM

More proof the Jessica Lynch rescue was a Propaganda effort. All the dedication website's were created before the war had started.

TheKhanzumer · #**152** 08-06-2003, 02:20 PM

:

Science is quickly catching up to religion, and beliefs of religion are being found to be false. What will happen when science over takes religion, and everything the Bible speaks of has been found to be totally false?

I would just like to come out and say this. NOTHING in the Bible can be proven false scientifically. The only thing that "contradicts" science are miracles and such where the Bible says it is God actually doing the work, in which case it doesn't have to agree with physical science. There is actually a wealth of physical evidence that at least some of the events in the Bible were real. The discovery of the ark is only a small (and old) piece of all the physical, see-it-with-your-own-eyes evidence.

Evolution on the other hand, can be scientifically proven to have never occured on the earth. I can try to back that up with hard scientific evidence, but it is such a large topic I really don't want to waste time unless any of you honestly want to learn why evolution is false so that you can tell it to your science teachers or something.

:

I frown upon any type of denomination more so than the prehistoric Catholicism. I will admit that Catholicism is the true Christian religion. Any denominations were started out of greed. One perfect example is the Lower Church of England.

Catholicism is NOT the true Christian religion. It is a denomination, based on the original church, but with many man made additions. First off, where did the name come from? In the Bible the Christians are always refered to as the Church of Christ. Never in the Bible do we read the name "Catholic", so obviously it is a man made name for a man made religion. The catholic church doesn't even follow the Bible completely. The true Christian religion was the churches founded by the apostles and the churches today who still follow that example as close as they can. Catholicism adds a lot of ceremonial stuff to Christianity that isn't in the scriptures.

And OldAndNotSoTasty. Nobody, as far as I know, said a gay person or a heroin addict couldn't have a great personality. So what was the point of that. Nobody said that a person is a bad person just because of their actions. Nobody is perfect and everyone agrees with that. Except maybe Jacob, who probably thinks he is perfect.

Oh and PA. No offense, but wouldn't trying to disprove evolution be a lot funner than talking about cloning? I did a huge position paper on cloning and it is really not that interesting a subject in my opinion.

Jacob · #**153** 08-06-2003, 04:00 PM

:

Would you punish someone with lung cancer?

No, but people with Lung Cancer don't steal or kill to feed their habit. Also, what Drugs did you do?

:

Now to the point and to finnish off this debate and go onto another good one.

I tried that three times. Failed.

:

In the case of being gay and not truely loveing your partner and haveing a lust for sex or money like gay stripers or drag queens then in the view God and all rightousness, that is wrong.

PA, Gay strippers (as gorgeous as they are) do nay have sex with the people who pay to see them. Nor do the Drag Queens. And anyway, what about Drag Queens? And female strippers? What are your opinions on them? I think so long as what they do isn't harming anybody (although Drag Queens can be immensly bitchy and bitch-out members of their audience from time to time) they should carry on.

:

Its a sin to do that

Ok, greed and lust, yes, a sin. But where did it say on the Ten Commandments thing 'Thou shall not dress in drag for entertainment.' or 'Thou shall not take thy clothes off for mortals of the same sex'?

:

Its not the fact that your gay your going to hell its the fact that some people would make that as a game to hurt others in the sense of greed and wanting only sex those people would go to hell.

That's interesting. How do you know what the Gay lifestyle entails?

:

In the case of being gay and not commiting yourself to that partner and only wanting the sex is whats wrong and is whats peverted.

What do you mean by commiting yourself to a partner? And also, what about hetro's? The same applies for them i assume?

:

The issue here is not wether your streight or gay, the issue is wether you think its right to be hurtful, greedy, lustful with wanting only sex and money.

I have no idea were you got the idea that Drag Queens and Gay strippers were greedy and lustful. You do know that the professions stated are actually jobs, right?

Last note on the gay thing, the people who believe that homosexuality is a choice and God creates everyone. How do you explain homosexuals who are distinctly female. Not just from a walking, talking standpoint but from an actually looking like a girl standpoint. And why would God create someone like that? To invoke more hate?

:

Do you think human cloneing and anti ageing is right for society?

I don't mind. I can see why people wouldn't want it incase of it getting in to terrorists hands, but aside from that i don't see why people are afraid. I also don't see why people don't want to die, that puzzles me greatly, i'm excited about death, why would i want to stop aging?

On the point you made, i think that the family has a right to choose whether they do what you said. Although it won't exactly allow them to complete the grieving process it will take some of the pain away. If they're willing to except the responsibility and know that there may be some problems, i don't see the problem.

nads · #**154** 08-06-2003, 04:33 PM

:

Anyway, your post before you edited it was a good one...why did you change it to that?

That was my brother, see e forgot his pass and asked if I could post for him.

god ram it!

:

That's interesting. How do you know what the Gay lifestyle entails?

ooh, ZING!

:

Now onto the next debate and this is a more civil one. Do you think human cloneing and anti ageing is right for society? For me it all depends on the ethical point of view of the situation. If a child of a family dies and that parent wants to clone his or her child then I think it is unethical. What good could a clone be for society? It is not right for mankind to clone people because there is a serious danger there like terrorist getting ahold of the technology.

Imagine your worst enemy, then imagine 5 of him, and the beatings and junk. How would that help society?

TheKhanzumer · #**155** 08-06-2003, 06:07 PM

This is why I didn't want to talk about cloning. Most people are ignorant and don't even realize what the issue is.

A clone is a normal, living breathing, individual. A clone is NOT the person they were created from. They are different people, with different lives and beliefs. They are more like a twin, but much younger since they take just as long to develope as a normal baby.

So a clone of your worst enemy could easily be your best friend, depending on how they were raised. It would be wrong to judge the five enemy clones just because they are physically identical to someone you don't like. You wouldn't have an army of cloned Hitlers, that is ridiculous and if attempted pointless because you could have the same results if you raised an army of normal people.

I personally don't see any point to cloning. There are probably benefits from other genetics research, but I can't think of any good reasons why anyone would need a cloned child.

Jacob · #**156** 08-06-2003, 06:36 PM

Khanz, i forgot to put in my other reply for you to state about the falseness of evolution...do state.

TheKhanzumer · #**157** 08-06-2003, 07:04 PM

Yipee... here we go. (read: why me?) You have to take my word that I will not make anything up in regards to the physical evidences I will give. Also, I believe that species can adapt. By evolution I mean species constantly having evolved from a single cell into all the complex forms of life we have today.

The main reason I don't believe in evolution is obviously because of my religion. But I am a very philosophical and stubborn type person and that wasn't enough. I have studied evolution at school, from an athiest perspective and I have studied it at Church from a Christian perspective, both side using only hard scienctic facts to prove or disprove evolution.

I learned that no matter how logical evolution may sound, there is simply no real evidence. Sure there are a lot of facts. But the facts can be interpreted in so many different ways. I have yet to see any real proof of evolution.

The main hang up is, what is the mechanism? No matter how well the fossils supposedly are ordered, or how many supposed intermediate stages they find, or how logical the theories are the fact remains: There is no biological mechanism that could cause evolution.

The only possibility is evolution occuring through random mutation. But that is not possible. Less than 0.5 percent of all natural mutations ever discovered are considered beneficial to the mutated living organism. This, combined the rareity of any mutation in general should in itself prove that evolution could not occur. But lets say beneficial mutations happen frequently for the sake of argument. It still wouldn't create drastically different species. Why? Well for one many mutants cannot produce offspring. They are generally not excepted by others of their kind. Secondly mutations only deal with traits that already exist in a species. A mutant frog with its eyes in its mouth (a real example that "extreme" mutation can occur, shown to me by my biology teacher) is entirely different than the creation of a new trait. An invertebrate species could not possibly evolve into a vertebrate. Scientists say that over millions of years, a hard piece of flesh could become a bone could become two bones could become a spine... How? In theory that makes good sense, but there is no evidence at all that it can occur naturally. Scientists say that it is because there is not enough time. This is a lie. They say we can't see changes because evolution takes many millions of generations to make major changes. They ignore the fact that in species like some bacteria, that reproduce millions more times in a minute than all humans can in ten years, some major evolution should be apparent in the bacteria.

I could go on. But I'll let you respond first.

***Alcar*** · #**158** 08-06-2003, 08:07 PM

Catholicism has had things changed, ala the Second Vatican Council, but it is still the true Christian religion. The word Christianity was made, so that it could encompass all religions that saw God and Jesus as holy figures. All Christian religions branch out from Catholicism, all because of greed.

A perfect example is the Orthodox Chruch, they reckoned they ought to have more power, and didn't want the Pope to rule everything. So, they argued and lost. And started their own denomination.

Another perfect example is Anglicanism, King Henry VIII wanted to divorce and marry many wives, the greedy bastard. The Church disagreed, so he created the new religion!

Catholicism is the true Chrisitian Religion, just because it has had things changed doesn't mean anything in relation to where every other Christian religion was born from. It just means that the word of God has been changed to accomodate present life. Which is wrong, because it shouldn't change to suit us, which is why it's so easy to debate whether or not the religion is true.

By the way, the whole God is a man thing was a lighthearted joke. But I do believe that women are the stonger sex.

Alcar...

TheKhanzumer · #**159** 08-06-2003, 08:55 PM

I still don't think you understand. If Catholicism has changed it is no longer the true Christian religion. Yes most churches branched off from it, but there are some churches today with pre-Catholicism practices. My church hasn't changed to "suit" its members. We follow the Bible as well as we can. The true church is an unchanged church like ours that follows the guidelines set in the Bible. The Church of Christ did not break of from Catholicism, it existed before Catholicism.

I believe there is only one true church, the one founded by Jesus and the apostles before the conception of Catholicism. That church still exists today (I know, I am one of its members). Catholicism is just arguable the most well known because of all the ceremonial stuff (stained glass windows, statues of the crucifixion, the pope) which was added to the original and true Christianity. When something changes, it becomes something new. Catholicism is no longer the original church because of all the man made parts of it.

The word of God has NOT changed to accomadate present life for everyone. Not for me certainly, otherwise I wouldn't be arguing with you over something like this.

Having said that, I will let the subject die. I just don't want people to think that Catholics are doing exactly what the Biblical chruches did because that isn't true.

PinkHaired Mudokon CWR · #**160** 08-06-2003, 09:29 PM

:

Catholicism is the true Chrisitian Religion, just because it has had things changed doesn't mean anything in relation to where every other Christian religion was born from. It just means that the word of God has been changed to accomodate present life. Which is wrong, because it shouldn't change to suit us, which is why it's so easy to debate whether or not the religion is true.

No, Catholicism is not the TRUE Christian religion. Let me explain: You can't baptize children, why? Because children have no sins and they are too young to understand the Word Of God. Worshipping the Virgin Mary and any other idols and statues is a sin. You don't confess your sins to the pope and you don't have to go to Heaven through the Pope. You must repent of your sins through prayer because you can only go through jesus Christ, in order for your sins to be forgiven by God. I have a long list, but I don't feel like posting anymore.

The Word of God has not been changed to accomodate present life. It's been translated in many different languages and there is the New International Version which is written in a way that we can understand, rather than the old elizabethan language. This does not mean that the bible has been changed. Also, there were old manuscripts and textuals found, that matched the the bibles that we have today. Punctuations and dictions were still the same. That also proves that the bible hasn't been changed. But, there is a debate going on whether or not people should change the bible. People wanted to make the bible short and to the point. I think that's wrong. They haven't decided to do that yet because there are people who are against changing it.

Alcar, you've also said that people have found evidence in Buddism too? How can they when Buddism does not consist a God? When you are Buddist, you follow the Eight Fold Path, try to reach Nirvana, and believe people suffer due to desires.

paramiteabe · #**161** 08-07-2003, 01:33 AM

:

Originally posted by PinkHaired Mudokon CWR
No, Catholicism is not the TRUE Christian religion. Let me explain: You can't baptize children, why? Because children have no sins and they are too young to understand the Word Of God. Worshipping the Virgin Mary and any other idols and statues is a sin. You don't confess your sins to the pope and you don't have to go to Heaven through the Pope. You must repent of your sins through prayer because you can only go through jesus Christ, in order for your sins to be forgiven by God. I have a long list, but I don't feel like posting anymore.

The Word of God has not been changed to accomodate present life. It's been translated in many different languages and there is the New International Version which is written in a way that we can understand, rather than the old elizabethan language. This does not mean that the bible has been changed. Also, there were old manuscripts and textuals found, that matched the the bibles that we have today. Punctuations and dictions were still the same. That also proves that the bible hasn't been changed. But, there is a debate going on whether or not people should change the bible. People wanted to make the bible short and to the point. I think that's wrong. They haven't decided to do that yet because there are people who are against changing it.

Alcar, you've also said that people have found evidence in Buddism too? How can they when Buddism does not consist a God? When you are Buddist, you follow the Eight Fold Path, try to reach Nirvana, and believe people suffer due to desires.

I hate to tell you but we are all born into sin thus we have sin within ourselves. It has been pass down since the days of Adam.
And the International version Bible is not the whole Bible. The Holy Bible has everything in it. The International doesn't.

Catholicism is the first christian religion then the others branched off from there. But the whole Christian faith originated from the Jewish faith. Even though they don't believe that Christ was the savor and the son of God.

TheKhanzumer · #**162** 08-07-2003, 02:34 AM

Pinky... you are right. There I said it. Uggg... Why are all the people that agree with me the naive ones?

:

And the International version Bible is not the whole Bible. The Holy Bible has everything in it. The International doesn't.

PA. There is only one true version of the Bible and it is called the Bible. My grandpa, who is fluent in reading the aramaic and greek that the original books of the Bible were written in, says that the most accurate English translation of the Bible still in print, that he has ever read is the New King James Version.

:

I hate to tell you but we are all born into sin thus we have sin within ourselves. It has been pass down since the days of Adam.

I would love to find out where exactly it says that. Please share the scriptures so that I might be inlightened.

I could swear that Ezekiel 18:20 reads, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”

Matthew 18:3 says, "Unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." Hmmm... if little children are born with sin, why do we need to become like them to enter into heaven?

Sydney · #**163** 08-07-2003, 02:40 AM

:

Why are all the people that agree with me the naive ones?

Uh, dunno - maybe it's because your beliefs are naive? I'm not trying to be insulting, but with a condescending attitute like that your conversion rate isn't going to be very high.

:

The main hang up is, what is the mechanism? No matter how well the fossils supposedly are ordered, or how many supposed intermediate stages they find, or how logical the theories are the fact remains: There is no biological mechanism that could cause evolution.

Of course there's a biological mechanism. It consists of the environment, the animal's ability to survive, and to a lesser extent, mutations. You're assuming that all individuals within a species are identical to each other, when it's obvious that within any population there are variations. As the environment changes and different groups of the same species become isolated from each other, you'll have seperate environments each requiring different traits which are best suited to survival. Those who possess variations beneficial to survival within that environment are the individuals who will produce offspring with simlar survival-ensuring-characteristics, whereas those who don't will likely die before getting the opportunity to reproduce. Even within this simple scenario you can see how these two seperate groups of the same species could become dramatically different over time.

One example of this has been observed on the east coast of Australia. There's a species of birds that were once confined to the Sydney area, but over time they've spread all the way up to the northern most tip of Australia as well as down to Victoria. The environments of the northern and southern parts of Australia are extremely different, so as you'd expect, the parrots of the north are hardly recognisable to those of the south. If you were to take a northern bird and put it in a cage with the southern bird, they will not mate. A species is defined as two or more individuals of a group who can produce fertile offspring. These two birds can't reproduce - would that suggest two different species? So there you have it, a modern day example of evolution.

:

They ignore the fact that in species like some bacteria, that reproduce millions more times in a minute than all humans can in ten years, some major evolution should be apparent in the bacteria.

Are you kidding? Bacteria is known to be horrendously mutative. It's well known that treating someone with antibiotics for a bacterial infection causes the bacteria to mutate. Unless by 'major evolution' you mean giant, fire breathing blobs that destroy cities, in which case I'd respond with: "If you studied evolution to the depths you've claimed to, you'd understand that a species will only evolve when there is a need to. A species perfectly adapted to their environment will not change."

-----------------
The Glass Asylum

***Alcar*** · #**164** 08-07-2003, 04:12 AM

When I refer to the 'true' religion. I mean that Catholicism is the religion that started it all, as in, it was the religion that existed before all others existed. Because, all others were branches of Catholicism.

And, I'd rather God being a woman any day. Like I stated earlier, women are the stronger sex. I don't mean physically, I mean both emotionally and mentally. In the end, that's what counts most.

I'd also like to post some funny quotes I found at another forum in someones signature. Kudos to whoever they belong to.

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

If the book the Bible and my brain are both the work of the same Infinite God, whose fault is it that the book and my brain do not agree?

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.

The careful student of history will discover that Christianity has been of very little value in advancing civilization, but has done a great deal toward retarding it.

Alcar...

GrigtheSlig · #**165** 08-07-2003, 04:39 AM

So, what topic are we on???

Ok, I think that cloning would be good for nearly extinct animals, not just because you think that there should be a bunch of people that look exactly like you on the earth, unless you're a very hot women!

I personally like the King James Version the best. It's hard to understand sometimes, but I think that it loses some stuff in the translation. I don't think that there is a really completly true church on the face of the earth, because they are run by men and men make mistakes.

PinkHaired Mudokon CWR · #**166** 08-07-2003, 11:59 AM

:

Originally posted by paramiteabe
I hate to tell you but we are all born into sin thus we have sin within ourselves. It has been pass down since the days of Adam.
And the International version Bible is not the whole Bible. The Holy Bible has everything in it. The International doesn't.

I know that. But, you are not going to baptize a baby. If a baby were to die, they will go to Heaven automatically because they have not committed any sins. Babies can't lie, steal, cheat, fornicate, etc. You know what I mean? I know that everyone is born of sin. Baptizing a baby is not necessary because they are innocent and don't know better than a 15 year old boy or girl. The international version is the whole bible. I think your talking about the King james Version. They are both the "Holy Bible".

:

Why are all the people that agree with me the naive ones

What are you trying to say?

Big_Bro_Slig222 · #**167** 08-07-2003, 01:43 PM

:

Originally posted by TheKhanzumer

Evolution on the other hand, can be scientifically proven to have never occured on the earth. I can try to back that up with hard scientific evidence, but it is such a large topic I really don't want to waste time unless any of you honestly want to learn why evolution is false so that you can tell it to your science teachers or something.

I would start going on about how that's wrong, and the Adam & Eve story is a metaphor, but Sydney gave a very good explanation on evolution already, expecially his point on mutating bacteria.

TheKhanzumer · #**168** 08-07-2003, 02:12 PM

:

I'm not trying to be insulting, but with a condescending attitute like that your conversion rate isn't going to be very high.

Yeah, my ego is famous at school. It goes in a cycle which I am very aware of. Sometimes I am a really nice guy, other times I am an egotistical jerk. I'll try really hard to cut it out since you are the third person this week to point it out to me. So sorry Pinky, that was unfair since I only know you by reputation.

:

A species is defined as two or more individuals of a group who can produce fertile offspring. These two birds can't reproduce - would that suggest two different species? So there you have it, a modern day example of evolution.

Can't mate or won't mate? Lions and tigers are two very different species. They live in different areas, look different and have different behaviors. But people have artificially breed lions and tigers together. Their offspring, ligers, are not always infertile. Many ligers can still mate with both lions and tigers, or even other ligers. But does this make lions and tigers the same species. According to the current definition of the word species they apparently are, since they can successfully reproduce.

:

Are you kidding? Bacteria is known to be horrendously mutative. It's well known that treating someone with antibiotics for a bacterial infection causes the bacteria to mutate.

Bacterial adaptation does not prove evolution. The bacteria is still the same type of bacteria. The only difference is that now they can resist a certain type of antibiotic. Macroevolution involves change across phylogenetic walls. This is not the case in bacteria adapting to antibiotics. Also, bacteria that adapt to certain antibiotics can live easier in that antibiotic, but that doesn't mean that the organism as a whole is a better organism. Most bacteria that adapt to certain antibiotics have a slower metabolism and are less virulent anyway.

:

Unless by 'major evolution' you mean giant, fire breathing blobs that destroy cities, in which case I'd respond with: "If you studied evolution to the depths you've claimed to, you'd understand that a species will only evolve when there is a need to. A species perfectly adapted to their environment will not change."

No I don't mean that. I'm not a total idiot. And your response is scientifically inaccurate. Mutations occure randomly. Ask any evolutionist scientist and they would tell you that species do not evolve from need. It is a random process with no specific goal. If a mutation is beneficial to a new environment, it will stay, and if it isn't it will probably not. But mutations do not occur just because there is a greater need to survive, they are random occurances, very rare and usually detrimental to an organism.

At least you never claimed to have studied evolution to a great extent. At least if you are wrong you have an excuse... I stupidly didn't give myself that option.

Jacob · #**169** 08-07-2003, 05:11 PM

I haven't really studied Evolution, just learnt about it in Science. But in one of the text books it stated about Cockroaches.

Cockroaches that were fat died out because they couldn't fit under small surfaces to escape the wrath of the human. Yet Cockroaches that were flat could, they then went on to breed more and slowly the fatter Cockroaches died out.

If its the sin people dislike and not the person commiting the sin, then why can't a homosexual person be a Priest?

paramiteabe · #**170** 08-07-2003, 06:01 PM

Well in todays society unfortunately its accepted. I don't agree with it because its just too warped for me. A homosexual became a priest in the episcal church not the Roman Catholic but there is a lot of deception and corruption now that its even made its way into the church unfortunately. So for me I took my belief to a personal level.

So I ask you this do you believe in God and reject Satin and all of his works?

Jacob · #**171** 08-07-2003, 06:31 PM

Well, since it was drummed into me from an early age i always feel myself speaking to one of the two. Beit my diluded f*cked up mind or actually God and Lucifer, i don't know. But when i'm on my own walking somewhere and if i'm not on my mobile i will happily converse with one of the two in my head. So, i except God but also Lucifer. Since it's my theory that Lucifer and God are working together.

As much as i come across as an Athiest i believe in something. I don't agree with all the sin shtuffs cos thats just wrong, who is he to dictate how we live? Especially when he doesn't give us proof of his existance in the 21st Century. But i will talk to him, they're my imaginary friends.

I believe that one of two things happen to us when we die -

1) We just move onto a different realm of existance. No Heaven. No Hell. Just different.

2) Whatever we believe in, happens to us. So a Christian would either go to Hell or Heaven. A Buddist would go to his/her lil' place. A Satanist their little place etc. But the more beliefs you have, and the more open minded you are, the more choices you have, so you get to decide what happens after death. This is one of the things i hope is true.

It may be that people created Heaven and Hell as a reassurance that bad people would get whats coming to them in the afterlife.

GrigtheSlig · #**172** 08-07-2003, 07:13 PM

:

Originally posted by paramiteabe
So I ask you this do you believe in God and reject Satin and all of his works?

Yes, Satan is a loser! God is a dude!

OANST · #**173** 08-07-2003, 09:27 PM

what if god was a lesbian? That would just create so many problems.

Jacob · #**174** 08-07-2003, 09:47 PM

:

Yes, Satan is a loser! God is a dude!

You poor, poor, poor socially inept thing...

OANST · #**175** 08-08-2003, 02:53 AM

Jacob. You said something that disturbed me awhile ago. Not all drug users steal or kill as I clearly stated. Drug abuse is a disease that needs to be treated. Putting a person in prison for putting a chemical in their body is truly just ridiculous. A drug abuser is usually a person who is just extremely depressed and would love to have someone just care enough to help them. You asked me what drug I was on. It says heroin. I even double checked. It was a bad point in my life but I got over it. Do you believe that I should be in prison right now? I still smoke pot and take acid ocasionally. It is usually many months between but it still happens. I also used to sell pot. I wasn't very good at it because I smoked a lot of it at the time and really didn't make any money. During all this time I never did anything to hurt another person intentionally. Never stole. Never killed. Never even beat anyone up. Now you may call me an exception to the rule but the fact is that you have not been a part of the drug culture. I have. I met a lot of wonderfull people that I am still great friends with. Don't believe the hype bro. If you feel like experimenting I recommend it. In moderation of course. Okay. I'm done.

Sydney · #**176** 08-08-2003, 04:53 AM

:

And your response is scientifically inaccurate. Mutations occure randomly. Ask any evolutionist scientist and they would tell you that species do not evolve from need. It is a random process with no specific goal. If a mutation is beneficial to a new environment, it will stay, and if it isn't it will probably not. But mutations do not occur just because there is a greater need to survive, they are random occurances

I never said that mutations aren't random, but natural selection certainly isn't random, because an animal is selected on a very rigid criteria: the environment. You fail to grasp the most basic concept of evolution if you're saying that evolution isn't driven by need. Like I explained in my previous post, the environment is what dictates whether or not an organism will survive. A species perfectly suited to its environment has no need to change, and therefore any variations will be ignored by the species as a whole. On the other hand, if the environment changes, or the species migrates, there might be a dramatic change of requirements for survival, and so the mechanism of evolution will choose those with features beneficial to survival while killing off those which are unable to cope with the changes. My point stands: a species suited perfectly will not change, and a species not suited will. This is the most integral aspect of evolution, it shouldn't confuse you.

:

Bacterial adaptation does not prove evolution. The bacteria is still the same type of bacteria. The only difference is that now they can resist a certain type of antibiotic. Macroevolution involves change across phylogenetic walls. This is not the case in bacteria adapting to antibiotics.

I don't understand how you can accept evolution on a minor scale but reject it on a major scale. Both are the same thing, there's no barrier between the two, they both operate using the same mechanisms.

If you're going to debate evolution, you should at least make sure you have a basis of understanding of the issue, because you seem majorly confused.

TheKhanzumer · #**177** 08-08-2003, 02:25 PM

Your first paragraph is, from an evolutionists perspective, true. I thought by need you ment that when a species climate changes the species will suddenly need to change and thus mutations will occur specifically so that the species could survive better. You didn't exactly make yourself clear.

Also, the majority of what I know about evolution comes mainly from my biology teachers at school, so the teachers we must have different opinions on evolution if we can't even agree on what evolution is. Funny, if evolution was a fact like we are supposed to believe, you would think all the scientists would be in agreement on the basics of the theory.

:

I don't understand how you can accept evolution on a minor scale but reject it on a major scale. Both are the same thing, there's no barrier between the two, they both operate using the same mechanisms.

Yes there is a big difference between a species adapting and a species becoming a completely new species. A bird, become a new version of the same bird, is still a bird. A bacteria adapting to antibiotics, isn't even becoming a new species. Minor adaptation, which is NOT evolution in the sense I am using the word, occurs within specieal boundries. The species may begin to express traits it never required before, but it is still the same species. Evolution on a major scale is much different. It requires, over a long period of time, every single living thing on the entire planet to have evolved from one tiny cell that supposedly formed itself. There is a big difference between the two.

In micro-adaptation, species are becoming variants of the same species because one population requires different traits to survive than another population. In evolution, species mutate and thus create entirely new traits, which eventually cause the species to eventually develope into a completely new type of animal.

:

If you're going to debate evolution, you should at least make sure you have a basis of understanding of the issue, because you seem majorly confused.

I think it is very annoying that you that you must insult my intelligence just because you disagree with me. Why can't you just show me where I am scientifically wrong? You haven't done that yet.

What it boils down to is that you believe mutation and natural selection could have made the world what it is today. I disagree, since my understanding of science tells me that is impossible. We won't get anywhere to continue arguing about this part of evolution. So let's move on to other evidences, and forget about whether or not there is a biological mechansim by which it occurs.

So how about the fossil record. I'm sure you have all sorts of great evidence to throw at me.

***Wil*** · #**178** 08-08-2003, 03:40 PM

:

A bacteria adapting to antibiotics, isn't even becoming a new species.

Okay, I'm no expert at evolution at all, never having really studied it, since it makes perfect sense to me, and I've never seen any need to question it. Perhaps that's not good, but I don't care. So I'm not going to pretend to be right, but instead just present my observations.

How can you say that if a bacterium species changes it isn't becoming a new species? Obviously we call it the same thing, because it would be mighty difficult to keep changing the name every five minutes, and hence we class both the before- and after-products, as it were, as the same species. But since the 'original' form no longer exists, who's to say that they could or couldn't have bred, which, as is my understanding from Sydney and Dictionary.com, the definition of whether or not something is or isn't a species.

In the case of lions and tigers producing ligers (which I had not heard of), and horses, ponies and donkeys producing mules and hinnies, maybe these are the exceptions which prove the definition of a species. It's a far cry from 'the exception which proves the rule, I know. But the thing that most comes to my attention about all of this is what taxonomy all really is. It's not a science, as such, it's just a way of cataloguing animals, plants, fungi, protoetists, algae and monera. Opinions on which genus or class a creature belongs to is disagreed upon within the scientific community, even how many families of life there really are - most scientists stuff algae in with the protoetists, many refer to protoetists simply as 'protists' or something similar. Woe betide any so called scientist who still dumps everything in either 'plant' or 'animal' catagories, but you get the idea. I don't think I'm trying to reach any sort of conclusion here, just trying to break down, or possibly build up, what you consider a species with reference to the bacteria of debate.

As for what scientists believe, well they're a fickle lot. The UN scientists keep blathering about global warming, the most dreadful thing ever to beseige our planet, a process so unnervingly deadly and vile that it doesn't actually exist. We're coming out of a minor ice age, of course the planet's going to get hotter.

There are scientists who still claim the world is flat, maybe they're right and everything modern science tells us about the spherical nature of planets is just an illusion.

Fossil record: if you're going to start telling me, like those Jehova's Witneses did, that God planted them in the ground, you needn't bother.

Well, there's my uneducated on-the-spot analysis.

TheKhanzumer · #**179** 08-08-2003, 04:57 PM

I pretty much agree with you Max. Since taxonomy is more of a convenience than a science, arguing over the species is pointless, which is one of the reasons I moved the debate away from that subject.

The fact is that animals can change. The question is how much can/did they change?

:

Fossil record: if you're going to start telling me, like those Jehova's Witneses did, that God planted them in the ground, you needn't bother.

Off course not. That's like saying God is lying to us on purpose.

There is a lot to the fossil record, but I'll wait until someone else brings something up. The main problem with debating evolution is that both sides are sure science backs them and therefore any evidence the other side gives is generally shrugged off as being misenterpreted or a hoax.

Like the dinosaur bones that have been found with bronze spears in them, and the dinosoar footprints in the same riverbed rock layer as human footprints. Most evolutionists just say they don't exist, they are a myth, or some religious looney didn't study what they had found well enough.

oddguy · #**180** 08-08-2003, 07:59 PM

I'm back! Hehehehe!

With evolution, I think it may apply to animals to a certain degree. I visited a cave that was so dark, the fish did not have eyes and they were pure white. Obviously those fish evolved without eyes because they didn't need them. However, I do not believe that humans crawled out of the primordial soup and evolved to what we are today.