Special Ops Paintball: So...Darwin was wrong after all... - Special Ops Paintball

Jump to content


  • (13 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

So...Darwin was wrong after all... Rate Topic: -----

#106 User is offline   Ashrak 

  • Precipice
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 336
  • Joined: 01-December 07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 October 2009 - 07:27 AM

God does not need faith to exist; He exists whether people believe He does or not. :P
Alea iacta est ~ The board is set, the pieces are moving.
~ Like the leaves of the forest when Summer is green, That host with their banners at sunset were seen:
Like the leaves of the forest when Autumn hath blown, That host on the morrow lay withered and strown. ~ Destruction of Sennacherib

~ Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the American states a man who more cordially loves a union with his country than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the United States Congress proposes; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America. ~ Thomas Jefferson (modernized)
Summertime Blues
0

#107 User is offline   JerseyPaint 

  • Jersey Fresh.
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,243
  • Joined: 31-May 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Brigade Name:JerseyPaint

Posted 16 October 2009 - 07:35 AM

View PostPuzuma, on Oct 16 2009, 10:14 AM, said:

Quote

The Babel Fish is small, yellow, leech-like, and is a universal translator which simultaneously translates from one spoken language to another. When inserted into the ear, its nutrition processes convert sound waves into brain waves, neatly crossing the language divide between any species you should happen to meet whilst travelling in space. Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.[1] Arthur Dent, a surviving Earthling, commented only 'Eurgh!' when first inserting the fish into his ear canal. It did, however, enable him to understand Vogon Poetry - not necessarily a good thing. The book points out that the Babel Fish could not possibly have developed naturally, and therefore proves the existence of God as its creator. However, as Man points out, God needs faith to exist, and this proof dispels the need for faith, therefore causing God to vanish "in a puff of logic".


Hitchhiker's Guide FTW.

And PW, I've alway thought the same thing. Why does God and evolution always need to conflict. Its perfectly reasonable to believe in both since they never contradict each other unless you firmly believe in the whole "we're made from clay" thing.

Are you agitating my dots? 10%
RIP HEMP/HEMD/PbF
0

#108 User is offline   Ashrak 

  • Precipice
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 336
  • Joined: 01-December 07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 October 2009 - 07:41 AM

View Postevillepaintball, on Oct 16 2009, 08:14 AM, said:

View PostThalion, on Oct 15 2009, 08:58 PM, said:

About the 40,000 years... even in a world requiring millions of years for full changes, we'd see some sign of a minor improvement somewhere by now if it was going to happen.

Figure -- how many changes do you think it takes for a primate ancestor to become us? At a rate of 1 positive change in 100,000 years, it'd take over a million years (and evolutionary scientists claim that primates haven't been around that long). At 1 in 50,000 years, that's half a million years (still too much time according to those same evolutionary scientists).

Thus, I would think you could name one during 40,000 years... that is, if one ever happened.

The point IKE and I are making is simply, it doesn't happen. Mutations are negative to anything more complex than a single cell organism.

From which "scientists" are those figures coming? Scientists believe Ardi, the thing that started this thread, walked the Earth over 3 million years ago.


You criticize the generic label of "scientist" to support a point of view, and then you use the generic label of "scientist" to support your point of view, which is rather ironic.

I believe the point Thalion is making is that all evolutionary processes did not start at the same time, nor continue at the same rate, but, correct me if I'm wrong, "scientists" (gee, there we go again) tell us that it a constant and ongoing process. So it is perfectly reasonable to assume that we should and would see evidence of evolutionary processes at work in the past 40,000 years, even processes which would change one species into another.

I.K.E. and Thalion are asking to be shown proof of this, if it exists.
Alea iacta est ~ The board is set, the pieces are moving.
~ Like the leaves of the forest when Summer is green, That host with their banners at sunset were seen:
Like the leaves of the forest when Autumn hath blown, That host on the morrow lay withered and strown. ~ Destruction of Sennacherib

~ Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the American states a man who more cordially loves a union with his country than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the United States Congress proposes; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America. ~ Thomas Jefferson (modernized)
Summertime Blues
0

#109 User is offline   Thalion 

  • Probably in the Shooters Thread...
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,984
  • Joined: 22-January 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Twin Cities, MN

Posted 16 October 2009 - 07:50 AM

View Postevillepaintball, on Oct 16 2009, 07:14 AM, said:

From which "scientists" are those figures coming? Scientists believe Ardi, the thing that started this thread, walked the Earth over 3 million years ago.


I was adopting the transition/rise of Homo sapiens from the immediate preceding ancestor as my point of argument.

Yes, I realize it's wikipedia. It's also the fastest resource I can conjure, and it's unlikely anyone sabotaged the article.

http://en.wikipedia....tion#Genus_Homo

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...lutionchart.png

So, if I read this right, the jump should have been between 300,000 and 200,000 years ago.

At one "new gene" positive mutation every 100,000 years, that means there's only two or three changes between us. Not likely.

At one change every 50,000 years, that makes for 4-6 changes. More likely, but still not very.


My original point remains, that we should be able to list one positive mutation outside of bacteria/virus in the span of 40,000 years.


View Postsnipa12, on Oct 16 2009, 08:56 AM, said:

View PostCesar, on Oct 12 2009, 07:21 AM, said:

Attention Everyone.....



Science is not wrong....God does not exist.....im sorry......but the sooner we all realize this....the sooner we can move along as a civilization.


exactly!! i think this is absolutly true!!!


How does science specifically claim/prove that God does not exist?

More so, how would one succeed in proving such a claim?

And as said before, "science" has been wrong many times before... at one time the earth was flat. And humors were considered "science" as well. Religion didn't make those things up; "scientists" believed it.

Lastly, do you seriously think that if all the people abandoned beliefs in God that we would somehow come together and improve civilization?

That's foolishness at its finest -- mankind has never succeeded to all together "move on as a civilization" in the past, nor will it in the future. We'll always have conflict as long as mankind is alive - we have since the beginning (whichever beginning you choose to believe in) and we will likely ultimately mutually destroy ourselves some day.


View PostAshrak, on Oct 16 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

God does not need faith to exist; He exists whether people believe He does or not. :P


I would have to agree.

Simply from a scientific perspective, if one chooses not to believe in something, that will not mean it doesn't exist. You can believe incorrectly, or believe in something that does not exist.

But given the existence of an entity, it doesn't matter what you believe, the entity exists.

There was a time when science told us the coelacanth was extinct, gone for millions of years.

However, science was proven wrong when fishing boats pulled some aboard.

Clearly, our faith in the absence of coelacanth did not mean they did not exist; they just existed without our own knowledge.

View PostAshrak, on Oct 16 2009, 09:41 AM, said:

I believe the point Thalion is making is that all evolutionary processes did not start at the same time, nor continue at the same rate, but, correct me if I'm wrong, "scientists" (gee, there we go again) tell us that it a constant and ongoing process. So it is perfectly reasonable to assume that we should and would see evidence of evolutionary processes at work in the past 40,000 years, even processes which would change one species into another.

I.K.E. and Thalion are asking to be shown proof of this, if it exists.


Rightfully so.

If it is constant, we should have seen something by now.

Or, as I pointed out in this very post -- somewhere in a 100,000 year window scientists believe we saw multiple changes occur between one species and the next.

Since the changes are not simply 1 or 2 mutations (wouldn't be sufficient for a species change), we can safely assume that there mathematically was at least one in any 40,000 year segment of that 100,000 year window. And that's just one species to another species.


But that would also mean we could track one such change in the past 40,000 years. And we can't, even when we factor in all the other diverse creatures on this planet.

This post has been edited by Thalion: 16 October 2009 - 07:54 AM

Member of Team Akkadian

0

#110 User is offline   Ashrak 

  • Precipice
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 336
  • Joined: 01-December 07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 October 2009 - 07:55 AM

View PostJerseyPaint, on Oct 16 2009, 10:35 AM, said:

And PW, I've alway thought the same thing. Why does God and evolution always need to conflict. Its perfectly reasonable to believe in both since they never contradict each other unless you firmly believe in the whole "we're made from clay" thing.


They don't need to conflict; you just have some people who doubt the official story of evolution as the origins of man and all life. I don't deny microevolution, and variations within species. What I do doubt is that:

(1) all life as we know just *poof* came into existence from nothing, all on its own, whether that be from a Big Bang or string theory or what have you.

(2) If there was "something" before live as we know came into existence, that "something" had to have come from somewhere.

Also, one reason I doubt evolution, and this applies only to the existence of mankind, is the human soul. I don't see the soul as evolving, or simply coming into existence at a certain stage in our development.
Alea iacta est ~ The board is set, the pieces are moving.
~ Like the leaves of the forest when Summer is green, That host with their banners at sunset were seen:
Like the leaves of the forest when Autumn hath blown, That host on the morrow lay withered and strown. ~ Destruction of Sennacherib

~ Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the American states a man who more cordially loves a union with his country than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the United States Congress proposes; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America. ~ Thomas Jefferson (modernized)
Summertime Blues
0

#111 User is offline   Puzuma 

  • That is not dead which can eternal lie,
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 14,382
  • Joined: 22-September 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London ON, Canada
  • Brigade Name:Puzuma

Posted 16 October 2009 - 08:09 AM

Who says humans have souls? Is there any proof of it?
Posted Image
That is not dead which can eternal lie,And with strange aeons even death may die.
0

#112 User is offline   Ashrak 

  • Precipice
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 336
  • Joined: 01-December 07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 October 2009 - 08:15 AM

Not scientific proof, no.

But there is the presence of a human conscience, which, even in an environment where some wrong action is considered acceptable, prods us not to do that action. As children, we know things like stealing to be wrong, even from a young age before any philosophical discussion about right and wrong could ever register with us. We just know it, even if we haven't been told it.
Alea iacta est ~ The board is set, the pieces are moving.
~ Like the leaves of the forest when Summer is green, That host with their banners at sunset were seen:
Like the leaves of the forest when Autumn hath blown, That host on the morrow lay withered and strown. ~ Destruction of Sennacherib

~ Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the American states a man who more cordially loves a union with his country than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the United States Congress proposes; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America. ~ Thomas Jefferson (modernized)
Summertime Blues
0

#113 User is offline   Puzuma 

  • That is not dead which can eternal lie,
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 14,382
  • Joined: 22-September 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London ON, Canada
  • Brigade Name:Puzuma

Posted 16 October 2009 - 08:22 AM

You haven't watched very many kids have you? Right and wrong is a learned behavior. While small kids don't steal on a level adults would call it stealing, they still do it. One kid as a pacifier, the other doesn't. Quite often the one without will take it from the other. Even as they get older and take toys from one another, we don't call it stealing but tell them they need to learn to share.
Posted Image
That is not dead which can eternal lie,And with strange aeons even death may die.
0

#114 User is offline   Ashrak 

  • Precipice
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 336
  • Joined: 01-December 07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 October 2009 - 08:30 AM

That doesn't address whether or not they know the action is wrong. I can do something, know its wrong, and try to hide it. I can do something, know its wrong, and then be ashamed when I am caught or reprimanded.

Notions of right and wrong can be influenced by the environment you live in, that's true. But if it is solely a learned behavior, why do kids from good parents go bad, and why do kids from bad parents turn out fine?
Alea iacta est ~ The board is set, the pieces are moving.
~ Like the leaves of the forest when Summer is green, That host with their banners at sunset were seen:
Like the leaves of the forest when Autumn hath blown, That host on the morrow lay withered and strown. ~ Destruction of Sennacherib

~ Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the American states a man who more cordially loves a union with his country than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the United States Congress proposes; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America. ~ Thomas Jefferson (modernized)
Summertime Blues
0

#115 User is offline   Thalion 

  • Probably in the Shooters Thread...
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,984
  • Joined: 22-January 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Twin Cities, MN

Posted 16 October 2009 - 09:48 AM

A child can be fully aware of right and wrong; the actual issue regarding children is understanding the consequences of wrong actions.

Learned behavior is only a part of it.
Member of Team Akkadian

0

#116 User is offline   Cuy'val Dar  

  • 327 G.I.R. Bastogne Bulldogs
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 759
  • Joined: 31-May 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula Louisiana
  • Brigade Name:MICHAEL J. CABOOSE

Posted 16 October 2009 - 01:52 PM

Most everything has a conscience. They just cannot express it. right and wrong are merely points of view. i believe in intelligent design as well as evolution. it is possible (while unlikely) that a far advanced race cultivated us just as we do bacteria in a petri dish.
Posted Image

Doorbells? Seriously? That's the swear filter?
. -Pirate
"Authenticity bro, everyone voids their bowels when they die."
-Guy at end of paintball movie
0

#117 User is offline   Puzuma 

  • That is not dead which can eternal lie,
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 14,382
  • Joined: 22-September 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London ON, Canada
  • Brigade Name:Puzuma

Posted 16 October 2009 - 03:53 PM

View PostAshrak, on Oct 16 2009, 11:30 AM, said:

That doesn't address whether or not they know the action is wrong. I can do something, know its wrong, and try to hide it. I can do something, know its wrong, and then be ashamed when I am caught or reprimanded.

Notions of right and wrong can be influenced by the environment you live in, that's true. But if it is solely a learned behavior, why do kids from good parents go bad, and why do kids from bad parents turn out fine?

If they don't know that an action is wrong then how can "We just know it, even if we haven't been told it."?
Posted Image
That is not dead which can eternal lie,And with strange aeons even death may die.
0

#118 User is offline   Cyanidepoison 

  • SpecOps's Infamous.
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,754
  • Joined: 10-April 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana...

Posted 16 October 2009 - 04:42 PM

Statement: Trying to explain evolution to idiots is like trying to teach calculus to two year-olds. Proof: this thread

QED
The sun rises to a crisp blanket of snow...
0

#119 User is offline   Thalion 

  • Probably in the Shooters Thread...
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,984
  • Joined: 22-January 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Twin Cities, MN

Posted 16 October 2009 - 06:11 PM

View PostPuzuma, on Oct 16 2009, 05:53 PM, said:

If they don't know that an action is wrong then how can "We just know it, even if we haven't been told it."?


What Ash was saying is "your argument doesn't address whether or not the child knows it's wrong. All it establishes is children do these actions sometimes."


View PostCyanidepoison, on Oct 16 2009, 06:42 PM, said:

Statement: Trying to explain evolution to idiots is like trying to teach calculus to two year-olds. Proof: this thread

QED


Ah yes, the ever popular "if you don't believe with us, you're an idiot."

Really? So when you cannot prove it to the point of a scientific law, and people disagree, then they must be an idiot?

Your argument is entirely flawed.
Member of Team Akkadian

0

#120 User is offline   evillepaintball 

  • You won't do it! You ain't crazy!
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 576
  • Joined: 25-February 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Evansville Indiana
  • Brigade Name:sunshine ac-05

Posted 16 October 2009 - 06:27 PM

Except it isn't claimed to be a law. Expecting consumers of research to prove a scientific theory as law is just silly.
"it just doesnt look cool unless you're riding a yamazuki zx1200rrr" - C9H13NO3
0

Share this topic:


  • (13 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

5 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users