From a historical standpoint

ShredStylez · Post by **ShredStylez** » 26 Apr 2004 18:26

I was just wondering how u guys think it all started. I am a christian and belive in creation but i know people belive otherwise. please keep comments to a bare minimum.

Rob · Post by **Rob** » 26 Apr 2004 18:56

Well you see...

Humans are an experiment much like the Zerg. Only we don't have Overlords and all that other cool stuff. I think my carapace upgraded yesterday though...

We started from a guy clicking "spawn humans" in the original starcraft beta.

But really I think we're just a fluke like every other animal. Turned out the way we are because of conditions that we lived in.

Seath · Post by **Seath** » 26 Apr 2004 19:28

I believe in evolution, we've come a long way and to believe we were *blam* humanity out of nowhere is silly now isnt it?

I do believe some greater power started life or whatever, did the deed, got the ball rolling, but it was definitely evolution.

Spadrick · Post by **Spadrick** » 26 Apr 2004 19:29

I believe in evolution. It makes sense. It is something that is tangible and eventually, provable.

Creation lacks substance. God created us, so I ask why? Why would he create us? If he is so above and beyond all comparison, why would he waste his time?

Evolution is going to be proven, and I wont be shaken when it is.

IMHO

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 26 Apr 2004 19:40

Evolution has been proven. It is very easy to see life forms with very short life span - like germs - evolve.

What anti evolutionists argue is that just because everything with a short life span evolves - it doesn't mean that things with longer life spans - like humans evolve. This is true - Just like it's true that if you throw something up in the air - gravity might not effect it and it will keep going up for ever. Just because something always behaves in a certain manner - doesn't mean it will always or has always - it's just pretty damn likely!

I think the evidence for evolution amonst "higher" life forms is already conclusive.

Zeke · Post by **Zeke** » 26 Apr 2004 21:15

Ya'll remember this?

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 26 Apr 2004 22:57

Ohh yeah... I really remember that.. I don't want it turning into another can of worms...

Myself, I'm an evoloution guy.

Edit: I just saw the title of one of the projects... "Pokemon Prove Evolutionism Is False"
Wasn't pokemon about evolving your pokemon to make them a bigger can (ball?) of whoopass?

carl winslow · Post by **carl winslow** » 27 Apr 2004 07:48

i think there was evolution, and i beleive in God.

dblthnk84 · Post by **dblthnk84** » 27 Apr 2004 07:58

Jeremy wrote:Evolution has been proven. It is very easy to see life forms with very short life span - like germs - evolve.

Evolution of the sense that you're talking of is minnor changes to a species that can still mutate back to the original species within a generation or two. And its always a case of bacteria to bacteria, ect. Creationalists will admit this happens, but their has never been a case of a frog turing into a squirrel that we have witnessed. Thats the type of evolution that Creationalists don't believe happens.

I hope that I worded this clearly.
________
Honda Ridgeline specifications

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 27 Apr 2004 10:50

That was.

But the two are in different... Uhh... Orders I think? I don't know the Kindom phylum thing, as it's been almost 4 years since I've been in Biology.

If they are close the the same species, I imagine one could evolve around there, at least Initially... Now, who knows where the species are going?

I know this is a bit weak, but I can't think clearly...

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 27 Apr 2004 11:50

If you are willing to accept evolution as the accumulation of mutations in the inherited material of an organism, then evolution is proven.

--Tsiangkun

full nelson · Post by **full nelson** » 27 Apr 2004 12:12

Evolution

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 27 Apr 2004 15:52

Jeremy wrote: What anti evolutionists argue is that just because everything with a short life span evolves - it doesn't mean that things with longer life spans - like humans evolve.

no, its because when you put a rock and some minerals in a jar for a few weeks... IT DOESNT EVOLVE WHATS WRONG WITH THE WORLD??!!?!?!

ooo i love you creation science fair

Johnny · Post by **Johnny** » 27 Apr 2004 16:08

Evolution.

ShredStylez · Post by **ShredStylez** » 27 Apr 2004 16:33

ok im just gonna through a point out there. evolution needs microevolution and macroevolution to take place n order to be proven.

microevlolution is the small horizontal changes along the lines the lines of a species like small change in leg length or miniscule changes in diet or shape over 20-100 years whereas the dna stays the same and it is still the same species. This is also called adaptation which is a natural law in all organisms. same dna just diff characteristics

macroevolution is the vertical change when a species actually morphs into a new species. evolution says that a species never stays stays the same, and that it alwayschanges. it also says that the frog evolved from the fish. if this is true then over 100 million-200 million year time span there would have to had been thousands upon thousands of transitions bewtween the fish and from while it evolved. this number would basically shatter the existance of both the fish and the frog, but never have we discovered a transition period for any animal. we've only found a fish fossil and a frog fossil.

also if every species is constanly changing then no animal we have today should be exactly like an animal millions of years ago. But in fact a fossil found by an evolutionist, was a dragonfly that was said to be 30 million years old but it exactly fitted todays dragonfly.

there are also discoveries of footprints made by man set in stone walking next to a dinosaur set in stone. same rock layer which disproves in itself the geometric time scale.

please read this full posts and try to understand, lool ther may be several mistakes

full nelson · Post by **full nelson** » 27 Apr 2004 17:14

ShredStylez wrote:there are also discoveries of footprints made by man set in stone walking next to a dinosaur set in stone. same rock layer which disproves in itself the geometric time scale.

I don't know enough about the other points to counter and make it sound good, but this sounds like something out of the weekly world news.

Fu Xi · Post by **Fu Xi** » 27 Apr 2004 17:22

I LOVE rob's starcraft theory!!!

and i believe in both to some extent

ShredStylez · Post by **ShredStylez** » 27 Apr 2004 17:25

full nelson wrote:
ShredStylez wrote:there are also discoveries of footprints made by man set in stone walking next to a dinosaur set in stone. same rock layer which disproves in itself the geometric time scale.
I don't know enough about the other points to counter and make it sound good, but this sounds like something out of the weekly world news.

actually the weekly world news wouldnt publish something like that. its too politically incorrect.

dblthnk84 · Post by **dblthnk84** » 27 Apr 2004 17:44

Have fun:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-all-14.jpg
________
Mercury (automobile)

ShredStylez · Post by **ShredStylez** » 27 Apr 2004 18:30

thanks brandon. thats sweet, but thats not the only one i had never even seen that one before. this one was actually side by side as if they were walking together.

modified

From a historical standpoint

Which do you belive?

From a historical standpoint