StarGateWars Forums

Kit-Fox wrote:Now given that all babies are orn with white skin why then do we have different coloured people across the globe? It easy the difference in skin colour gives those people differing levels of protection from sunlight/radiation. And so the people who have darker skins in areas such as around the equator will survive longer with less defects allowing them to breed more and its an example of evolultion as it became a permanent change in that those people 'evolved' to their environment.

Just to hammer home, Natural selection was the process that gave those with darker skins an enhanced breeding ability and the evolution was the permanent change affected on the genes passed on as even tho all babies are white at birth the genes soon ensure that their enhanced ability it brought into play

Why does the process of adaption have to be "evolving" or "Natural Selection"? Adaption has always happened since the beginning of time and since before these terms and ideas were created. Darwin had his idea on how things "evolved" by taking a natural process that has always being there and manipulated it to fit in with his belief of how things came to be. Just because adaption and Natural Selection are so similar doesn't mean, and isn't evidence, that everything has "evolved".

Natural Section is a manipulated version of a natural process. If the 'Theory of Evolution' was never created the process of adaption would still be the same. Therefore if a species changes to adapt to its environment, that does not mean it has "evolved" in the cite of "Evolution". I don't know why so many people find it so hard to think outside the box on this subject.

Removed

n3M351s wrote:

Kit-Fox wrote:Now given that all babies are orn with white skin why then do we have different coloured people across the globe? It easy the difference in skin colour gives those people differing levels of protection from sunlight/radiation. And so the people who have darker skins in areas such as around the equator will survive longer with less defects allowing them to breed more and its an example of evolultion as it became a permanent change in that those people 'evolved' to their environment.

Just to hammer home, Natural selection was the process that gave those with darker skins an enhanced breeding ability and the evolution was the permanent change affected on the genes passed on as even tho all babies are white at birth the genes soon ensure that their enhanced ability it brought into play

Why does the process of adaption have to be "evolving" or "Natural Selection"? Adaption has always happened since the beginning of time and since before these terms and ideas were created. Darwin had his idea on how things "evolved" by taking a natural process that has always being there and manipulated it to fit in with his belief of how things came to be. Just because adaption and Natural Selection are so similar doesn't mean, and isn't evidence, that everything has "evolved".

Natural Section is a manipulated version of a natural process. If the 'Theory of Evolution' was never created the process of adaption would still be the same. Therefore if a species changes to adapt to its environment, that does not mean it has "evolved" in the cite of "Evolution". I don't know why so many people find it so hard to think outside the box on this subject.

mabe you should first understand whats in the box and then youll realise your box analogy does not apply

@ Thiller, this may be hard to believe but I try to be a person of character and that requires me to draw lines and control myself rather then to say things I might later regret. I didn’t remove myself for you but rather for my own personal integrity so I would come back with a right attitude.

I read the evidence you gave of intermediaries and frankly that isn’t science its junk science and it’s the equivalent of Lucy the magical so called missing link that turned out to be a hoax like most of the evidence for evolution. You can claim that I don’t understand science but the fact is you have yet to give me one shred of evidence.

All I hear is examples of microevolution. Yes species adapt but they do not become a new species. I made this distinction very clear at the top of the first post.

The thing that sums this whole issue up the best is if evolution is so true why is it still a theory and not a proven law and the simple answer is because there isn’t enough evidence to make it a law. It is easy to understand why intelligent design can't become theory because it requires recognition of the noumenal realm which science cannot ever prove. However evolution which is supposed to be all science should be able to be proven and supported and yet it remains elusive and improvable despite the countless amounts of research and archeology exerted to prove it.

Evolution is a Theory: and not a very good one at that.
I am not supposed to speak on intelligent design as per the rules I set up in this debate but I will be happy to start another topic when I have some time.

Thriller wrote:mabe you should first understand whats in the box and then youll realise your box analogy does not apply

Maybe you can enlighten me Thriller.

TheWay wrote:@ Thiller, this may be hard to believe but I try to be a person of character and that requires me to draw lines and control myself rather then to say things I might later regret. I didn’t remove myself for you but rather for my own personal integrity so I would come back with a right attitude.

I read the evidence you gave of intermediaries and frankly that isn’t science its junk science and it’s the equivalent of Lucy the magical so called missing link that turned out to be a hoax like most of the evidence for evolution. You can claim that I don’t understand science but the fact is you have yet to give me one shred of evidence.

All I hear is examples of microevolution. Yes species adapt but they do not become a new species. I made this distinction very clear at the top of the first post.

The thing that sums this whole issue up the best is if evolution is so true why is it still a theory and not a proven law and the simple answer is because there isn’t enough evidence to make it a law. It is easy to understand why intelligent design can't become theory because it requires recognition of the noumenal realm which science cannot ever prove. However evolution which is supposed to be all science should be able to be proven and supported and yet it remains elusive and improvable despite the countless amounts of research and archeology exerted to prove it.

Evolution is a Theory: and not a very good one at that.
I am not supposed to speak on intelligent design as per the rules I set up in this debate but I will be happy to start another topic when I have some time.

Your refutation of the proof does not mean squat since you gave no clear explanation of why the evidence i presented was false. Do you hold a degree in any scientific field? You clearly don't understand what a theory is in a scientific sense. Ill clarify for you. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. If a theory proven to be unequivocally right then it becomes a law. Like Newton's theory of universal gravitation which became Newton's law of universal gravitation.

ANd why are you so hell bent on attacking evolution. Why don't you try disprove Gravity as well? Or Atomic Theory? or Cell Biology?

science uses observation and critical thinking to analysis the world around us. We cannot use science to observe that which does not exist but if it does exist it is the best tool we have to find it. Your idea of a noumenon(plz spell this right from now on) realm fits into science fiction or fantasy.

Thriller wrote:ANd why are you so hell bent on attacking evolution.

Maybe you should have another look at the title of this topic and also take note that this is in the debate section.

Thriller wrote:Why don't you try disprove Gravity as well? Or Atomic Theory? or Cell Biology

That's a pretty half-witted thing to say. Why would anyone try to disprove Gravity? It has been proven and anyone can easily work out its basic principles for themselves. Evolution on the other hand is still just a theory. Show me some hard evidence of "Evolution" that makes you believe in it so much.

By the way you either missed or avoided my last post.

@n3M351s, I could not have said it better m8. Well said!

@Avenger, I hold a degree in psychology/counseling and am working towards a masters degree and although this is not a science degree I will say this. There is no knowledge at any university that cannot be obtained with a dollar fifty in late charges from your local library (semi quote from Good will Hunting). I am a well read and diverse person and hence I have an interest in this issue as a free thinker who refuses to buy into propaganda. If you will read Phillip E. Johnson I think you may better understand the arguments we are placing. I have read what your side has said, but I wonder if you are such an honest scientist have you researched the opposing view like any honest scientist would do.

Also your "proven theory" actually disproves laws, if you where to hold it at face value. Case in point the second law of thermodynamics states that all things head towards chaos yet evolution says not only is that not true but that we are to believe instead that if you where to see a junk yard that contained all the parts for a 747 and then left the junkyard and a hurricane came the next day or after a billion hurricanes a billion days later there would be a functioning 747. I am sorry but it requires intelligence to build something as complex as a 747 and we are much more so then any 747. Read Michael Behe and his theory on irreducibly complex and I am sure you will see some light at the end of that dark tunnel of evolutionary dogma.

Removed

TheWay wrote:@n3M351s, I could not have said it better m8. Well said!

@Avenger, I hold a degree in psychology/counseling and am working towards a masters degree and although this is not a science degree I will say this. There is no knowledge at any university that cannot be obtained with a dollar fifty in late charges from your local library (semi quote from Good will Hunting). I am a well read and diverse person and hence I have an interest in this issue as a free thinker who refuses to buy into propaganda. If you will read Phillip E. Johnson I think you may better understand the arguments we are placing. I have read what your side has said, but I wonder if you are such an honest scientist have you researched the opposing view like any honest scientist would do.

Also your "proven theory" actually disproves laws, if you where to hold it at face value. Case in point the second law of thermodynamics states that all things head towards chaos yet evolution says not only is that not true but that we are to believe instead that if you where to see a junk yard that contained all the parts for a 747 and then left the junkyard and a hurricane came the next day or after a billion hurricanes a billion days later there would be a functioning 747. I am sorry but it requires intelligence to build something as complex as a 747 and we are much more so then any 747. Read Michael Behe and his theory on irreducibly complex and I am sure you will see some light at the end of that dark tunnel of evolutionary dogma.

erm...i haven't posted in this topic and haven't read all of the posts, so why have you directed the undined at me, or is that a mistake?

reason i haven't posted (wanted to but haven't) is because i was never good at science and this topic is WAAAY to deep for me lol

BUT, i find it hard to believe that evolution hasn't played some part in life on earth, case in point would be the dinosaurs. the earliest dinosaurs were front heavy and had fused bones in their backs as well as having legs attached to the sides instead of underneath, thus making them very slow and cumbersome. these earliest forms of dinosaurs evolved into fast moving creatures and gaining a center of gravity via the evolution of the joints and tails.
on the flip side to that argument is why haven't the Eskimos developed thicker, hairier skin to handle to the cold since man is the only creature on the planet who has little defense against the climate with which he lives in?!


or have i misunderstood the subject?

well that's the limit of my understanding of evolution, not as in limited to dinosaurs but evolution in general.
so if i'm wrong go easy on me lol

Removed

ah!

told you my understanding of science is limited

TheWay wrote:@n3M351s, I could not have said it better m8. Well said!

@Avenger, I hold a degree in psychology/counseling and am working towards a masters degree and although this is not a science degree I will say this. There is no knowledge at any university that cannot be obtained with a dollar fifty in late charges from your local library (semi quote from Good will Hunting). I am a well read and diverse person and hence I have an interest in this issue as a free thinker who refuses to buy into propaganda. If you will read Phillip E. Johnson I think you may better understand the arguments we are placing. I have read what your side has said, but I wonder if you are such an honest scientist have you researched the opposing view like any honest scientist would do.

Also your "proven theory" actually disproves laws, if you where to hold it at face value. Case in point the second law of thermodynamics states that all things head towards chaos yet evolution says not only is that not true but that we are to believe instead that if you where to see a junk yard that contained all the parts for a 747 and then left the junkyard and a hurricane came the next day or after a billion hurricanes a billion days later there would be a functioning 747. I am sorry but it requires intelligence to build something as complex as a 747 and we are much more so then any 747. Read Michael Behe and his theory on irreducibly complex and I am sure you will see some light at the end of that dark tunnel of evolutionary dogma.

*bangs head on wall

You just basically said your psychology degree gives you the ability to call all the proof i gave to you, pseudoscience. Micheal behe's theory has been proven wrong with credible science. You see when we break down Micheal's irreducible complex system and combine the parts in different ways we do get different functions. You give me one irreducibly complex system and I will give you the information that shows it isn't(but you will probably still just call that pseudoscience as well). Behe's arguments were even heard in a court of law and the judge came to conclusion that they were bogus and this is way after the scientific community already debunked his theories. Oh wait you can't call them theories since they were never peer reviewed or confirmed by other scientists. I'm sorry I meant to say Micheal behe's hypothesis of irreducible complexity.

Since i hold a degree in physics i can credibly say you do not understand the second law of thermodynamics. But i hold a degree in the field in question so i can credibly point out your error and show you where you went wrong. The second law of thermodynamics or entropy, states that world is inherently active, and that whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic "force" (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize. Basically is states that the world has the potential to do work on its own. Things do not head towards chaos they head towards equilibrium. If you want me too show you why this does not go against evolution i will. But i am curious to see if you can figure out why or what i would say to illustrate that point. Based upon what i have given you.

Kit-Fox wrote:Thats a false analogy, as we didnt start off as a complex lifeform. In fact nothing started as a complex lifeform instead everything started with safe easy and decidedly un-complex ideas of life. To these humble beginnings extras were bolted on as needed and so complex lifeforms arose from that.

realy, because darwin based his theory off the existance of a simple cell later we have found that indeed the cell is not simple but immensly complex. So exactly what part of life is simple.

I will take a secomd look at Entropy and respond in kind. However your degree does not discredit my view nor does it elevate your unless you are a published scientist in this area in which case your thoughts would hold more credance but seperate from that you have no argument as to your understanding being superior.

P.S. sorry avenger the post asnt directed at you it was at thriller i believe sorry for that m8

TheWay wrote:

Kit-Fox wrote:Thats a false analogy, as we didnt start off as a complex lifeform. In fact nothing started as a complex lifeform instead everything started with safe easy and decidedly un-complex ideas of life. To these humble beginnings extras were bolted on as needed and so complex lifeforms arose from that.

realy, because darwin based his theory off the existance of a simple cell later we have found that indeed the cell is not simple but immensly complex. So exactly what part of life is simple.

I will take a secomd look at Entropy and respond in kind. However your degree does not discredit my view nor does it elevate your unless you are a published scientist in this area in which case your thoughts would hold more credance but seperate from that you have no argument as to your understanding being superior.

P.S. sorry avenger the post asnt directed at you it was at thriller i believe sorry for that m8

Really? I have just been tested on, educated in, and showed a general interest to fully understand the field in question.

BY your logic then i am just as qualified as you to speak on the matters of god, intelligent design, and for that matter psychology. And any claims I make to the aforementioned must be given as much validity as yours.

Therefore i say that god did not make us in his image, because his image is not physiologically the same as ours but looks more like giant green gofer with purple eyes. This has been confirmed through the discovery of a long last chapter of the bible; the book of Umizutial.