Weaknesses of Evolution.

I'm suprised how many people in here believe in intelligent design or creationism or whatever you like to call it. Personally I believe I believe (yes, I believe I believe in it) in evolution without a creator. I haven't read the whole thread (oh, boy, my eyes hurt from just a couple of pages), so I don't know all your arguments for a creator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackLKrawl

lol, do you think that the Egyptian 'religion,' where they worshiped a ball of gas, is still around?

---

I'll just ignore your ignorance to the ancient Egyptian religion (there were actual gods as we know them from other religions - I know there is only one god in Christianity and all that).. But! If God is everywhere isn't he some sort of ball of gas too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pwnaz0r

No one seems to listen to any of my posts, even though they are very valid. The whole thing about how we are going to get anywhere, that I am not trying to prove a God, that that is just a cheap technique they use because it is philosophical, that my whole theory is based on fact, etc. You need to stop being so ignorant and listen, and don't say I need to because I once was an evolutionist, so you can't. You may say evolution is the new age, yet intellegent design is a newer idea than evolution. It is not the same as religion, even though it might lead to it.

---

Was that directed at me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gumleren

I'm suprised how many people in here believe in intelligent design or creationism or whatever you like to call it. Personally I believe I believe (yes, I believe I believe in it) in evolution without a creator. I haven't read the whole thread (oh, boy, my eyes hurt from just a couple of pages), so I don't know all your arguments for a creator.


I'll just ignore your ignorance to the ancient Egyptian religion (there were actual gods as we know them from other religions - I know there is only one god in Christianity and all that).. But! If God is everywhere isn't he some sort of ball of gas too?

---

Polytheistic and DEAD at the same time? Yeah, I knew that. Reread the page, I don't care if your eyes hurt.
In turn, I'll ignore your ignorance of Christianity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackLKrawl

Was that directed at me?

Polytheistic and DEAD at the same time? Yeah, I knew that. Reread the page, I don't care if your eyes hurt.

---

No, it was directed at people like Gumerlen or whatever, who did not even read the above post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pwnaz0r

No one seems to listen to any of my posts, even though they are very valid. The whole thing about how we are going to get anywhere, that I am not trying to prove a God, that that is just a cheap technique they use because it is philosophical, that my whole theory is based on fact, etc. You need to stop being so ignorant and listen, and don't say I need to because I once was an evolutionist, so you can't. You may say evolution is the new age, yet intellegent design is a newer idea than evolution. It is not the same as religion, even though it might lead to it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pwnaz0r

If I get anything through to you, let it be this: The only way we can get anywhere in this arguement is i must disprove evolution or you must prove it. Leave the God side out of it. You are so good at arguement techniques, so use your brain. If we were designed or we were not, and I disprove you, I am right, and vice versa.

I will stop there for now since I want you to see that.

Intellegent design is 100% possible. They are both theories. It is your opinion, and i am showing you that mine is just as plausible as yours, and if you say its not possible, you are jeparidizing you own theory.

I am rather done being nice, the chance of evolution happening is far less than that of intellegent design. They are both theories, so you must use reason to find out. You choose.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackLKrawl

Polytheistic and DEAD at the same time?

---

Who died? Yes, the Egyptians believed in polytheism - but what's with the dead part?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pwnaz0r

No, it was directed at people like Gumerlen or whatever, who did not even read the above post.

---

OK, I was worried you misunderstood my circles comment. BRB JELLO!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gumleren

Who died? Yes, the Egyptians believed in polytheism - but what's with the dead part?

---

Ex. Latin is a dead language.

Is it just me, or does this section lag a whole lot? I'll often find one or two posts before mine after I revisit the thread, that I don't see on a refresh.

I am going to have to keep posting this because it is essential that all the evolutionists see it and it does have to do with the arguement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pwnaz0r

No one seems to listen to any of my posts, even though they are very valid. The whole thing about how we are going to get anywhere, that I am not trying to prove a God, that that is just a cheap technique they use because it is philosophical, that my whole theory is based on fact, etc. You need to stop being so ignorant and listen, and don't say I need to because I once was an evolutionist, so you can't. You may say evolution is the new age, yet intellegent design is a newer idea than evolution. It is not the same as religion, even though it might lead to it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pwnaz0r

If I get anything through to you, let it be this: The only way we can get anywhere in this arguement is i must disprove evolution or you must prove it. Leave the God side out of it. You are so good at arguement techniques, so use your brain. If we were designed or we were not, and I disprove you, I am right, and vice versa.

Intellegent design is 100% possible. They are both theories. It is your opinion, and i am showing you that mine is just as plausible as yours, and if you say its not possible, you are jeparidizing you own theory.

I am rather done being nice, the chance of evolution happening is far less than that of intellegent design. They are both theories, so you must use reason to find out. You choose.

---

But pwnaz0r, many of the other guys are trying to prove God - we have to deal with them too.
EDIT: Oh, whatever! I'm tired. I'm going to bed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gumleren

EDIT: Oh, whatever! I'm tired. I'm going to bed.

---

*another one admits defeat?*

EDIT: O didn't see that. But you see, this is my thread, so pay attention to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pwnaz0r

No one seems to listen to any of my posts, even though they are very valid. The whole thing about how we are going to get anywhere, that I am not trying to prove a God, that that is just a cheap technique they use because it is philosophical, that my whole theory is based on fact, etc. You need to stop being so ignorant and listen, and don't say I need to because I once was an evolutionist, so you can't. You may say evolution is the new age, yet intellegent design is a newer idea than evolution. It is not the same as religion, even though it might lead to it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pwnaz0r

If I get anything through to you, let it be this: The only way we can get anywhere in this arguement is i must disprove evolution or you must prove it. Leave the God side out of it. You are so good at arguement techniques, so use your brain. If we were designed or we were not, and I disprove you, I am right, and vice versa.

I will stop there for now since I want you to see that.

Intellegent design is 100% possible. They are both theories. It is your opinion, and i am showing you that mine is just as plausible as yours, and if you say its not possible, you are jeparidizing you own theory.

I am rather done being nice, the chance of evolution happening is far less than that of intellegent design. They are both theories, so you must use reason to find out. You choose.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gumleren

But pwnaz0r, many of the other guys are trying to prove God - we have to deal with them too.
EDIT: Oh, whatever! I'm tired. I'm going to bed.

---

Shame, I got a bowl FULL of Jello. I've only answered people questioning Christianity. No one here has tried to prove it. It isn't the right place to do that.

Alrighty then, I'll try again - pretend like I've never been here before: pwnaz0r, you're trying to get "us" evolutionists to believe that the evolution-theory is incomplete and can't be proven right. Right? If thats so.. Yeah, you're right. I was confused by all those countless numbers of post saying "GOD DOESN'T EXIST!!111@@222!!".

Now i understand how much of a touchy subject this is so ill try and keep my questions simple and please remember that they are not challenging anyones beliefs they are just me attempting to understand them better.

The simple question every scientist who argues for evolution ask, but creationist cannot answer:
Who created god?

You have to remember that evolution isn't a single theory it is used in combination with several hundreds of theory's, such as the big bang.

Quote:

---

Now, here is where I start not to agree with the common thought. Of course the finches did evolve. What your textbooks do not tell you, is that after a year or so the drought would end and the finches with short beaks would flourish again. This is called de evolution

---

To refer to it as de-evolution is actually incorrect, its one species becoming the more successful. So for example during a long drought period the birds with longer beaks will still be able to achieve a greaters amount of food and thus still be able to reproduce at a constant rate, compared to the shortbeaks which will only have a few being able to get the food. Now after the period of drought has ended the longbeak species is the dominant and more populated species but over an even greater period it restores to both species being equal.

You have to remember that charles darwin commenced his work during a different time and without the technology we have today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gumleren

Alrighty then, I'll try again - pretend like I've never been here before: pwnaz0r, you're trying to get "us" evolutionists to believe that the evolution-theory is incomplete and can't be proven right. Right? If thats so.. Yeah, you're right. I was confused by all those countless numbers of post saying "GOD DOESN'T EXIST!!111@@222!!".

---

...You made the exact same post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me_ntal

Now i understand how much of a touchy subject this is so ill try and keep my questions simple and please remember that they are not challenging anyones beliefs they are just me attempting to understand them better.

The simple question every scientist who argues for evolution ask, but creationist cannot answer:
Who created god?

You have to remember that evolution isn't a single theory it is used in combination with several hundreds of theory's, such as the big bang.



To refer to it as de-evolution is actually incorrect, its one species becoming the more successful. So for example during a long drought period the birds with longer beaks will still be able to achieve a greaters amount of food and thus still be able to reproduce at a constant rate, compared to the shortbeaks which will only have a few being able to get the food. Now after the period of drought has ended the longbeak species is the dominant and more populated species but over an even greater period it restores to both species being equal.

You have to remember that charles darwin commenced his work during a different time and without the technology we have today.

---

De-evolution is correct. As result, the 'longer beaks' go back to being 'shorter beaks.' Actually, it's evolving with a better beak, and evolving with a better beak, the way I see it. The birds with longer beaks wouldn't need long beaks, so why keep them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackLKrawl

...You made the exact same post.

---

And what part of my post, which you quoted, didn't you understand? I thought it had evolved to a question about whether or not God exists - that's why I posted what I posted. Besides, I never stated that God doesn't exist. I merely said that the Egyptian ball of gas is similar to "your" God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gumleren

Alrighty then, I'll try again - pretend like I've never been here before: pwnaz0r, you're trying to get "us" evolutionists to believe that the evolution-theory is incomplete and can't be proven right. Right? If thats so.. Yeah, you're right. I was confused by all those countless numbers of post saying "GOD DOESN'T EXIST!!111@@222!!".

---

Ok the only reason for this post is to point those out and possibly say that intellegent design is much more likely. Now, as far as being designed by who or what, that is for you to answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gumleren

And what part of my post, which you quoted, didn't you understand? I thought it had evolved to a question about whether or not God exists - that's why I posted what I posted.

---

Go to sleep.

I've noticed some of you saying something along the lines of,

"so what that theres no proof for god, there is no proof against"

the way I see it, this pushes the existence of god into some kind of limbo.

I think we should take a look at the legal system for inspiration, a suspect is said to be innocent until proven guilty.

Speaker: Good morning Judge, the suspects God and Evolution were both seen running away from the scene of the crime, so it was either one or the other who did it.
Evolution evidence against, there was blood on his shirt for a start, but God has no evidence.

the typical response of the judge is.
Judge: Send Evolution to prison for 10 years.

however, we seem to be using the response
Judge: Send them both to prison for 5 years each.


I haven't seen any pro-God evidence, but I've seen some pro-Evolution evidence.
I've noticed some of you saying "no there isn't any evidence for evolution", well there is, the situation about a species slightly changing to make it better, one counter-argument is "this only happens within species, not between them"
well "species" is an abstract idea, it was invented by humans to describe life forms.
evolution does not care for man or species, when stuff changes, you might as well call it another specie, or use a word that describes it better.

another thing I noticed was people saying "life cannot survive in space because there is no oxygen", this is slightly misleading, most current life today requires oxygen to survive, but the first life didn't, in face, when life first start to use photosynthesis to produce oxygen, it killed of much life which couldn't handle it, in fact, in our immune system, white blood cells use oxygen to kill some malicious life forms.

OK, let say all I wrote about is wrong, its possible, but I still dislike God, I would go so far as to say I hate him.
God produces disease, natural disasters, holy wars and misery for millions of people, if i saw Him in the street, I would shout abuse, spit, throw things and generally express my distaste as His existence. Although I stand no chance, He would strike me down with lightning, meteorites or whatever method He preferred at that moment.

If God exists, He is no God but a Demon which the world would be much better off without.

Does anyone remember in the year 2000, the Observer newspaper printed an obituary for God, saying He has becomes obsolete.
How wrong they were, I can probably place the rise of religion in the new millennium at 11th September 2001, this was a perfect example of conflict between religions. A part of the Islamic world takes out many of the top people in the top Christan capitalist organisation.
In response to that, peoples religions grow, Christianity is seen as a perfect way to counter Islam, and vis versa, and unto infinitum, so religions grow and grow in an arms race.

I'd like to make it clear that not all Islamic people are "terrorists" and not all Christan people are "freedom fighters".

I once read an article which claims that the human brain evolved to incorporate some kind of religion, we can clearly see in all cultures there is some kind of religion.
Why does DNA evolve again? to make it survive, and it will do this by any means possible, (called Selfish Gene), and this programmed-in religion is a useful way of stopping Cavemen committing suicide when their food runs out, cause God will be angry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackLKrawl

Go to sleep.

---

Oh, shut up and read my posts properly!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me_ntal

Now i understand how much of a touchy subject this is so ill try and keep my questions simple and please remember that they are not challenging anyones beliefs they are just me attempting to understand them better.

The simple question every scientist who argues for evolution ask, but creationist cannot answer:
Who created god?

You have to remember that evolution isn't a single theory it is used in combination with several hundreds of theory's, such as the big bang.



To refer to it as de-evolution is actually incorrect, its one species becoming the more successful. So for example during a long drought period the birds with longer beaks will still be able to achieve a greaters amount of food and thus still be able to reproduce at a constant rate, compared to the shortbeaks which will only have a few being able to get the food. Now after the period of drought has ended the longbeak species is the dominant and more populated species but over an even greater period it restores to both species being equal.

You have to remember that charles darwin commenced his work during a different time and without the technology we have today.

---

I may agree about the de evolution part, but again, the fact still remains that they are still evolving, then going back.

As for who created God part, I can answer. You obviously did notread the infinity arguement, but I will answer with another.

God and time are basically the same essence of things. They are both things we cannot see but know are at work (well at least I know God is :)). We cannot see, touch, or question time and/or God. The question is, why do you not question where time came from? The reason you ask this is because you do not correctly look at it. Everyone believes in time, and no one has ever questioned where it came from.

The best way to teach is through examples, thus this post. i hope that helps. I could give you another if you like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gumleren

But pwnaz0r, many of the other guys are trying to prove God - we have to deal with them too.
EDIT: Oh, whatever! I'm tired. I'm going to bed.

---

What am I misreading? Seriously, you'll think a little better when you wake up.

maybe we should change the topic title to "The Intelligent design", which is the commonly used term for argument of god. That way we could keep the 3 year olds out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me_ntal

maybe we should change the topic title to "The Intelligent design", which is the commonly used term for argument of god. That way we could keep the 3 year olds out.

---

We're just waiting for evolutionists to answer pwnazor's questions. And we have brains too you know.
Actually, I have a question of my own. Why would bacteria, whatever the first organism was, need to evolve? The only changing factor is temperature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackLKrawl

What am I misreading? Seriously, you'll think a little better when you wake up.

---

That's not the post you quoted, Brainiac. I said that I was confused from the people screaming "GOD DOESN'T EXIST" and therefore I thought the discussion was about whether or not God existed. I didn't even say anything about God existing or not.

Its called variety in a species, For an easy example lets take the common flu bug, Every year most people have an their flu shots, this in theory should stop them from the strains of influenza that the shot is modelled off, however after every year the flu shot becomes outdated, with a new speices being developed this supports the theory of evolution. Over the past 10 years their has been over 1,000 different strains of flu, with the flu advancing and also returning to previous designs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gumleren

That's not the post you quoted, Brainiac. I said that I was confused from the people screaming "GOD DOESN'T EXIST" and therefore I thought the discussion was about whether or not God existed. I didn't even say anything about God existing or not.

---

lol What are you talking about? You have me confused. You said you were tired and your eyes hurt right? I'm not taunting or looking down on you or anything..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me_ntal

Its called variety in a species, For an easy example lets take the common flu bug, Every year most people have an their flu shots, this in theory should stop them from the strains of influenza that the shot is modelled off, however after every year the flu shot becomes outdated, with a new speices being developed this supports the theory of evolution. Over the past 10 years their has been over 1,000 different strains of flu, with the flu advancing and also returning to previous designs.

---

Isn't that and the finch just, like third grade science books say, "Adaptation"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackLKrawl

lol What are you talking about? You have me confused. You said you were tired and your eyes hurt right? I'm not taunting or looking down on you or anything..

---

No, but it looks like you quoted one thing and commented on another. Anyway, it doesn't matter, we all love each other, right? :cartman: I've gotten the topic right, and now we can discuss. Or.. you can. I'm going to bed. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gumleren

No, but it looks like you quoted one thing and commented on another. Anyway, it doesn't matter, we all love each other, right? :cartman: I've gotten the topic right, and now we can discuss. Or.. you can. I'm going to bed. ;)

---

OK, Good night!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yakman

I've noticed some of you saying something along the lines of,

"so what that theres no proof for god, there is no proof against"

the way I see it, this pushes the existence of god into some kind of limbo.

I think we should take a look at the legal system for inspiration, a suspect is said to be innocent until proven guilty.

Speaker: Good morning Judge, the suspects God and Evolution were both seen running away from the scene of the crime, so it was either one or the other who did it.
Evolution evidence against, there was blood on his shirt for a start, but God has no evidence.

the typical response of the judge is.
Judge: Send Evolution to prison for 10 years.

however, we seem to be using the response
Judge: Send them both to prison for 5 years each.


I haven't seen any pro-God evidence, but I've seen some pro-Evolution evidence.
I've noticed some of you saying "no there isn't any evidence for evolution", well there is, the situation about a species slightly changing to make it better, one counter-argument is "this only happens within species, not between them"
well "species" is an abstract idea, it was invented by humans to describe life forms.
evolution does not care for man or species, when stuff changes, you might as well call it another specie, or use a word that describes it better.

another thing I noticed was people saying "life cannot survive in space because there is no oxygen", this is slightly misleading, most current life today requires oxygen to survive, but the first life didn't, in face, when life first start to use photosynthesis to produce oxygen, it killed of much life which couldn't handle it, in fact, in our immune system, white blood cells use oxygen to kill some malicious life forms.

OK, let say all I wrote about is wrong, its possible, but I still dislike God, I would go so far as to say I hate him.
God produces disease, natural disasters, holy wars and misery for millions of people, if i saw Him in the street, I would shout abuse, spit, throw things and generally express my distaste as His existence. Although I stand no chance, He would strike me down with lightning, meteorites or whatever method He preferred at that moment.

If God exists, He is no God but a Demon which the world would be much better off without.

Does anyone remember in the year 2000, the Observer newspaper printed an obituary for God, saying He has becomes obsolete.
How wrong they were, I can probably place the rise of religion in the new millennium at 11th September 2001, this was a perfect example of conflict between religions. A part of the Islamic world takes out many of the top people in the top Christan capitalist organisation.
In response to that, peoples religions grow, Christianity is seen as a perfect way to counter Islam, and vis versa, and unto infinitum, so religions grow and grow in an arms race.

I'd like to make it clear that not all Islamic people are "terrorists" and not all Christan people are "freedom fighters".

I once read an article which claims that the human brain evolved to incorporate some kind of religion, we can clearly see in all cultures there is some kind of religion.
Why does DNA evolve again? to make it survive, and it will do this by any means possible, (called Selfish Gene), and this programmed-in religion is a useful way of stopping Cavemen committing suicide when their food runs out, cause God will be angry.

---

Ah, as I highly respect you and you put some time into your post, I will respond to your posts about God.

First you seem to question our own term "species". You seem to trick yourself. My definition of micro and macro evolution are based on our current way of organizign things.

It is not set in stone that the definition of macro-evolution is the evolving between species, because you have re defined species to be something abstract.

Macro evolution would be an example of one organism evolving new traits never before seen in DNA, in which it has significant differences to its ancestors, and these evolvings happen against enourmose(wrong spellig :)) chances and because of malefunctions in the current structure of the animal or the failure to copy DNA right.

Now, God did not create things the way they are now. He gave man free will, because he wanted to delight in the fact man would worship him of his own free will(wouldn't be much of an accomplishment if say robot's did), and they corrupted things. Man causes war because of things such as jealousy, hate, and the quality of not being self-controlled.

Now, I could go into each type of disease, but you should tell me which one. Most disease corrupt DNA. God cannot defy His own promises, and he let man choose between right and wrong, and man has corrupted it.

Man has put himself where he is, and I'm sure you would agree with that being an evolutionist, so why is it different when you put God into the equation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Cardin

evolution cant be proven wrong. Unless we find a way to go back in time and see it without dying. Technically you could suggest anything and it cant be proven wrong. I was just trying to get at the way he said it it sounded like- "logical people would choose to believe in God because its been around for 2000 years and cant be proven wrong."

and the front of the bible says Holy Bible :p but im serious about that. Yes, a tree of knowledge and a tree of life :o tree of life makes people immortal. Doesnt seem very realistic to me. There have been movies about living forever. The fountain of youth. and they have been labeled as fantasy.

;)

I dont see why he needs us to come to earth, where there is death, and "evil" when we could just go straight to heaven. Why not just create us already with "intimate connect with God". (retorical cuz u cant answer)

(not retorical, i want to know)could adam and eve die? jw if death is something adam and eve brought into the world

EDIT: yea they probably wouldve lived forever because if they cant eat then they have to live forever, or else God would just be starving them =\
and in the case that they wouldve lived forever then how would they get intimate contact with God :(

---

You're right, nothing can be proven wrong. But that's where we have to go with what's more logical. Both ideas are confusing but the evolution/big bang theory starts with something completely impossible (an atom millions of times smaller than the tip of a needle exploding to something 10^1000000^1000000^1000000^1000000^etc larger than its self in a time when time doesn't even exist) and has many, many addons that just *might* make a bit of sense when placed in this theory.

To explain why Adam and Eve weren't supposed to die anyway, I might as well tell you that Eden was supposed to be heaven (or something like it) where you would experience no sadness (unless you wanted to..), tiredness, fatigue, ugliness, etc. Many people believe that Eden was lifted off the Earth and (symbolicly) transformed into the place called heaven.

And all the 'fantasy' movies, stories, etc are all based on you getting to live forever as a human on Earth.

EDIT: You guys make two more pages while I type this?? lol...

Anyway, to add on to pwnaz0r's post, look at any species in this world not including humans. Each animal type is either slightly more intelligent than the other. There is always one species that has another species that is a few notches higher, and another species that is a few notches lower except for the highest and the lowest. But it stops with apes/monkeys. They are supposedly the closest relative to humans. But notice the EXTREMELY large gap in intelligence. Apes, like all other animals rely primarily on instinct. They don't build things off of things. They don't progress. They can't even speak to each other. But on the other hands, humans have created so many things. Millions if not billions of words and millions of ideas. Can you teach an ape multiplication? No. Why? Because no animal can remember what the 'x' symbol means and what 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 means. They will simply not learn. In fact, they can't even do the simplest things like farm.

Anyway, my point is that God has an answer to why and evolution doesn't. God's answer? He put humans on the earth to test them. Not animals. Evolution doesn't know why this happened, or they're just ignorant...

EDIT2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me_ntal

maybe we should change the topic title to "The Intelligent design", which is the commonly used term for argument of god. That way we could keep the 3 year olds out.

---

Funny how I've never heard of that phrase until pwnaz0r pointed it out xD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me_ntal

Its called variety in a species, For an easy example lets take the common flu bug, Every year most people have an their flu shots, this in theory should stop them from the strains of influenza that the shot is modelled off, however after every year the flu shot becomes outdated, with a new speices being developed this supports the theory of evolution. Over the past 10 years their has been over 1,000 different strains of flu, with the flu advancing and also returning to previous designs.

---

Although I think Jack is being immature (nothing against you Jack, you are argueing on my side and I appreciate it :D), you have to understand that the conditions of a flu virus and the first bacteria are different.

For one, a virus is not alive, it does not have all 5 of the characterists of living things. A bacteria is.

He brings up a valid point because in your example, this is an illness. It also assumes that everything has already evolved. The flu evolves not because it wants to be a variety, but because it is constantly changing to continue to infect cells. It also travels through different organisms in this cycle, so it is changed.

This example isn't very good, because the first cell was by itself, therefore, nothing was "trying to cure it", etc. Re-read it and tell me if you think it is :D

EDIT: again eungeniu lets not bring God into this arguement, nor eden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pwnaz0r

Although I think Jack is being immature (nothing against you Jack, you are argueing on my side and I appreciate it :D), you have to understand that the conditions of a flu virus and the first bacteria are different.

For one, a virus is not alive, it does not have all 5 of the characterists of living things. A bacteria is.

He brings up a valid point because in your example, this is an illness. It also assumes that everything has already evolved. The flu evolves not because it wants to be a variety, but because it is constantly changing to continue to infect cells. It also travels through different organisms in this cycle, so it is changed.

This example isn't very good, because the first cell was by itself, therefore, nothing was "trying to cure it", etc. Re-read it and tell me if you think it is :D

EDIT: again eungeniu lets not bring God into this arguement, nor eden.

---

=( So you agree that that is just adaptation? It isn't evolving, becoming something else. It's just making subtle changes so that it can exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pwnaz0r

Although I think Jack is being immature (nothing against you Jack, you are argueing on my side and I appreciate it :D), you have to understand that the conditions of a flu virus and the first bacteria are different.

For one, a virus is not alive, it does not have all 5 of the characterists of living things. A bacteria is.

He brings up a valid point because in your example, this is an illness. It also assumes that everything has already evolved. The flu evolves not because it wants to be a variety, but because it is constantly changing to continue to infect cells. It also travels through different organisms in this cycle, so it is changed.

This example isn't very good, because the first cell was by itself, therefore, nothing was "trying to cure it", etc. Re-read it and tell me if you think it is :D

EDIT: again eungeniu lets not bring God into this arguement, nor eden.

---

Crap...-.-. I think I got mixed up with a post about eden on page 5 with the one I was replying to...I guess I'll edit that out then...

EDIT: Wait no...I'm confusing myself o_O. The eden part was explaining why adam and eve weren't supposed to die...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pwnaz0r

Although I think Jack is being immature (nothing against you Jack, you are argueing on my side and I appreciate it :D), you have to understand that the conditions of a flu virus and the first bacteria are different.

For one, a virus is not alive, it does not have all 5 of the characterists of living things. A bacteria is.

He brings up a valid point because in your example, this is an illness. It also assumes that everything has already evolved. The flu evolves not because it wants to be a variety, but because it is constantly changing to continue to infect cells. It also travels through different organisms in this cycle, so it is changed.

This example isn't very good, because the first cell was by itself, therefore, nothing was "trying to cure it", etc. Re-read it and tell me if you think it is :D

EDIT: again eungeniu lets not bring God into this arguement, nor eden.

---

What would happen if I accused you of being un-immature?

I was not personally bringing God into the argument, but I had no other word for a sentient force that created everything. Do you have a better word you would like me to use?

This is getting annoying and going nowhere, I just wanted to show you that they are both theories with infactual proof, and that neither can win. But you knew that, didn't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R0b0t1

I was not personally bringing God into the argument, but I had no other word for a sentient force that created everything. Do you have a better word you would like me to use?

This is getting annoying and going nowhere, I just wanted to show you that they are both theories with infactual proof, and that neither can win. But you knew that, didn't you?

---

of course, but I see it that we should choose one, (assuming you mean the two extremes), and I choose the one that has a better chance of actually happening.

And as for accussing me of being un-immature, I would have to say that you are right. :spot:

Pwnaz0r I Still Believe Strongly, That God Will not Allow you To Prove His Existence. If There Was a God, Why Send Us Here to Find Out He Exist through Human Science? Im Sure God would rather be believed in through the hearts of the people who have "tried" to learn and accept his teachings.

For those who dont believe in God, if would like to know if he is True, Then i would recommend setting your input to neutral ( The Middle of the Line, Between Both Ideas) and learn about God. Rather then Accepting He Is False Because there is no proof.

Because i believe in God, I don't want you to take things personal.

But I Dont Think That No Human Science Can Prove Him, So It is your choice to take the Route Just "Learn" To Choose Wisely. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pwnaz0r

Now, I could go into each type of disease, but you should tell me which one. Most disease corrupt DNA. God cannot defy His own promises, and he let man choose between right and wrong, and man has corrupted it.

---

The part about most diseases corrupting DNA is misleading, the only thing which does and is harmful to humans is cancer, which can be caused by may things (including breakfast cereal if you read The Daily Mail :rolleyes:)

lets take another disease, like Cholera, it is caused by bacteria which go into your bowels and produce a toxin which stops them doing their job of soaking up water, so you get very very watery diarrhoea.
your body tries to fight it off it off somehow (dont remember the details) but in all cases, the DNA of both your body and the cholera bacteria are whole and unbroken.
it is the symptoms of a disease that kill you, not the disease itself, like you die of cholera because your body runs out of water and all other nutriants that you lose in diarrhoea.

If we want to talk about a disease, lets talk about plague, it has some religious conotations, like God sending a plague to a city because they were bad.

this brings me onto another point, if God does not want to control or influence us, how come He is allowed to destroy the world with a great flood and save Noah, or punish Babylon by making everyone speak a different language.

Edit: I realised it wasnt Babylon that was punished like this, but Babel

AGES AGO:

Man: The world is round.
The Church: Nah, that goes agaisnt our whole idea of heaven being up and hell being down. you're a heretic, we're gonna lock you up.

...a couple of hundred years later....

The Church: OK Guys, our mistake........we admit the world is round..but hey, heaven and hell still exist dont get me wrong!!! we dont know how, since there is no up or down but it still works!!

-------

Man: O, the earth revolves around the sun which is just a small part of a massive galaxy with billions of other stars. and yeh there are billions of galaxies too, really we arent actually the center of the universe

The Church: nah, we are the center of the universe. since god made us and the universe, and he put us in the center since we are the most important things to him. also dont be stupid, of course everything revolves around us we are the 1 lifeform. we're gonna lock you up, you heretic.

...a couple of hundred years later....

The Church: ok sorry, you were right. but dont worry god still made us and all!! just he didnt make us the center of the universe.

religion is rapidly dying out as technology advances, disproving all the foundations of it. and as more people start thinking and figuring things out for themselves. those 2 things i just mentioned show that really the churches dont have any idea about stuff they say, they make alot of it up to suit their arguments - that god made us etc etc. the churches are losing more power daily. it seems to me that they are constantly trying to catch up to what science is now able to prove, and changing their very base to try and keep up.

btw, i suggest to anyone who wants to learn more about religion to take a look at how modern religions started. key word: modern. its pretty interesting, from what i can gather the bible is just a collaboration of stories and myths from all different ancient religions, except instead of worshiping the forces of nature and life, the writers of the bible changed it to be people, to suit their needs...theres more too, like deliberate errors in translation but i wont go into it.

and yer like yakman said, say for a minute that god DOES exist - isnt he meant to be made of love, and all friendly? to me he seems to be a bit of a prick :rolleyes: what with all the famine and suffering some people have been put through while others live the high life very comfortably.....

Present time

Man: lol, god didnt make us, we evolved.

The Church: no, he made us. you are crazy

...soon in the future when we have solid 100% proof for evolution.....

The Church: ok guys, you were right, we were wrong again. but wait - we all evolved because god wanted us too!!! thats right, he planned the whole thing, haha. we win again!!

Thanks for making a shorter thing pwnaz0r :p

I like your way of knowing so much about your point of view, and I can imagine that if I were you, I would feel the same way about the things you are talking about here as I feel now about my own point of view :)

Could everyone please stop lumping all religions and churches together?

You think some pompous catholic (? England, right?) priests represent everyone who believes in God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason2gs

Could everyone please stop lumping all religions and churches together?

You think some pompous catholic (? England, right?) priests represent everyone who believes in God.

---

england, italy, greece, whatever its all the same - there either is a god or there isnt