Was that me? :confused:

Harsh, and no, you're wrong in assuming that those people who believe in evolution are ignorant or stupid. Let's be fair here; for some people, it is perfectly reasonable to believe in evolution, for others, creation. There's no definitive proof that says either is absolute (personally, I think both are wrong but have no solution to offer).

For all the naysayers to evolution: yes, macroevolution does have merit to it (see 21 proofs for macroevolution). Yes, indeterminant and intermediate fossils have been found, not all of them, but enough to say that they do exist (keep in mind that fossilization is a rarity at best).

To those who want to bash creation: Sometimes, using abberant mineralization to explain human footprints found alongside dinosaur footprints is hard to swallow.




Oh, a bit off tangent, but I don't by the "OMG, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ODDS OF THE EARTH BEING EXACTLY THE RIGHT DISTANCE FROM THE SUN TO SUPPORT LIFE AND SPINNING AT THE EXACT SPEED NEEDED TO MAINTAIN AN ATMOSPHERE, ETC, ETC, ETC" arguement.

Consider this: If you have six six-sided dice and you roll them six times, you will end up with six permutations of six in six results, with the odds of obtaining any given result as a function of x^y^z. Now let's take that logic and consider if you have six six-sided dice and are prepared to roll the infinite times. What's the result? Well, you're looking at something like infinite permutations of six in infinite results. Within those results, the chances of obtaining any unique permutation is COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE.

Now, I know the universe is not infinite (well, so science tells me), but it is vast. So vast as to say that it is wholely feasible for there to be a unique, or otherwise, occurance of a planet that is EXACTLY THE RIGHT DISTANCE FROM THE SUN TO SUPPORT LIFE AND SPINNING AT THE EXACT SPEED NEEDED TO MAINTAIN ATMOSPHERE, ETC, ETC, ETC!!!

I disagree, what I said is my strong personal opinion, I am not assuming anything, it is the way I feel, and I feel strongly about it....

Also dont take anything I say personally... I may have forgotten to take my meds...lol

.. OMG, OMG, OMG, OMG!!!! I think I may have come up with a reasonable (in my mind) explanation for life!

Holy crap, I think I'll write all this down and present it here later!!!!!


Edit: Nope, nevermind. It's stupid. Dammit.

As I said dont take anything I say personally, and I never said your opinions were stupid, they are your opinions, not mine, personally I cant fathom the belief in darwinisim, I find it "stupid" for lack of a better word. Because of what I believe in and what I have researched, I personally find evolution to be insulting. Again, please dont take offense, its a touchy subject, like abortion, if you say pro life like I do, pro choicers hate you....religion is always a touchy subject

I think my first point about Darwin and religion was taken horribly out of context. My aim was not to disparage religion. Certainly religion has its place, and I do not believe that belief in evolution (macroevolution/speciation, not just microevolution/natural selection) means that a person cannot also be deeply religious. I know he probably doesn't mean much to most of you, but even the Pope has said that evolution is compatible with Catholicism. Other than in the case of a few conservative sects with relatively literal interpretations of the Bible, I don't think there are any strands of Christianity that are completely incompatible with a belief in macroevolution. All I was referring to was the lack of critical thought that existed in most circles in Western society during the revival, the Victorian era, etc. Remember, up until Darwin, most revolutionary scientific thought complemented the Bible quite nicely (Lamarckian evolution, for instance). In fact, at first glance, Darwin's theory does not appear to contradict the Bible at all. It's the idea that chance mutations are selected for that causes so many problems, because it excludes the possibility of "man being created in God's image."* Remember also that it was precisely the fear of the public's reaction to this that kept Darwin from publishing until he was essentially forced to. Hopefully this clarifies what I meant when I brought religion into the equation.

As an aside, agreeing with Albert here, clearly our existence, if not an act of a supreme being, is a tremendous bit of good luck.

Kyle, for you, may I suggest some readings. Regarding creating a car by chance, please see the numerous critiques of Paley's "The Teleological Argument", which are available online. You may be familiar with Duane Gish, if not, take a look at almost any of his writings, also on the net. Then read Ketcher's "Against Creationism", and Gould's "So Cleverly Kind an Animal." Proving or disproving the existence of God is a difficult task, and to date, neither has been successfully accomplished. And if he/she/it/they do exist, who created them? :wink:

* Belief in evolution can leave a person feeling a bit empty. Modern revisions to Darwin suggest that any organism is really just a vehicle for the propagation of genes... I'm mostly here to give my genes a chance to replicate...

I guess I'm gonna toss in my two bits here too!

Evolution or creation doe's it really matter-we're here- let's just enjoy life for now and for the future!

Getting back to the poor baby elephant, I think it's really sad that she died, but I also feel that we need to protect and sustain life on on earth not just for us humans but for the animals of this world too!
If we don't try to help in some way, wether it be education, funding, volunteering, or a life long career- we all need to do our part to help keep this planet healthy.

Animals deserve as much respect in my book as much as humans, and in some cases they deserve more than some ignorant humans!
If this makes me a tree hugger, then I'm proud to be one :mrgreen:

I would suggest the topic of this thread as a possible difference. Despite the amount of destruction and killing and clear-cutting we seem to do as a species, I can not think of a single other animal that cares personally about the well being of another species (that is not motivated by personal preservation). I mean really, our concern for an elephant in the zoo or even all the elephants in Africa is not motivated by any sort of benefit to ourselves because, as a species, we do not rely on the elephant for anything. Infact, if anything, it could be seen by many as a competitor for space and a thief of farm produce. Despite this, there are people who have devoted their entire lives to keeping these animals alive. I don't think you will find a parallel anywhere else in the animal kingdom. It flies in the face of all the rules about survival of the fittest and whatnot.
Also, I don't think anyone would contest species evolve over time. I think it is the "theory of evolution" as an explanation of the origon of man (without the involvement of a Higher Power), that some of us have a hard time with. I belive that I am a man of strong convictions but I recognize that I probably don't have half the "faith" or conviction or fervor that someone who believes in a Big-bag-type theory has. Because, of the two options, .... that is really a stretch :razz:

- Chad

Whoa ... dont get your panties in a knot ... no time to stop being a lady :razz: ... I used the term " tree-hugger " far more affectionately than most people would use the term " ignorant redneck " ... and what exactly do you mean redneck anyway since you have never met me and have no clue as to my heritage. Tne term redneck would in this case be a racial slur and I am pretty sure we can all agree that we can keep race out of this conversation and focus on species instead.

Buk_A_neer
No it's because we can all see that you live in DeWinton :biggrin:
Just kidding!

What I want to know is, how come there's been no action in the nano forum for weeks and the lounge is getting this kind of interest?? C'mon guys, I posted updated pics of my tank and everything. :smile:

- Chad