Printable View
I have a list. :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
Well I suppose, it being a religious forum, you could try prayer.:angel: It's probably your only hope. But I suppose it might be interesting to speculated whether the thread just evolved into this state or if there was some guiding purpose to it's off-topicness? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
A journey changed may still be a journey home. Alternate routes are completely capable of leading to the same goal, are they not? Ahhh, "The answer has arisen!", says I! The topic has expired, for the enthusiasm for such discussion is dwindling into that of a flickering candle in an evergrowing breeze. Have no sadness, for atheism has been explored to its utmost potential in the very place it should have been. However, that which begins must also terminate...speak not of this topic any longer upon this thread. Create anew a discussion which piques the interest of those who may share, who may learn! Relight the candle and enlighten once again.
"The topic has expired, for the enthusiasm for such discussion is dwindling into that of a flickering candle in an evergrowing breeze"
I think that is the condition in which Godwin's Law is fulfilled.
If I recall correctly, the law does not relate to flaming, but states that sooner or later any internet discussion will descend to the Nazis et al, at which point it may be deemed that everything worth saying on the original topic has been said, and the thread may as well be closed.
.
Maybe we are Evolved from lesser beings, tell you what. When we die, we'll find out which of us were right after all.
"And the same to you."
A man who complained his Banana tasted like a banana.
Unfortunately, however it is also incredibly biased, and as a result no use from a objective research standpoint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theshizznigg
Let's even the playing field then. www.atheists.com
My, how fast the topic of biological evolution gets turned into theism versus atheism. The origination of life is an interesting concept whether the aspect of a creative divinity is thrown in or not.
the origin of life is only interesting because it has the aspect of creative divinity, without it ppl would just belike: Oh, so this is life....Cool, bland and boring. everything in this universe needs an opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by meddle_some
Oh come on. Go ask your introductory biology teacher what the definition of theory is.Quote:
Originally Posted by water lily
Darn tootin!Quote:
Originally Posted by Amra
you should try to back up your staements with some kind of justification.
Im a pro golfer. Im going to tell you all how good I am at GOLF. Theres no way youcan stop me. Ya ready? Here goes/Im as good as TIGER.
How can I prove it to you with out any evidence? Prove evolution is not scientifc truth. this post was sensored
I accuse the moderator of sensorship to posts that are directly related to the topic. The moderator is BIASED.
Its a christians only debate on science and evolution? Im disgusted
Ollie,
Please do not make any unfounded accusations. You do not know anything about my religious/cultural background OR beliefs.
Your posts have been deleted or edited only because they intend to flame and aggravate certain members for their beliefs/opinions rather than contribute constructively to the on-going discussion.
*edit*
Dear All,
The topic of discussion in this thread is Evolution vs Creation. Please try to avoid from posting off-topic messages as they are likely to be deleted.
If you have any personal grievances with other members OR moderators, please address those through PMs, not to distract the present discussion.
Thank you.
Do they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Theshizznigg
So you are right, but only as long as creature's stop eating each other!Quote:
First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is also commonly referred to as entropy. A watchspring-driven watch will run until the potential energy in the spring is converted, and not again until energy is reapplied to the spring to rewind it. A car that has run out of gas will not run again until you walk 10 miles to a gas station and refuel the car. Once the potential energy locked in carbohydrates is converted into kinetic energy (energy in use or motion), the organism will get no more until energy is input again. In the process of energy transfer, some energy will dissipate as heat. Entropy is a measure of disorder: cells are NOT disordered and so have low entropy. The flow of energy maintains order and life. Entropy wins when organisms cease to take in energy and die.
Really? And your evidence for this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Theshizznigg
Which 'other scientist'? Again evidence please?Quote:
Originally Posted by Theshizznigg
Actually, it's the religious community that have been trying to prove that - you are right that they have failed!Quote:
Originally Posted by Theshizznigg
Evolution only occurs when environmental stress selects one genetic variant over another (according to the theory), where there is a relatively stable environment, with no dramatic change, there is no natural selection and species can remain virtually unchanged for aeons. Please take the trouble to understand the theory before you give counter-examples that are in fact no such thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theshizznigg
Scientists are people, and as such, hold just as many faiths and beliefs as the rest of us. It is extremely simplistic to label all scientists as atheists. Many scientists are christian and find no trouble at all in reconciling their faith with the theory of evolution. In fact, many non-scientist christians can also happily believe in God and Darwin. Your argument is unsound here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theshizznigg
Actually, it was the church that disagreed so much with Galileo's ideas that they executed him, not other scientists. Check your facts please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theshizznigg
I am in total agreement with kilted exiles opinions on this site.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theshizznigg
Nothing can be proven one way or the other, but you really don't help your cause by posting such unfounded and erroneous 'evidence'. I respect your right to your opinion but I advise you to base it on a sounder foundation if you wish to convince others of your views.
[QUOTE=Xamonas Chegwe]Quote:
Originally Posted by Theshizznigg
Also Darwin father of Evolution in theory on his death bed claimed that the theory could not possibly be truem and that he had published the theory to beat another scientist who would have gotten all the grant money, instead of Darwin.
Which 'other scientist'? Again evidence please?
[\QUOTE]
Xamonas Chegwe, Theshizznigg, is not totally unfounded in this declaration. Darwin had been developing his theory and gathering evidence for it. By 1844, he had written a short summary of his views, but didn't publish, because he didn't beleive he had sufficient data. Furthermore, he was disturbed, becuase his wife, Emma, saw his ideas as counter her strong religious views and knew that his thoery would cause controversy. So he hesitated.
Meanwhile, Alfred Russel Wallace, a man intent on collecting plant and animal specimen, who had gone on several voyages to the Amazon and other parts of the world, independly came up with the theory of Natural Selection as well. In 1855, Wallace published a paper expressing his views. This spurred Darwin's friends to encourage him to publish. Darwin quickly put together a paper of his own, and then in 1859, Darwin published the origin of species.
Darwin is mostly credited with the idea of NAtural SElection, because he had a more comprehensive collection of data to back up his ideas. And technically he came up with the idea first even though he didn't publish first.
I don't know either way about a research grant. Hope that this info was helpful.
-water lily