Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Do you think the theory of evolution is supported?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Poll Question: Do you think the theory of evolution is supported?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
40 [78.43%]
11 [21.57%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Do you think the theory of evolution is supported?
    Posted: 23-Mar-2006 at 13:43
Yes,eh
Back to Top
Halevi View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 16-Feb-2006
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 584
  Quote Halevi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Mar-2006 at 21:25
Definitions matter, otherwise the arguments are meaningless. 
"Your country ain't your blood. Remember that." -Santino Corelone
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Mar-2006 at 20:59

If I sounde hostile I wasnt trying to. I was simply clearing up that arguing over definitions is stupid and all I asked for was you to point me to a page with evidence that you would like me to see. The reason that and logic are my favorite words is because it is pounded into my head by debate club. That is all you can use to prove a point.

Forgibve me then, it sounded alittle hostile it the way it was written. But I understand that wasn't your intention now.

All the pages have various forms of evidence where evolution has been observed, the different kinds of evolution were discussed to some degree, we talked about DNA and how it works by track the Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial Chromosome, and we discuss the fossil records. There is alot to go back on, pages.

Dont argue my definitions please, I beseech thee (I beg you).
I'm confused, definition on what?

It is anoying when nobody pays attention to what i say and just the words i use to group things.
I agree, I think I've answered every point you may have asked previously, and if I haven't I'm sorry.

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
El Pollo Loco View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 89
  Quote El Pollo Loco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Mar-2006 at 19:08

If I sounde hostile I wasnt trying to. I was simply clearing up that arguing over definitions is stupid and all I asked for was you to point me to a page with evidence that you would like me to see. The reason that and logic are my favorite words is because it is pounded into my head by debate club. That is all you can use to prove a point.

Dont argue my definitions please, I beseech thee (I beg you). It is anoying when nobody pays attention to what i say and just the words i use to group things.

Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Mar-2006 at 12:04

Did you post in the right thread? Your coming in here with hostility when there wasn't any to begin with...

What evidence do you want? We made a discussion in this thread and it went well except for somethings weren't clear. The only times I got upset were when I had to repeat my points and didn't get clear answers on somethings after asking a couple times. But I was never upset directly towards Cuauhtemoc.

While I enjoy discussining in these threads, the one thing I do hate is when someone joins in it asking to see all the info either from the smae thread or past threads. Either start up a proper discussion on points, or look through this thread and this one, http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7162& ;PN=2

This thread may also have answers your looking for, http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8687& ;PN=3

And didn't we have this discussion before? I believe Cuauhtemoc picked up where you dropped off a month or more ago.

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
El Pollo Loco View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 89
  Quote El Pollo Loco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Mar-2006 at 11:04

I am using the word beleif broadly so just hang in there (if you want me to bring out websters I will) do not argue over definitions like a child

"you said bat not cat"

"No i didnt"

"did to"

"did not"

"did to"

"did not"

two hours later

"What were we talking about?"

"I dont know"

"your stupid"

"no I'm not"

"are to"

"are not"

"are to"...

that is very anoying so don't do that, please

and dont say you arent doing that.

Now anyways show me some evidence or say what page of this thread it is (and where)



Edited by El Pollo Loco
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Mar-2006 at 00:18
***In my opinion the fish in the lake were helped by God and when you say "natural" selection... I see divine intervention.

***When Darwin saw the tortoise shell adapt to the height of the shrubbery...because of selection...I saw a helping HAND

In other words, god helps in evolution? Which to me seems fine for people to believe, I just don't like hearing people say evoltuion is impossible when hundreds of years of work and studies have been done to explain changes in species. If you want to believe evolution is done by a helping hand, or is was set down as one of the beauties of God's creation to constantly change, I don't mind you believing that. I just have a problem when people say it's all garbage because they think it threatens their belief.

***That some are being perscecuted for believing in intelligent design does not prove it wrong...quite the contrary. I will always more quickly believe the truth of a man if he will be punished for what he says than the man who will be praised for what he says. Understand that if you can.
Scientist or anyone on these boards haven't persecuted Christians at all. How could scientist? They aren't politicians, nor do they want to get into the political arena.

Though Christianity has a nice history of persecutions from the past and violence today. I haven't seen anyone tortured or murdered over Evolution to prove that it is the one and only "doctrine" as if it were a faith or following.

You don't see people handing out panphlets on Evolution on the streets, you don't hear people saying you'll goto a hell if you don't believe in Evolution, there aren't any motives in Evolution other than explaining a part of nature. So why do Creationist feel threatened and the need to push evolution out of a classroom and push in a Religious belief? Nothing proves evolution wrong and facts and DNA get stronger as time goes on.

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
Halevi View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 16-Feb-2006
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 584
  Quote Halevi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Mar-2006 at 00:05
Originally posted by El Pollo Loco

Originally posted by Halevi

Originally posted by El Pollo Loco

.... Many people avoid that by saying that all religions are equal. This cant be right because there has to be truth.


All religions could - in theory - be equally wrong.  Hence we use scientific method.

I meant beleif



Exactly the same thing applies.


"Your country ain't your blood. Remember that." -Santino Corelone
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Mar-2006 at 23:27
S & D Said "

One fish, the cichlid fish found it's way to a lake in Africa 12,400 years ago. Over time the food in the lake started to become scarce, and the species evolved into over a hundred different species. Some evolved wide mouths, others large lips, and one species evolved teeth like spears. They started out as carbon copies, and in 12 thousand years, a geological blink, created different species. They evolved because those who didn't have the means to survive to pass on traits died off. Over 12 thousand years, their features became more and more exaggerated. It took time, and it took a reason. A number of factors contributed to why they evolved. With the fruit flies, there weren't any strong reasons from what I gather, and the only way they could have evolved the way you want them is Lamarckism.

Understand now?

***As a one who follows the New Testiment. The Old Testiment (to me) is but a collection of legends without the sort of supporting evidence that establishes the life and words of Our Saviour. Only the Jews believe in the timeline of the Old Testiment. We were always taught that (because there were no seasons in Eden) the years were actually millenia but who knows. Certainly the argument against Intelligent design can't hinge on Jewish legends.

***In my opinion the fish in the lake were helped by God and when you say "natural" selection... I see divine intervention.

***When Darwin saw the tortoise shell adapt to the height of the shrubbery...because of selection...I saw a helping HAND

***That some are being perscecuted for believing in intelligent design does not prove it wrong...quite the contrary. I will always more quickly believe the truth of a man if he will be punished for what he says than the man who will be praised for what he says. Understand that if you can. 

 

Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
  Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Mar-2006 at 22:08
Hi,
To Polo Loco (si hombre es un polo cierto)

quote:
If evolution isnt a belief then you cant believe it. Quite simple.

Yes natural and sexual evolution theories are not a matter of belief. It is
pure logic. Hence you must not belive it you have to understand it.
1. All being mutates when reproducing
2. There is such a thing as selection (eg. for dogs)
3. If beings didn't develop acccording to their envioronment you would
have elephants in Alaska.
Thus Darwin's right. What you can choose is not to belive your own eyes
and mind.
Bye.
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
El Pollo Loco View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 89
  Quote El Pollo Loco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Mar-2006 at 21:08
Originally posted by Halevi

Originally posted by El Pollo Loco

.... Many people avoid that by saying that all religions are equal. This cant be right because there has to be truth.


All religions could - in theory - be equally wrong.  Hence we use scientific method.

I meant beleif

Maju: If evolution isnt a belief then you cant believe it. Quite simple.

And I was refering to different people not just you

Back to Top
Halevi View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 16-Feb-2006
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 584
  Quote Halevi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Mar-2006 at 17:34
Originally posted by El Pollo Loco

.... Many people avoid that by saying that all religions are equal. This cant be right because there has to be truth.


All religions could - in theory - be equally wrong.  Hence we use scientific method.

"Your country ain't your blood. Remember that." -Santino Corelone
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Mar-2006 at 12:05

Do you dislike it because it proves you might be wrong?
You mean would it bother me that evolution would be proven wrong? No, why should it? It's not a culture, way of living or anything else that'd effect my life. If it's proven wrong for some reason, then thats it, just means it didn't prove anything. So no, it wouldn't bother me even alittle.

But don't think I won't defend it now, I defend it because there is way to much evidence in different fields of science and years of work done by different scientist point to it being correct. It's only a matter of finding the extreme details of it all.

Just the same with everything else. Saying that all beliefs (including evolution) are the same does not change fact.  something must be true.
Evolution isn't a belief, it's a science. It's a Theory put together through many sciences. Religions are a belif, a faith. For some reason you like to believe evolution is out to get it, which is far from the truth. They aren't even in the same catagory.

We cannot use science because we cant mix science with religion
I was reading down the list, so I guess this means we agree they shouldn't even be in conflict with one another.

It cant be true because we don't use science to prove it
There is no evidence to really look, touch, or observe in some way to prove evidence. If there was, I assure you one scientist would have tested it, good way to get publicity and money.

You tell us that we am citing historical evidence wrong and abusing science
Well I don't think much historical evidence matters unless you count fossils. But it is true, there is no doubting it. Creationist use dated work, and make wrong interpretations, one creationist gave me a site saying that Dark Matter is proof of God. That sounds pretty crazy as as the study of Dark Matter isn't advanced at all, but yet they jump to conclusions to prove another science wrong.

Yet you simply state that you are right and not give a word of evidence
You haven't been looking in this thread. I gave pages and quotes and even had to research a creationists work in this thread because he wouldn't give me any links. And some of the stuff he was telling me wasn't even true.

You say we should keep our posts as opinions only
I could be wrong, but I don't believe I said that. This forum is to discuss and argue your points.

Yet the intelectual discusion giudelines say that we need to present evidence.
Again, we showed DNA evidence and explained other parts of evolution with links. We even gave examples of observed evolution that is just brushed off as "Micro-Evolution" even though they are huge changes.

Now you dare tell us that our logic is wrong when you havnt even figured out how to use it? My temper is at its peak right now!
I could see why your getting mad, you aren't looking at the thread entirely. We answered what had to be answered, we gave evidence when it was needed. Everything in this thread was pretty much done right. Evolution is trying to explain something that happens in nature, it seems Creationist just want to prove Evolution wrong because they think it threatens their religion.

We will use science as it is one of the only ways to prove something

We will use evidence, and we will use logic!

Which we have been doing all along. I still can't figure out why you creationist always have a bone to pick when evolution is being discussed? You have your rights to keep faith in whatever you want. Science isn't about faith and attachment unless ofcourse it's your life long work as a scientist, but for me it's something that explains apart of life. So far there isn't a shred of reason not to believe that it isn't true due to all the evidence and work done.

Me being not of faith was a choice that evolution never effected. Infact, science never had a part in me being a athiest. And I am willing to take a religion one day if I feel it feels right, but right now nothing says that to me, just like right now nothing says evolution isn't possible except Creationist who have something to prove.

 

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
El Pollo Loco View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Nov-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 89
  Quote El Pollo Loco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Mar-2006 at 11:37

Do you dislike it because it proves you might be wrong? Many people avoid anything which makes them feel uncomfortable. Many people avoid that by saying that all religions are equal. This cant be right because there has to be truth.

Saying the first word of this post was "Cat" does not change the fact.

the first word in this post was "Do" not "Cat"

Just the same with everything else. Saying that all beliefs (including evolution) are the same does not change fact.  something must be true.

We cannot use science because we cant mix science with religion

It cant be true because we don't use science to prove it

You tell us that we am citing historical evidence wrong and abusing science

Yet you simply state that you are right and not give a word of evidence

You say we should keep our posts as opinions only

Yet the intelectual discusion giudelines say that we need to present evidence.

Now you dare tell us that our logic is wrong when you havnt even figured out how to use it? My temper is at its peak right now!

We will use science as it is one of the only ways to prove something

We will use evidence, and we will use logic!

 

I sugest you rethink yours.

Back to Top
Imperator Invictus View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
  Quote Imperator Invictus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2006 at 16:14
I essentially agree with what you wrote. To my understanding, the concept of "Intelligent Design" was created solely to get around the use of the term "creationism" because creationism had been deemed religious. But of course, the result of the case I mentioned above is that Intelligent Design is legally considered the same as creationism.

A more accurate term to describe what Cuauhtemoc is arguing for is "Neo-Creationism," which uses modern scientific "evidence" to support creationist arguments.

However, while I think its perfectly fine that people reject evolution for their religous belief, I really dislike it when people use scientific "evidence" to try to prove creationism. I think it is a gross misuse of scientific facts. The case is similar to people's citing of out-of-context and misleading historical evidence to argue that the Holocaust did not exist.


Edited by Imperator Invictus
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
  Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2006 at 16:04

What I don't get is, if intelligent design is sometimes touted as not having religious backing, then how do they know what this supreme being did? It gets far to speculative to be allowed in schools without a shred of evidence. Whats not to say that a supreme being didn't set forth the idea of evolution?

Christians seem to have gotten it in their mind that evolution is out to get them. It's a study in science that tries to explain the diversity on Earth that we expierence everyday. The scientist don't want any part of religion when they are doing their studies, maybe on their days off they'll go to church if they are one of the faithful, but when they are working, they aren't working towards destroying or disproving any religions. Why would they? You can't stop those who are too faithful.

But I am sure that scientist do get upset when someone comes along and says your years of work is impossible, it's just all garbage.

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
Imperator Invictus View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
  Quote Imperator Invictus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Mar-2006 at 15:48
I haven't been keeping track of what's happening in this thread - which is probably just absurd arguments brought again and again in favor of ID. I can't believe the point about "Adam" and "Eve" is still being raised again. If you read the wikipedia entries or any scientific publication on the naming of the two, they explicitly state that they were named for modern culture and not due to religion. And again, stating that the two had any relation is like picking two random people from a million and saying the two are a couple. And yet once again, the original couple does not prove anything about creationism.

By the way, a current development that you may have heard of, is the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial about teaching intelligent design in Pennsylvania schools. My university, has been publisizing the case to an extent, since the lead attorney against intelligent was an alumnus of the school. The verdict of the case was:

Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

There was also an article published in my school's Gazette ("Intelligent Demise"), if you're interested:
http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0306/feature1.html
"As the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the Dover school-board case, law alumnus Eric Rothschild demolished the arguments of intelligent designs proponentsincluding one fellow Penn grad."

The important, but subtle point I want to emphasize from the quotation above is not that Intelligent Design (ID) is not religious, but that it is not scientific. The term "Intelligent Design" itself is something of debate dodge. It was created to relieve itself of direct religious connotations, and thus allowing it better access for "scientific" explanations of creationism. Of course, all of the science that it uses are complete pesudoscience, mainly out of context references brought together in a misleading way. In the court case, it was determined that Intelligent design is not science because its intentions are completely unscientific.

In serious scientific community, creationism is nearly universally rejected. (The details of evolution are not universally accepted, but the general concepts are.) In popular culture, evolution has not yet had as deep of a penetration, but as you can see, Intelligent design, which was once essential in the curriculum for centuries, is loosing its way. Teaching creationism in public schools in the U.S. was declared unconstitutional by the supreme court about two decades ago. Now, its alias under the name of "Intelligent Design" is being removed as well.

It is interesting that the proponent for ID here uses the term Intelligent Design, yet tieing it with religion. Does that mean he amits that Creationism has been declared unconstitutional for education by the US Supreme court?

Finally, I want to reiterate that creationists like to present it so that it seems like Intelligent Design has the same amount of support as evolution in the scientific community. Not true.


Edited by Imperator Invictus
Back to Top
dirtnap View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 28-Mar-2005
Location: Virgin Islands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 605
  Quote dirtnap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Mar-2006 at 21:56
I don't believe one could make the "definitive" case to end all speculation once and for all, yet. But the easier case to make is in the hands of Darwin...










Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Mar-2006 at 15:49

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Originally posted by Cezar

Cuauhtemoc, please, could you make your posts a little bit shorter! Just your own ideas and expressed short and straight, without quoting the Bible or something else.
Hi Cezar, you need to read the posts carefully. I know you have not been doing that as I have not be quoting the Bible. I may address the issue of Adam and Eve, in the Bible, written thousands of years ago which stated humanity is descended from them in Genesis 3:20. Otherwise if you have been reading I have rarely quoted the Bible. The reason I have been saying that about Adam and Eve is DNA studies have discovered we are descended from Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondria Eve. If you read my posts, I always get to the point, however qouting is necessary to support ones position, so that one can't say its only your ideas and nothing more. That is why in research papers we are to give our sources for our information.
Originally posted by Cezar

It's far to difficult to read a whole of your post, you make them so long and filled with quotes that I sometimes can't get a grasp on what you want to say. And try not to repeat yourself, please, just post a link to your previous post.
Cesar, you must take you time in reading. It is true such points may be difficult to grasp, but you can understand them by reading someones post I am responding to and then my post. I think then you will see the context. Thus my posts are responses to points one is attempting to make to me. If you do that then I think that will help you in grasping what is being said. It is important to use quotations to support our positions. If we don't support our positions with quotations, we are merely giving our opinion. One of the rules or maybe it is a suggestion is to use authorities to establish ones position. Repetition will "only" occur with me if the person ignores my point or if they did not understand the point that I made.

  1. I've read your posts. That's  the reason for my post
  2. Nice, your opinion is what really matters. Can we (humble me) have it (no quotes)?
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Mar-2006 at 14:57

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc

Originally posted by Cezar

Cuauhtemoc, please, could you make your posts a little bit shorter! Just your own ideas and expressed short and straight, without quoting the Bible or something else.
Hi Cezar, you need to read the posts carefully. I know you have not been doing that as I have not be quoting the Bible. I may address the issue of Adam and Eve, in the Bible, written thousands of years ago which stated humanity is descended from them in Genesis 3:20.

Why on earth do you add " in the Bible, written thousands of years ago which stated humanity is descended from them in Genesis 3:20." You only need to mention Adam and EVe (if that). We know who Adam and Eve are. That's the sort of excess verbiage being complained about.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.113 seconds.