I doubt anyone would mind. I’m going to say I reflect myself as a dragon.
AND YES, you READ that CORRECTLY. In early 2004, there was a Dragon discovered in a cavern in Europe I think… It had been frozen for about 100,000 years.
Anyways. I probably am the most out of here that gets pissed off easily. Even though words hardly bother me. But I still think I’m more of a dragon kind of creature. I’m territorial, and I pretty much am a very jealous person when it comes to women.
On the topic of “Evolution Vs. Creationism,” 072, why do you not believe in Evolution? I’m not saying you should, but I wish to know your opinion.
Well, for multiple reasons. I just don’t think it makes sense.
After the renaisance, people started to come up with explanations as to why things happen. Before, they just left it at “some things are just out of our comprehension”. After gravity, among other things, were discovered, there was a bit of a race to label a scientific explanation to everything. Even to the point of our very own existence. With no god, we had to come from nothing, right? Evolution seems like a very generic answer to that problem, but I digress. So the universe just came about through time with no catalyst, and one celled organisms began to develop? How is this possible? That doesn’t seem like a “logical” answer to our existence.
Haha. Actually, the modern theory is that, all matter a long time ago was extremely dense, one day it kasploded. Where did the matter come from? We don’t know. But there is a law of chemistry that states matter cannot be destroyed, or created, but just split apart. Anyways. Eventually, matter started coming up together, and so on. Let’s skip to the evolution theory.
After the Earth was created as a result of a giant cloud, and gravity, molecules in places around Earth began to form, soon, those molecules combined with other molecules, and formed complex molecules, until finally, organic compounds like Cyanobacteria were formed.
Cyanobacteria creates Oxygen, if I’m correct.
I think the Theory Of Evolution is a pretty logical theory, as, our bodies adapt in time, and in time, we become immune to many disease. Yes, that is an example of evolution. A lot of people ask, “Why aren’t we evolving now?” Well, simple because, evolution takes time, and we aren’t going to wake up the next day with 3 hands. And then fall asleep, and be immune to everything.
a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
sound judgment; good sense.
normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.
Logic. a premise of an argument.
Philosophy.
a. the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.
b. the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought, or of conduct influenced by such thought.
c. Kantianism. the faculty by which the ideas of pure reason are created.
Reason can be scaled. What you’re arguing is that, for example, an object is either black or white; it can’t be half-black, or half-white. It’s either one or the other. But there’s such a thing as gray.
Your definition of reason is a very limited scope, and the word isn’t that constrictive. Cutting off your prey by using a shortcut is very much reason; you see where it’s heading and anticipate it. That’s much more reasonable than mindlessly persueing your prey to exhaustion. Animals are capable of reason.
This is my response to your birth argument as well. Animals can think logically, and therefore, reason logically. Just not on the same scale as humans.
About evolution… I support it over Creationism because, despite it’s shortcomings, it’s much more logical than the proofless alternative.
Well if thats true, I would say I’m reflect a dragon, but not the horoscopes, And I think some thing may have evolve and other have not, like us humans.
Horoscope? Astrology is completely flawful. My sister studies that, and all she ever tells me is, “You’re SO HORNY! You’RE GOING TO FAIL!” Yeah… whatever. Like a floating rock in space is going to tell me who I’m going to marry. Goes to punch astro-lady in the gut
It’s pretty easy to notice Evolution. Like pesticide and Cockroaches. You spray them once with Raid, and then one or two survive. That dirty critter mates, and all those offspring have the damn gene. Then you use Raid, and they all survive. So you use Raid+ and one survives. And so on.
The only thing cockroaches won’t EVER adapt to, is my foot in their ass. Haha. Isn’t adaptation an example of Evolution as well? Waits for mason
I know about the Big Bang theory as well, but if matter cannot be created, nothing could have ever set the universe in motion. If reality started out as a few chemicals floating around that eventually created the pre-Big Bang dense universe, how did those chemicals get there?
I was under the impression that Creationism was established on the grounds that there were some things in life that can’t be explained. Evolution the opposite.
Our existence can’t be explained.
Algernon - I know that there are many definitions of “reason”. I’m just using it to coin a term that is otherwsie impossible to describe.
Uh, actually, seeing as some scientists now believe that at least stars CAN create and destroy matter, that theory is starting to make a lot more sense.
Clearly your reasons for human’s perceived superiority over the animal kingdom are more rooted in spirituality than basic intelligence.
As a supporter of Evolution, I’ll join the debate. Evolution does have a few flaws, and the big bang theory is incredibly controversial- while possible, there’s little to no evidence to support it (the religious would argue that scientists are misusing an act of literal faith on that theory). So, I’ll admit that on a subject so open to speculation, it’s not unreasonable to substitute your own beliefs to fill the void. That’s perfectly fine, and I respect that.
What I don’t respect is when people become so deeply faithful in their personal explanation towards existence that they openly attack any alternative theory that contradicts the one they prescribe to. That does nothing to further the human understanding of the universe- it does quite the opposite. People need to come to an understanding that, while you believe in God, not everybody else has to, and any one of us (including yourself) could be completely mistaken.
That said, you’re perfectly right- existence can’t be explained. Yet. We’re working on it, but in the meantime it’s no use to stop trying.
Now, with that out of the way, for the sake of the argument, I’ll explain why I find the Creationist perspective rather unrealistic.
We don’t know why we’re here. So somebody must have put us here! Holy leaping logic, batman! Just because we exist, and can’t figure out why, doesn’t mean there’s some all-powerful Deity in the clouds that stuck us here because s/he was lonely. The question of existence does not, under any circumstance, soundly conclude that there was an intelligent designer behind it all.
I hope I haven’t offended anybody, but those are my thoughts. For the sake of a productive intellectual argument, I encourage a realistic and logical reply that isn’t grounded on something that must be taken on faith.
@Dazuro
Taken from Wikipedia The law of conservation of mass/matter, also known as law of mass/matter conservation (or the Lomonosov-Lavoisier law), states that the mass of a closed system of substances will remain constant, regardless of the processes acting inside the system. An equivalent statement is that matter changes form, but cannot be created nor destroyed.
@072
Actually, our existence CAN be explained. Saying our existence can’t be explained, is like saying we don’t know how stars are created. Just like how gases, and nebulae eventually form into stars, molecules, and other things, can make us.
What I don’t get about Creationism, is the fact that there doesn’t have to be a creator, yet, so many people believe we had to be created. If we were to go logical, and say, “Evolution is illogical” then, that would mean that God is illogical. If Creationism says something had to have created us, then who, may have created, the creator? This might span to a Paradox I don’t want to sleep and think about.
Might wanna read the whole page before you use it to try to prove me wrong.
[i]Sometimes a form of mass is not considered to be conserved in relativistic processes in systems. This can happen for one of two reasons:
When invariant mass (as various forms of active energy) has been allowed to escape the system, and this escape has not been kept track of. Complete system closure (including closure to heat and radiation) is needed for system mass to be conserved. When the mass of a system is measured only at standard temperatures, for example, this allows for the escape of mass and energy, as heat.
Sometimes a form of mass is not conserved when the mass of a system is found by adding the rest masses of its components. However, for massive particles this amounts to using the measurements of many different observers, and this sort of bookkeeping it is not allowed in special relativity. Even for photons, a single observer and a closed system is required for mass conservation, since photons as considered singly have zero mass, where as pairs or systems of photons moving in different directions will in general exhibit an invariant mass which is associated with the system of photons, but not with any single photon.
Sometimes either of the above processes are equivalently at work. For example, after an energy-releasing transformation, the sum of rest masses of the resulting particles may said to be different from the sum of the rest masses of the particles which began the reaction. But how was this sum measured? If these rest masses were determined with the system closed, this requires that varying frames of references have been used (one for each massive particle, and no mass ascribed to photons). If, however, the rest mass of the system after a reaction has been measured as a whole by a single observer, and found to be changed, this must occur because energy released from the reaction has been allowed to leave the system, as heat or light or other radiation. In the latter case, it will be found that this energy is the missing mass (i.e., it would exhibit the missing mass if captured, confined, and weighed).[/i]
The Big Bang states that the universe was created once. The universe was created. There was nothing before. There wasn’t space. There wasn’t blackness. There was nothing. Just because the human mind is incapable of grasping that concept doesn’t mean it’s not true.
Second, how the bloody hell did the Big Bang even get into this discussion? Evolution doesn’t address physics in any way, and Big Bangism doesn’t address biology. If you want to start a Religion vs Science debate, gtfo this topic, and make your own.
Disregarding the random Big Bang theory debate… what are we even talking about?
All I see is the occasional semantical argument about what reason is, and pointless connections between physics and biology. I don’t give a flying fuck how the universe/earth were created, I still won’t be any more inclined to believe that I’m comparable to any animal. For that matter, evolution doesn’t have much to do with this discussion, except to provide tidbits of proof that we are or aren’t similar to monkeys.
Please, stop discussing random points that don’t even relate to similarities between humans and animals.
Wikipedia runs by letting anybody edit it. It’s not a good place to trust for details anyway.
The question of our existence is also asking where those things came from. The question is kind of like an infinite loop of whys. No matter how much you answer, there’s always another why beyond.
Just because we exist, and can’t figure out why, doesn’t mean there’s NOT some all-powerful Deity that made us. Just because we exist, and can’t figure out why, doesn’t mean we came to exist here completely naturally. The “this can’t be right because it just sounds weird” kind of argument isn’t something you should use in a debate. After all, from other perspectives, you’re only doing the same “leap of logic”. Along with copying other people’s phrasescough cough
Edit: Yeah, this DID get really carried away. Let’s start trying to drag it back in the general direction of animals and humans. The Meaning and whether or not humans deserve their own category outside of animals and all that other stuff can be a different topic. Think about the maker of this topic for a second. >_>
I’ll make a topic about the Creationism debate. In the meantime, I’m a little lost as to what we’re talking about, since we’re juggling three conversations at once.
