Anyone for an Intelligent Debate? (no newbie lamers allowed thx)

[kanonfodda]

Stick em in an almost pitch dark room for 6 months (with food, etc (and vitamin supplements)) then ask them toi explain how they can see better now than when they went in?

 

[Moving Target]

Originally posted by stazbumpa
Darwinism. See Eddie Izzard's "Glorious" vid for a big expose' on the gaping holes in the Creationist theories.

Yeh, I got that It's brilliant

Darwinism

 

[Sar]

How mankind can even purport to know how the universe was created, or more specifically by who, if anyone or anything, is to be so mind bogglingly obscenely arrogant as to be unbelievable.

Is there a God? Fuck knows, and I'll tell you this: No-one else in history can tell you either. Christianity was based on the allegorical myth of Dyonisus (sp) so Christ for one did NOT exist, and therefore the basis for the Christian "God" goes out the window too.

I personally believe in Darwinism to kick things off, but then you come to the so called "missing link", where man suddenly became Homo Sapiens with a 50% increase in cranial capacity, together with a lingual capability and a modern anatomy, only 200,000 years ago after 6 MILLION YEARS of evolutionary stagnation. There was interference in mankinds evolution, but who knows who did it, or for what purpose.

Richard Dawkins btw is a pro-Darwinism Scientist.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Sar
I personally believe in Darwinism to kick things off, but then you come to the so called "missing link", where man suddenly became Homo Sapiens with a 50% increase in cranial capacity, together with a lingual capability and a modern anatomy, only 200,000 years ago after 6 MILLION YEARS of evolutionary stagnation. There was interference in mankinds evolution, but who knows who did it, or for what purpose.

Richard Dawkins btw is a pro-Darwinism Scientist.

Evolutionists are arranged roughly into two broad camps, one proclaiming a slow and steady evolutionary progress with tiny jumps in biological advances, some of which have huge effects. The other camp claims generations of stagnation with short and rapid advances, something that the paleontological records support, the same kind of rapid progress in other species, besides humans, has also been demonstrated.

Evolution is mainly to do with adaption to the environment, and specifically how quickly a species can adapt (often becoming an entirely different species in the process), if the environment goes though rapid change, then so must evolution.

I've read several Dawkins books but I'm still not sure which camp he supports, his main occupation is to promote an "understanding" of science, which puts him directly against the religious authorities.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Who really cares? It makes no difference either way (shut up religious people that will say it can and you'll burn in hell). Life's still utterly shit, meaningless and pointless... why beat your brains up over theories about how we came to exist? It's even more pointless than the existence we reside in anyway.

/edit: Oooo, I can see this one going down a TREAT.

 

[Moving Target]

Originally posted by Wazzerphuk
Life's still utterly shit, meaningless and pointless...

I agree.

 

[Wij]

Actually Dawkins is very much of the "gradual change" mode. As are most serious scientists these days. The idea of macro-mutation was devised mainly by people who were impressed with the paleontological (?) evidence. You rarely see many "missing-links" in the fossil record but when you think about it it's hardly surprising. Fossils aren't created very often. Usually only when an animal stands on a tar pit or something. Often thousands of years can go by without any fossils being made for a certain species in a certain area. This can encompass hundereds of generations of large mammals and a lot more for many other creatures.

It is true that there will be long periods of stagnation too where no useful genes are added to the gene pool and where no great changes is the evolutionary circumstances a population finds itself in occur. This does not in any way mean that evolution happens in macro-mutations. When you think about how long it has to work in you can see that stagnation and gradualism are not incompatible.

As for the idea of serious scientists thinking that things are too well-designed to have occured without divine or alien (omg - thick cunts) intervention then they have obviously spent too long in the lab and never switched their brain into motion. This argument has been around for centuries and is known as the 'Argument from Design'. David Hume utterly demolished it in his 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion'. Look it up on the internet, I'm sure there'll be a site explaining his arguments in simple terms somewhere.

 

[Munkey-]

i agree. and they wont even let us end it properly *sigh* roll on the super-clean hydrogen-thermo nuclear atomic bomb

 

[Ono]

Creationism.


Cos I believe in God so there.

 

[Daffeh]

would an extraterestrial race 'seeding' earth be classed as 'creationism'?

but Darwin all the way!

 

[suicide121]

Originally posted by Bodhi
Right. We haven't has an intellectual debate in here for a while. So here goes....



Creationism or Darwinism?

And of course why?

Darwinism, I don't wanna learn about a religion, I wanna learn proper science, real world stuff

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Originally posted by Ono
Creationism.


Cos I believe in God so there.

Wow, and I used to think that Ono had some degree of intelligence.

 

[.cage]

Originally posted by Wazzerphuk
Who really cares? It makes no difference either way (shut up religious people that will say it can and you'll burn in hell). Life's still utterly shit, meaningless and pointless... why beat your brains up over theories about how we came to exist? It's even more pointless than the existence we reside in anyway.

/edit: Oooo, I can see this one going down a TREAT.

So fucking true, particularly the life's still utterly shit bit, unfortunately

 

[Wazzerphuk]

I may not be all knowing, but I sure am never wrong.

 

[Munkey-]

wish i could seed a whole planet of women

 

[old.Rostam]

wow you people are depressing. whats with this life is shit and pointless stuff. You guyz are way too young to become so bitter and twised.

roll it and light up!

 

[old.D0LLySh33p]

I believe in both... but that's 'cos I'm a bit weird I guess

Darwin as scientifically it's sound...

Creation... well, you have to believe in God... if not, you're a bit fucked if THERE IS an afterlife out there

 

[Cod]

Originally posted by Rostam
roll it and light up!

Amen brother.

 

[mr.Blacky]

but i dont smoke, well not anymore. Gave it up so I could drink more

 

[Daffeh]

Originally posted by D0LLySh33p
I believe in both... but that's 'cos I'm a bit weird I guess

Darwin as scientifically it's sound...

Creation... well, you have to believe in God... if not, you're a bit fucked if THERE IS an afterlife out there

i quite like the idea of burning in hell as it goes...
i need to work on my tan a bit

 

[Daffeh]

Originally posted by Rostam
wow you people are depressing. whats with this life is shit and pointless stuff. You guyz are way too young to become so bitter and twised.

roll it and light up!

no point witholding the truth now is there

 

[Sar]

Originally posted by Wazzerphuk
Who really cares? It makes no difference either way (shut up religious people that will say it can and you'll burn in hell). Life's still utterly shit, meaningless and pointless... why beat your brains up over theories about how we came to exist? It's even more pointless than the existence we reside in anyway.

/edit: Oooo, I can see this one going down a TREAT.

Because if we can figure out how (or where*) the life on Earth originated from, then we can begin to analyse the atmospheres of extra-solar planets and see if they are likely to support life.

*There is a theory that the life that began on Earth 4 Billion years ago was actually from Martian meteorites, and if so then we are in fact Martians

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Bodhi
If you don;t have anything constructive about the debate to say then kindly refrain from taking part.

Says the man with such a sig

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Sar


Because if we can figure out how (or where*) the life on Earth originated from, then we can begin to analyse the atmospheres of extra-solar planets and see if they are likely to support life.

*There is a theory that the life that began on Earth 4 Billion years ago was actually from Martian meteorites, and if so then we are in fact Martians

Know this theory well.

 

[Stazbumpa]

Thing is, if God does exist and he/she/it created us all, then surely now would be as good a time as any to make some sort of appearance and sort the world out, given that its about to explode into religious violence.

I stand corrected, it already has.

 

[old.Kez]

Originally posted by Sar
*There is a theory that the life that began on Earth 4 Billion years ago was actually from Martian meteorites, and if so then we are in fact Martians

Why did mars start spitting meteors at us 4 billions years ago? Should we be looking to even the score?

 

[Sir Frizz]

Originally posted by Kez
Why did mars start spitting meteors at us 4 billions years ago? Should we be looking to even the score?

Mars 'spat' meteors at us because it may have been hit by another rock of some kind. Some people say Mars and the Earth were one at some stage on the solar systems development.

And science is the new religion.

 

[Sar]

Yup, a billion years into the solar systems development all the planets were still being heavily bombarded by the bits of rock that hadn't gone into the formation of the planets (these are now settled into the asteroid belt).

Initially Venus, Earth and Mars all had similar atmospheres, but ended up different because:

Venus was too close to the Sun, and boiled all its oceans away creating what's known as a "runaway" Green house effect.

Mars was the opposite: Its oceans eventually froze, concentrated at the poles, but a lot of ice is buried underneath the entire surface of the planet.

Earth however was in the "temperate zone" and retained its oceans thus enabling life to flourish once it began.

 

[Sir Frizz]

Originally posted by Sar


Earth however was in the "temperate zone" and retained its oceans thus enabling life to flourish once it began.

Was this a blessing or a curse?

 

[kanonfodda]

Originally posted by Sar

Earth however was in the "temperate zone" and retained its oceans thus enabling life to flourish once it began.

I saw some info that Earth is in fact too close to the sun and life shouldn't have started on this planet, could be wrong. AFAIK we are actually just outside the Temperate zone.

Please feel free to give me more accurate info