Human evolution from a scientific stantpoint - Scientific debate, not a religious one

[Angel-Eyes]

[quoteost_uid0="Shauku"]Are you claiming to have more knowledge of the universe than scientists who actually study this?[/quote]
yes







yeah since you dont beleive my sources ill get some others.


and by the way i did not interpret the 2nd theory of thermodynamics incorrectly



Edited By kester- on Mar. 24 2004 at 09:23

[blanka09]

I never said I liked it, i just said that was my guess.

Think about it....scientists are always trying to "play god." WHAT IF scientists could enhance the gene responsible for the body's ability to fend off disease and heal? We could be able to force-evolve humans that would be immune to the world's diseases and be able to self-heal wounds. In an instant, scientists could theoretically make evolution happen. Remember what I said: Genes mutate. Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.

Nantuko.. I'm well aware of what you said.. and I wasn't attacking u in any way when I made my opinion about man forcing evolution on its kind barbaric.. It's just the thought of if that scares me. :biggrin:

I'll start my latest rant by giving you guys something to think about...

Life is hard. But it's harder if you don't know how the material world works!

First off, Kester.. science hasn't contradicted itself in anyway.. the reason I believe in religion is just based on one principle.. better be safe than sorry.. nothing more nothing less.. For all that matters, my truth can be false in the end.. and Nantuko may be right.. but if that time arrives.. no one would be there to laugh at the other. :biggrin:

Thing is, I'll explain the law of thermodynamics.. and how it in no way contradicts the theory of evolution.

See, Thermodynamics is the study of energy. Energy can never be created or destroyed.. but can only be transformed from one form to another. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. It can.. although be converted from one form to another.

Now the second law as you have correctly stated is that in all energy exchanges, when no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state. Now that in no way contradicts the theory of evolution for one basic fact.. If indeed energy did degenerate.. don't you think you should have blotted out with all the amount of energy you've used drinking, walking talking and what have you. The sun is in fact a basic source of energy that the earth depends on.. and until the sun dies out, it will remain a good source of energy.

So indeed energy does denegerate according to entropy... but as the first law states.. we cannot destroy energy.. There's a cycle.. it's converted from one form to the other.. So next time, try not to use a law to contradict science.. when you haven't explored fully its meanings and all it has to offer.
All in all.. these facts have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.. It stands on its own and has its main facts... that indeed there's a so-called gene mutation that evolve.. and produce better surviving species. Survival of the fittest baby.. :biggrin:

SSJKarma: Dude.. let's step back for a minute.. You have a brain eh?? You've got the ability to interprete basicknowledge without the help of science and its so-called fallacies.. but tell me one thing.. If indeed, English language hadn't been so kind to us and to say the number 2 was to spell it out as trigun and 4 to spell it out as InuYasha.. no matter what happens.. trigun + trigun will give you InuYasha .. Think of it.. You don't really need anyone to tell you that.

If you've got 2 cups and then another 2.. your eyes show you that it is in fact 4 cups in front of you.

Now on your theory on time.. with the quote

just tell me how can they know it is 65millions years old ?

I can't really give you a factual answer on that.. for I as much as you question the section on science that has to do with Carbon dating.. it may/may not be true.. but from what they understand... and what they have as actual evidence... their numbers could be right.. for all we know.

Now what I'll argue on is the fact that although.. it might be possible in the near future.. and if in fact the Jehovah.. creator of the world according to the Christains did not exist.. but was infact a main entity created by man to instill the knowledge of Supreme being for us to follow (which I have fallen into without complain..) then science.. might have the answers to most of the questions you have asked..
Think of it.. a hundred years ago no one.. and I mean no one could define motion of particles once they reached the speed of light.. but Einstein came and gave reason and purpose to meaning.

If in fact, you question his beliefs as being judged by a human, then try it urself.. See if you could come up with something more plausible and reasonable than vhat the German put (.. vhat was not a grammatical error) :biggrin:

By the way ppl, I've tried as much as possible to keep my arguements based on Science and the principle belief of observation.. and I hope that you all will do the same.. for in as much as I believe in Religion, I don't want this topic that's got this amount of info closed.

Now this is what amazed me..

joe said
That is just a possibility, however. Your idea does indeed make perfect sense, and I can't debate against it from a factual stantpoint

--Then Joe .. can you come to the safe conclusion.. that indeed I pwn.. eh?? *cough* .. J/k :biggrin:

--nuff said ppl... Let the games continue!



Edited By blanka09 on Mar. 24 2004 at 11:16

kester_, this is a debate. What you just did is NOT debating.

First off, you are claiming to contain more knowledge of the matter than the people who wrote your sources. And you say that my ideas are ludicrous.

Secondly, I never said I didn't believe your sources, because you never even cited any. I said your final "theory" did not make sense, and ASKED for a source. Therefore, I ask that you give me the source of the theory you attempted to use in your final "point."

Third, you made a false interpretation of a scientific law, and I corrected you. If you believe I made a mistake in correcting you, then give me reasons. You cannot simply say "i did not interpret the 2nd theory of thermodynamics incorrectly." YOu need to provide reasons for WHY you think you did it correctly. If you don't, then your argument becomes null and void, because you are incapable of supporting it.

[SSJKarma]

completely false !
ok, lots of invention were created in a good causes and ended up used for bad purposes, want me to name a few...

the ATOMIC BOMB !
the TNT

and the likes !
if these weren't mistakes, man, then i don't know what they were !
we are a foolish speci who wants to rule the world by being the only speci who can think like we do. that you cannot deny. it is the law of survival. a law of nature that all living thing do. so why, wouldn't the human race be good in any sens !

i didn't say all we did was wrong, neither have i said that they were all right !

but our science up to now was never based on any facts, only theory that we supposedly prooved to be right by making them be right !

that means science is nothing more then a man made theory which if mankind makes mistakes, makes those theory not so reliable either !

example, if scientifics would tell you that they have the cure to all desease in existence by simply swallowing a pile, and then they are prooving it to you, by testing on a subject. would believe them just because they prooved it to you or would you be sckeptic even tho they have prooved it to you ?

exactly...
there are many things in existence that were proven in existence and still are denyed by many scientists who say other scientist are wrong !

so how can science be all good and facts when even the scientist themselves are still fighting off each other ?

my point is clear here... science do not proove anything since it is man made theories. nothing more !

and i didn't bring it back to religion, it was a comparision !
you say science is prooven because millions of people study it. then why aren't religion prooved when millions study it as well !

in any cases... what i'm saying is...
religions aren't entirely right, and science isn't entirely right !

you still didn't answered my question tho...
who told you 2+2=4 ?
if you answer humans, then tell me how this was prooven to be true ?

[(ShinKu_Ryu)]

We were never apes...i can now say dat scientistare not as smart as i thought ???

[Angel-Eyes]

[quoteost_uid0="Shauku"]kester_, this is a debate. What you just did is NOT debating.

First off, you are claiming to contain more knowledge of the matter than the people who wrote your sources. And you say that my ideas are ludicrous.

Secondly, I never said I didn't believe your sources, because you never even cited any. I said your final "theory" did not make sense, and ASKED for a source. Therefore, I ask that you give me the source of the theory you attempted to use in your final "point."

Third, you made a false interpretation of a scientific law, and I corrected you. If you believe I made a mistake in correcting you, then give me reasons. You cannot simply say "i did not interpret the 2nd theory of thermodynamics incorrectly." YOu need to provide reasons for WHY you think you did it correctly. If you don't, then your argument becomes null and void, because you are incapable of supporting it.[/quote]
just because i dont beleive evolution doesnt mean you have to bite my ass off. geez

[vx_unicom]

[quoteost_uid0="Shauku"]See, now this is going to turn back into a religious debate....

These religions MUST be false because not all religions in the world can be correct. When it all comes down to it, on the final day of the existence of the world, I could very well be wrong, and I could end up going to hell. Or I could end up going to Tartarus. Or I could end up going to the Celtic underworld ruled by Dis Pater. Or I could end up with Chernobog in the Slavic hell or Bolebog in the Slavic heaven. Or end up in Mictlan or one of the other eight underworlds of the Aztec beliefs. Or I could end up waking up as another human being. Or I could end up waking up as a Komodo Dragon for all I know. Or my own beliefs could be correct.

You see, people from all different areas of the world believe in different religions. The Japanese believe in Shinto, or possibly the other Japanese religion concerning all the many gods and goddesses. Romans originally believed in their Roman gods. The Chinese believe in Conflipianism, or whatever religion it is that worships and reveres the various spirits and Dragons. The indians believe in Hindu, the middle-easterns believe in Muslim and Christianity. The Irish originally believed in the Celtic ceremonies. The Egyptians worshipped their various gods, as did the South and North American indian tribes. When it comes to religion, no one can agree.

However, when it comes to science, all that goes out the window. Japanese science is the same as American science. German science is the same as English science. Chinese science is the same as African science which is the same as Russian science. Everyone can agree. At least there's a common bond and belief with science. Hell, not even Christians agree with each other...they break up into Catholic and Roman Catholic and Batists and Lutheran and Protestant and Methodist and whatever other sects they've got. So how can any one of those be correct, when they all dispute each other? Sure, millions of people believe each one, but then again, according to me, man created god, and not vice versa. (see below)

i ask you one thing...
just tell me how can they know it is 65millions years old ?
our science is based on what we created, and as far as i know, a creation is as good as its creator ! which means that if we created our own science, then how come it is suppose to always be true when we ourselves are a mistake on two legs ?

First off, man did not "create" science. Science has been around all along, we just developed the ability to understand it.

Second off, how are we "mistakes" on two legs? A mistake is an error or fault resulting from defective judgement, deficient knowledge or carelessness. How are human beings "mistakes?" So that analogy right there of yours is completely false.

You forget, I believe that science created man, and man in turn created the concept of religion, in order to provide answers to questions that science could not yet answer at that point in time. I believe that religion was a temporary answer that was created intended to only last until science could provide us with the answers once again. The only "mistake" was that people began to take religion seriously, and instead of falling back on science that created us, began to fall back on the belief of various religions.

So you say that creations are only as good as the creator. I believe that man is the creation, and science is the creator. Therefore, man developed the ability to UNDERSTAND science....man did not create science altogether.

But I mean, note my above post. The entire world could argue about the existence of Leza, the primary god of Africa, or the One God as according to Christianity, or Quezacotl according to the Aztecs, or Dagda of the Celtics, or Yu-Huang-Shang-Ti of the Chinese, or Ra of the Egyptians, or Zeus of the Greeks, or Anshar of the Mesopotamians, or any of the thousands of other dieties of the world's religions. And the argument would go on FOREVER, because none of those sides can bring forth any actual evidence to support their claims. The argument will continue on until the very end of time, when the end of the world will show us the correct answer.

But while everyone is arguing all the religions, science is saying "look, we have the answer now, the need for religion is over." Yet the rest of the world ignores it becuase they're all caught up in religion, what THEY created.

See, it works both ways. Religious people can say "well according to us, science is just another religion. Who's to say that it's any correct?" Be that if it may, but if that's how it is, then notice that science is the only "religion" that can bring cold, hard fact to the table in order to debate its own existence. While religion says "I believe that everything around us is PROOF of the One God, or of Pachamac, or of Jupiter (the roman god), or of Atira or of Awonawilona" and still not give any true reasoning, science can say "We say that everything around us is PROOF of science, and here is why..." and then further back our cause.

THAT is why I wanted this debate to remain a scientific one, rather than a religious one. Now I can see it turning religious, and in turn being locked by mods, because we strayed off-topic.

But the fact of the matter is that science is accepted as fact, because that's what we use in the world. A man in court claims that he killed a man becuase the devil forced him to.....if it wasn't for science, we couldn't say "no, you killed a man because you're mentally a psycho because of neurological connection failures" or whatever. We use science in our courts, science in our everyday lives, because it's the closest to fact that we have.

Why do you think the teaching of religions in public schools is against the law? Because there are too many religions to be able to say "okay this is fact, let's teach this." Meanwhile, science is taught in EVERY school because it's the only constant in this world, the only "belief" that can hold its own in a debate.[/quote]
LOL........Joe u might consider going into politics!!!!. That i cannot argue with u. ???But it doesn't mean ur the best debater around here.



Edited By vx_unicom on Mar. 24 2004 at 18:14

[Roll]

By: Kester
just because i dont beleive evolution doesnt mean you have to bite my ass off. geez

He's not doing anything of the sort; he was merely debating that what you said was misinterpreted, and that you need to provide him with sources.
When you enter a debate, you enter an argument that involves facts, opinions, and ideas with facts to back them up. If you only hold your opinion, without stating anything or having anything to even try and prove your point, then you can expect (in any debate, anywhere, at anytime) to be chewed up and spit out. When you join a debate, you accept that the very thing may happen to you very easily if you don't debate correctly, or if you just plan to rant idiotically without something to help prove you right.

By: Guess
LOL........Joe u might consider going into politics!!!!. That i cannot argue with u. ???But it doesn't mean ur the best debater around here.

While he never implied that he was the best debator around here, who would that person be then? *chuckle* You? Or perhaps you mean Shinku Ryu? Either way, please leave this debate if you don't mean to actually debate. It's making many people angry, and now we're just spamming the heck out of this thread.

..and must must you quote an entire post, just to write a few sentences?

[vx_unicom]

[quoteost_uid0="Roll"]

By: Kester
just because i dont beleive evolution doesnt mean you have to bite my ass off. geez

He's not doing anything of the sort; he was merely debating that what you said was misinterpreted, and that you need to provide him with sources.
When you enter a debate, you enter an argument that involves facts, opinions, and ideas with facts to back them up. If you only hold your opinion, without stating anything or having anything to even try and prove your point, then you can expect (in any debate, anywhere, at anytime) to be chewed up and spit out. When you join a debate, you accept that the very thing may happen to you very easily if you don't debate correctly, or if you just plan to rant idiotically without something to help prove you right.

By: Guess
LOL........Joe u might consider going into politics!!!!. That i cannot argue with u. ???But it doesn't mean ur the best debater around here.

While he never implied that he was the best debator around here, who would that person be then? *chuckle* You? Or perhaps you mean Shinku Ryu? Either way, please leave this debate if you don't mean to actually debate. It's making many people angry, and now we're just spamming the heck out of this thread.

..and must must you quote an entire post, just to write a few sentences?[/quote]
Roll u are a very annoying girl.........u know!!!! i never said i was the best debator even though i'am if i really wanna be!!!

SSJ Karma
completely false !
ok, lots of invention were created in a good causes and ended up used for bad purposes, want me to name a few...
the ATOMIC BOMB !
the TNT
and the likes !
if these weren't mistakes, man, then i don't know what they were !
we are a foolish speci who wants to rule the world by being the only speci who can think like we do. that you cannot deny. it is the law of survival. a law of nature that all living thing do. so why, wouldn't the human race be good in any sens !

The human race itself, however, is NOT an invention.

kester said that according to science, our species is a mistake. This is false. Some of the CREATIONS that were developed by our species are mistakes, but the species itself is not a mistake. No one and nothing INTENDED to create humankind. We are the result of evolution, natural selection and morphological change over millions of years, as are every other animal specie on the planet. None of them are "mistakes," and neither is the human race.

example, if scientifics would tell you that they have the cure to all desease in existence by simply swallowing a pile, and then they are prooving it to you, by testing on a subject. would believe them just because they prooved it to you or would you be sckeptic even tho they have prooved it to you ?

That makes no sense.

Let's say a human has every disease known to man ravaging through his or her body at the same time, and by some miracle of medical science, was able to survive for a short amount of time. If a scientist were to say "this vial of medicine has the power to cure the world's diseases," administered it to the patient, and the patient was cured, then yes, he would be correct. The medicine would indeed have the ability to fight off all the world's diseases, and it would be considered fact.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but if such a thing happened as I exampled above, then I would be a firm believer in this medicinal concoction.

so how can science be all good and facts when even the scientist themselves are still fighting off each other ?
my point is clear here... science do not proove anything since it is man made theories. nothing more !

From a scientific standpoint, the same can be said about religion...all it is is man-made theories, and nothing more. Therefore, religions cannot be good.....according to your outlook on science.

and i didn't bring it back to religion, it was a comparision !
you say science is prooven because millions of people study it. then why aren't religion prooved when millions study it as well !

No, that's not what I said.

I said science is proven fact because all the theologians could argue with each other over which religion is more accurate, but they would never get ANYWHERE, because there is no proof to support ANY of their claims. Jews cannot agree with Buddhists. Catholics cannot agree with Celtics. Muslims cannot agree with Hindus. Meanwhile, science IS capable of bringing proof to the table. While men from africa can argue religious beliefs with people from india or japan, an african scientist, indian scientist and japanese scientist can all agree on science.

Do you see any scientists disagreeing over Newton's Laws of Motion? Nope. What about Einstein's Theory of Relativity? Nah uh. The equations used to figure out chemical bonds during chemical reactions? I don't think so. Astronomy? Not to my knowledge. And they all agree because proof has been brought to the table in order to enforce the ideas.

THAT is why science is considered fact. Not simply because millions of people study it, but because millions of people study it AND experiment with it AND prove it. Millions of people study religions, but they do not question it. They do not test it, they simply study and follow without question. That's why science is considered fact and religion theory.

you still didn't answered my question tho...
who told you 2+2=4 ?
if you answer humans, then tell me how this was prooven to be true ?

Humans.

It was proven true by, say, taking two apples and putting them in a bucket with two more apples. You will then have four apples.

Two, four, eight hundred fifty thousand.....they're just words to represent something bigger. Instead of being One-Two-Three, it could have been Argh-Bleah-Yeach. But the principle is the same. We just created words that are used to represent values. But the values are true constants, because they've existed even before we discovered them.

(ShinKu Ryu)

We were never apes...i can now say dat scientistare not as smart as i thought

Someone that can't even correctly spell two words in a 16 word sentence saying that scientists aren't smart......

Like I said, if you're not going to debate, then don't post. You have no proof that we were never apes, nor can you even begin to fathom a guess, because you're uninformed. You're just acting off personal opinion, which, in a scientific debate, is worth absolutely nothing.

kester_

just because i dont beleive evolution doesnt mean you have to bite my ass off. geez

No, I'm "biting [your] ass off" because you're making incorrect assumptions about theories that you're misinterpreting without providing sources or proof, then simply saying that you're right even after I proved you're wrong.