The BIG One
I was talking with a friend the other day when I realized how much I like to argue with people. I like seeing the dumb look on their face as their argument crumbles to pieces beneath my barrage of superior facts. Unfortunately, my friends are all idiots and, in the face of my awesome power, often resort to the patented "You're gay" response. I want to argue with someone but no one around me is competent. So I started thinking… what if there are other people out there that are plagued by this same pain?
So here it goes. I know how much you guys like to bicker and argue so I figured we might as well put it to use. Every so often a new topic (in thread form) will be posted by an admin for you guys to pick sides and fight it out in an intelligent way. After the argument dies down, a poll will be posted prompting us HBHians to pick a winning side based on strength of points and quality of information.
So that's my idea in a nutshell. Any questions? Who am I kidding, of course you have questions. In fact, I have even taken the time to create a preemptive FAQ. You're welcome.
But Futility, what about all the inevitable morons who will post the dumb Fuck You messages and will ruin the fun- just like in your sad story at the beginning?
That is what HBH's amazing mod team is here for. We're going to start off trusting you guys. The thread will be open all the time for your entertainment. But, if just one argument goes off-topic and begins to explain what your mother enjoys doing with animals in her spare time, the whole idea will go into lockdown. Threads will be locked whenever there are less than two admins on to moderate it, and dictatorship will run rampant. There will also be warn points handed out like candy for those who really want some.
How long do I have to vote for the side which I feel has won the debate?
You will have one week after the debate is over to vote for the winner.
How often will new ideas be posted for debate?
Honestly, I don't know. It depends on how many people contribute, how good the argument gets, how even it stays… If a debate becomes horrifically one-sided, it will be closed off in a matter of days. If a thread gets terrific contribution, then it could go on for over a week. Either way, you will be given a two day warning before it closes so everyone can finish up what they're saying.
What do you get for winning? Nothing, really. I might throw in some community points for posts that deserve it, but you won't be getting anything major. This is more to stimulate the community and have a good time while doing it.
So what do you guys think? Like it? Love it? Adore it? (You couldn't possibly hate it, so why would I even consider asking?) I'll leave this thread open for suggestions and improvements, so feel free to give me a piece of your mind.
In that spirit I'm going to kick us off with one of the contemporary big ones.
Intelligent design vs. Evolution.
Rule 1. This argument will have nothing to do with God/Mohammad/Yahweh/Buddha/Confucius or the flying spaghetti monster.
Rule 2. Because this guy said so (white lab coat or not) is not a valid point.
Well, if you say that there should be no arguements of the type
Because this guy said so (white lab coat or not) is not a valid point
I don't think there ever can be any debate on this part/question. I don't think we individually have any proof of evolution or would know about it by ourselves. We know Evolution occurred because "those guys in white lab coats" told us. Also, about the other side, there cannot be any arguement there to because those guys have no arguements except that they have been told by priests or whatever and believe in that side in their hearts, which I fear, is not an arguement.
when i said you can't just believe 'lab coats' i meant it more in the sense that you cant say intelligent design is wrong because Darwin said it was and Darwin is smart. That's not a logical argument. but you can use other peoples work, eg quoting that the speed of light is currently around 3x10^8m.s^-1
The-Scarecrow wrote: quoting that the speed of light is currently around 3x10^8m.s^-1 The value of the speed of light will never change it has been used for the definition of a meter. If we find out that it's faster than we expected the speed of light will still be 299792458m/s but the meter will be longer :)
The-Scarecrow wrote: when i said you can't just believe 'lab coats' i meant it more in the sense that you cant say intelligent design is wrong because Darwin said it was and Darwin is smart. That's not a logical argument. but you can use other peoples work, eg quoting that the speed of light is currently around 3x10^8m.s^-1 Oh, well then I support the Evolution view. At the time of reproduction(sexual) "Crossing Over" takes place, homologus sister chromosomes exchange DNA and that is Variation. Nature ensures that organisms that don't have good/poweful new genes i.e. not fit for survival dies due to natural causes or is killed by the stronger organism for food, competition etc. Stronger as in having less diseases(DNA controls many things. Good set of DNAs referring to those that don't cause diseases or are not mutated).
I'd like to add that evolution does happen. Even if you believe God or whatever created the universe and humans 6000 years ago since then evoilution would have occurred. Evolution is simply a consequence of genetics, finite resources ( and a few other things). Once you accept this fact it's only a short step to accept that humans could come about by evolution and all inteligent design does is speed up this process. but here's the kicker, there is no need to speed up the process 4 billion years is long enough, inteligent design is obsolete not to mention a misnomer considering the falls in all the design we see around us.
well, you have to remember that we perceive the world the way it is, so when two persons are shown the same example of life, the ID person would say that it is proof that life on earth is created, while the other one would say that it is a process of evolution.
what I always notice is that people generally stick to either sides that sometimes they get blinded by it. I happen to reason that maybe life was created (by whom, I am not at liberty to say since I'm as ignorant as all of you) and then evolved over time to adapt to the climates of this world, so I would say it's both.
@Scarecrow, Mohammad is the prophet, not the god for muslims. For muslims, their god is Allah, although I'm pretty sure you slipped up.
My take on things is nothing is intelligent design and evolution are one in the same. At the point of creation everything was designed, by whom or what is anyone's guess.
The first living thing had to be something that could adapt or evolve because of this dynamic world. And being able to evolve had to come from some sort of intelligent design that allowed the variables of this dynamic earth to effect its reproduction and everyday function.
and @fuser:
Where did you get the things in your sig? I know where to find the HBH ones, but the Misfits and Windows 7 where did you get them?
It's funny how everyone loves to argue and get pissed off when it's off topic and in someone else's thread, but when there is actually a thread setup for the sake of argueing, everybody turns it into a joke.
Personally, though, I'm agnostic (Like Moshbat's opinion, but without the "Who cares?"). And, on one last note, COM, can we get blizzards?
I think that their is defiantly variation within a species for instance if you drop 2 perfect dogs with a full set of DNA into the snow and then came back in a 100 years to see how your dogs are going. You would find that they would have longer hair, not because they through really hard and adapted to the cold weather but simply because the dogs with shorter hair have died out. We see this all the time. But this is a destruction of Genetic code, nothing is created. When you try to put DNA together by chance you do not get what you see today.
I think people see these long haired dogs not understanding what whats happening on a genetic level and then give a magical figure of a million billion years and say anything could happen. But the real problem I have is that they really start getting creative. Eg. Big Bang, Multi-verse, Oort clouds, Fusing atoms past Iron then thinking they will just decay down to carbon. That is not science, its not even wishful thinking, its what an adults imagination comes up with when ignoring the alternative.
An evolutionary line of thinking cannot even explain how the moon got into orbit or how some planets are spinning in different directions to others.
The-Scarecrow wrote: I think that their is defiantly variation within a species for instance if you drop 2 perfect dogs with a full set of DNA into the snow and then came back in a 100 years to see how your dogs are going. You would find that they would have longer hair, not because they through really hard and adapted to the cold weather but simply because the dogs with shorter hair have died out. We see this all the time. But this is a destruction of Genetic code, nothing is created. When you try to put DNA together by chance you do not get what you see today.
I think people see these long haired dogs not understanding what whats happening on a genetic level and then give a magical figure of a million billion years and say anything could happen. But the real problem I have is that they really start getting creative. Eg. Big Bang, Multi-verse, Oort clouds, Fusing atoms past Iron then thinking they will just decay down to carbon. That is not science, its not even wishful thinking, its what an adults imagination comes up with when ignoring the alternative.
An evolutionary line of thinking cannot even explain how the moon got into orbit or how some planets are spinning in different directions to others. I completely agree with the latter part. Personally I think this whole "atoms" thing is bullshit; have any of you ever seen these "atoms"? I think not. And for mere speculation, it is absurd. I don't want to say that it's right just because some guy said it, but many, many civilizations throughout the ages have all come to the conclusion that things are made of and governed by a certain amount of elements. Most include at the very least earth, fire and water in the list of these elements. And I mean, who are you to argue with several ancient civilizations?
As for the first point, I feel that the religious person's view should be represented about that as well, so I'm here to tell it. Now, if you drop two gods (perfect by definition, do not dare to question!) with a full set of divine powers in the middle of an uncreated universe and come back in thousands of years to see how your gods are doing. You will find that they have created at least three worlds, the two rivaling sides and the plane in the middle, the two rivaling sides having specific creatures created for the god's sake when the apocalypse comes and the middle being influenced by both. This isn't because the gods love to create, but rather because of the bitter rivalry that exists between them and the help of an army will help to settle bitter rivalries which will undoubtedly arise because of each god's sense of being the better one (as they're both perfect). Simple human games aren't sufficient to determine such things and they do not love their creations, which is a common misconception by creationists. They only improve them to have even greater soldiers on the battlefield or in the pre-battles, designing them intelligently for this purpose. When you try to create things by chance (aka: fucking), you do not have the same power of creation nor control as a god and your understanding of it tends to lack and you do not get such a grand result as you can't see from here. Furthermore, you will also find that one human will have been taken by one of the sides but having his human feelings left will use his newfound powers to go against his creators, slaughtering several of their minions, being heightened to the status of a god in the middle of the apocalypse by the mother of all gods and then sealing the two gods you dropped in the middle of uncreated universe into the core of their own creation. And thus ends the summation of the book of Spawn, the religious person's only true scripture. Now it's up to you gentlemen to choose which is most fucking awesome: long haired dogs… or Spawn.
The-Scarecrow wrote: Thanks Moshbat your input is rarely wanted. And COM stay off the crack pipe son. Religion has no part in this discussion.
Addressing the person who is to claim ownership of the above stated quote, yet leaving forthcoming points open for other individuals to engage as well as per the nature of debates of this type, I will be arguing the three main points having been stated in order of appearance. As such for ease of reading and literary aesthetics, the personal pronoun "you" will be interchangeable with the alias "The-Scarecrow" for the rest of this post.
Firstly, as this has been presented by clear implication by you as a purely factual endeavour (see the first post of this thread, ID 146295, base link http://www.hellboundhackers.org/forum/the_big_one-76-15589_0.html), the gratitude, especially as it was obviously given without any reference as to what you might be giving thanks for, id est: agreeing with, has no place in this thread. Furthermore you make a statement about the necessity of MoshBat's general input into matters with such vagueness, unclear relation to subject matter and subjectivity that it is, ipso facto, not only superfluous to this argument, but directly unwanted and without proper place to take.
Secondly, you make yet another subjective statement; this time targeting me [COM] and we thus can distinguish a clear pattern in your input to this debate. Your statement is not only, as previously mentioned, subjective, but it takes a clearly personal and with a high probability attempted insulting undertone. Such manner of provocation and failed attempt at an argument as you have no basis to elevate your statement in any way to fact, is of clearly unwanted nature in any form of debate save the lowest forms which occur amongst the unintelligent and which often leads to violence of physical nature. I feel inclined to bring up the high possibility of the aforementioned subjective nature in your arguments creating a distinguishable pattern and thus elevating the probability of your remarks losing weight and credibility as helpful tools to provide support for whichever stance you have chosen to take in regards to this debate.
Thirdly, your statement, which with consideration of the preceding arguments is only taken seriously as a basis for argument, is in disagreement with the topic that you yourself brought to light here. While you did obviously try to disassociate the debate from some content of religious type, this only serves as a mirage to maintain an illusion of objectivity in the debate. Furthermore it is made out to seem fair on both sides which you have presented but will obviously severely cripple one side to give an unfair advantage to the other. As well as these points, your argument fails mainly due to the very nature of the topic presented (intelligent design vs. evolution). If we examine the first part of the topic at hand, intelligent design, we will come to the conclusion that it will clearly have to be connected with religion, not only by the widely known fact that it is mainly a theory used by religious groups as seen in popular media. Intelligent design is, as clearly discernible from its title, the theory of lifeforms and generally speaking, the universe, having been designed by an intelligent being of some sort. While this at first glance does not necessitate it to be a being with religious origins, that'd only remain a possibility for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. of the designers in question as the theory would mean that they themselves having been created intelligently by something, leading to an infinite line of creators. These, as being a part of the universe in some form by not being of supernatural nature, must have started somewhere. "Ex nihilo nihil fit", id est, there must be a supernatural phenomenon occurring somewhere within this theory, in effect putting it in juxtaposition with religion and making them in practicality exchangeable for a debate of this nature. This leading to your argument and implied intentions failing as per their own nature as a whole from the very beginning, potentially making this entire debate futile beyond the consideration of the entirety of existence.
Summa summarum, your arguments fail in all respects with the exception of provoking a reply and if you should wish to maintain a respectable nature to the debate you started, you should start providing objective, factual and relevant arguments. The fact that you were the person to start this farce of a discussion, does not empower you with the authority to distort meanings however you wish to make it more favouring for you. Q.E.D
I like this topic but… there is not argument.
Whatever points a creationist or fundamentalist might bring up they either cannot be tested or they are just plain wrong and have been totally debunked.
If you have ever read a biology book you know that irreducible complexity is a myth. The wing, the eye, etc, all have functions even in their most simple parts.
The evidence for evolution on the other hand, is completely overwhelming. If you look at the amount of scientific literature devoted to explaining, reviewing, and trying to falsify the theory you'll see that the evidence for evolution is far greater than the evidence for the theory of gravity. You cannot deny evolution without denying the foundation of science and the scientific method.
And when you reject the scientific method you're left with this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs
I think spyware said it best. :love:
COM: One thing I've learned is that you don't need to use extravagant, flamboyant language to get your point across, if anything it takes away from your intelligence. I was simply stating that in this arguments beginnings there is no need for the mention of religion yet you jumped right in there and assumed 2 Gods adverse to one another, what religion you were even trying to describe is new to me.
The evidence for evolution on the other hand, is completely overwhelming. If you look at the amount of scientific literature devoted to explaining, reviewing, and trying to falsify the theory you'll see that the evidence for evolution is far greater than the evidence for the theory of gravity. You cannot deny evolution without denying the foundation of science and the scientific method.
This is what I was saying about the 'this person is smarter than you so they must be right' look at history think of such things as the world being flat. Vast opinion rarely dictates truth and often its the person 'yelling' the loudest who has the least evidence. Now take a step back and look at what side of the argument has control of schools, university s, governments and ask yourself how could it be anything but. History has proven that 1 free thinkers contribution can outweigh 10,000 books written by educated men.
The-Scarecrow wrote: Now take a step back and look at what side of the argument has control of schools, university s, governments
Money.
and ask yourself how could it be anything but. History has proven that 1 free thinkers contribution can outweigh 10,000 books written by educated men.
Free thought? Hehe. Optimist.
The-Scarecrow wrote: COM: One thing I've learned is that you don't need to use extravagant, flamboyant language to get your point across, if anything it takes away from your intelligence. I was simply stating that in this arguments beginnings there is no need for the mention of religion yet you jumped right in there and assumed 2 Gods adverse to one another, what religion you were even trying to describe is new to me.
Oh my, those were some danged big fancy words you used there on me with nice spelling and all that… oh sorry, didn't mean to call you an idiot, I've got this friend, irony, you might've heard of him. Yea, he told me to do it. Hang on now, my low intelligence is slowly picking up something intrestin… hmm, let's see now, bad spelling means you're an idiot, hmm, exceptional lingual use means you're an idiot… ooh, ooooh, it's a bell graph of presumptions! Ten points for me derp! The-Scarecrow: One thing I've learnt is that you shouldn't make assumptions based on just the spelling someone uses on the internet as it can lead to misunderstandings and if anything, take away from your intelligence. I was simply stating that your posts were stupid, contradictory and that you should piss off, yet you jumped right in here and made another post just the same. Btw, that'll be $10 for the translation.
History has proven that 1 free thinkers contribution can outweigh 10,000 books written by educated men. Zzzzzzzz- huh, haha hahaha haaaahahahahahahaaahaha! Sorry, fell asleep, had a funny dream, not important. So, did I miss something? This last thing about 1 free thinker vs. 10000 seemed to be lacking. No? I didn't miss anything? Fuck… Mr. Teacher guy, could you define contribution here? If you mean to call the people who made some radical change "free thinkers", then I'm confused by how it outweighs everything the educated men did. Also, I'm confused about this whole educated man thing. Free thinkers weren't educated or supported by educated people? They just pulled shit out of their asses and everyone trusted them? Fuck you Newton, fuck you, I trusted you!
Btw people, if it weren't for The-Scarecrow we could all be having icecream by now. I'm starting to get real sick of this anti-icecream propaganda he's spreading here, it shows a bad attitude and intolerant nature against frozen treats. Should we just sit by and take that shit?
goluhaque wrote: No,no. We must not. Come comrades and let us rebel against this intolerant person. This is no ordinary injustice. It is injustice against frozen treats.. We cannot take that shit lying down. Having an ice-cream is our birth-right and we will have it. Any volunteers for this rebellion?
what flavour of ice-creams can we have? And Scarecrow can only have cake for himself!
The-Scarecrow wrote:
[quote] The evidence for evolution on the other hand, is completely overwhelming. If you look at the amount of scientific literature devoted to explaining, reviewing, and trying to falsify the theory you'll see that the evidence for evolution is far greater than the evidence for the theory of gravity. You cannot deny evolution without denying the foundation of science and the scientific method.
This is what I was saying about the 'this person is smarter than you so they must be right' look at history think of such things as the world being flat. Vast opinion rarely dictates truth and often its the person 'yelling' the loudest who has the least evidence. Now take a step back and look at what side of the argument has control of schools, university s, governments and ask yourself how could it be anything but. History has proven that 1 free thinkers contribution can outweigh 10,000 books written by educated men.
[/quote]
O.k. now that you've rejected the scientific method in favor of conspiracy theories… Can you explain anything?
your computer is a magical box constructed by the computer gods. Universities are controlled by the government to lie to us. The world probably did not exist before you were born because any evidence of it having existed is a primary source that cannot be empirically verified.
Do you have any evidence that the world is not flat? Anyone who has seen it, photographed it, measures it, or anything is surely lying. NASA is controlled by the government.
If you reject everything that is not in your immediate field of view, you have the same comprehension as a goldfish. Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the universe works.
Edit: To answer some other big questions… 1.The christian god does not exist. Nor do any of the other gods from any other mythologies. The only way you can say there is a god and be right is if you redefine god. The bible is demonstrably wrong in many of its claims and there is no reason to think that it would be right on this claim. 2. Your consciousness does not extend past your death.
popular thought plays a vital part in accepting anything. Remember that Hitler, for example, got to power because of public votes, not because he just taught it would be cool.
so, naturally there are people who control popular opinion, and it tends to show over and over again. Like Lenin once said, A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
but generally I don't know why anyone would want to lie about how life on earth began. (enter judeo-masonic conspiracy theory here)
[edit]What are the claims the bible made that were way off? Give us some examples, just curious, and besides, how can you know that a person's consciousness doesn't extend after the person's death? It's not as if you were dead once, so that's some of the few things we can't draw our conclusions on so quickly.
fuser wrote: [quote]goluhaque wrote: No,no. We must not. Come comrades and let us rebel against this intolerant person. This is no ordinary injustice. It is injustice against frozen treats.. We cannot take that shit lying down. Having an ice-cream is our birth-right and we will have it. Any volunteers for this rebellion?
what flavour of ice-creams can we have? And Scarecrow can only have cake for himself! [/quote] HBH calling to all programmers, create an algorithm to create as many as 48550 different flavours so all HBHers/HBHians(that is except The-Scarecrow) can have a different flavour for themselves. And yes, this conclusion is based on the assumption that there are no HBHians/HBHers in the rival camp .
You sad, miserable war-mongering fools. "Warning" a person just because he has a different opinion? "Marching" towards seemingly easy "prey" because somehow your opinions are more valid than his? Like a free thinker out-thinks a hundred thousands educated men (and women, for that matter), a fool just outclassed a hundred thousand free thinkers.
Shame on you, shame on you and your pitchforks.
spyware wrote: [quote]ynori7 wrote: I'm pretty sure it's been about ice cream all along.
Oh look, there's the useless tyrant of an admin. How nice of you to join us.[/quote] Oh, yes, ynori, glad you could finally join us. Me and this tyrant of an op have been waiting for a while; you'll have to excuse his bad attitude, he's just cranky because he doesn't have much power in your domain.
Is COM always like this? Oh, and COM I have a friend as well his name is maturity, you guys should meet.
But I have come up with a valid argument. Evolution is to busy with it bickering over 'was it 2.75 or 2.74 billion years ago that life was created', to worry about the simple fact of if we did evolve where did the elements come from? constants? and other governing laws?
The-Scarecrow wrote: Is COM always like this? Oh, and COM I have a friend as well his name is maturity, you guys should meet.
But I have come up with a valid argument. Evolution is to busy with it bickering over 'was it 2.75 or 2.74 billion years ago that life was created', to worry about the simple fact of if we did evolve where did the elements come from? constants? and other governing laws? Taking the liberty to speak for myself here: no, I am not always like this. I'm simply bored and entertaining myself with any plaything I happen to find fun. Also, you obviously don't know your friend very well then, maybe you should actually pay some attention to him from time to time.
So, could you explain to us how that argument is valid or in any form relevant to this topic?
The-Scarecrow wrote: COM do we have a problem here? Obviously we do; I just asked you a question about your supposed valid argument and you aren't answering it. Now if you'd care to elaborate on your previous statement instead of being busy trying to look mature in a petty argument, we might get somewhere. If you actually were mature, you would've been able to see this, obviously this time around, you will. So, I repeat what I asked once more: could you explain to us how that argument [two posts ago] is valid or in any form relevant to this topic?
Don't let me down this time kid, I'm actually expecting an honest, well thought-out answer and I'm not just asking to be a dick.
The-Scarecrow wrote: But I have come up with a valid argument. Evolution is to busy with it bickering over 'was it 2.75 or 2.74 billion years ago that life was created', to worry about the simple fact of if we did evolve where did the elements come from? constants? and other governing laws?
OK. Agreed Science has yet not found the true origin of life. But there are theories which completely fulfill the conditions.> The classic experiment demonstrating the mechanisms by which inorganic elements could combine to form the precursors of organic chemicals was the 1950 experiment by Stanley Miller. He undertook experiments designed to find out how lightning - simulated by repeated electrical discharges - might have affected the primitive earth atmosphere. He discharged an electric spark into a mixture thought to resemble the primordial composition of the atmosphere. In a water receptacle, designed to model an ancient ocean, amino acids appeared. Amino acids are widely regarded as the building blocks of life.
Although the primitive atmosphere is no longer believed to be as rich in hydrogen as was once thought, the discovery that the Murchison meteorite contains the same amino acids obtained by Miller, and even in the same relative proportions, strongly suggests that his results are relevant.
At last intelligence. Thank you goluhaque.
While miller did do some truly extraordinary things, to use this as proof for the creation of life is illogical. when you take a step back and have a close look at what Miller achieved it isn't as amazing as 'creating life'.
Miller created 2 proteins out of the 42 needed to create basic life. These 2 proteins were 'born' into a toxic destructive soup. He did this using unreasonable test conditions (though later scrutinized). Miller was a LONG way off creating life and since miller no one has come any closer. If anything this demonstrates how well designed and fragile life really is.
Food for thought. Q: How does an element fuse past iron?
The-Scarecrow wrote: well you fuse hydrogen into helium under huge pressure and heat. now you can keep doing this until you get to iron, when you try and do it to iron it takes more energy than is created so it stops the process. Supernovas, man. All the elements before Iron are created in stars during normal periods of nuclear fusion reactions. When a Supernova occurs, the heat and pressure increase many times and further heavier elements are formed. Watch Discovery Channel.
EDIT:Can anyone tell me why my userbar is showing the rank of peck94(whoever that is)? No other problems like login etc. though.
The-Scarecrow wrote: At last intelligence. Thank you goluhaque.
Well, I'm glad you found some as you seem to be needing all of it you can get, seeing as you've yet to be able to answer a simple question.
Anyhow, nice to see you dropping in goluhaque, seeing as The-Scarecrow is being a child and ignoring big mean old me, I'll talk to you instead. I don't understand why you answered an unrelated question to this topic as if related. Since we're comparing evolution and intelligent design, the creation itself is of no interest. Evolution doesn't answer it and isn't here to answer it and as such can't be expected to; intelligent design provides no explanation for the creation either besides "something did it". This leads to there having to be a reasonable scientific explanation lest you admit to supernatural forces (which intelligent design strives for btw) and since then we've entered the realm of religion, it is irrelevant to this argument as The-Scarecrow suddenly decided about 2 pages into the argument that it has nothing to do with religion… for some reason. This actually forcing the whole basis and value of any argument from the side of intelligent design nonexistant in this debate. In fact, the debate itself is of a faulty nature if we're going to compare the two sides as they are since the only reason they are compared in the first place isn't because of creation, it's because of how people want to view the current state of life and whether it has always been disparate like it is now, or if it all evolved from the same point. So these two theories are of unequal nature to start with, if anything it should be intelligent design vs. science, not that that'll yield any better results since none of faith based arguments can be scientifically proven.
Food for thought. Q: How does an element fuse past iron? well you fuse hydrogen into helium under huge pressure and heat. now you can keep doing this until you get to iron, when you try and do it to iron it takes more energy than is created so it stops the process. You do it by using more energy than is released. There is no reason for the process to stop just because more energy would be required than would be released. In fact, your whole understanding of this is lacking as there is a base rule which we all should know, that is: energy cannot be created or destroyed. Take a physics class or two, seriously, it's very educational and interesting.
Edit: So, if anybody wants to continue this useless debate about creation vs. post-creation, please do so, I thank you all for the entertainment.
COM i didn't answer you are nothing more than a silly little girl that likes the attention. COM, there are more than 1 form of Evolution. There is Macro evolution, micro evolution, cosmic evolution, elemental evolution. But your narrow mindedness has neglected to recognize any.
Where did words like faith and religion come into it? We are talking science.
Evolution outside Micro Evolution is not science. look up any meaning of science and you will find that the theory's of evolution fall outside of it. Can it be tested? NO. can it be observed? NO.
The debate of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design is simple. Did the universe come about by itself or was it designed?
You do it by using more energy than is released. There is no reason for the process to stop just because more energy would be required than would be released. In fact, your whole understanding of this is lacking as there is a base rule which we all should know, that is: energy cannot be created or destroyed. Take a physics class or two, seriously, it's very educational and interesting.
This made myself and my roommates twist up our faces. All of us have studied Nuclear Physics. The only place known where elements are fused is on a star. Hydrogen joins with hydrogen and creates helium, there is a positive difference in mass and because of the relationship between mass and energy the star gets a lot hotter. This process happens right through the elements until it gets to Iron. It takes more energy than is created to fuse iron. So the more iron the star fuses the more heat is taken out of the star until the star collapses and as goluhaque said it supernovas. Now it is theorized that when this happens it joins lots and lots of elements creating all that we have today. But the only evidence that this IS what happened is that when you already assume that earth evolved, 'so it must have happened' argument. Very poor circular logic.
wolfmankurd wrote: I really don't understand who is on which side in this thread? MoshBat wrote: God squad side. wolfmankurd wrote: I didn't think anyone believed in god anymore.
MoshBat wrote: All retards do. Looks like you've finally stopped denying your retardation, mosh. Good for you.
EDIT:
The-Scarecrow wrote: The only place known where elements are fused is on a star. That's not the only way one element can change into another. Atoms can split on their own. Uranium does it all the time. There are also some acids that can dissolve metals and leave different elements behind. Look up aqua regia and radioactive decay.
Still not sure what all this chemistry and physics has to do with the topic though.
@everyone who read this thread don't laugh at moshbat ;) how old are you again mosh?
Sigh. You're clueless silvercats.
01:03 < MoshBat> Argh. I'm tired. Make sure you point out these things if he doesn't catch on: 01:03 < MoshBat> I posted the biggest argument against Intelligent Design whilst claiming faith. 01:03 < MoshBat> Slightly derogatory term for Bible Bashers. 01:03 < MoshBat> Calling religious people retards. 01:03 < MoshBat> Highlighting the main reason Religion still exists, and pretending there's nothing wrong with it.
MoshBat wrote:]
@everyone who actually read my posts for what they are, don't laugh at silvercats.
Didn't know you where 16.
And I can't help but laugh at this person.
01:03 < MoshBat> Argh. I'm tired. Make sure you point out these things if he
doesn't catch on:
01:03 < MoshBat> I posted the biggest argument against Intelligent Design
whilst claiming faith.
01:03 < MoshBat> Slightly derogatory term for Bible Bashers.
01:03 < MoshBat> Calling religious people retards.
01:03 < MoshBat> Highlighting the main reason Religion still exists, and
pretending there's nothing wrong with it.```
ups! :D
The-Scarecrow wrote: To the guy taking cheap shots at moshbat 2 words Oort cloud.
We cannot explain how this works so obviously the most likely thing that happened is that our lifted-from-mistranslated-upon-mistranslated-Bible Judeo-Christian god did it.
It's classic, really, stringing myth with the unknown. God is like the monster under your bed when you were a kid. He's gonna eat you. Boooo.
The-Scarecrow wrote: Ynoiri7 the only place known where fusion occurs is the sun. I think you have your wires crossed. I think what your thinking off is fission. Nuclear decay is something entirely different again. I'm aware that they're different processes. I was just pointing out that there are other processes which produce a similar result which we do know how to harness. Whether or not that's really relevant, I don't know. I was just spouting out some facts hoping that I'd manage to uncover the actual point behind this whole discussion because I still don't see it.
@The-Scarecrow: Stop hitting yourself. Stop hitting yourself. Stop hitting yourself.
@silvercats: Stop being mean. I believe in God too and don't see what's wrong with that. My parents believed in God too and I love my parents and I'd like to not have to read smack about how they raised their child when they did their best and it's our faith.
Also, wolfie (ok if I call you wolfie? ^_^), that answers your question of which side I'm on, also, obviously I'm on icecream's side.
@COM have you ever watched "Invention of lying?" if you haven't you better watch.I think that(the thing in the movie) is what happened actually about GOD thing lol.i wasn't mean……i just tried to speak the reality.BUT ANYONE CAN BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE.
The-Scarecrow wrote: Ynoiri7 the only place known where fusion occurs is the sun. I think you have your wires crossed. I think what your thinking off is fission. Nuclear decay is something entirely different again. To the guy taking cheap shots at moshbat 2 words Oort cloud. eh? only In the Sun? Did I see right? I think it should rather be All stars, Tomahawk Reactors, laboratories, Hydrogen Bombs, Quasars etc.
The-Scarecrow wrote: [quote]eh? only In the Sun? Did I see right? I think it should rather be All stars, Tomahawk Reactors, laboratories, Hydrogen Bombs, Quasars etc.
Context. Which one of those fuse from hydrogen past iron again?[/quote] I could not understand that again part. If you mean which of these things/objects ultimately produce Iron then it will be All Stars and since Quasars were Stars, I guess you can put them in that category.
markupI could not understand that again part. If you mean which of these things/objects ultimately produce Iron then it will be All Stars and since Quasars were Stars, I guess you can put them in that category.
Mmmmm, I guess Concentrating on insignificant details and missing main concepts is just your thing.