Welcome to Gaia! ::


Tenacious Sage

Exploding Periods
mittiez
can u come up w/ anything better



Do you really agree that they do actually explain how the earth or today came to be from the past?
If the earth was made of hot molten rock nothing would be able to withstand the heat. It would be a 2nd sun. How would water be on earth if there were no clouds?
We evolved through organism/bacteria? Do you really believe that?
If humans were animals, then why aren't all animals intelligent like us?
You can't measure bone or rocks by age it's impossible. Human bones can be stone with water and being in the ground by 14 years.



Well, I hop this ain't troll bait 'cause I'm taking a shot.

1) Yes I do. I personally don't think the Big Bang is the best explanation, but nothing yet has come to prove anything else so it stands for now.
2) Okie no. Planets are not made like that. Planets are made of dust particles and little chunks of rock that collided with each other over time (snowball effect) to create planets. Pressure will make the Earths mantle plus the energy from Earth's collisions with other objects. Also, stars are forms with light gases under huge pressure and not heavy elements made form rocks since if a star cannot heat enough heat from fusion to keep the core intact it does collapse
3) Considering it took 3 billion years to get here, it's believable. It's a long time and mutations are plentiful in a sloppy science like genetics
4) If you think about it, evolution doesn't like smart things because in order to become smart you spend a longer time being relatively helpless as your brain matures. Basically time when you're a walking steak. Which is why some really stupid creatures have survives for hundreds of millions of years. Now what was special about us is that we arose during a time in Africa where the climate was crazy volatile and since we couldn't evolve back to a more simple scrounger non-specialist, intelligence was the next best deal. Our pack-like behavior also gave us a place to defend our young during their walking steak period.
5) It's measured in half-lives of radioactive materials or by understanding when it could be formed by geological shifts. It's actually not that hard with a fancy processing machine

Magical Senshi

LouIou

It's a theory, ergo people have opinions of it. Just because an explanation of it is provided, doesn't refer to why people would actually believe it, Science has it's flaws. She doesn't generally have to provide her reasoning for an opinion, it's just preferred. If you looked above your post, she provided her reason anyway. Scientifically, the earth became a hot molten rock during the reaction, yet if something at a much lower degree than what we predict the temperature the Earth was at during the reaction, not only does the bacteria either become dormant or destroyed at a high heat, I'm assuming you've never heard of combustion? Now in complete combustion, the hydrogen oxidises to water, an oxide of hydrogen. But that would mean oxygen is present in the first place, I guess that could somewhat explain how water came onto the earth, as the seabed does have some rocky remains, however: nobody in this thread particular is arguing that case, so I don't know why anyone is expecting the argument to be one-sided, if you believe you have some reason to oppose to thread, it would be nice for you to state so as this is up for debate.

Tipsy Lunatic

Caimbrie
LouIou

It's a theory, ergo people have opinions of it. Just because an explanation of it is provided, doesn't refer to why people would actually believe it, Science has it's flaws. She doesn't generally have to provide her reasoning for an opinion, it's just preferred. If you looked above your post, she provided her reason anyway. Scientifically, the earth became a hot molten rock during the reaction, yet if something at a much lower degree than what we predict the temperature the Earth was at during the reaction, not only does the bacteria either become dormant or destroyed at a high heat, I'm assuming you've never heard of combustion? Now in complete combustion, the hydrogen oxidises to water, an oxide of hydrogen. But that would mean oxygen is present in the first place, I guess that could somewhat explain how water came onto the earth, as the seabed does have some rocky remains, however: nobody in this thread particular is arguing that case, so I don't know why anyone is expecting the argument to be one-sided, if you believe you have some reason to oppose to thread, it would be nice for you to state so as this is up for debate.
i'm not going to sit here and pretend I've done my homework, just sayin' its a poor opener considering none of us were actually there

i'm no scientist and judging by your eagerness to turn this into a personal attack, you're mostly full of s**t too.
The lack of science in this thread is disheartening.

millipanda's Husbando

Consumer

-does 360 and walks away-
Caimbrie

of course it's not 100%. A theory isn't 100% which is why it's a theory and not a fact. That being said, a theory still means it's widely accepted and though it can't be proved 100%, through observation and experimentation, you can get repeated results that heavily suggest your hypothesis. This ability to repeatedly get the same results and see small scale evolution essentially proves it's a fact. If you know anything of the scientific community though, you'd know that it's extremely strict on what they'll allow to become a scientific law. Only once there's 0 doubt whatsoever that it's true. The only thing keeping people from seeing evolution as a natural law is the fact that we didn't see every species evolve with our own eyes. There has been countless studies and experimentation on the subject. People haven't just started blindly believing in this after one dude suggested it. People believe it because there's A TON of proof for it and very little against it.

I also don't think you have any idea what you're talking about with enzymes. Evolution is caused by small isolated mutations that take place over large periods of time. I have no idea what enzymes you're referring to or where you're getting your information

Evolution doesn't work like pokemon which is where i'm guessing you're getting your facts. Apes didn't evolve once they hit level 32. Again, through a series of small mutations, humans eventually were born after millions of years. One ape had some small mutation and then through reproduction that ape's great great great great grandchild may have had another small mutation. That continued for millions of years. It's possible that, that family tree mated with another family that had mutations in it's genes and over time something resembling a human was born. This all probably happened in an isolated region which is why not every ape evolved at the same time, because again. We don't like in Kanto.

As with evolution, there is A TON of evidence supporting the big bang or some event that is similar to our idea of the big bang. Looking at cosmic background radiation will tell you that alone.

With your mermaid example, again, you're looking at evolution in pokemon terms. We aren't in Johto either.
If you forced humans to live in aquatic conditions, I assume you meant forced them to live in the ocean, they wouldn't evolve at all. They would die. That's because humans can't survive millions of years at sea which is what it would take for them to evolve into mermaids. The only possible chance of a branch of humans evolving into mermaids would be a settlement living on or near water and someone was born with some kind of mermaid like trait and everyone were to be like "Wow, that seems really useful to our survival! I want to mate with that person so that my children will hopefully have that same trait and be able to survive better." That won't happen though because in today's society, survival is so ridiculously easy and we would look at someone with scales or gills or something as a freak and no one would have kids with them, most likely. Therefore, humans probably aren't evolving anymore because we look at mutations as being awful and don't want anything to do with them.

I love that you have that definition of theory at the bottom, it's a good definition, and then you completely ignore it. Even with a solid definition in front of you, you still confuse hypothesis and theory.

Dertey's Bae


They are theories because we can't replicate the process to actually prove it works. We can only predict what might have happened. We are limited with current technology to uncover those loopholes.
However, many technological advances such as bioinformatics, genetic manipulation etc have supported and advanced many of the theories to date.

I feel that people who don't believe in evolution aren't educated enough in this area. I don't mean to offend anyone, but it's the truth.

Alien Lightbringer

Quote:
How would water be on earth if there were no clouds?

omg ^^ so cute


seriously, an alternative theory with lots of backup is that we are a cross breed with more evolved alien species who, partially,have been mistaken as gods; and the biblical god is partly the spiritual god, partly the aliens.

zacharia sitchin (sumerian history) for example is a good source for that theory if you're interested ^^

Magical Senshi

BuzKillington


Of course, that is one of the building blocks for theories, that they can't be proven and they're not based on fact. Well, as Science goes, seeing it wouldn't be sufficient proof, my entire point. You don't know about enzymes? The enzymes in apes and humans are supposedly similar, if you thought I was making pokemon references, I don't see how they were even linked. Also, if we're going to talk about pokemon, not all pokemon evolve at level 32, just pointing that out. For some reason, you assume my facts are coming from pokemon, which is pretty funny, considering I don't really play pokemon to begin with, so I'd be the worst person to know factual knowledge on pokemon, besides a lot of relating to greek mythology. Now you talk about the mutation within apes, now you really have not done your research at all, have you? Or I'm mistaking things, but if you read here.

A lot of evolutionists disagree that apes came from humans due to the fact of the enzyme structure, however they do believe there is a link between them and humans, as stated in the link I gave you. Yes, it's true only a particular group that was isolated evolved, or supposedly evolved anyway. The small isolated mutations were the course of selective breeding, now the enzymes that are within those beings relate to humans, which ergo created the human evolution, as the enzymes in apes and humans were similar, Darwin believed that humans evolved from apes. Now, most Scientific evolutionists don't believe that apes evolved to humans, but rather they had an ancestor making them related, which isn't too far off from apes evolving to humans in a way, as it still suggest we're related. Now, although there is some possible insight of actual evolution, it only shows adapting to their surroundings rather than genetic evolution. Now, if it was true that evolution did exist, why aren't they fossils? It's true, that Science is still looking for fossils, but why is it, that in all these years since the theory was created, why haven't we found a single one? Yes, there isn't fact to prove or not prove it, but that is the reason why there will be some people who don't believe in it, not due to their intelligence, but their own opinion.

I know about cosmic background radiation, but you do realize it's not exact proof that the big bang happened, right? It just proves something did happen, but CMBR went through phase-transitions. Radiation changes, which is why it's not sufficient proof. The radiation in the universe is diminishing, if I was given a good reason with evidence that it was true, I'd have believed in it, of course. A lot of people would have. Although, I think you enjoy insulting me with those pokemon references, I have no idea where "Johto" is nor do I care. No, I'm looking at aquatic research where mythical creatures were believed to have existed or yet still do, as there is "siren" sounds which are recorded and detected via ultra sound. Of course, it's not true, but if mermaids did exist, they would prove evolution's existence. Get what I'm saying? The siren sounds detected have found to supposedly kill aquatic creatures as aquatic creatures often have sensitive hearing, such as whales. They detect even the smallest of sounds. Now, if something was strong enough, it would kill them. This is the belief of mermaids, that they kill aquatic creatures and that is how they survive and they supposedly exist. Now, if they were to exist, that would explain a lot of aquatic killings recently. The research that was found, that suggest during a long period of settlements near water, humans evolved into mermaids, or sirens in a way. I think of them as sirens, the way they described them at least. But by aquatic conditions, I didn't refer to the ocean, there is caves in which are formed nearby oceans or islands, however the ocean was the most reasonable explanation according to research.

Now "I never said people started blindly believing it, I said there wasn't enough proof for multiple people to believe it."

Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

Hypothesis: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

A hypothesis creates a theory. The theory can be proven wrong or right if evidence is presented or some factual data. I really don't care too much how the big bang created, the human evolution is another thing. Why aren't the dead humans that had supposedly evolved have no remaining data on their bones (yes, I know bones change, but the fossils are observed from the moment they are found) providing the data needed for evolution? It is possible to find evidence of anything, you just have to look in the right place. I know you said that, I never said you didn't. It's just that not everyone is going to believe it with a lack of evidence, so nobody can technically complain if they don't believe it, which also states that nobody complain about them believing it in a way, as it's mostly down to fact and opinion. But what I'm wanting is, you to actually prove me wrong and explain to me how I am wrong.


LouIou

And you assumed this was an attack - you yet jumped to conclusions, it's a debate, there is going to be some arguments. There are differences, you just kept pointing out it was too vague, yes it was to vague for an opening post, but before saying it's too vague and then complain about that's it a horrible way of explaining, at least explain why you believe the opinion is wrong, otherwise you just look silly.

Magical Senshi

"why don't we compare the records of animals from 1870's to the ones in 2000's? Surely if evolution existed, and if it had to occur rapidly, then shouldn't evolution still be occurring?"

The minor evolution, adaptation isn't even enough to prove evolution. Opinion doesn't dictate education, the evidence and data to back up the opinion shows how much education a person has.

"Well, every physical molecule must have a beginning, or something that caused it to exist
thus going back and asking "where did that come from? and where did that come from?" you eventually lead to the fact that there has to be one thing that is infinite and has always been in order for any physical. I.e. Something cannot come from nothing, and if you have something, you will always have something. if you have nothing, you will always have nothing".

EDIT: This really shouldn't be in the CB.
And to those who believe that they would die, wouldn't that apply to creatures before they evolved into aquatic creatures? I mean, say as if a gas cloud formed or something as such created water, wouldn't they have to adapt to the water to actually survive? Wouldn't they die both ways? I mean, why did it take so long to happen, yet the evidence was supposedly destroyed so quickly? There should be fossil remains to indicate something. Also, if the hot world was really hot, due to carbon dioxide as claimed, the creatures would supposedly be fairly large, such as in Mars, there is a lot of carbon dioxide and dust, supposedly, there is men on mars in which are giant sized and this is because of the carbon dioxide, Science is just.. Lord. But either way, this is just for debate and not to associate with trolling, I don't mind being proven wrong at all, but I'd really like something to actually help me understand I'm wrong, even if this is up for debate, I so far disagree with everything is said and I'm sorry if my opinion of evolution being wrong shows I'm uneducated or annoying, but it really shouldn't be that big of an issue.

Blessed Girl

17,300 Points
  • Married 100
  • Invisibility 100
  • Divorced 100
Lsi4821
Name one counter arguement published by a reputable source that says otherwise. You cant

It's mere theories, not evidence if I were to even to provide one for you. Your mind is made up.

Why are people against the creationalism?

Blessed Girl

17,300 Points
  • Married 100
  • Invisibility 100
  • Divorced 100
Smoke CIoud
you're right
the bible has 0 loopholes



I didn't no mention the bible at all.


francis crick

that is all

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum