creationist vs evolutionists debate, the big one.

I'm just wondering.. through evolution, would it be possible to change the number of chromosomes rendering the previous generation to be unable to produce offspring, as in they gained a mutation that turned out to be (That d word for a gene that can overshadow the thing...) Yeah...

So, in evolution, is it possible to gain or lose chromosomes?

@buck: Hitler was acting like God, he chose who lived, and who died. He also nastied his niece. He was very opinionated, and knew of the principles of evolution through "Natural selection". Of course it was a crime, but I just thought it'd be fun to answer that...

Also, no double posting.

 

i give up on you you really are a tard I'm not going to bother flaming your ass cause it wasted if you really did not understand that video or thought it was stupid your a muppet, did you even take anything for it or try to stupidly refute someone that is an expert. and i don't trust a word you say as you have already shown that allot of what you are saying is clearly wrong, misguided and the same wrong shit i hear from creationists (exclusivity creationists every one else has intelligence, come on god gave it to you so use it).

you asked about transitional species and i gave you a video from an expert on the subject so rather then making me hate you for being stupid why don't you post me something similar so i can see where your coming from.

 

i did watch the entire video with an open mind, but it seemed like they were just defending evolution and not proving it... idk
plus you don't have to be such an asshole about it. im just trying to have a friendly debate...

 

sorry for being an asshole, i just get really pissed of when i hear yet another person spouting misguided rubbish been given to them from sources that are wrong in the first place.

i have nothing against faith and belief but if it makes someone stupid i do.

maybe its you're perspective, that video made perfect sense to me and even if it seemed defensive to you(partly because it is as it is defending against the stupidity that is creationism and its misguided notions of what evolution actually is) did you not take from it the evidence he produced.

again please post something of interest from a source you like to gain information from maybe a small video of a similar nature arguing you're side from an expert or similar that represents your understanding. (and possible something more on the why creationism is right not something that wrongly interprets science)

i'm always well up for the debate if something of substance comes along but not one person has yet offered any sort of substantial argument

 

Evolution makes the world grow bigger and stronger. Survival of the fitest. Survival of the fitest.

 

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=19804512

its a well made video disproving evolution.

 

his first crit of the theory of evolution is that scientists cannot create life in a lab, and that cloning is only a manipulation of matter, not actually creating it...now heres the problem with this first critique

it is very true that scientific theories are indeed models that can be disproven with even the slightest bit of contradictory evidence, but thats how science works, finding contradictory evidence is a good thing, it means that the theoretical model can be restructured to fit new findings. science starts with the evidence and from the evidence extroplates theories, not like religion which starts with the theory as truth and then seeks find evidence to prove it...but thats not the real reason why his first critique is shaky

while he talks about cloning he bashes scientists for not being able to create matter right...well we do indeed know that energy is a form of matter...and that both have multiple forms...we also know that energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely changed from one form to another...so essentially, the particles that formed atoms that formed single cell organisms werent created really, but changed from one form to another, a guiding principle in physics...thus cloning can be seen as the creation of life if the creation of life means changing matter and energy into different forms rather than conjuring it out of thin air.

oh as far i can tell...there is no such thing as dead matter...dont know why he likes that word so much...matter is matter, just in a different form. as we already know, nothing comes out of thin air, everything had to already be here, just in different forms, to be able to be changed over billions of years. he bashes evolution for life springing from nothing and random chance, but thats not the case, its already been explained that life came from particles, that changed forms and so on and so forth.

i love that line, you cant get something from nothing hehehehe this guy cracks me up...i love how he assumes that science thinks that stuff just came out of a puff of smoking heehee hes hilarious. hahahah oh my god and then shows you the picture of a baby...please whos buying the crap hes peddling?

oh my word!!!! im sorry i tried to take this video seriously i really did i even tried to give honest and truthful critique on it but i cant anymore. the guy is obviously a comedian...hehehe the fruitfly bit with the radiation bombardment sounds...im loling so hard...

 

dude seriously i said expert or similar, the creator of this video is Multimedia Apologetics (sounds like a chreistain organization to me)

most if not all of what was said was wrong misguided and stupid it also plays as usual on things said by scientist or misquotes it badly and reinterprets what has been said to fit their cause. and it was appropriately explained in the video i posted.

he contradicts him self and for the love of your god it uses the thermo dynamic argument which is stupid really really stupid (again its a complete lack of understanding of science)

oh come on!! (i'm posting gradually while i am watching) this is so utterly ridiculous

really oh my, this is really bad

finished finally!

i'm sorry for being such an asshole to you now i know its not your fault its because you listen to this tripe

please please stop watching things like that you are making your self stupider, if you want information stop watching things produced by or for Christians but instead experts on the subject (and i don't mean one of those idiots that have fake PHD's from places like the university of christian science)

that was a very poorly made video and did nothing but show the stupidity of the people producing it and the people listening to it.
he try's to pick apart (badly) evolution with a shit load of misguided and blatantly wrong information and a few misquotes against masses upon masses of real evidence which he claimed was not there.

i can only say try again but i fear for what will come next.....

 

disproving evolution??? haha my ass. i think the man in the sky is the one disproved. i can sit here and tear apart religion all day with science and logic(religion hates those) but i just would like to point out the fact that we have to update our flu vaccines every year because the virus constantly adjusts to our medicine. it actually learns to feed of our medicine that fast. in other words it evolves.

if that isn't evolution then....... what is it?

 

it could be that GOD did it
hahaha

im joking of course

also another thing i wanted to say
this topic is about creationists vs evolutionists
but it seems more like christianity vs evolutionists...
there are more religions that believe that the universe was created by god or some sort of entity
just saying...

 

ok sorry but i didn't watch that video all the way through so idk if it said some stupid shit or anything... but i have a question, if evolution is true then we should have the most valueable traits (survival of the fittest) then wouldn't we have fur? I mean wouldn't that be very valuable for our ancestors to have had?

 

only Christians have stated their opinions so far, we had a Hindu darma guy but he did not mention his thoughts on the subject.

that's not how it works

why do you need fur when you learn ways to keep warm (clothes, fire ect)

 

You know what I hate? Ignorance.

To clear a point loony made, the bible has been changed. and it is probably false.
Say what you want about it, but overwhelming evidence shows that the current bibles are different in some way from the original bible. Want proof? Here it is http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html, and this is a bonushttp://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm although you PROBABLY wouldn't believe it anyway.

And finally, we need to let the cat out of the bag, ladies and gentlemen. No one claimed humans come from monkeys. We have mostly the same DNA, which means that we share a common ancestor with monkeys. We did not "digivolve" from monkeys to humans with a flick of a Digivice wristwatch. That's fucking absurd, and everyone knows it. Stop straw man - ing and make a coherent argument. Evolutionary science also uses a microcosm of evolution (micro-evolution) to explain a macrocosm of evolution (macro-evolution). Just because you can't see macro-evolution with your own eyes, it doesn't mean that it isn't happening. It's also the same way with God, isn't it?

Note: I'm no atheist, just a skeptic, questioning Muslim.

 

not to mention that its (the new testament) a compilation of many different books, scriptures, writings and stories from different times and by different authors. this is why its fragmented and often contradictory.
also there is the overwhelming historical evidence that the people that made christianity and "sped the word" originally, actively fudged document and historical record to fit Jesus in to it.
also when they made the (brand spanking) new testament they choose what to put in and what to leave out so their image of Jesus looks perfect.
most Christians don't even know that there was more gospels that are in the bible and they all shed completely different lights on him, it's actually really interesting if you learn about (but you have to have no religious bias at all to do it) like for instance they recently found the gospel of judas which portrays a completely different story to that of the bible.

 

i'm not saying it's about religion. my point is that scientifically speaking 6 days in the bible is like 6 billions of years ago. and this will slap you in the face.

 

i know the possibility of a different translation but where debating the creationist argument that it was actually 6 days and the world is only meant to be 6000 years old which is bullshit so what is your point cause i could even sit here and make up plausible god creation stories for the dim but whats the point.

 

Ye cannot prove that with a single friggin' book

 

who said i was talking about a book, read carefully einstein it's freakin science.