Evolution Dun Exist Because...

[Sir Real]

Originally posted by Sazerac: Sir Real, when debating others: 1) Do not respond in all caps. This is called SHOUTING, and it's considered extremely rude. 2) Please keep your remarks impersonal. Attack the idea, not the person. Telling someone to "come back and please make sense" is rather demeaning. I realize you are new here, but please do show courtesy to our other members. Ironworks is basically a friendly place, and we all must do what we can to keep it that way. Thanks,

COme on that wasn't a attack,He been saying something and then saying the complete oppiset in the next post, its been driving me crazy!Look.

Originally posted by Prime2U: In what way is creation less proven? It has been believed in from the beginning of written history, and that implies that it was believed in before.

And then he go on to say.

Belief is not proof, I never said creation was MORE proven, I simply said it is not LESS proven.

See Condiction at it finest, how can belief shown that it is not less proven and then not be proof! it is senseless!
I think my comment was completly justified in this matter.
But I do agree that 'shouting' was probalby not the best thing to do (even thought I'll normal shout at someone talking such nonsesnse in real life) and I'll appoligse for it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Prime2U: You find sea life on land where there was once sea? That's very nice, I'd be pretty surprised if you didn't find the remains of sea life in a place where the sea once was. It doesn't have anything at all to do with our debate or evolution though. My arguments are completely sound, the understanding of them may be limited, but that's no fault of mine. Things can be tacked on AFTER they have enough proof to be considered theory. At this point natural selection is the only one qualified to be called a theory. I'll say this as clearly as possible. Evolution, defined as descent with modification, does happen. How does it happen? Through natural selection. This is the only true theory so far. All of the other things such as all life from the sea, or all life from a microbe, or a random big bang, are meer speculation and can only be called hypothetical at best. You have not given me any proof to prove any of these, all you have given me are increasingly angry opinions read from biased middle school textbooks. That's ok though, as I don't really expect you to give me any concrete proof, as none exists. [This message has been edited by Prime2U (edited 11-01-2001).]

Look pay attention okay!
1)Animo acids combined to form single cell life in the seas.
2)Life became more complex
3)We know this because we discovered sea life on land were sea once existed,
4)This evidence was buried under tons of earth.
5)Above this evidence in the earth was land based life
6)For this sea life to exist in the oldest layers of earth and again on moutian tops, it is blinding overious that such life existed before land based life.
7)And as we see that simple singled cells life is at the lowest level of that earth we know that it was the first form of life.




[This message has been edited by Sir Real (edited 11-01-2001).]

[Prime2U]

Originally posted by Sir Real: Look pay attention okay! 1)Animo acids combined to form single cell life in the seas. 2)Life became more complex 3)We know this because we discovered sea life on land were sea once existed, 4)This evidence was buried under tons of earth. 5)Above this evidence in the earth was land based life 6)For this sea life to exist in the oldest layers of earth and again on moutian tops, it is blinding overious that such life existed before land based life. 7)And as we see that simple singled cells life is at the lowest level of that earth we know that it was the first form of life. [This message has been edited by Sir Real (edited 11-01-2001).]

you just gave me several speculations, with no evidence. How do you know that some amino acids were floating around in the seas and then combined to form single celled life? Simply put, no one does know that, they speculate that that may be the case. You appear to have taken this speculation to heart.

I propose that once the sea covered a larger area than it now does. It left some dead sea animals on the sea floor. sedimentation took place as it does in any body of water, and buried this life. When the sea drained off, land animals took up residence on the sedimentation, and continued adding to it. The only thing obvious from this is that in that certain spot the sea was present, and then the sea retreated. And this says absolutely nothing about the sea life turning into land based life, so it really doesn't give any relevance to your argument in any case.

Know one knows if single celled life was the first type or not. there is no proof of that at all. It could have begun simultaneously with other forms of life. We just don't know. It's another speculation.

As far as my contradicting myself, no I did not. Perhaps I didn't explain things clearly enough for you to understand what I meant, and so in a later post I explained it further for you.

------------------


"Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans." - Lennon

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Sir Real: Look pay attention okay! 1)Animo acids combined to form single cell life in the seas. 2)Life became more complex 3)We know this because we discovered sea life on land were sea once existed, 4)This evidence was buried under tons of earth. 5)Above this evidence in the earth was land based life 6)For this sea life to exist in the oldest layers of earth and again on moutian tops, it is blinding overious that such life existed before land based life. 7)And as we see that simple singled cells life is at the lowest level of that earth we know that it was the first form of life. [This message has been edited by Sir Real (edited 11-01-2001).]

Sir Real, I'll give you three guesses as to where animal life begain in the seas first was stated. (oh, yea your first two guesses don't count )
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Do you give up?
*
*
*
*
*
*
Yup, you got it the Bible Genesis 1:20



------------------
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS
Airline ticket to Afghanistan $800
High powered rifle with scope $1000
Hotel room with roof access $100
A clean Head shot on that sack of Horse Manure Usuma Bin Laden PRICELESS!

[Sir Real]

Originally posted by Prime2U: you just gave me several speculations, with no evidence. How do you know that some amino acids were floating around in the seas and then combined to form single celled life? Simply put, no one does know that, they speculate that that may be the case. You appear to have taken this speculation to heart. I propose that once the sea covered a larger area than it now does. It left some dead sea animals on the sea floor. sedimentation took place as it does in any body of water, and buried this life. When the sea drained off, land animals took up residence on the sedimentation, and continued adding to it. The only thing obvious from this is that in that certain spot the sea was present, and then the sea retreated. And this says absolutely nothing about the sea life turning into land based life, so it really doesn't give any relevance to your argument in any case. Know one knows if single celled life was the first type or not. there is no proof of that at all. It could have begun simultaneously with other forms of life. We just don't know. It's another speculation. As far as my contradicting myself, no I did not. Perhaps I didn't explain things clearly enough for you to understand what I meant, and so in a later post I explained it further for you.

1)Animo Acids are the base of all life on earth, hell I learned that when I was 6.
2) the ocean covers mountians, in fact it once covered the whole freaking world but you don't get it this life is found deeper than any other there for it came first as NO other life is as old as it. AND guess what it was singled celled.

BUT enough your as just standing a saying that my belief is wrong and I defending it, hang on Where the hell are the Mod on this, this isn't a dissiuion, A discussion is whrer we both state evdenice to show how right and in your refusal to do this it go to show your blantly attacking my beleifs!

Originally posted by John D Harris: Sir Real, I'll give you three guesses as to where animal life begain in the seas first was stated. (oh, yea your first two guesses don't count ) * * * * * * * * * * * Do you give up? * * * * * * Yup, you got it the Bible Genesis 1:20

Where the *toffee* has that come from???? I never said that it didn't so what are *toffee* are you getting at here! I may of stated that the ideal that some God 'made' man to be wrong and that we evoluted over time but I haven't attack the bible, I'm not suasidal

[This message has been edited by Sir Real (edited 11-02-2001).]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Sir Real: Where the ■■■■ has that come from???? I never said that it didn't so what are ■■■■ are you getting at here! I may of stated that the ideal that some God 'made' man to be wrong and that we evoluted over time but I haven't attack the bible, I'm not suasidal

Real Mature there Sir Real, no one said you attacked the Bible.
This is where it came from, a post by you in a series of post by you to prove that evolution is fact and that the creation by God is false.
************************************************** ************
Originally posted by Sir Real:
Look pay attention okay!
1)Animo acids combined to form single cell life in the seas.
2)Life became more complex
3)We know this because we discovered sea life on land were sea once existed,
4)This evidence was buried under tons of earth.
5)Above this evidence in the earth was land based life
6)For this sea life to exist in the oldest layers of earth and again on moutian tops, it is blinding overious that such life existed before land based life.
7)And as we see that simple singled cells life is at the lowest level of that earth we know that it was the first form of life.
************************************************** *************
Talk about contradiction you use something for your side of the arguement (Creation is false, evolution is fact). When the other side uses the samething for their side you get all pissed off. Oh yea where does the creation story come from the Bible. And don't try to give me any excuses about how you were talking about Norse, Greek, or what ever Mythology. Because it is clear from you earlier posts (on this thread and another thread on the same subject)you are speaking about the major Creation story (as beleived by the Jews, Christians, and Muslims), and not some obscure ancient religion version.
(edit to remove some of the asterxs inorder try to comply with Sazerac's Edict)
(second edit for the same reason as the first I hope I got it right this time )
(well maybe the third time is the charm)
------------------
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS
Airline ticket to Afghanistan $800
High powered rifle with scope $1000
Hotel room with roof access $100
A clean Head shot on that sack of Horse Manure Usuma Bin Laden PRICELESS!

[This message has been edited by John D Harris (edited 11-01-2001).]

[This message has been edited by John D Harris (edited 11-02-2001).]

[This message has been edited by John D Harris (edited 11-02-2001).]

[Sir Real]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Real Mature there Sir Real, no one said you attacked the Bible. This is where it came from, a post by you in a series of post by you to prove that evolution is fact and that the creation by God is false. ***************************** Originally posted by Sir Real: Look pay attention okay! 1)Animo acids combined to form single cell life in the seas. 2)Life became more complex 3)We know this because we discovered sea life on land were sea once existed, 4)This evidence was buried under tons of earth. 5)Above this evidence in the earth was land based life 6)For this sea life to exist in the oldest layers of earth and again on moutian tops, it is blinding overious that such life existed before land based life. 7)And as we see that simple singled cells life is at the lowest level of that earth we know that it was the first form of life. ************************************** Talk about contradiction you use something for your side of the arguement (Creation is false, evolution is fact). When the other side uses the samething for their side you get all pissed off. Oh yea where does the creation story come from the Bible. And don't try to give me any excuses about how you were talking about Norse, Greek, or what ever Mythology. Because it is clear from you earlier posts you are speaking about the major Creation story (as beleived by the Jews, Christians, and Muslims), and not some obscure ancient religion version.

Okay freaky shit My post didn't contain what I wrote but the what I wrote in a post before I tryed to delete it and then edit it because I miss read John D Harris post.


Okay that post that you use for a reason is not saying anywhere in it that the bible didn't say fish life existed first and after being rasied as a christan I don't remember that passage by heck I'm rusty so you know better.
The point of that post was to tell Prime2U that they is evidence that life existed in the sea first not who said it first, Heck it should have Prime2U name instead of mine becuase he the one denying it. Now I amite that I called the story of creation fictious but the theory of Evolution proves that in my eyes.

So I'm sorry for jumping to the ideal that you attack me but I couldn't see what that post had to with anything I had said and was angery with having to explain another post to Prime2U (no offence intended).

[This message has been edited by Sir Real (edited 11-02-2001).]

[Prime2U]

Originally posted by Sir Real: Okay freaky shit My post didn't contain what I wrote but the what I wrote in a post before I tryed to delete it and then edit it because I miss read John D Harris post. Okay that post that you use for a reason is not saying anywhere in it that the bible didn't say fish life existed first and after being rasied as a christan I don't remember that passage by heck I'm rusty so you know better. The point of that post was to tell Prime2U that they is evidence that life existed in the sea first not who said it first, Heck it should have Prime2U name instead of mine becuase he the one denying it. Now I amite that I called the story of creation fictious but the theory of Evolution proves that in my eyes. So I'm sorry for jumping to the ideal that you attack me but I couldn't see what that post had to with anything I had said and was angery with having to explain another post to Prime2U (no offence intended). [This message has been edited by Sir Real (edited 11-02-2001).]

Actually, the very first thing I'll say is that I never denied sea life came first. I know Genesis just as John does. I deny that there is any proof that sea life became the land animals.

I should add that although I believe that sea life came first, there is not enough scientific proof of that to make it certain. The only reason i believe that is because it is stated so in the creation. The proof to this date only proves that in certain areas the sea used to cover the land. Far more samples are required to be anywhere near scientific proving this conclusively.


[This message has been edited by Prime2U (edited 11-02-2001).]

[Prime2U]

1)Animo Acids are the base of all life on earth, hell I learned that when I was 6.
2) the ocean covers mountians, in fact it once covered the whole freaking world but you don't get it this life is found deeper than any other there for it came first as NO other life is as old as it. AND guess what it was singled celled.

I would consider Nucleic acids more important to having life than amino acids, especially in single celled organisms. In single celled organisms they would have to have a thick cell wall, which relies on peptidoglycan, or they'd never withstand the water pressure. They would also need some sort of bilayer, commonly using lipids, in order to withstand the isotonic salt concentration of the sea water. A few amino acids collecting could not spring to life, there would need to be several other components in precise amounts gathered at the same time.

Yes indeed the oceans did cover the whole world. Called Noah's flood. Want proof? Check into Mount Ararat. Sea life did come first, but that doesn't mean in any way that it evolved into land life. That is a jump in logic based on pure conjecture and not one sngle fact. How in the world would anyone know it was even there if it was single celled? A single celled organism, after being dead for a very short time, can be classified as dirt. I have no idea how anyone could possibly claim to have discovered ancient remains of single celled sea life buried deep within the earth. There is no proof of this whatsoever.


------------------


"Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans." - Lennon

[AzureWolf]

Sir Real calm down man! Your going a bit overboard here, preaching the theory of evolution around. I too support and believe mostly in evolution but we dont try and force our own beliefs onto people. You may believe that evolution is true but that is for you to hold as your belief rather than saying to people "I am right and you are wrong" The spirit of debating is that you can argue a point on a SUBJECT without involving personal emotions. You must make rational arguments which Prime2u has done to you even when your temper has gotten the better of you.
So lets calm down and collect your thoughts for a bit okay?
I'll add my little bit to the debate later on

------------------

"I was born of darkness. My fathers eyes closed before mine opened. I am not of this world or the other, and I have the right to be what I am..."

Overlord of all that I behold and anything that i happen to not notice either.

Founding Hamlet of the HADB.

Originally posted by Prime2U: Acutally no, there is no more proof for one than the other, other than natural selection, which is not a part of how we all came to be. Both at this time have a lack of proof. There is not any concrete evidence that any type of evolution other than natural selection occurs. Creation was the universally accepted explanation of how we came to be for since history began. Whether is it true or not is not the issue. The issue is that it cannot be proven false. Not until evolution is proven to be true, and right now, I am sorry, but there is NOT any evidence to support evolution, only a series of speculations using facts that were either rigged (and exposed) or circumstantial findings that in actuality hold no relevance in support of the idea. You DO have to prove that evolution is the truth in order to prove creation is false. Otherwise you're only stating your belief, not the truth.

Actually since creationism and Evolution are based on very different premises and ideas: Scientific thought and Faith,there is no need to prove one to disprove the other. Creationism can be proven false withine scientific arguement, but evolution cannot be comprehensively dispelled. Also Im sorry but there is scientific evidence for evolution(like the fossil record) but no true scientific evidence for creationism, there is only vague accusations and untruths as far as creationism is concerned(no one can seriously belive god created fossils to mislead us all can they?),it is not needed to offer any alternative theory to disprove creationism. some evidence for evolution anyway?

click here

try the article on 29 evidences for Macroevolution. also talking about "only a series of speculations using facts that were either rigged (and exposed) or circumstantial findings that in actuality hold no relevance in support of the idea" is too vague.If you can can present scientific evidence for creationism please do so.

------------------


These Ships among the stars serve as the physical embodiment of the God-Emperor's will, punishing all who dare oppose the doctrines of Terra



[This message has been edited by Dramnek_Ulk (edited 11-02-2001).]