This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

3341

Debates / Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

« on: May 18, 2006, 09:59:00 pm »

In other words, if humanity descended from apes, is not it also possible for apes to have come from humans?  I guess that nobody knows that either.

Simple explanation; apes and humans both had a common ancestor.

I do believe that they have a common ancestor; I was trying to propose a point.  What my post was saying is that it would have been more thesible for mankind to to say that apes were degenerate man, there being racism and hatred in the world.  For a long time, Africans and Native Americans were viewed as subhuman because they did not fit the "white standard".  For Charles Darwin, a white man, to say that all of humanity, including whites, came from a lesser species not only is radical on a religious level, but on a social level as well.

My other posts and the one that precedes this one show that a common ancestor is not only thesible, but is the most probable. 


Yes, height like intelligence is merely hereditary potential.  The amount of that potential that is realized more often than not is less.

3342

Debates / Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

« on: May 18, 2006, 03:28:41 am »

That is why I said early creationists.  I cannot find the source now, but in a text about Darwin, there was a passage about birds, I think finches.  People at his time believed that some African finch and some other finch were not related and that they existed in their forms since the beginning of time, set in stone for eternity until extinction.  Two of the finches he studied were similar in forms and diets, but I am not sure if he tried to breed them. 

I did say early Creationists, so I doubt you would know any unless you lived a long time ago.  Modern creationists now have some science elements in their beliefs because they are now viewing things from a logical angle. 

My main thing against Creationism is that how could humanity remain its form and likeness.  If we were like we are now, then why didn't we change?  Other organisms did and have?  Just look at some elephants.  Even on a macroscopic scale, some have undergone tuck loss in a short period of time observable by man.  I am really surprised the Creationists did not go the route of saying that apes and monkies were a form of sinning humans that devolved into lessr devil-like forms.  That would even more sense.  In other words, if humanity descended from apes, is not it also possible for apes to have come from humans?  I guess that nobody knows that either.

3343

Debates / Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

« on: May 18, 2006, 01:41:39 am »

@2awesome4apossum: I was not talking about Intelligent Design was I.

I get a very different idea judging by your first post, and the post I quoted from (about why evolution is a theory that Christians dispute... you got your reasoning for that wrong ).

@2awesome4apossum:
My first post is not about Intelligent Design.  It refutes Creationism because of how Creationism says that various organisms were created seperately.  Thus, the grizzly and polar bear, according to early Creationists, were not from the same ancestor, but were always grizzly and polar bears since the beginning of time when God created them.  Thus, a Creationist views man as an unchanged being.  However, back to the bears, since they are different, and yet they can reproduce offspring even though it is infertile, suggests that they are compatible.  Knowing the life cycles of orgamisms, it is improbable to believe that an organism would change itself in less than let us say twenty years to accomodate itself to reproduce with a different organism.  A Creationist would have to agree on some extent that the bears had to have descended from a lesser organism to be able to at least breed.
@Comrade Kesha:
While a scientific theory is not fully known to be true, humankind cannot be expected to fully know itself because it is still itself.  A scientific theory does have basis on reason and is often proven to an extent my experiments and observations. 

So, a scientific theory is an explanation for a result of an experiment or a conclusion based upon observation that has been proven to an extent, which is testing many times, and yet remains theory because humankind does not have omnipresent understanding.


@Alex2539:
Exactly what I am trying to say.  A theory today, mind you, is more accurate than the theories of old.  The technology now permits humanity to know more, so less has to be inferred.

3344

Debates / Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

« on: May 18, 2006, 12:53:28 am »

@2awesome4apossum: I was not talking about Intelligent Design was I.  I know about religion too, since most athiests are not raised athiest, they often have to find their own path.  So, I do know a lot about Christianity.

@Comrade Kesha: Sciences can be proven.  Why would schools teach all theory?  That is stupid and misunderstood.  While no one can visibly see a stationary atom due to the energy of the photon hitting the atom and thus having it move, it is still predicted to have shape that fits a mathmatical model.  Science does not necessarily be seen, but it can be reasonably inferred.  It is not like someone is just saying that something is a certain way without backing it up.     

@ Limey: A lot of schools do not teach evolution on the curriculum because it offends deeply religious people.  It is something that can be reasonably inferred and even though most schools do not teach ape to man, it is still rejected.  Funny how humanity fears change of something it once hold true and funny how humanity fears what it was!  Humanity now is becoming even more anti-religious (people are not devout) and humanity is becoming worse than it was or thinks it was eons ago (If you tell an obese person that they are derived from a lesser form they fail to see themselves as decrepid and will view the lesser form as more of a disgusting figure; not all obese people, but one obviously would think that, I am pretty sure that everyone can think of at least one person who is like that)

...I have fake Internet money on the fact that a few people thought of me by that last comment even though they do not know me.

3345

Debates / Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

« on: May 18, 2006, 12:03:04 am »

I find the topic title humor inducing, because Evolution by all means is called the Theory of Evolution. So, yes, it is a theory. And you really can't prove anything definately with science anyway, so it's not a fact.

Evolution is in some cases proven, therefore it exists and is not a theory (i.e. differenciation and similarities of species).  The reason it is still called a theory is that the religious majority do not want science stepping in for God, even though Darwin himself was a devout Christian man who believed in God.  Another reason that it is left "theory" is that media resources often refer to Darwin's research which at that time was called generalized as the theory of evolution because of over-zealous religionists.  Now, it is accepted as more than a theory, but is left called that due to the fact that it is still controversial to anyone without an open mind.

DNA testing solves crimes by proving that a person's DNA was there.  The only case DNA wouldn't work is if it were fractured or incomplete or the suspects in the case were twins.  Even then though, finger prints would solve the crime because even twins finger prints are different.

3346

Debates / Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

« on: May 17, 2006, 09:27:21 pm »

You were saying that natural selection was the definition of evolution, and while that is true, isolationism is the expansion of that definition.  Isolationism is not really natural selection, and yet it is still evolution.

3347

Debates / Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

« on: May 17, 2006, 09:23:08 pm »

When two groups of the same species change and no longer are compatible with eath other, that is not selectionism, but it is isolationism.  The two seperated groups cannot breed, so in some sense the amount of selection is decreased, but as time goes by, the two stray even further apart genetically and become unlike what was once their species.  The selectionism occurs in the two newfound groups seperately, and may even be the reason for the start of the isolationism, but isolationism in itself is different from natural selection.  The strong may survive, but sometimes the weak for lack of a better word also live on as well.

3348

Debates / Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

« on: May 17, 2006, 09:05:20 pm »

Limey, you are describing selectionism.  That is not to say that mutation hasn't affected the course of human history though. 

The taller ones prospered because they had a greater chance of survival in their environment.  If the environment is different, the short may even prosper.

Mutation has aided human development though.  During the Bubonic plague, humans in Europe with the D32 mutation in their white blood cells were not likely to die or be affected by the disease.  Thus, they had a greater chance of survival.  A population in Africa has bird-like feet with two toes on a foot, but that is just a mutation.  The list goes on.  The point is, evolution is not only mutation, but mutation helps.

3349

Debates / Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

« on: May 17, 2006, 08:49:35 pm »

Finally, I can bring examples out of The Time Machine by HG Wells.  In it, the Eloi and the Morlocks are seperate species.  They were once human, but overtime changed to the point where they could no longer interbreed, at least evidence is not shown for it.  There was probably a time when they could, but as time went by, they could not, they became too different.

So, as a species becomes more seperated from its ancestor and members of its own species, the original species becomes two new species.

Evolution is a change in genes, adaptation, selctionism, etc.

3350

Debates / Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

« on: May 17, 2006, 03:38:31 am »

Yeah, I always use a religious text as justification for censoring.  So, by basing it on the Bible, ass and damn are acceptable.  Ass is a word that comes up in other words a lot more that any other swear words, so other swear words can be filtered entirely.

On topic though, in Creationism, humans were created in God's image, so they are in that sense to be considered perfect.  In that sense, one could say that there are human races because God's image is not a materialistic identity.  Thus, they can very and yet be from the same thing.  However, evolution is proven in the sense that it happens actively and that it has happened before.  The time it takes to evolve and the fact that we have existed long prior to that time is clear evidence that we evolved from lesser beings.  If we were how we are now, then that suggests that very little evolution takes place and yet it is shown that there has been major events that would prompt evolution and that it has happened.  The amount of evidence in animal evolution is also evidence to drastic evolution can be.  If organisms can evolve to go from sea to land, then is it not even thesible to suggest that a land ape could evolve into a land man.

3351

Feedback / Re: Comunity Speak + Off Topic

« on: May 17, 2006, 03:02:01 am »

I never said that Off Topic was Spam, I only said that it is overshadowed by Spam and is thus avoided.  There should be options in one's user profile to avoid boards all-together.  Some people do not want to see the board Spam or view it on the board index sometimes; it makes some people feel stupid for coming here.

I guess that they would be find merged now, but it would be awkward for a while.  People still do not fully know that Off Topic exists.  I know this, because I either see spammy posts in Off Topic or serious posts in Spam.  Anyway, do whatever; my opinions really do not matter here anyway.

3352

Debates / Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

« on: May 17, 2006, 02:39:25 am »

Human evolution cannot be a clear science because it is impossible to determine the history of man from a man's perspective.  That means that since the only species that has understanding and reason cannot have access to observe its own development and that its development was happening to the would be observer, it cannot be proved.  That is unless something like time travel occurs or a super-civilization light years away that has a super telescope receives light waves off of the Earth that show human development and send a message back to Earth to show them their past; both of which unlikely.

The presense of human evolution in small degrees suggests something more though.  The amount of time humans have been alive predicted by Creationism and the amount of time it takes for a slight evolutionary change suggests that if not, then why didn't more evolution take place?  Humans are still weak in certain environments and are not centiant beings.  Truly, if God made us perfect and in his image, then there would be no reason for evolution, yet it exists, so he either allowed it or he isn't really there, but I don't want to debate his existence.

This is still not to say that humans evolved from apes, but evolved from some ape-like forms.  Fossil records show this.  The most likely thing is that they were somewhat human and that the similarites to modern-man and lesser-apes suggest that man came from ape.  Apes also evolved though, so it is not like we came from the apes of today; they looked different.  So, we could share a very distant ancestor.

Someone should probably edit the swear filter so it doesn't edit inword words like @$$.

3353

Feedback / Re: Comunity Speak + Off Topic

« on: May 17, 2006, 02:32:58 am »

The problem with Off Topic is that nobody can tell if anything is going on there.  The overuse of the Spam section makes it so the most recent post for the Off Topic board is always from the Spam section.  Considering that the most recent displayed topics at the bottom of the screen only shows the five most recent posts, there is little if almost no chance of anything from Off Topic able to be seen.  A lot of the time, if there is anything, it probably has to be moved to Spam anyway.

So, I do not think that the boards should merge.  They would ruin each other if they were fused; how would you like your topic about your whole family dieing in a horrible car crash being replaced with a topic about something that is of a completely different spectrum.  As I have said, if there was less board confusion and cover-up, then there would not be this discussion.

3354

Debates / Re: Evolution: Fact or Theory?

« on: May 17, 2006, 02:18:42 am »

Evolution explains why animals of different species can interbreed.  While one may say that the system of taxonomy is founded on an unsure science, it explains why and how species are like they are.

Creationism doesn't address why there are different kinds of similar organisms.  In it, it suggests that God created various organisms.  Why would he create organisms that can reproduce with other organisms to have hybrids who cannot reproduce fertile offspring?  Why would he allow such Illegitimate child organisms to enhabit the Earth?

Evolution explains why and how polar bears are different from grizzlies.  While they can interbreed (there was something about in on LueLinks yesterday), they are different.  Why can they interbreed if they are different organisms.  Why do they look similar?  The answer is quite simple.  Overtime, populations of the ancestoral bear were seperated and developed independently.  If evolution didn't exist, then the bear couldn't survive in a new habitat.  Thus, one of the bear descendent populations would die and there wouldn't be seperate species.  The fact that they can reproduce though suggests they were similar at one time, but overtime they evolved to suit their environments.

Thus, evolution=fact.

3355

Entertainment / Re: Did you read Ender's Game? I need your help!

« on: May 15, 2006, 10:52:45 pm »

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/endersgame/

http://hometown.aol.com/ryknroll/endergame.html

3356

Entertainment / Re: To all fanboys. (Possible 56k warning) (Reality warning)

« on: May 15, 2006, 01:11:50 am »

People are rightly justified in opposing an opinion that is blunt, outspoken, and over-generalized.

3357

Entertainment / Re: What new SSB Brawl characters do you think there will be?

« on: May 11, 2006, 10:13:28 pm »

Metal Gear Solid and Snake from it are not a solely owned Sony thing, MGS3 did come out on the GameCube (I think that was the version)

I would say though:
Doshin the Giant
Balloon Fighter
Sonic the Hedgehog

3358

Other Discussion / Re: Do YOU know me?

« on: May 09, 2006, 12:10:23 am »

I should know you.  You made that awesome character named Discuss. 

3359

Discussion / Re: Who wants "ZGM - Zelda Game Maker" Back?

« on: May 07, 2006, 02:04:24 am »

One hundred is a bit much, but regardless, I'll sign.

3360

Entertainment / Re: Forum-based RPGs

« on: May 06, 2006, 01:45:45 am »

http://support.invisionfree.com/index.php?showforum=47

It has some forum-based RPG stuff, but the RPG Inferno code was taken down due to some copyright violation.  There has to be something in there though that might help you.