yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Off-topic] mdhensley5:
I sense that you just want to debate and it doesn't matter what the issue is. :)

OK, I can't prove that humans didn't evolve from apes, but you can't prove that we did. Yes, humans and apes have many traits, genes, whatever in common (I'm not really into science), but we are not identical. We are two separate species. If I remember my science correctly, a gene has to already be present in a species before it can be passed to future generations. We started out as two different species and we are still two different species.

Science is about proving "things". Christianity is based on faith. My philosophy is "if the Bible said it, I believe it." That's good enough for me. I know some people will view that as naive or ignorant, but that's how I feel.

Ok, your turn. :)
[Off-topic] Rudegar:
"I don't think creationism or evolution should be taught as part of the science curriculum because neither can be proven. "

the problem is what it really take for something to become scientifically proven

look into it

most of our science is based on teory really few things are proven at all

big bang == theory

super strings == theory

black holes == theory

you basicly have to reproduce the experiment of the theory countless times and get the same result by a at least 75% (not 100% because of other factors can play a role )

and as much of our prospect as a species in the last 100years have been based on theories we cant 100% prove

it would also be a harsh blow to the education system to remove teeching of anything which is theoretical

so a theory is everything evolution can ever hope for as it's labal as reproducting the last 6billlion years would be alot of work ;)
[Off-topic] perasite:
My problem with evolution is that any mutation is a LOSS of genetic code. You cannot add genetic code during the course of a mutation. So how is it that after millions of years we somehow added all this genetic code via evolution to become humans rather than amoeba?
[Off-topic] Midget_1990:
I'm sorry mutation is a CHANGE in genetic makeup, also thats so going onto fstdt.com :)
[Off-topic] perasite:
OK, but where does it magically gather new information? I compare it to a computer, with a mutation being a file corruption. Once that file becomes corrupt, it doesn't grow itslef into some fabulous computer program. It becomes a useless piece of garbage with lost or scrambled information. That is basically what a mutation is. I don't see that a mutation can make an amoeba become a human even if you give it eternity.
[Off-topic] kyphur:
I love it when I see Christians say all science is theory therefore can 't be believed because it hasn't been proven. Then they turn around and say the whole point of religion is that it is faith, they don't need it proven.

What a load of bunk. If you don't have to prove God they why do I have to prove Evolution?

At least I'm content with the THEORY of evolution, ever have a bible thumper share the THEORY of Christianity to you?
[Off-topic] mdhensley5:
It would be nice if one or the other could be proven, but I don't require it.

Christians are supposed to try to convert people to Christianity. I understand how some people are turned off by that. I don't appreciate it when a Jehovah's Witness knocks on my door very early on a Saturday morning either. :D
[Off-topic] kyphur:
It isn't magically growing new information. Cells have within them the instructions on how to build you. A mutation occurs when these instructions are corrupted. The new corrupted instructions are followed and sometimes they work (other times they don't)

When they work sometimes the change is desirable (i.e. beneficial to the organisim) and sometimes not.

Over the course of manyyyyyy years the new desirable traits remain as the stronger organisims have a higher survival rate. Eventually the favorable mutation becomes the norm.

I guess you figure that we have tail bones because God wanted a good way to hurt our backsides if we insulted him by falling on our arses the wrong way (because of course that makes more sense than or ancestors having ever had a tail).
[Off-topic] Midget_1990:
couldn't have put it better myself :)
[Off-topic] perasite:
Yet in the course of recorded history there has been absolutely no change in humans. Lets say recorded history means dating back to 1400 BC as per Wikipedia

In this case, 3500 or so years have passed with no change. Does that mean humans are perfect and thus not subject to "improvement" or that the changes are so infinitessimally small that they go unnoticed. If they are so small as to go unnoticed then how could such massive changes as amoeba to human occur even over billions of years, assuming that many years have actually passed since
[Off-topic] kyphur:
Wow, you want to compare 3,500 years to 5 Billion years that Earth has been around and "life" began almost 5 Million Years ago.

BTW, mutations are still happening. Natural Blondes are becoming less common as the fairer skin tone and lighter hair offer less protection from the Sun.

Kids are born with 6 toes/fingers and other mutations. Just because most mutations are not beneficial that doesn't mean they don't happen.

Oh BTW, the average height of humans is greater than it was when the Egyptians were in their hayday.

Again any small thing attributed to God is believed and accepted but small things supporting scientific theory is dismissed as "not enough".

You have no right to insist I give you more proof of Scientific Theory than you can provide yourself of Godly Intervention.

Oh yeah, AND I BELIEVE IN DINOSAURS!!!
[Off-topic] Midget_1990:
Firstly, evolution is not a constant process, or at least it doesnt have to be. your date 1400NCE is about 3400 years ago, which when you compare to millions of years is quite insignificant, sure to us it may seem a long time but put it in perspective of the age of the earth and it is nothing (unless, and i really do hope not, you are one of these people who "believe" the earth is only 4000 years old) so thats the first flaw.

Secondly you say that "3500 or so years have passed with no change. Does that mean humans are perfect and thus not subject to 'improvement' " - no these changes do happen, and quite regularly however, to my knowledge, none so far have been an improvement to our current makeup (for example Cancer is caused by the genes mutating, but is far from being superiour read more), whether this is a testament to how far evolved we are or to how drawn out and random the evolutionary process is i'll leave up to you, but clearly it hasn't been 3500 years with no change has it? I hope this also answers your last question :)
[Off-topic] perasite:
"life" began almost 5 million years ago. Assuming this is remotely accurate, and I have my doubts, but for the sake of argument lets say it is. That means there have been 1428.57 occurrance of 3500 years during that time period. So, in the last 3500 years we've got less blonds and a couple of tall people. If we repeat this 1428.57 times (going backwards to get us to the beginning of life), we've got short blond amoebas?!?!?! I'm not trying to defend nor prove anything. I'm simply stating that evolution and the big bang are ridiculous theories when used to explain how the entire universe came into being or to explain how some mysterious single-celled organsism became a human.
[Off-topic] kyphur:
But a retired grandfather figure with a long beard and robe building everything in the exact perfect way 4,000 years ago and then planting Dino bones to trick us is reasonable?

Have you ever been involved in the development cycle of a product?

In the early stages there are a lot of changes as the product is immature. As time passes the product becomes more mature and adapted to the environment around it thus the remaining changes are more subtle.

I don't know, has there been a major change in the environment we live in that invalidates all of the changes thus far?
[Off-topic] Midget_1990:
Please, if you are going to debate, at least read my first sentance

'Evolution is NOT a constant process' you cannot say that because is this 3500 years we got shorter and less blonde that in the previous 3500 years the same 'amount' of evolution occured, it simply doesnt work like that. Evolution happens by chance, a mutation in a gene that gives an advantage over the current state is increadibly unlikely, but given the amount of mutations that happen you can see that inevitably some are going to happen. as i said this isnt a steady process, you cant say that 1 in 140,000,000 mutations are going to be benificial because its not based on any sort of structure, its purely random mutations and because of it's random nature you cannot tell how many there will be in any given time frame.

i hope you actually read this one :)
[Off-topic] perasite:
So evolution is comparable to the development cycle of a product? There are just SO MANY problems with evolution that I cannot begin to comprehend how someone could declare it the sole method through which humanity came into being. Here are some:

1. Where did the giant rock come from? (big bang)

2. How is it that post-explosion so many solar systems and galaxies were formed in all of the perfect detail it would take for such a system to exist without imploding?

3. Take Earth for example - if the orbit of the Earth were off by just a few degrees, then the Earth would be sucked into the sun or into space by the pull of larger gravitational forces. Over hundreds of billions of years, all of the problem "planets" would be sucked out of the way and during the course of that they would not have misplaced the remaining planets?

4. Again, take Earth - relative to the size of the Milky Way, if Earth had even a slightly smaller or larger orbit around the sun, life could not be supported, yet an explosion allowed for this much precision?

5. If Earth has been here for 6 billion years and life began 5 million years ago, what was it doing for the first 5.5 billion years, turning rocks into water, dirt (soil), trees, plants, etc... ?

6. Where did the amoeba come from?

I'm not trying to convince you that God made the universe. I am trying to show just how ridiculous that evolution is and why it should therefore not be taught in school as if it were unquestionable truth.
[Off-topic] perasite:
If you look at post times, you'll see I was posting as you typed your sentence and I could not have read it before posting my post.
[Off-topic] kyphur:
It isn't taught as if it were an unquestionable truth. It is taught as the "Theory of Evolution" and by the time any kid finishes second grade science they know what a Theory is.

Ignorance sees things in Black and White absolutes.

Intelligence sees things and isn't afraid to question them.
[Off-topic] perasite:
Let's pretend that a massively beneficial mutation were to occur tomorrow, how long would it take before much of the planet were covered with this new entity? What would happen to today's humans? Would this new entity see us as we see the apes? Do you think that in 3500 years, humans would be in a zoo visited by the new entity? Even with massively beneficial mutations every 2000 years, I still can't see an amoeba becoming a human over the 2500 iterations that would occur over that cycle. Even if the cycle is not constant, there would have to be constant beneficial mutations occurring to get to this point. In the same way, if each beneficial mutation were to cause such an impact, why don't the non-benfitted creatures go away? How does the amoeba still exist?
[Off-topic] perasite:
So since I am unabashedly questioning the "Theory of Evolution" would you say that it is a sign of intelligence? I don't know about your school, but I moved a lot and in every school I went to the "Theory of Evolution" was not taught as just a theory. Yes, we were taught that a theory is not necessarily absolute fact, but when it came to the "Theory of Evolution" it was presented as "This is a theory, which hasn't been fully proven, but in all reality it is only a theory because it is impossible to prove, otherwise it would be fact."
[Off-topic] perasite:
And Where Did The Big Rock Come From???
[Off-topic] hugh.st:
1. The big bang was not an actual explosion. All of the mass in the universe was in one incredibly dense very small ball (for lack of a better word) and expanded.

2. They weren't. The solar systems and galaxies took billions of years to form. Also it may interest you to know that our galaxy is on a collision course with Andromeda.

3. I'm guessing by you think that the earth exploded fully formed from the big bang that you think it was incredibly lucky to be in the right orbit. Hopefully my first two answers should make this a non-issue.

4. Same thing for point 3 really but I'd like to add that with the billions of planets in the universe, odds were at least one would be in the goldilocks zone.

5. There were various chemical reactions and some very large volcanoes. Also the proteins required for abiogenesis formed.

6. The first life was merely a self-replicating molecule. This evolved into RNA and DNA which evolved into cellular organisms.

I can go into more detail if you want.
[Off-topic] Midget_1990:
arrr! its not a big rock lol
[Off-topic] hugh.st:
Also, apes aren't an actual species but a kind of primate and humans do come under apes. So that also means everybody saying humans evolved from a common ancestor with apes are wrong.

Plus the scientific definition of theory is being used rather than the everyday usage. This is in this case an explanation that fits all of the facts and is supported by evidence.
[Off-topic] Midget_1990:
Just FYI hugh.st is a mate of mine from college who's getting a Kaiser on sat :)
[Off-topic] perasite:
Obviously none of us will ever convince the others that their opinion is superior to the other, and I'm OK with that. I enjoy a spirited debate occasionally. I just feel that since so many arguments can be made against evolution that it shouldn't be taught in schools as though it were just shy of fact. In the same way, I don't think that creationism should be taught as though it were fact. hugh.st I appreciate you taking on my questions. If I were to believe that the big bang occurred, then no, I would not believe that the Earth was fully formed at the time, which makes it even harder to believe that it became what it has become. We have such diverse life (plants, animals, insects, etc...) living in perfect balance on a perfectly formed planet with just the right amount of atmospheric gasses, placed perfectly within our solar system and orbiting just right about our sun. All of this leads me to believe that even over hundreds of billions of years and several do-overs, Earth could never have evolved from a very dense mass.
[Off-topic] hugh.st:
Indeed we do have an incredibly diverse planet but it is nowhere near perfect balance in a lot of things such as the carbon cycle and (although far less) the nitrogen cycle.

And as for the just right orbit thing, I'll just have to refer to anthropology and say that since the odds of an orbit like purs are (approximately) 1 in a billion and since they are most probably a billion billion planets. Odds on that at least one is going to have an orbit that is just right.

But on a different note do you think that gravity happens instantaenously or that it takes an amount of time to travel? I'm not trying to trap you, it's just that I'm studying gravity in physics at the moment and would be interested in what other people think and why.
[Off-topic] kyphur:
Wow, that's a good question. How would one test that?

I mean since we don't really have a "Gravity Switch" anywhere we can't simply cycle the Gravity and see now can we.
[Off-topic] hugh.st:
I was a bit surprised in physics when the teacher said that nobody knew how fast gravity acts. Gravity always seemed to be the most simple force.
[Off-topic] Rudegar:
"5. If Earth has been here for 6 billion years and life began 5 million years ago, what was it doing for the first 5.5 billion years, turning rocks into water, dirt (soil), trees, plants, etc... ?"

rocks dont turn into water and such and the center of the big bang if there ever was a big bang (people who dont believe in evolution because of religious complications usaualy like the big bang as it could be compared to gods "let there be fireworks" statement :) )

was not "rock" the explotion is supposed to have produced various materials

and the gathering of those materials in galaxies formed yet other materials

it would be as bi product as that that water have come into being

moving around in meteros and waporizing in atmospheres of plantens they crash into

what is was doing the first 5.5bill years would mostlikely be heavy vulcano activities that is after making the final stablity from being a rathering of dust and meteors in orbit around the sun into the planet as the first lifeforms know it

"But on a different note do you think that gravity happens instantaenously or that it takes an amount of time to travel? I'm not trying to trap you, it's just that I'm studying gravity in physics at the moment and would be interested in what other people think and why."

einstein and borh had arguments about this where einstein claiming that nothing could be faster then light and bohr claiming that gravety was instant

dont believe it was ever 100% settled

if it is instant then every move we make cause a even though microscopic change in the other end of the universe kinda makes us less insignificant in the grand sceme of things ;)
[Off-topic] perasite:
Seriously guys, this is my last poke at evolution. I can't help myself. Where did the mass

come from? Evolution can't account for nothing becoming something. Given all of eternity, it could theoretically account for something new coming from something else (I just don't see that occurring in the course of 5 million years to make an amoeba into a human - and no, I don't think that evolutionists have the right to expand their timeframe indefinitely to make up for this shortcoming), but not something from nothing.
[Off-topic] Rudegar:
we dont know

thats the thing with science it's always evolving ;)

everybody are working on disproving eachother and thats how progress

and new idears come about there are no holy cows

and thats the pickle many of us have with people trying to mix in religion and superstition into it is that if a scientist accepted "intelligent design" or other names of the "god of the caps" have had in the ages

it would be a dead end for that science brance

one cant simply not have a scientific approuch to such a notion

suspect the core is that one have to fully understand the scienticifc

if creationism was generealy accepted it would be the end of most biology research on the planet

and i'm not kidding
[Off-topic] :
Gravity "happens" at the speed of light, apperently. See here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2639043.stm
[Off-topic] ach2:
I seem to remember from my dim and distant University physics that there is a Nobel prize up for the person who proves the existance of the 'Gravatom' (fundamental particle of gravity). Theory suggests that this will link the other fundamental particles such as light, electromagnetism etc and form a complete particle theory to explain the interactions of everything.

I'd suggest you get out of the God vs Evolution debate and carry on studying physics - there's a big wad of cash if you're successful, and there's a whole interesting life ahead even if you're not :)

Remember - the clever kid answers the questions but the genius questions the answers (quote blatantly stolen from MENSA ad).
[Off-topic] :
Actually the figure is about 6000 years. There's (approximately) 2000 from Adam to Abraham, 2000 from Abraham to Christ and 2000 from Christ to the present day. :)

I'm not descended from apes either...though some people who know me might dispute that! :D
[Off-topic] ach2:
And about 2000 years advance from Southampton to Portsmouth which makes 8000 in all:D

I remember some of your earlier posts and 'man vs ape' spring to mind - But then what do you expect from a scummer? Oh yes, did I forget to mention that Pompey rule the waves:D
[Off-topic] Maggy:
I'm very surprised about the lack of scientists in this thread. Someone mentioned that there is life on earth for the past 5 million years lots of posts back and nobody picks it up?? Wake up!

May I remind you that the KT boundry, the end of the dinosaur era, the catastrophical collision with the Yukatan comet, happened about 65 million years ago? That's just a piece of popular and spectacular science, fewer people know that the oldest traces of life on this planet are 3,5 billion old stromatolites in the Australian Pilbara-kraton.

The "evolution theory" was a theory when Darwin wrote it. Genetics, DNA, RNA, amino acids were all totally unknown to him. Fossil hunting had just begun and mainly concentrated in those days on spectacular dinosaur bones. Nobody cared back then about those poor tiny stromatolites. They probably couldn't even detect them with their instruments, let alone date them.

While science evolves more and more details from Darwins theory are proven either wrong, or not exactly correct or slightly misinterpreted. But a surprisingly large chunk of his theory is surprisingly correct.

Actually several hard sciences find their solid foundation in these theories.

Biostratigraphy for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biostratigraphy and phylogeny http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html not to forget.

Please take a special look at http://tolweb.org/Life_on_Earth/1 and if you do so, please don't forget to follow some of the MANY links to some of the many more excellent scientific studies.

Darwin was more a philosopher with a keen eye on nature than a modern scientist. His theory will never be more than that, a (flawed) theory. But can you wave away the millions of facts from the phylogenetic tree of life because some unknown author 3500 years ago wrote down that God created Earth and all life on it in 7 days?? (actually 6, he rested the 7th day)
[Off-topic] Vukile:
They found a bald monkey in Africa and theyre saying its the first human. If humans are from monkeys, then why havent the monkeys evolved too?Maybe a day in God terms means a million years in ours and maybe adam and eve never existed, because Id be at pains to explain how much inbreeding had to happen to populate the earth. Maybe the parable is symbolic of man's estrangement from God through materialism.The 7 AGE theory rather than the 7 Day theory is much more edible to me,even in context of current scientific evidence.
[Off-topic] mdhensley5:
It was explained to me that the Bible doesn't tell us everything that happened. Perhaps God made a bunch of other people that the Bible doesn't comment on.
[Off-topic] :
It kind of doesn't matter whether you believe literally in 7 days or figuratively in 7 ages (described as days). What's important is how you relate to the single most important verse in the Bible, John 3:16.
[Off-topic] Vukile:
Its the 'maybes' and 'perhaps' I have a problem with.Id like to think the bible is all absolute fact,which means I cant allow myself the luxury of grey areas filled in with 'maybes' Therefore I structure my understanding on the reality I know.

Although,Ive always wondered since a child,that while my forefathers were running around hunting antelopes their fate was being decided in a small town in Europe somewhere. Mindblowing.
[Off-topic] Vukile:
Of all the verses in the bible thats the one that touches me the least.Jesus said "A prophet is not without honour,except in his own house and his own country." That changed everything about how I look at people and their opinions of me. Player-hating is an old vocation,apparently.
[Off-topic] mdhensley5:
Evolution is a theory and can't be proven. It's not absolute fact. Why do you believe in it over the Bible? I mean, you can be a Christian and still believe in Science. The two aren't mutually exclusive. I'm being funny here, but maybe there was a "big bang" when God created the heavens and the earth. None of us were there in the beginning to really know. I believe in dinosaurs. I've never seen a live one, but I've seen bones. I also believe in God. I've never seen him face-to-face, but I feel his presence in my life.