Jurassic Park

andre1 answers:

Hmmm.. This will be a long answer, but I hope to make some good points. I do not claim to be a science expert, I only reason logically. If anyone wants to argue against my points raised do so in a polite and respectful manner, or I at least know that I will not at all listen to it and ignore it. If you people were half as intelligent as you claim to be you would not be throwing out insults and giving people bad ratings. That does not make people pay attention, and it does not make them listen to you. Evolve already.

Anyway, here's a few points: The 'fact' of evolution (something that nobody can agree on whether it is even fact, theory, law, etc. Either way I don't think it matters) is a bit misleading. Science has seen that evolution has happened in the labratory and in nature, BUT there is one key fact that people overlook. When they say evolution they mean micro-evolution (variation) and macro-evolution, which for some odd reason includes the umbrella term speciation. By doing so, it does a few things, but first I have to work up to it. What has been proven and that everyone agrees on is that a creature, such as a dog, can produce a different breed of dog. Most even agree that all dogs began with wolves. However, what evolution has failed to 'prove' as part of it being a fact, is what became the wolf? Now there may be some fossil record for the wolf in general, but I am making a simple example. Scientists lack several transistional pieces, and have never witnessed or created an instance where a creature changed anything other than it's species. So when we say evolution is a fact, speciation might be, but as for the rest of it, I would have to say no it isn't. By saying it is a part of macro-evolution however, they jump to the conclusion that macro-evolution is also fact, and that evolution is 100% proven fact. That is not good science.

I have heard a few conflicting arguments over the BBT, so I'll try to look at them all if possible. The first theory, is that everything was compressed into a tiny, swirling dot. The dot spun so fast, it 'exploded,' forming everything that we know of now. If it was spinning in the same direction, and since it is everything that makes up our universe, then by a simple law of physics, everything that broke off from it should be spinning in the same direction, which it is not. Unless you have a full understanding of the theory and the complex physics involved I suggest you don't try saying that this is incorrect, at least without some counterargument and evidence. Another theory states that it was not spinning, but was just compressed, and expanded, cooling off as it did. The website: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html goes into more details but it is based on a few assumptions, some of which seem too big to just assume. For ex. The idea that the universe is the same throughout. (oh and don't worry the website is against creationism, so it isn't biased for my benefit).

And if you have an issue with the term evolutionists, how about evolution scientists?
Would you care to cite where the statistic 99.8% of all scientists believe in evolution, I hear it bouncing around all the time. Sounds sort of like 99.7% of all teenagers smoke pot at least once in their life. Everyone knows it's true, but can't find the stupid fact anywhere.
Actually within the theory there is the whole issue about if evolution is a slow gradual process, or if there are big jumps. The big jump idea comes from the lack of transistional fossil evidence, or else it wouldn't be a part of the controversy, so it has some evidence (which you can interpret anyway you want) but no proof (which is undenialable). Least that's how I take the meaning from the two words, please don't hold me to that exactly.
The more intelligent a person.. Okay, so I guess a person with an I.Q. Of 146 like me is stupid. My bad. I should have converted to evolution instead of Christianity, damn shame I made that mistake. A bit harsh I know, but so is saying that people with religion are stupid .
Actually since the Earth consisted of nothing but molten rock that was cooling off, and life had to start from something (or nothing, which do you prefer?) it began with water combining with rocks. So yeah. Humanity did evolve from bacteria that evolved from rocks. Sorry.
Yes the age of the Earth does matter. If it was very young (6,000 compared to a few billion) then evolution could not have happened as scientists view it. Evolution depends strongly on the age of the planet, which is why I think that when scientists discovered that the original cell was much more complex than they thought, the age of the universe and our planet started growing drastically. I haven't done exact research, but the time frame sounds about right in my head.
There are a few holes/gaps in the theory of evolution. For example how life started from non-life, etc. If this were any other theory, like how the dinosaurs went extinct, we would offer the alternatives to the main theory Heck if somebody threw out the random theory that dinosaurs were killed off by God I think schools would offer the alternative, because it'd make Christians look stupid. I really think they would. However, the biggest alternative to evolution, is Creationism (either as a religion or as a science). It is never mentioned, even though there are a few flaws in evolution. I think that is a sign of something, I won't say what, I'll just let everybody take it the way they will.

Also, since the BBT and evolution are seperate theories I have to ponder one quick thing. How does evolution explain how life started? It is the study of the origin of life, isn't it? Doesn't that involve how we got the planet to begin with, the environment that makes life possible? The two may not cover the exact same ground, (start of universe, start of life) but they depend on each other. Saying they're separate is a half-truth. (I figure it was better than saying half-lie).

The issue with stratigraphy that I have to question is: If the planet is 4.5 billion years old (sorry if I'm wrong, whatever amount of years it is) how could different layers of the same thing be different ages? How can dirt be a different age than other dirt? Where did the new, younger dirt come from?

I like bringing up this neat little fact, just to show you how things can be looked at in two different ways: The Grand Canyon took millions of years to form. This is an undeniable fact. HOWEVER.. There is an even bigger canyon on Mars, that took less than a year to form. Yeah, apparantly a lake spilled over, probably from a great flood or something like that. Carved away at the rock pretty quickly. I just think it's interesting, I don't think it's very relevant, just interesting. *AHEM*

1 last argument, I swear, then I'll stop. Okay, this sounds like an attack on credibility but it's a question, so just wait it out, it'll make sense. Hitler believed very strongly in evolution. He wanted to speed up the process among humans and kill off all inferior races, such as Jews who were mostly apes. We know this is wrong, however what if somebody were to do something like that now? But instead he'd kill off everybody who in fact was genetically inferior? (people with genetic defects, diseases, mentally handicapped, etc.) Would this be wrong? Would man be contributing more to our planet by speeding up evolution and purifying the gene pool?
I'm guessing most of you are thinking, well duh, that's lunacy and you're a monster for thinking that. Okay, well tell me then, if you don't believe in God, and probably any other religion or philosophy other than atheism, then where do you get your morality from? What defines for you what is right and wrong? Individual choice, society (majority opinion in other words), science? Please, if you are going to answer or reply, cover this issue for sure, I would love to know how you come across your decisions for what is immoral, the code that directs it, etc.

andre1 answers:

Please read this dont just skim it like the rest of the answers.

Okay the reason Red Blood cells were proboly found in the T-Rex was it was preserved really well. Scienctist have found a mammoth frozen in ice and it looks like it was frozen yesterday.

Oh and i suppose your right about a "flood" but it wasnt "the flood" that ur talking about. When the tectonic plates moved apart new oceans and seas were created when land pieces split apart and the water ended up coming in. This caused major climate changes. And why are u saying "evolutionist" when dinosaurs being old has nothing to do with it. And T-rex's didnt live Billions of years ago just millions. The Earth is 4 billion years old wats wrong with the earth being old? It is IMPOSSIBLE for the Earth to be created in like 6000 years. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have dinosaurs, "Ice age" animals, humans, neanderthals, sea life, etc to exist in a time span of a few thousand years. "Evolutionist" ARE NOT TRYING TO DISPROVE THE BIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Many cultures infact embrace "evolution" and cant u see the beauty in evolution? Why fight it when we have more proof about evolution then we have proof that the earth is round. I think if you spent some time researching evolution and getting the facts and not looking at the propoganda agaisnt evolution you might understand it better. I was a little sceptical about evolution before i studyed it and its actually quite cool and makes A LOT of sense.

andre1 answers:

B and a)

andre1 answers:

Probably the same reason he wants to teach sex education to kindergarten-age kids. He is a marxist idiot who doesn't have a single normal non-radical friend.