Creation: yea or nay?

Wow, ok, either theres been some serious post editing going on, or I'm developing multiple personalities, or hallucinating, or something. Blinky I don't know what I was talking about, I must have read something in a post by someone else or something, or may be you're a devious trouble maker and you edit your posts, or may be I'm going insane, but something has me really confused about what I thought I was talking about... It would have made more sense had you said what I thought you had said, but instead I'm just questioning my own perception of reality as of this moment. Retard, you can still go to hell for insulting my intelligence at every turn, and being a dick in general. "You're so bitter, all you do is attack."

 

I only edit my posts when I realize I've made a typo or that my formatting is wrong when I try to use it. You'll notice how I shy away from links, and those damn quote boxes. Sleek, sorry to disappoint, it's all you. You're nuts. Accept it, it's not so bad. Just try to get the green pills, they taste like lime. The grape ones suck.

Our categories are defined by nature. They aren't arbitrary, they are based on what nature does. I'm not too familiar with ligers, I had just heard, and assumed it was true, that ligers were sterile. Perhaps the link between lions and tigers is a littlee closer than science believed, I do not know. All I was doing was outlining the situations that would need to be meet in order for the true creation of a new species. Unlike the dog scenario, a truly unique species cannot interbreed with other species and produce fertile offspring.

Canis, I honestly don't know if it would be unacceptable or not, if anyone who is from another country feels like enlightening me, I welcome it.

In closing. Evolution was a decent movie. Creation wasn't. Therefore, evolution wins. Case settled.

 

Categories of species are based on observations and interpretations of nature, and are not infallible. Until a short while ago we thought of lagomorphs as rodents; we have since discovered that their closest relatives are primates. If the lion and the tiger are not "truly unique" species, it's time to admit that our own definition of species is rather weak.

Many scientists reject the no-interspecies-breeding rule, and think of species rather as organisms with a similar genome who generally keep to themselves.

 

You've never been what I would call kind to me, either. So, right back at you.

Also, in case there's any confusion, I'm not sitting here trying to prove creation is a credible theory. I don't give a fuck if it's credible or not. I believe it, it makes me feel good, I have faith and hope in my heart about it, so it works for me. Whether or not you guys believe it or not really does not even stir in my mind.

Also, there still seems to be some confusion about evolution here. I agree with Sinbad that God very well have "created" by "evolution". I have not dismissed this totally.

I don't understand, Dark Elf. You think that Creationists believe that? Hell no. Who said that, or am I misunderstanding you? Also, most of our "breeds" of animals today were brought about by man's breeding this with that.

 

I worked 8.75 hours today, and I had terrible diahrhea the entire time. I also only slept from 430am until 715am, and I had to start work at 8am. Immediatly after my last post I fell asleep in front of the tv sitting up on a couch with my hand on the remote. I woke up 4 hours later still sitting up, but with my hand in my pants wrapped around my erect johnson.
To my delight.

I predict that by the year (my post count) cats will be extinct, bats will be ostrich like winged land-rodents the size of turkeys, and will hunt their prey in packs of 6-10. Snakes will become immortal as they evolve a way to survive by slowly eating their own tails and slowly growing them back, as they continue to grow larger and longer, confounding the scientists of the era. Giant crustaceans will use the empty metal hulks that were once our cars (back when we had petroleum) for shells. Man will seek out alternative means of transportation, and will be conveyed from point to point on bitchmobiles fueled by excuses, provided by livejournals. It will be discovered that President Roland is actually a drum machine from 1987.

 

2 and a half weeks and counting for me. Count yourself lucky.

 

The categorization isn't wrong, because it yields. If certain species are able to interbreed and produce viable offspring then they aren't truly seperate species. The categorization, although sometimes incorrect and in need of tweaking, is for what the animal is, not what we declare it is.

I can see how some confusion would arise however, if one species of animal can breed with two, but those two can't breed with each other. There are other complexities that could also arise. Altogether, it, like every system, is imperfect. But in order to study fauna, we need a system of categorizing. Unless anyone has made, or plans to make, a new system then I guess we'll have to settle.

 

Actually, Canis, Ligers (crosses between Tigers and Lions... original name; ain't it?) are unable to reproduce. Ditto a Donkey and a Horse (Mule). I'm not sure about the other example you mentioned; I'd never heard of that one.

I agree with Sinbad; Evolution is a theory; NOT a fact. Hell, as a theory, it goes againt many scientific LAWS, such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics ("All processes manifest a tendency toward decay and disintegration, with a net increase in what is called the entropy, or state of randomness or disorder, of the system.") as well as the Law of Energy Decay ("Every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability, finally reaching the state of complete randomness and unavailability for further work"). So by supporting Evolution, which is an unproven THEORY, one is defying at least two PROVEN scientific LAWS.

Blinky, just because the odds are one in a million doesn't mean that every one million tries you will get that result. If you have a six-sided die and you toss it, the chances are one in six that you will get a three, but that doesn't neccessarily mean that you will actually get a three within six rolls. That's assuming that everything that is needed for inanimate chemicals to become a living cell would all come together correctly within around a million tries. Remember that the Earth hasn't had forever to try evolution; the sun, earth's magnetic field, etc. are all deteriorating. There is a finate amount of time that is possible in which evolution could occur on this planet. As for evolution on other planets, unless there is a kind of life that survives completely contrary to all life Earth-based, the other planet would need to be exactly as far away from the sun as Earth (just a couple degrees overall increase or decrease in temperature and we're all screwed), have all the chemicals needed for life on the planet, and then have all those chemicals combine under the correct conditions.

Now, if a cell did happen to evolve, how would it have survived? Unless it also had all chemicals needed for survival around it, it would have to have gotten food from someplace. The only possibility would be if the first cell would have been a plant, similar to algea. This is fine, except then, at some point, a plant would have needed to become an animal; but how? Animals and plants are as different as... well... steak and salad. With the change, the plant would have had to shed it's cell wall, lose it's chloroplasts, and then develop the instincts of an animal cell. Granted, today the instincts are built in to all new animal cells, but at some point it had to have been developed from scratch.

On the subject of plants evolving into animals, if that is actually the case, why is there nothing even CLOSE to an animal-plant hybrid? There's just one or the other. Surely if it had happened, it would still be happening, so there would be at least SOME kind of species of plant-animal, but there aren't.

Back to animals, at some point, unicellular organisms would have had to become multicellular, but multicellular organisms, as you know, have organs, This single cell would have had to of created all the necessary organs perfectly on the first try, or the entire organism would die. The chances of that happening are probably as small as the chances of evolution itself, if not smaller.

 

Actually, Xento, I wouldn't have mentioned it if I hadn't been sure of what I was writing.

http://www.shambala.org/biographies/patrick.htm

Check out Noelle, a tigon, and her son Nathaniel.

And shut UP about the laws of thermodynamics. Creationists like to throw that one out hoping its complexity will stifle opposition.

 

Xento, wrong. I recall reading an article where two ligers had been caged together at some zoo and they managed to mate and have another liger. They were all sterilized in response to this. Google it motherfucker!

<edit> .... I really should read all posts before I respond from now on... My delerium is increasing...

 

Thanks for the link. From the info I'd previously read, all cross-bred animals were sterile. I stand corrected.

 

Jesus tittyfucking christ people! (Ok I just really wanted to say that) Whether you believe creationism is a valid idea or not, saying "evolution is just a theory!" is NOT a valid argument. You CAN'T prove a theory. Entropy is a theory; gravity is a theory. In a scientific sense, it IS true, but nothing can be fully proven. According to the dictionary, a theory is:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these laws have nothing to do with evolution. Evolution, being the change in species over prolonged periods of time, wouldn't run down/decay, that makes no sense.

Anyways, my personal opinion: I don't believe that creationism is a valid theory because it doesn't follow the scientific method and has no evidence supporting it (etc). I don't think it should be taught in science classes and given the same weight as real science. I believe that by teaching this in science classes we'd be regressing, undermining what we know. Would we teach the plum pudding model of the atom anymore? Would we teach that everything is made up of earth, fire, water and air? I think that the only place that intelligent design belongs is theology classes, regardless of your personal beliefs. I know many people who believe in God but also in evolution, so I don't see how these two can't exist together.

 

Actually, we should (and did at my school), just to show that it's wrong, but also as an example of how people used to think.

 

It does in the model of the chemicals coming together to form the organelles and the DNA. Those laws state that matter and energy break down into their simplest form, while this scenerio would be contrary to those laws.

 

Well... If I was a carpenter...

and you were a leaf...?


would you shave your beard off?

 

I mean as the correct atomic model, sorry if that was unclear.

 

But the sun didn't make the chemicals come together perfectly to form a living organism on it's own, did it? There's a difference between growing and becoming out of nothing. Growing things have a set process that works to keep the organism alive and to make it bigger/better, but the process eventually fails, and the plants whithers, dies, and breaks down.

With inanimate objects, what you mentioned is a perfectly working order, true, but it's not NEAR as complicated as all the chemicals needed to form a living creature coming together perfectly.

And sand dunes are just formed by sand being blown around by wind; there is no system to that; it just happens. If I set a ball in my driveway, and every morning, the wind has blown it up against the garage, does that mean that there is an important system in operation? No. The wind pushes things. That's movement; not change or creation.

With snowflakes, there is no work that is contrary to deterioration; it's just a droplet of water changing form, just like ice melting. Same with stalactites; it is something changing from one form to another; but nothing different is created. Ditto icicles. The water moves, changes form, and that's it. The water has not become anything BUT water.

When a book is printed, something bigger and better is created, right? But it is still simply ink and paper; the two parts do not combine to make one bigger, better whole; they come together, but they do not combine.

I don't recall where it was, but at some forum where I had been discussing this (may have been this one), someone suggested that a monkey, if left alone to a typewriter, would eventually be able to make a perfectly written letter. Also, someone else suggested that, if enough ink and paper factories were blown up, the ink sprayed would cover the flying paper and eventually make a perfect novel. The problem with both these scenerios is that it's suggesting that order appears out of disorder, which it doesn't; not without some outside, helping force.