Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[Yanoda]

Evolution in its basic definition, is change through time. Evolution of Live is the change organisms undergo over time.

Evolution does not necessarily mean that an organism has changed to a totally different one. The bacteria becoming more resistant to antibiotics have undergone Genetic change that enabled them to resist those antibiotics. In basic terms, the bacteria 'evolved' to fight against antibiotics, that is the term Evolution scientists refer to.
How we came to be can be explained through Evolution. Having the ability to see the light spectrum gives one a bigger advantage than those who have limited eyesight, but those with limited eyesight develop other means to make up for the lower eyesight (use of sonar for example).

Evolution doesn't necessarily mean that you get life from inanimate objects. Though scientists were able to produce organic compounds (amino acids) using non animate substances (elements like Oxygen, Hydrogen, Carbon etc.). This was done with the Miller-Urey Experiment, different compounds were used as well and still brought similar (if not better results).

Like I said before, there are many evidences that indicate Evolution of Life is a viable explanation. This website just explains the basics about Evolution: http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
And an interesting video about genes and conducting of experimentation that validates Evolution: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 34_04.html
Enjoy!

Cheers

Yanoda

[Yanoda]

World's oldest found fossil record, quite interesting (can't believe I forgot about it ).
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/25 ... australia/

Enjoy!

About my previous comment (small correction), we as humans only see a very small part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Very far from 'Huge' spectrum and not very optimal. Also, saying that one should look at their hands to see intelligent design is quite amusing. Nothing to validate (evidence) and just claims, whereas the concept of Evolution has undergone rigorous research and testing (experimenting). The few points I mentioned in the last posts debunk that Evolution (as Col.Hstar claims) has skipped the experimentation process. I have yet to see evidence/research that shows Creationism (Intelligent Design) is viable. All I hear is questioning the research of scientists and evidence of Evolution, but nothing about their own proof/evidence (apart from an over 2000 year old book that is easily interpreted differently).

Cheers

Yanoda

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

World's oldest found fossil record, quite interesting (can't believe I forgot about it ).
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/25 ... australia/

Enjoy!

About my previous comment (small correction), we as humans only see a very small part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Very far from 'Huge' spectrum and not very optimal. Also, saying that one should look at their hands to see intelligent design is quite amusing. Nothing to validate (evidence) and just claims, whereas the concept of Evolution has undergone rigorous research and testing (experimenting). The few points I mentioned in the last posts debunk that Evolution (as Col.Hstar claims) has skipped the experimentation process. I have yet to see evidence/research that shows Creationism (Intelligent Design) is viable. All I hear is questioning the research of scientists and evidence of Evolution, but nothing about their own proof/evidence (apart from an over 2000 year old book that is easily interpreted differently).

Cheers

Yanoda

Very interesting my friend! I agree with you whole-heartedly concerning the highlighted point. And yes, many Creationists would like to attack and debunk evoluition in and of itself, but they lack proof, and they use the same argument again and again:The world is too complex; it couldn't have just happened randomly! But evolution has helped to explain how a world such as ours cam about. And I, having heard the same inane argument numerous times, am about to be driven stark-staring mad!

[Yanoda]

And I, having heard the same inane argument numerous times, am about to be driven stark-staring mad!

Calm down Pepsi, even if they drive you mad you have to be patient. Don't let frustration get the better of you. Just calmly explain your argument (providing evidence) to your position, if none can give a proper counter-argument, then be content.
I actually enjoy having this debate/argument, it helps me better understand others (and their views) and better formulate my argument. Even if we disagree with one another, does not mean we should be raging.

Until then, I'll be looking forward to the replies of my post/arguments.
Maybe Narg should have a go as well (since he returned), I bet he'll enjoy it

Cheers

Yanoda

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

Calm down Pepsi, even if they drive you mad you have to be patient. Don't let frustration get the better of you. Just calmly explain your argument (providing evidence) to your position, if none can give a proper counter-argument, then be content.

I don't mean to suggest, that during argument (such as this), I end up pulling my hair out. No, the message I intended to convey concerned the fact that multiple times, the same argument is repeated. When I have debates, either over the internet or face-to-face, I do my best to remain calm and level-headed. It is only afterwards when I wonder to myself, that even though none could provide sufficient counter to my argument, they walk away believing that they have bested me. This, in and of itself, should not bother me. What does, however, is when I feel that my efforts have been fruitless. Indeed, I cannot expect someone steadfast in their beliefs to completely reverse their views in the er of hours, but simply hope that logic and science will prevail over blind belief. When I used the term "stark staring mad" I was quoting one of my favourite books as a child, one by Enid Blyton. Although the expression I used was not reflective of what I meant, I had thought at the time that the message had been received: Constant defiance of fact due to blind faith is what prevents humanity from "adequate" progression.

[Yanoda]

I don't mean to suggest, that during argument (such as this), I end up pulling my hair out. No, the message I intended to convey concerned the fact that multiple times, the same argument is repeated. When I have debates, either over the internet or face-to-face, I do my best to remain calm and level-headed. It is only afterwards when I wonder to myself, that even though none could provide sufficient counter to my argument, they walk away believing that they have bested me. This, in and of itself, should not bother me. What does, however, is when I feel that my efforts have been fruitless. Indeed, I cannot expect someone steadfast in their beliefs to completely reverse their views in the er of hours, but simply hope that logic and science will prevail over blind belief. When I used the term "stark staring mad" I was quoting one of my favourite books as a child, one by Enid Blyton. Although the expression I used was not reflective of what I meant, I had thought at the time that the message had been received: Constant defiance of fact due to blind faith is what prevents humanity from "adequate" progression.

Ah ok, misunderstanding. One of the set backs with online argumentation is the lack of facial recognition to see what they writer actually implies.
We need more people joining! We must achieve 50 pages!

Cheers

Yanoda

[ATCStewart]

60% of the way there.

[Yanoda]

60% of the way there.

YES! Keep 'em coming!

Cheers

Yanoda

[FaiL.?]

Lord knows what the next topic of discussion on this complicated forum will be. Also, as I was discussing with my father, everything we know could be a dream. Just imagine, everything we know, a dream.

[FaiL.?]

Science. It Works!


Cheers

Yanoda

Where did u find that yanoda? I would like to show my dad this.