Creationist Scum

[Raptor]

What about fossils then? Go back millions of years you get dinosaurs, no humans.
You said you believe in adaption, but just for the record, the peppered moth.
Then there's the fact that if life was designed, surely it would have been made perfect for its environment. And yet foreign species can become dominant over the indigenous ones (grey squirrels here for example). Evolution allows for that to happen as change is random.

You're wrong about the big bang theory, what you said is not what it explains. It doesn't give a description of the original point. It is a theory of how the universe started after that, and is backed up by expansion and back ground radiation.

[LittleStrangeling]

But our environment is constantly changing. How can we be made perfectly fit for an environment that's ever changing? Are you that idiotic?
We were made perfectly to adapt to what's around us.

The theory is about how there was an explosion of nothing, but somehow the universe started, forgive me for forgetting all the details of something I learned in the second grade.

[LiUsAiDh]

Originally Posted by LittleStrangeling

The theory is about how there was an explosion of nothing

?????

You mean a singularity, methinks.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by LittleStrangeling

It seems to me that you are misinformed though, scientist have not the foggiest idea as to how we began, as none of our theories can be proved or disproved.

Scientists do have more than a foggy idea. You seem to be misinformed (actually, I would say you are UNinformed) :

There are fossil human remains (you get one point for mentioning Lucy) that extend back tens of millions of years. Then they stop. Then going back further to 60 million years, dinosaur fossils appear. Go back 160 million years further, the dinosaur remains stop. This time line is substantiated not simply because a "vast majority believes it" (an error in your logic) but because a vast majority of evidence proves it. If you refute this then you are a blindly loyal creationist, and do not accept logic or reason. You operate on faith.

Now there is nothing wrong with faith (I personally am a follower of Jesus) when it is applied as intended, to one's spiritual well being, but the Bible was never intended to be a Unified Field theory to explain dinosaurs. It was intended as a guidebook to living.

Originally Posted by LittleStrangeling

For all they know it could have been freaking aliens. (Which I actually have seen a few scientists propose. Watch 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, it was hilariously educational.)

There is no scientific evidence to support this.

Originally Posted by LittleStrangeling

I, honestly, cannot tolerate people such as yourself who think that just because it seems like a majority believes in something it is correct.

Neither can we. Hence our dislike of Creationists.

Originally Posted by LittleStrangeling

The majority of people at my school smoke/do drugs, and they don't think it'll hurt them in the long run. Does that make them right? I thought not.

That example equally applies to you adhering to Creationism and your illogical attempts to discount evolution.

[LittleStrangeling]

I'm not trying to discount it, I'm saying that I believe that we adapt to our surroundings, that I don't believe we were ever fish, and that I believe in creationism.
I'm also saying that creationism cannot be proved either. And, attempting to find out where humans began is more of History than science.
My train of thought just crashed and burned, and I really shouldn't be doing this with my idiot of a friend shouting in my ear over typos; not realizing that I reread my post before I post it!

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by LittleStrangeling

How can we be made perfectly fit for an environment that's ever changing?
We were made perfectly to adapt to what's around us.

Those two seem to be opposite. If you were perfectly able to adapt to changes in the environment, that would make you perfect for that environment, and red squirrels should have beaten the grey ones.

Originally Posted by LittleStrangeling

The theory is about how there was an explosion of nothing

It doesn't explain what exploded, so no, it isn't.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

?????

You mean a singularity, methinks.

Good catch LiUsAiDh. A singularity is the opposite of nothing. It is everything.

[LittleStrangeling]

Do you have ADD?
I, personally, like gray squirrels.
Seriously, I think you have ADD.
Don't worry, I have it too!

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by LittleStrangeling

Do you have ADD?
I, personally, like gray squirrels.
Seriously, I think you have ADD.
Don't worry, I have it too!

The troll revealed! When one cannot refute the logic, change the subject.

[Raptor]

I was about to call troll, you beat me
Saying something a second time is apparently ADD now.
And they missed both you and I talking about fossils.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by LittleStrangeling

I'm referring to all the theories.
I know that all creatures have adapted from what they originally were, because I've seen proof of it, but it's nothing so tremendous that you could never tell that they were that. There is no solid proof of where we actually began. The oldest homo sapien we have is Lucy, and you can see the similarities between her and us, and 500 years ago the average height was four foot something, I won't deny change in species over time, but I'm not believing that we were originally fish or something ridiculous like that.

I should not have to explain why I don't believe in the big bang theory, but I'll put it into simple terms: when you add nothing to nothing, the outcome is still nothing.

Lucy was NOT a homo sapien, dear god no. Lucy is 4.1 million years old!!!! She belongs to a species called Australopithecus afarensis, which are an ancestor of homo sapien. Why her discovery was so exciting is because she was the link between Australopithecus and another species, Ardipithecus ramidus. And she is certainly not the oldest human ancestor fossil we've found. You need to learn a bit more about anthropology before you can bring it up in a debate. And evolution was a process that took MILLIONS of years! Thats an insanely long time, of course dramatic changes are going to take place in such a very very long time, from the primordial soup of young earth to multicellular organisms to plants to fish to lizards to mammals to humans.

[HumanePain]

Once we find primordial soup on Europa the Creationist theme will take a new turn, watch and see.

[Saya]

Somehow I still think that they will refute it, look at all the evidence we have now, that should be enough for anyone open minded.

[MegearaErotica]

Saya, she called Lucy a homo sapien because we are only sophomore and our history book is gay like that. I personally read other books for information but sometimes LittleStrangeling just doesn't really care...

[LiUsAiDh]

Originally Posted by MegearaErotica

Saya, she called Lucy a homo sapien because we are only sophomore and our history book is gay like that. I personally read other books for information but sometimes LittleStrangeling just doesn't really care...

I had my last ancient history lesson when I was 12, I know Lucy wasn't a homo sapien. >_>

[MegearaErotica]

That's pretty awesome LiUsAiDh, but I'm not a super genius... *tear* so I try to brush up every now and then. Also on your sig, is the line in green referring to monty python?

[LiUsAiDh]

Originally Posted by MegearaErotica

That's pretty awesome LiUsAiDh, but I'm not a super genius... *tear* so I try to brush up every now and then. Also on your sig, is the line in green referring to monty python?

I'm not a 'super genius', I just happen to own a wee group of 'ze little grey cells'.

Yes, the green line is a quote from The Holy Grail.

[Saya]

Eh, I suppose I'll have to take it up with whoever's teaching you guys this. May I ask why you guys learned about Lucy? She's been touted as the "missing link" sometimes but thats hardly true.

EDIT: wait a minute, thats not even history, its prehistorical. Why are you learning about that in history? Should be in biology or general science.

[LiUsAiDh]

Originally Posted by Saya

Eh, I suppose I'll have to take it up with whoever's teaching you guys this. May I ask why you guys learned about Lucy? She's been touted as the "missing link" sometimes but thats hardly true.

EDIT: wait a minute, thats not even history, its prehistorical. Why are you learning about that in history? Should be in biology or general science.

It may have been on a history (or prehistory, if you're in a nit picking mood. But nothing is Prehistory, time didn't somehow begin when we said it does) programme, the point is that I knew about Lucy around about or before the age of 12, since, sadly, since then I've let the wonders of ancient world be.

After re-reading your post, that may not have been directed at me. But if it was, then *points above*.

[MegearaErotica]

Originally Posted by Saya

Eh, I suppose I'll have to take it up with whoever's teaching you guys this. May I ask why you guys learned about Lucy? She's been touted as the "missing link" sometimes but thats hardly true.

EDIT: wait a minute, thats not even history, its prehistorical. Why are you learning about that in history? Should be in biology or general science.

It was in both and both said the same thing. Biology and world history I mean. See how far the U.S. has fallen. I determined about 5 years ago that when I turn 18 I'm going to jump the pond and move to the Scottish part of the U.K.

[Saya]

Nah, it wasn't directed at you ^_^ sorry, I'm a anthropologist nut, aside from the Lucy Is Too Old To Be Homo Sapien group I also belong to Neanderthals Were Really Smart Society.

[LiUsAiDh]

Originally Posted by MegearaErotica

Scottish part of the U.K.

It's called Scotland, dear. Scotland.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by MegearaErotica

Scottish part of the U.K.

*facepalm*

[a morbid curiosity]

Originally Posted by MegearaErotica

Scottish part of the U.K.

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

It's called Scotland, dear. Scotland.

Ahahahaha. Oh dear.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Man, I went to a Christian school too, and all they taught me was bullshit.
And it's evident because of all your misconceptions.
Now, you might not believe me and think I'm just trying to insult you, but I have actually studied both "theories" enough to know why creationism isn't one. The fact that you say what you're saying leads me to believe that you really don't know what you're talking about, as evidenced by your comments and my answers to them:

Originally Posted by LittleStrangeling

I went to a Christian school, and though they taught Creationism as the acceptable thing we also learned about evolution, the big bang theory, etc.

Me too. If you really, and I mean REALLY, learned about those theories, then your school is better than mine; but I bet you they did the same thing than in my school and you just believe they were being objective.

It seems to me that you are misinformed though, scientist have not the foggiest idea as to how we began

Isn't the Big Bang theory an idea?

as none of our theories can be proved or disproved.

That just shows a lack of understanding of what science is from your part, which I believe I will explain later.

For all they know it could have been freaking aliens.

Alright, then why believe in creationism in particular if it's not evidenced that concerns you?

I, honestly, cannot tolerate people such as yourself who think that just because it seems like a majority believes in something it is correct.

We're not going with the popular opinion. We're going with the one that has the most evidence. You're just making a personal attack, a flawed assumption, and all the while you're the one that looks stupid. If I believe that the sky is blue, and all the world believes the sky is blue, it's not that I'm fucking believing what everyone else does! It's that itr's so fucking obvious that most people can see it.

I know that all creatures have adapted from what they originally were, because I've seen proof of it, but it's nothing so tremendous that you could never tell that they were that.

Prove me this. Try to rationalize the existence of the blind albino fish that exist solely in a network of caverns in Texas.
According to evolution, the fish were trapped when the underground springs were isolated, and in millions of years due to the darkness the fish's eyes were atrophied as they didn't need them, nor did they need melanin.
According to creationism, God put those fish in there with no color and no eyes and no way to survive outside of their small environment... because they were a pretty addition?

There is no solid proof of where we actually began.

And there is no scientific proof that God exists. I'd rather take my "not-solid" scientific proof than my blatantly unscientific rationalization.

The oldest homo sapien we have is Lucy

That was an Australopithecus Afarensis

and you can see the similarities between her and us

Yes, because she's our 4.5 million year old ancestor

and 500 years ago the average height was four foot something

Four feet? Are you fucking kidding me? And five hundred years ago?!
Explain me then how come medieval armors, which date back as much as 1200 years, or Roman armors which date back to over two millennia, are our size.
People indeed were smaller, but that's a fucking hyperbole that no one would take seriously.

I should not have to explain why I don't believe in the big bang theory, but I'll put it into simple terms: when you add nothing to nothing, the outcome is still nothing.

That's bullshit as explained below.

But our environment is constantly changing. How can we be made perfectly fit for an environment that's ever changing? Are you that idiotic?

Are you? Our genetic make-up is constantly changing from generation to generation. We all have an average of, what was it? Four mutations in our genome compared to others of our species?

We were made perfectly to adapt to what's around us.

Then why have 99% of the species dies out?

The theory is about how there was an explosion of nothing, but somehow the universe started

Christians love repeating that ad nauseum, but that's not even close. The fact that they could say this just proves you how they don't care about science but on trying to deny facts.
The Big Bang emerged from a singularity, infinitely dense and infinitely small. It was something! It was a singularity! It contained all of the mass in the universe in an infinitesimal size because, containing all the mass, it contained all the gravity.
So tell me how the "nothing out of nothing" works when it clearly disregards the whole inherent property of the big bang. It's literally "everything came out of everything"

I'm not trying to discount it, I'm saying that I believe that we adapt to our surroundings, that I don't believe we were ever fish

Why not? It's perfectly plausible, with so many hundreds of millions of years and so much evidence describing a clear path of evolution, both in physical traits and in genetic ones.

I'm also saying that creationism cannot be proved either.

Science is not about perfect proof. It's about probable truth. Just because something can never be proven do you really think everything deserves the same amount of validity? The theory of gravity can't be proven either. Do you think we should argue that it's equally valid that invisible angels actually push us down? Or that a cookie monster is trying to suck us to the center of the world? Or that we tend to fall because our natural state is in the ground?

And, attempting to find out where humans began is more of History than science.

That's in fact not true regarding the matters of those fields.