{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Editado por LegendaryWarlock:
4/15/2013 4:09:28 PM
9
I'm going to copy/paste this comment I just posted except as a separate comment rather than a reply so more people can see it. I will not tell you what religion I believe in because if you don't agree with it, that will discredit what I am going to say, at least in your mind.
[quote]Actually science supports intelligent design. /The More You Know/ Don't believe me? One word. Symbiosis. Still don't? Read any physiology textbook. It's a helluva lot more likely that we were, in fact, created by something superior to ourselves. What you choose to believe created us is entirely up to you, however.[/quote]
English
-
I'd like you to actually elaborate on your points. Your "argument" consisted of presenting us with a word and then telling us to read something else instead of actually saying anything useful, not very convincing.
-
Symbiosis is when two or more organisms coexist in a relationship where both provide a beneficial service to one another. Take, for example, the termite. Termites eat wood, but they cannot digest the cellulose in the wood. To perform this function, the termite must have bacteria in its stomach which [i]can[/i] digest it. The termite provides shelter and food for the bacteria, while the bacteria break down the cellulose and convert it to a substance which the termite can digest. Neither the termite nor the bacteria can live separately from each other. Now, how does this provide evidence for a creation scenario rather than evolution? In evolution "simple" creatures evolve into "complex" creatures. If that is the case, the bacteria never would exist because natural selection won't allow it to. If the bacteria doesn't exist, the termite never would either. The reason this supports the creation theory is that all organisms were made at the same time, not billions of years apart, allowing the bacteria to be put in the termite before they both die. As to the physiology comment, if you can read how the human body works and still say it just happened to form from evolution, then all I have left to do is applaud you, because you have much more faith than I.
-
inb4 we are all in a virtual world
-
If all things were created by something intelligent, why have animals gone naturally extinct?
-
Would you care to give me an example of an animal that has gone extinct "naturally" without a natural disaster, drought, etc.?
-
[quote]Would you care to give me an example of an animal that has gone extinct "naturally" without a [b][u]natural[/u][/b] disaster, drought, etc.?[/quote] uh...
-
Editado por Mad Max: 4/18/2013 3:12:08 AMAnimals going extinct through natural disaster, drought, etc, is natural, and actually presents a pretty good case against intelligent design. Animals going extinct by means of humans taking over their habitat or hunting them into extinction is not. For example: Natural - [quote]The first record of the Golden Toad was by herpetologist Jay Savage in 1966. The toad, recognized by its brilliant golden orange color, was native to the tropical cloud forests which surround Monteverde, Costa Rica. None have been seen since 1989. It last bred in normal numbers in 1987, and its breeding sites were well known. In 1987, due to erratic weather, the pools dried up before the larva had matured. Out of potential 30,000 toads, only 29 had survived. In 1988, only eight males and two females could be located. In 1989, a single male was found, this was the last record of the species. Extensive searches since this time have failed to produce any more records of the golden toad.[/quote] Unnatural - [quote]Commonly known as the Tasmanian Tiger, the Thylacine was the largest known carnivorous marsupial of modern times. Virtually wiped out in the wild due to constant hunting (they were thought to be a threat to sheep and other small farm animals) and the encroachment of humans on their already limited habitat the Thylacine was finally recognized as being in danger of becoming extinct in 1936, too little, too late as that same year the last Thylacine, named Benjamin, died on 7 September as the result of neglect — locked out of its sheltered sleeping quarters and exposed to freezing temperatures at night in Hobart Zoo, Tasmania. 60 years on there are still claims of sightings but all are yet to be confirmed.[/quote]
-
Editado por LegendaryWarlock: 4/19/2013 4:19:13 PMAre you familiar with biospheres? If not, they are enclosed areas which scientists attempt to fill with the right mix of organisms to sustain one another. They have yet to succeed. Earth is the same thing, but on a massive scale. As it continues to age its ecosystem slowly becomes more and more out of balance, causing extinctions and disasters until it all comes crashing down, and that's the end of the world. By the way, don't try to skew your evidence to look more favorable to you. [quote]At least four theories have been postulated as to the reason for the decline and extinction of golden toads: climatic change, pollution, ultraviolet radiation, and fungal skin infections. [/quote] [quote]The disappearance of this species was most likely due to a combination of unfavorable climate, pollution, and disease.[/quote][url]http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/fieldcourses05/PapersCostaRicaArticles/TheExtinctionoftheGoldenT.html[/url] Lets see here... Climate change? Attributed to humans. UV radiation? Attributed to the ozone layer reduction, which is attributed to humans. Pollution? Attributed to humans. Fungal skin infections, aka disease? Natural. So 3 out of 4 possible causes for their extinction are attributed to humans.
-
for a hidden thread, this has survived a long time
