Zafur

Thing is, evolution has pretty much been accepted as fact, and it's nonreligious, so it's taught in public schools. You can't teach religion in a public school (Brain washing the kids with the wrong religion, or ANY religion at all for Atheists.) I go to a Catholic school, so I also have classes dealing with Religion. Religion can't be put in science textbooks because it's just not considered science. Religion requires faith, belief in things without proof, and science is all about using proof to understand the world. I think if they DID mention intelligent design, it'd have to be pretty much a one paragraph mention of it at most... "Other people who follow various religions believe in a system called Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design dictates that a omnipotent being, God, or Gods, created life on Earth. Many of these religions make no direct mention of evolution, but some followers believe that evolution does not take place." And you can't directly teach one version of Intelligent Design or another... What about all the other religions, you know? Not teaching it is used to avoid brain washing, actually, and to make life simpler. I made a reference to the FSM earlier, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster It explains a lot. "The first public exposure of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (CoFSM) can be dated to January 2005, when Bobby Henderson, describing himself as a concerned citizen, sent an open letter regarding the FSM to the Kansas State Board of Education. The letter was sent prior to the Kansas evolution hearings as an argument against the teaching of intelligent design in biology classes. Intelligent design was thought of as a way to teach creationism in the public school system without mentioning the word "God". Henderson stated that both his theory and intelligent design had equal validity, saying "I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence." Henderson explained, "I don't have a problem with religion. What I have a problem with is religion posing as science. If there is a god and he's intelligent, then I would guess he has a sense of humor."" @ Wraith: "So if you have many things that have the same DNA or whatnot, you'd say "oh they're related!" But it can also suggest the case for a common creator. *gasp* You mean... God? Yes, an absolute! What's the matter? Can't face the fact an absolute being exists?" Um dude, calm down. Everyone accepts that similar DNA signifies the two organisms being related, yes? Like how siblings have similar DNA... And how Chimps share over 90% of DNA with us. I don't see how DNA having an over 90% match has anything to do with them being created by the same God. God could chose to make them have similar DNA or very different, there's no reason for either. You can't use that as evidence for being created by the same God, unless maybe we live in a Polytheistic world where creatures are created by different gods, and each of them using signature DNA, making us rely on DNA to see who created what. Believing in an absolute being is not relevant to DNA being shared between related species. I can believe God caused evolution just as easily as choosing only one or the other. Edit: I think finding some evidence against evolution and other things you two mentioned would help a lot... Without you giving us something to dispute, this isn't gonna go anywhere, just in circles. Okami said she'd bring some for us later but... Hm.

Well. The general theory is we eventually got fish. Some fish turned into land animals, some land animals turned into apes, and some apes turned into humans. So yeah, we came from fish. He might've just been pushy because it's a subject that's required to learn? I

And of course, humans are constantly trying to at least prove part of a whole truth. If evolution is true, like I believe it is, we may never be able to make a whole tree of life, but we may be able to figure out a few branches. Either way, thinking evolution is true isn't interfering with my religious beliefs, so I'm fine if it's "fully proven" or not. My schools never went in depth with evolution or genetics. So I'm still a newb at this. Hoping to take a course in genetics soon though.

Hm. I feel rather unqualified to debate about this right now. I need to brush up on my knowledge of evolution. I feel like we might just need to agree to disagree at some point. Even if we somehow get enough evidence either way.

I like trying to understand different mindsets and beliefs. It's helpful. Has there been fossil records of birds near the same time frame as dinosaurs? Also, you're bringing up hybridization. Hybrids are a bit different than species naturally, (or with help of man) changing characteristics until they can no longer be classified as their original species. Although, I guess interbreeding could help that, presuming fertile offspring. Of course dinos and birds are far off. They're millions of years apart. It doesn't mean it's totally impossible that dinosaurs didn't slowly over those years turn into birds. They both share characteristics, such as scales, some birds have reptilian looking eyes, similar foot structure, some dinosaurs have had beaks... Then there's species that are in between, such as the velociraptors I keep mentioning. And was it here that mentioned the species of birds that keep their claws on their wings when first hatched? I wasn't suggesting that prehistoric birds and dinos interbred to create modern birds... Not sure why you put that example? I don't think micro and macro evolution need to be differentiated too much in this debate. As mentioned, if you "believe in" micro evolution, then why is it hard to believe the mutations kept happening and building up until the species changed so much it can't be classified as the same one as before? @Okami: What evidence goes against evolution that you've found? I don't exactly go looking for it so I wouldn't know of any offhand. And where has it been shown that people involved with science change facts to match theories? Anyways. Evolution is not a religion. "Belief" in evolution is believing the facts, and knowing that those facts could possibly be changed with the next discovery if it happens to contradict previous beliefs. If that happens, we try to figure out why it contradicts, or if there's an explanation that doesn't contradict it, and we change our beliefs accordingly to fit which one is more likely, depending on evidence swaying either side. Religion requires faith, faith is trust in something that cannot be explained or proven to you. The whole great mystery of God thing... You two seem really religious, you know that already. Evolution doesn't fit as a religion as you cannot say you have faith in it. You believe the facts, which are based on evidence. Faith isn't. Edit: About the mutation things. Genes change because the proteins weren't copied correctly and instead influence a trait in a different way. Micro turning into macro is plausible. Changing an existing species into another existing species would require great luck into getting the correct random mutations to fit the other species, very implausible but nonetheless possible if you have some million years. Of course there's selective breeding or just manipulation, but that would be cheating, wouldn't it?

Hm. If you refuse to believe that a species of dinosaur evolved into a bird, then do you believe that both dinosaurs and birds existed in the same time period? Because it seems odd that the dinosaurs would die out while the prey would thrive. Or do you believe that God is constantly putting out new species? This is more of me just trying to understand what you believe. Also, the domestication of the silver fox in Russia should count as an observation of evolution. The foxes started getting more dog like coat patterns and actually started barking, traits never seen in foxes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_Silver_Fox Selective breeding, especially when dealing with mutations, is a readily available example of evolution. Is it so much of a stretch to think that if something like that could happen in 50 years of breeding, reptiles could mutate feathers and become birds over a couple million? Especially with evidence such as Velociraptors to back it up... (Which I posted a few pages back...) Also, I think people need to tone down the cockiness in this thread. It's distracting.

Bwuh? I don't know how my question sounds anti-evolutionist. The lemur-monkey would be the link between lemurs and monkeys, and the fish with stubs would be the link between... fish and land animals. Edit: Hey, I was just wondering... Does this necessarily have to be Creation vs. Evolution? Hypothetically speaking, if none of you guys believed in your religion, would your stance on the theory of evolution change? Is your disbelief purely because of the Bible?

Dinosaur? May I ask which one you're referring to? All I see is a lemur-monkey and something that looks like an amputated fish/fish growing legs.

This forum has been awfully quiet... The "missing link" has been found, any comments? I've only read one article on it so far, so I'm still neutralish. Could or could not be, but sounds believable so far.

Wasn't that the point? Alice in Wonderland is a huge long Acid trip, apparently. Oh! I just heard about Teeth the other day. Apparently it's been in folklore and such for a long time to keep boys from doing stuffs.

I'm really not sure what kind of style they were going for with the female, but it's not like you're going to have a fully anatomically correct sprite in game anyways. Shouldn't matter too much, you won't be able to tell what they're wearing... And I don't care if people play as their gender or not, but I always do, unless I replay and decide to change stuff around a bit. Kinda disappointed they replaced Kris though, unless she makes a cameo appearance.

Oh, that's fine then. I know it is, just making sure I didn't cause too much trouble for mods by accidentally stepping over some boundaries.

Hm? Were posts deleted? I was away for a bit so I guess I missed out. And um yeah. I don't see how debating contradicts respect, but okay. Moving on. Sorry if I started anything, guys. I agree with both earning and starting out with mutual respect. Everyone should start out with at least the barest amount of civil respect for each other, then let that grow from there on.

I was actually talking about the Mind Crystal thing with a friend earlier. But Suicune doesn't really have anything to do with the mind. It purifies lakes and stuff... Hm. And yeah, I was also a bit iffy over the fact that it doesn't follow the previous naming conventions much. Sterling Silver makes since. White Gold and Sterling Silver?

Yeah, I was thinking about that too. I guess it is the right time for people to start making fakes.

I think using something that sounds more like an adjective or adverb would make it sound less awkward, like the Shining Gold hack. At first I thought the names were a bit odd... But they're decent, I guess. FR/LG definitely sounds better.

If it's actually part of the new GS, then it seems it does have limited DSi only functions. In the "Gold" version, it seems a picture was taken with the camera and contrasted enough to be translated into the Pokétch thing. I can't really say if it's real or not. Looks real, but it could have easily been made up. Where did you get the pics? Edit: Are those holes supposed to be speakers? Was that there in D/P/Pt?

If I don't get both, I'll at least get Soul Silver. I like Lugia more than Ho-oh. I usually tend to like the more popular and the third version, for some reason...

I voted for Cyndaquil. When I first got Crystal, I chose Totodile (I have a thing for reptilians). But I restarted it not even half way through the game to choose Cyndaquil because I was under the belief the fire starters were better. I love how RAWR Feraligatr looks, but I hate Croconaw.>>;; I might get both (Or all three, if they also make Crystal, but I doubt it since they didn't remake Yellow. Sad, since I started with Crystal.) and choose Cyndaquil on one and Totodile on the other... I like Chikorita, but I just like the others more. My friend is really obsessed with it, though, so I know it's definitely not gonna be unused.

Haunter, Gengar... Giratina Origin Form...Banette? Used to really like Sableye.

I don't remember much now, but I thought some of his anger had to do with Giovanni not treating him well and the sad feelings left from Ambertwo.

Your old one seems to have a better looking shape than the one you're looking to buy... I don't know what's "decent" either, but I know people who play the bass.

Trueee. Lol. I just had to comment on the obvious irony in this thread. Yeah, but not all furries are into that. And not all people into that are furries. I'm not gonna go into morals about something being wrong or not. Especially if said thing involves fictional characters that doesn't affect our lives. Besides, everyone has a little love for Pokémon here, at it's purest meaning, eh? Edit 2: Waitwaitwait... Artists are creepy now? I'm assuming you mean fics and art that involves things with an Adult Only rating. And I think most people are aware that some people like different or odd things, and to just ignore it. As long as people don't shove weird stuffs in everyone's faces, it shouldn't be a problem.

I said borderline bashing. Calling a group of people "creepy" is "not respectful". Lol

Dodrio