- Dragon Ball Z Forum
- →
- The Lounge
- →
- Deep Discussion
- →
- Changes in Religion
| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
| Changes in Religion | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 5 2014, 08:44 AM (2,247 Views) | |
| + Ginyu | Aug 5 2014, 08:18 PM Post #31 |
Leve Feyenoord 1!
|
It is a logical process really... The precambrium era knew only bacteria. When looking at fossils later we see that fish start to form, later primates exist and those evolve into humans. Fish are dated back to certain ancestors, as well there are certain land animals that date back to fish similar to those ancestors. It's hard to explain but when you truly understand evolution it's completely logical. In fact, our ancestors were probably eukaryota at one point. Honestly, just watch some Documentories on it or heck you can even read Wikipedia. Edited by Ginyu, Aug 5 2014, 08:20 PM.
|
      Ask GinyuTokusentai | |
 |
 
|
| + Pointer | Aug 5 2014, 08:25 PM Post #32 |
...
|
Wiki and doc films does not explain it totally Their explanation is like The difference between a round and a triangle is that the round has no eagles I reckon DNA transformation does exist because we can see the results today ...Some people have brown eye and blue eye some have brown hair some have red. And so on. But transforming from a one celled creature to a comples human being seems pretty ridiculous. Or if it is true and every animal or every creature on planet Earth has the same ancestor the eucaryota then why can't an elephant speak why only human is the utmost superior race?.....I can smell some handicap there |
| |
|
|
|
| Zenet | Aug 5 2014, 08:27 PM Post #33 |
|
Have a DNA test and compare it with a fish. |
|
|
|
| + Ginyu | Aug 5 2014, 08:28 PM Post #34 |
|
Leve Feyenoord 1!
|
Because elephants rely on their huge size to survive. Humans have pure intelligence to thank for surviving, that continuous development of our intelligence allowed us to communicate. Elephants can also communicate only in a much more vague way. Our development of intelligence was only a little bit more advanced which allowed us to create language. Honestly. If you're asking these basic questions I doubt if you've really every watched a good documentary on evolution |
|
Ask GinyuTokusentai | |
|
|
|
| + Pointer | Aug 5 2014, 08:31 PM Post #35 |
|
...
|
evolution : adapt or persh eh If the very first eucaryota adapted and transformed to a procaryota....and thus ....fish ...lizards ...dinos ....so on Why didnt they persihed ..We can even see eucaryotas today Why cant we see a Neandertal for example or Homo erectus? Edited by Pointer, Aug 5 2014, 08:33 PM.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| + Ginyu | Aug 5 2014, 08:35 PM Post #36 |
|
Leve Feyenoord 1!
|
Okay let me tell you three fundamental things about evolution: 1. Evolution is the change in populations, not in individuals 2. Evolution is not a process in which species universally progress up a "ladder". 3. Evolution explains how humans developed from a primal ancestor, but not a species of eukaryota that exists today. If this doesn't satisfy you, here's a page that very well explains how evolution works and why ancestors disappear: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/How_come_there_are_still_monkeys%3F#Serious_answers Edited by Ginyu, Aug 5 2014, 08:36 PM.
|
|
Ask GinyuTokusentai | |
|
|
|
| Zenet | Aug 5 2014, 08:36 PM Post #37 |
|
That is a different brunch of Evolution called Natural selection. |
|
|
|
| + Pointer | Aug 5 2014, 08:40 PM Post #38 |
|
...
|
Bow to the king of debate  My lack of knowledge what makes you the victor today To say something ontopic Not eating shrips might be healthy ...you know |
|
| |
|
|
|
| + Ginyu | Aug 5 2014, 08:42 PM Post #39 |
|
Leve Feyenoord 1!
|
Not sure if sarcasm or not... If not, thanks you. I absolutely respect you for saying that, in all honesty, I would rarely admit defeat in a debate. @Shrimps: Maybe, but I love shrimp, so I'll never give up on it |
|
Ask GinyuTokusentai | |
|
|
|
| TheGmGoken | Aug 5 2014, 08:43 PM Post #40 |
|
Is this on topic? Isn't Science indirectly a religion? |
| |
|
|
|
| + Pointer | Aug 5 2014, 08:44 PM Post #41 |
|
...
|
Science is "solid fact" do not ever confuse that with religion |
|
| |
|
|
|
| + Ginyu | Aug 5 2014, 08:45 PM Post #42 |
|
Leve Feyenoord 1!
|
Eh.... The definition of what is a religion varies. Many people will tell you buddhism is not a religion. If it is, it would probably be an entirely new branch to religion knows as non-theistic religion. It really depends on what you would define as a religion though |
|
Ask GinyuTokusentai | |
|
|
|
| Zenet | Aug 5 2014, 08:57 PM Post #43 |
|
Religion is a cultural system science just points to facts. We use science everyday the simple thing of saying the sun gives off light would be science. Since there is evidence for this and science just means evidence. If there was passage about this in the Bible Religious fundamentalist would probably sound like this " Its just an illusion by satan because the bible in verse 52 says nothing can give off light but god |
|
|
|
| + Ginyu | Aug 5 2014, 09:03 PM Post #44 |
|
Leve Feyenoord 1!
|
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn] noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. I wouldn't say atheism doesn't belong to these... |
|
Ask GinyuTokusentai | |
|
|
|
| * Ketchup Revenge | Aug 5 2014, 09:42 PM Post #45 |
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war room!"
|
Religion doesn't point to facts, it points to assumptions. The two aren't even remotely the same. If one guy cursed out God, and got struck by lightning, there's two possibilities to why this happened to him: 1) God exists and got mad at the man for cursing him out 2) The two events are completely unrelated. Due to the blind belief that God exists in the first place, most theists will simply assume the first option without question, and without further investigation. However, religion will write this into canon, and assume this as truth. While science will try to find an explanation from a neutral standpoint. The difference between science and religion is that religion will assume a certainty to begin with, and then conduct the experiment to gather evidence in support of that theory; while science gathers the evidence first, and then formulates a possible certainty from that evidence ("Theory"). Science will do this sometimes, but usually there is legitimate evidence to believe that certainty in the first place. For example, String Theory. There's no actual evidence for it outside theoretical physics, but either way, that alone is evidence for the possibility of it. However, due to the lack of physical evidence for String Theory, most of the scientific community doesn't accept String Theory on the same level of legitimacy as The Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory. Edited by Ketchup Revenge, Aug 5 2014, 10:02 PM.
|
 The vengeance is her's for as long as she stands by Him. | |
|
|
|
| 0 users reading this topic | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 4:43 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy