Pages: 1 … 40 41 42 43 44 … 51

Topic closed

2006-05-04 13:10:09
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6681|Tampa Bay Florida

JaMDuDe wrote:

Skruples, its not just the bible who says He fulfilled the prophecies, its historical fact in some cases and we know thats how the romans did things.

skruples wrote:

How do you know they evolved at the same time? Is it possible that these segments evolved at seperate times and later took up complementary jobs? Going back to my computer analogy, a regular desktop computer will not run without a graphics card. It won't run without a motherboard. It won't run without a cpu. But if we go back through the 'evolution' (so to speak) of the computer, you would see that all of those things were added in one at a time, and were changed to complement each other.
No, its not possible. This answer has been covered. Evolution doesnt add all the parts at one time. If we go back through "evolution" we would see that all the parts were made and its impossible for a computer to assemble itself.

The fact that you said that shows you dont know the odds. In some cases its bound to happen somewhere in the universe, but this is impossible. The odds of life appearing spontaneously are the same odds as you finding a winning lottery ticket on the street, then you find one every week for one thousand years. If thats bound to why hasnt it happened to one of the billions of people on earth? The odds of an earth appearing in the our universe are less than 1 chance in one hundred billion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillionl. Those seem good odds to rely on eh?

Dont you think that my picture is the missing link? It shows that the fish are coming out of the sea and developing arms.

Spark,

There is evidence of a flood. Its just who you ask.

Just because the island is unknown to humans doesnt mean its unknown to animals. Can you prove to me that it didnt go there after the flood? How do you know it didnt "evolve" rapidly? Island dwarfing shows animals and change quickly to adapt. And they didnt change species.

We sinned. Are you really asking why God didnt warn us of every natural problem we might ever have????

It could happen. Show me evidence that its impossible. If that happens, all the springs of earth open up and 40 days of rain, you got a big flood.

Yeah, its easy to get a reading just because bias people want to believe it say so.

Maybe the big bang didnt happen. Maybe we were created. If all the planets exploded from all the same material, why are all of them completely different? How did enough material to create jupiter just explode? Why do some planets orbit in opposite directions?

Can you please show me all the different types of animals with slight variations? Its microevolution.

Could you also explain why we havent found ANY mutations that give an advantage? If this is how everything on earth formed how come we cant find one?

Along with the prophecy, it seems the people from the bible knew that as the universe expands, space itself stretches. Do you mind explaining how? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_c … e_Big_Bang
Dude, it's hopeless, you're BRAINWASHED.

There is no god out there.  As someone said before, if we did not have a language to communicate with, we'd still be back in Africa picking flies off eachothers backs.

I really wish you could see things the way others see them.  You'll live your life, believing in something greater than yourself, like heaven, and you'll die.  That's it.
2006-05-04 13:15:35
MooseRyder
Member
+37|6647|Montréal, Canada
^ thats what religions are for, make life look better then what it really is making you think ull go in heaven, kinda to get off reality and all your REAL problems.

oh and yeah,, hes Brainwashed....badly
2006-05-04 13:28:16
ArMaG3dD0n
Member
+24|6827|Deutschland/Germany
Being sick of christiananswers.com and some false claims you made I just googled creationism and took one of the first links: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB
Just clicked on some of them and the answers seem to be short and reasonable.

My answer to a link: A LINK
sounds fair right?
2006-05-04 13:35:32
rawkfist22
Member
+5|6811

ArMaG3dD0n wrote:

JaMDuDe wrote:

Could you also explain why we havent found ANY mutations that give an advantage? If this is how everything on earth formed how come we cant find one?
No mutations that give advantages.....wow.....really...
No there are mutations that give advantages and they even happened very recently and are 100% proven. I m not in the mood to write half a page about mutations that give advantages today. One would be sickle cell anemia for malaria resistance. Or Bacteria becoming able to use other nutrient sources etc. etc. etc.
This is some very basic stuff if you want to understand evolution. So how can you consider it to be wrong when you don t even know the basics of how it works.


Another great example of what happens if one gets all his information on some "very reliable" websites or wherever you got that from.
Sickle Cell Anemia may make you more resistant to malaria but it adds bouts of pain and difficulty fighting infections.

Spearhead wrote:

As someone said before, if we did not have a language to communicate with, we'd still be back in Africa picking flies off eachothers backs.
How does this prove that no God exists?
2006-05-04 13:39:14
ArMaG3dD0n
Member
+24|6827|Deutschland/Germany

rawkfist22 wrote:

Sickle Cell Anemia may make you more resistant to malaria but it adds bouts of pain and difficulty fighting infections.
Which still is an advantage in some parts of the world.

But as I m now going over to the JamDude method of copy and paste, here are some more:

Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:

    * Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
    * Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
    * Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
    * A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
    * Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
    * In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Last edited by ArMaG3dD0n (2006-05-04 13:42:12)

2006-05-04 13:47:33
rawkfist22
Member
+5|6811

ArMaG3dD0n wrote:

rawkfist22 wrote:

Sickle Cell Anemia may make you more resistant to malaria but it adds bouts of pain and difficulty fighting infections.
Which still is an advantage in some parts of the world.

But as I m now going over to the JamDude method of copy and paste, here are some more:

Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:

    * Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
    * Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
    * Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
    * A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
    * Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
    * In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
Source?

I don't have enough time or knowledge to argue those points right now, but can you give me an example of a mutation which resulted in a new species?
2006-05-04 13:54:17
ArMaG3dD0n
Member
+24|6827|Deutschland/Germany
yeah I can: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

(no I didnt even read it but as I said I m currently using the JamDude method)
2006-05-04 13:57:19
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|6769
Its bias!
2006-05-04 14:06:42
ArMaG3dD0n
Member
+24|6827|Deutschland/Germany
@ Jam
The main difference is that you call a list of things that have been observed biased whereas I call something biased when its only aim is to defend the litteral interpretation of the bible.

Please reply that the aim of scientists is to disprove god so they are in general biased I m just waiting for that one!!!

Last edited by ArMaG3dD0n (2006-05-04 14:08:50)

2006-05-04 14:07:49
rawkfist22
Member
+5|6811

ArMaG3dD0n wrote:

yeah I can: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

(no I didnt even read it but as I said I m currently using the JamDude method)
Well, I guess I'll follow the trend then. In response to "A new species of mosquito, the molestus" from
the link you gave.

"Culex pipiens occurs in 2 behavioral forms that cannot easily be distinguished morphologically.  The true “pipiens” form is primarily a bird feeder and does not appear to be a major biting pest.  The “molestus” form is autogenous for its first batch of eggs but reverts to blood feeding to produce additional egg batches.  The “molestus” form readily accepts blood from mammalian hosts, including humans."
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~insects/pip2.htm

In other words, same species, different form.
2006-05-04 14:21:52
ArMaG3dD0n
Member
+24|6827|Deutschland/Germany
It doesnt say it s the same species from what I understand but I d need to look up some words.....

http://esa.confex.com/esa/2005/techprog … _20336.htm

they say they got different genes....at least some parts........depends on when you want to call it a species...

But I m not really interested in proving some page to be right I was just saying that copying and pasting everything from one site does not lead to very much.

Last edited by ArMaG3dD0n (2006-05-04 14:31:43)

2006-05-04 14:54:37
rawkfist22
Member
+5|6811
There are other examples of actual evolution observed - but I am thinking your expectations are absurdly different.

If you’re expecting a Lynx to spontaneously grow longer arms, then fingers, and the flesh to fill in like a web in between these extended appendages and become like a GIANT FURRY CAT BAT a BLYNX - all within the confines of a LAB - you are expecting a bit much - in the blink of an eye.

An animal such as a whale (not a fish as the so-called inerrant Bible says); this mammal; did not evolve or depart from life on land in one spontaneous leap - this is one aspect of evolution theory/FACT you simply fail to understand or know. One form is simply the modification of a pre-existing form. A leg & foot becomes a fin; etc; etc; etc. And this does not happen in REAL time; it happens in time frames that are much longer that even a 100 lifetimes; or thousands. . . it is more like geologic-time.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra … 34_05.html

Watch the vid. & understand it is minor attempt to educate you.
I appreciate the "attempt to educate" me. Although I doubt you know my level of intelligence even if it is quite low.  I don't expect a "BLYNX" to spontaneously appear (it would be cool though), though it would help to explain the absence of transitional forms, or at least legitimate ones.
2006-05-04 14:59:06
ArMaG3dD0n
Member
+24|6827|Deutschland/Germany

JaMDuDe wrote:

So is this plenty of proof of evolution all the stuff that has been proven wrong and is still in textbooks? Can you please show me solid proof of evolution? Not all scientists agree with evolution. Plenty of very educated scientists dont agree with it.
Let me use your patented copy+paste technique:

Response:

   1. Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

      Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.

   2. One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

   3. Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.


I think I ll quit this discussion though or limit to reading since it s consuming too much time without changing anyone s views.
2006-05-04 15:02:06
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6666|Canberra, AUS
That's enough. We do not want this to turn into a copy/paste war.

Can someone find out how you define a species? There appears to be little consensus - especially among homonoids - where one species ends and another begins. Fossil records show that there isn't a clear point of distinction, but rather the transition is very 'blurred'.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-05-04 15:04:01
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|6769
Armagedon, that was 15 years ago. And i said they didnt agree with evolution, not they were all creationists.
2006-05-04 15:32:20
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6666|Canberra, AUS

JaMDuDe wrote:

Armagedon, that was 15 years ago. And i said they didnt agree with evolution, not they were all creationists.
And what alternative is there to evolutionism, if not creationism?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-05-04 15:37:17
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6763|PNW

Marconius wrote:

I believe in science...things that can be actively tested and measured and proven.  I've no need for faith in something that cannot be proven to or to not exist.
Using this quote as a spin-off point, my beliefs are similar, up to a certain level. I believe in that which can be tested and measured, but I also believe that they may someday be proven false, or not the entire truth. At the same time, I believe that there are things in this universe that cannot be tested and measured with proven technology. Trying to debunk god is like attempting to disprove the flying spaghetti monster. Any theory proposed in those regards would be sorely lacking in the oh-so-valued tests and measurements.

topal63 wrote:

Science is NOT based upon faith, but rather on both directly and indirectly observed facts & phenomenon + experiments (complex ones even!) that can be preformed by YOU personally - should you assume that belief is in play as a concept.
Or it can be represented by something read in a book, seen on TV, or even observed without realization. People view the practical application of science with a kind of faith on a daily basis. They may not know how sound emits from a radio, but are fairly confident that it will do so when turned on. Skepticism contradicts itself when it is confined to trusting in only that which is measurable by current technological means.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-05-04 15:46:49)

2006-05-04 18:21:35
rawkfist22
Member
+5|6811
There is also the deficiency in the fossil record known as the "Cambrian Explosion" to consider. Since I know your first response to this will talk origins, I'll give you the link to it myself. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

But if your interested in both sides of the argument you can also check out http://www.origins.org/articles/chien_e … flife.html
http://www.rae.org/cambrian.html

In my opinion, to believe in evolution takes as much faith as it takes to believe in a creator.  To embrace Darwinism and naturalism you have to believe:

-Nothing produces everything
-Non-life produces life
-Randomness produces fine-tuning
-Unconciousness produces conciousness
-Non-reason produces reason

Whatever you believe, your putting faith in something.  Evolution remains a theory, not a fact.

By the way, what are the chances the invisible flying spaghetti monster will spontaneously grow longer arms, then fingers, and the flesh to fill in a web in between these extended appendages and become a GIANT FURRY BLYNX? Or would it then be called a Spaglynx?  Either way, I still think it would be cool.
2006-05-04 18:33:53
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6763|PNW

On an unrealated note, Cambrian Explosion has been one of my online tags for violent video games...when allowed that much space.
2006-05-04 23:28:08
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6666|Canberra, AUS

rawkfist22 wrote:

There is also the deficiency in the fossil record known as the "Cambrian Explosion" to consider. Since I know your first response to this will talk origins, I'll give you the link to it myself. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

But if your interested in both sides of the argument you can also check out http://www.origins.org/articles/chien_e … flife.html
http://www.rae.org/cambrian.html

In my opinion, to believe in evolution takes as much faith as it takes to believe in a creator.  To embrace Darwinism and naturalism you have to believe:

-Nothing produces everything
-Non-life produces life
-Randomness produces fine-tuning
-Unconciousness produces conciousness
-Non-reason produces reason

Whatever you believe, your putting faith in something.  Evolution remains a theory, not a fact.

By the way, what are the chances the invisible flying spaghetti monster will spontaneously grow longer arms, then fingers, and the flesh to fill in a web in between these extended appendages and become a GIANT FURRY BLYNX? Or would it then be called a Spaglynx?  Either way, I still think it would be cool.
My belief is that the Cambrian explosion is just the result of all mammals growing in size following a mass extinction - it has happened plenty of times.

The 'fine-tuning' of organisms is a direct result of evolution - actually, more a result of 'survival of the fittest'.

Evolution remains a theory - which can explain near every single biological event (save extinctions) pretty damn well - which is why it is accepted.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-05-05 08:17:22
rawkfist22
Member
+5|6811

Spark wrote:

My belief is that the Cambrian explosion is just the result of all mammals growing in size following a mass extinction - it has happened plenty of times.

The 'fine-tuning' of organisms is a direct result of evolution - actually, more a result of 'survival of the fittest'.

Evolution remains a theory - which can explain near every single biological event (save extinctions) pretty damn well - which is why it is accepted.
Or the fine-tuning of organisms and the entire universe is a direct result of an extremely intelligent designer. This argument seems logical to me, if you see a complex machine, the first response is to give credit to the designer, not to say that the design eventually figured itself out.

In my opinion, complex design = intelligent designer.
2006-05-05 09:07:08
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6686|San Francisco
Intelligent Design is just another way of saying that you're too lazy to go about and understand and question how something came to be.  You'd rather just say "god...er...an Intelligent Designer did it!" and go about your life feeling comfortable in that logical retreat.

Personally, I'd rather break a complex machine down to see how it was created with my own set of tools, rather than not opening the machine at all.  Plus, it's easy for humans to personify the world with man-made machines/analogies, which makes "crediting a designer" kind of irrelevant, since you still just go about having no proof that a 'designer' made all that is Natural.  At least, no proof other than constantly attributing anything you personally cannot explain to a "designer."  Who designed your designer?
2006-05-05 09:21:36
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6681|Tampa Bay Florida

rawkfist22 wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

As someone said before, if we did not have a language to communicate with, we'd still be back in Africa picking flies off eachothers backs.
How does this prove that no God exists?
It means that we are just like everything else in this world-- primitive animals.  My name really isn't who I am, it is a combination of sounds used to address and distinguish me from other people.  Dollars, and all other forms of currency, is nothing more than paper with symbols drawn on it, and finally, there really are no countries, or borders.  They are just imaginary lines, which do not exist.  Meaning, one thing- god does not exist.  Because he is just an imaginary figure created by ourselves in an attempt to help us explain why we are here.  The human mind is a strange thing, isn't it? 

The human concept of reality is mainly imaginary, if you think about it.  Think about it.  The very word' think' is completely imaginary.  We have numbers, and names, and a stock market, and sports teams, and a president.  In reality, is George W. Bush any different from you and I?  No.  He's a regular human being, who dresses up in a suit and talks with other people from different parts of the world, who are themselves dressed in suits.

And, if you think about it, war is completely imaginary.  In physical reality, war is just two groups of young, fit males, dressed up into two different styles of clothing, from two different parts of the world, with weapons, trying to kill eachother.

Last edited by Spearhead (2006-05-05 09:30:30)

2006-05-05 09:32:25
rawkfist22
Member
+5|6811
I believe that no one/nothing designed the designer (who I believe to be God). He's always existed. But I can also turn that argument around.  Who designed the material which caused the "Big Bang" in the first place? Where did it come from? Did it always exist? If so, how is that different then believe a designer always existed?

Believing we were created is not taking the "lazy" way, at least not for me. Its not that I'm saying, "God made us and that’s it, there's no need to give evidence for it". I believe we were created because I believe in God. But I have also seen a lot of evidence supporting this, both from atheists and Christians.

Obviously there is no "proof" that we were created, just as there is no "proof" that we evolved. There is only evidence. If either one argument could be proven, this debate wouldn't still be going on.

Spearhead wrote:

It means that we are just like everything else in this world-- primitive animals.  My name really isn't who I am, it is a combination of sounds used to address and distinguish me from other people.  Dollars, and all other forms of currency, is nothing more than paper with symbols drawn on it, and finally, there really are no countries, or borders.  They are just imaginary lines, which do not exist.  Meaning, one thing- god does not exist.  Because he is just an imaginary figure created by ourselves in an attempt to help us explain why we are here.  The human mind is a strange thing, isn't it?

The human concept of reality is mainly imaginary, if you think about it.  Think about it.  The very word' think' is completely imaginary.  We have numbers, and names, and a stock market, and sports teams, and a president.  In reality, is George W. Bush any different from you and I?  No.  He's a regular human being, who dresses up in a suit and talks with other people from different parts of the world, who are themselves dressed in suits.

And, if you think about it, war is completely imaginary.  In physical reality, war is just two groups of young, fit males, dressed up into two different styles of clothing, from two different parts of the world, with weapons, trying to kill eachother.
Definitely an interesting way of looking at life.  But the definition of imaginary is " Having existence only in the imagination; unreal.".  Personally I think currency is not imaginary, it may just be a piece of paper with symbols on it, but it is used to represent some value.  I don't believe war is imaginary and I don't think many people do. War is one word we use to describe "two groups of young, fit males, dressed up into two different styles of clothing, from two different parts of the world, with weapons, trying to kill eachother.". Is it real? Ask the people fighting in it. By this logic, everything is imaginary. But maybe we just have a different opinion of what 'imaginary' means.

This kind of seems like deductive reasoning gone wrong. I can't see borders, therefore countries don't actually exist. I can't see God, therefore God doesn't actually exist.  But by that same logic, I can't see gravity, therefore it doesn't exist. I can't see air, so it must just be in my imagination.

I understand that many people have difficulty believe that there is more to life then what we can physically touch, feel, and test. And therefore they believe that anyone who does believe in something greater then themselves is just looking for a crutch, or is ignorant. In all honesty, I can understand where people who think that are coming from, even if I know its not true.

You can find evidence pointing to a creator, but will not be able to test that creator.

Last edited by rawkfist22 (2006-05-05 09:55:51)

2006-05-05 11:21:41
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6686|San Francisco
Not necessarily.  You experience gravity every day, or at least a force that we've called gravity that enable you to stay on this planet.  You experience wind every day as it blows by you and screws up your umbrella.  You can't experience the idea of god in the same way, since "god" is left completely up to subjective interpretation, or at least what large clandestine groups tell you to believe/interpret, when gravity and wind aren't.

Topic closed

Pages: 1 … 40 41 42 43 44 … 51

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard