Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 9/49
(04-Feb-2003 at 22:57)
Perhaps you might not know, but jellyfish (the Obelia species), has a morphogenetic gene of the eye that is VERY close to that of humans, it is thought that it is an "ancestor form" of the genes which make our own eyes. Yet, the jellyfish's eyes are reduced to "ocells", very primitive eyes, which some worms (like Nereis) also have...

Now, the biological signification of a species is a group of animals (or vegetals, for that matter) which can reproduce themselves, and of whome the offsprings are not sterile (in other words, the offspring from a lion and a tigress (or vice versa) being sterile, lions and tigers are two different species)
Philogenetic studies on apes and humans have showed a rather striking ressemblance:
The chimpanzee and the Human being are very much alike, when it comes to caryotypes, only, the caryotype of the chimpanzee seems to show the fusion of two chromosomes, chromosomes otherwise present in the human being.
The basic idea of evolution is a mutation in the gametes, supposing this gamete will give an animal that can live normally, there are two possibilities: either the mutation gives an advantage to the offspring, compared to the other "normal" population, in which case, his mutation will prevail, and the other will disappear. If it disadvantages it, it can either migrate to a more favourable "ecological house", or disappear. If it has no influence on the living of the creature (like eye colour, skin colour or hair colour for humans), then both alleles will remain.
A population can then have a difference, compared to the other normal creatures, if that population evolves further, it can have other mutations that will lead it to being a different species. This is for divided evolution.
Linear evolution is in the case of a single population, where a mutation takes place, and stays because it advantages the creature, other mutations can happen...

The first signs of life, according to geologists, date back to 4.4 Billion years or so... It has been the only life form then, when the atmosphere didn't even have any oxygen. Those were cyanobacterias, that could use light to generate organic molecules (like plants), then, the oxygen they created killed most of them (oxygen IS basically a biological poison, because of it's oxydant powers), some however survived and mutated to "break" the oxygen molecules, and later, the energy released by breaking those molecules were used as a new power source for the metabolism, breathing appeared...
In all life form, there are mitochondrians and in chlorophyllian plants, there are chloroplasts, those two "organites" have the particularity of having their own genetic code. Scientists believe they were once bacterias, which were phagocyted by living cells, and since then, lived in symbiosis...

The facts are there, science proves that Evolution is how life gave man, and every species existing on Earth.
Whether it is by Rubidium-Strontium dating (Carbon 14 dating is not precise enough, only for "small" ages: back to the appearing of the Australopithecus or so, for geological scales, Rubidium-Strontium is used), by philogenetics (through DNA ressemblances, protein ressemblances and simply phenotype ressemblances), but also through the study of the embryo: look at a human, a bird's a fish's and a cat's embryo at the early stages: you will notice that they ALL look alike, it is only much later that the differences come, this is especially true with creatures having the same "symetry".

The true question is not really about who believes in Evolution, Evolution has been proved scientifically, by various ways, the true question is HOW did life actually appear on Earth? Between the "natural" creation of organic molecules and a living cell, there's a huge difference...

As for the reincarnation business: I believe in the soul, as some form of "energy", Einstein also believed in souls and reincarnation, following this same idea, and Lavoisier's theory: nothing is created, nothing is lost.

Sabiss, the blade-spirit
#1701  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Sabiss Add Sabiss to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 11/49
(04-Feb-2003 at 23:04)
Made a mistake: first forms of life appeared between 4.0 and 3.8 Billion years ago, not 4.4 Billion
#1702  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Sabiss Add Sabiss to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2056/2095
Donated $0.52
(05-Feb-2003 at 00:29)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Monkey0)

Actually, i did quite well in biology, an adaption is something an organism does to cope with change, it can take anywhere from hours to years to do. For example, if a human moves to say, nepal, it's body will have to adapt to the new conditions. It the medium term blood is restricted (somewhat) from the skin so not as much heat is lost, in the long term the blood thinkens and more blood cells are made as there is less oxygen up there (i think thats why) and in the short term things like the hair folicles standing on end to better hold the heat (not as good as it once was as we seem to have lost a bit of hair). These are all adaptions and have nothing to do with DNA or genotypes, and i don't know how a phenotype can influence a genotype, as phenotypes are the charateristics demonstrated by a genotype.
Mutations in the DNA can cause an adaption, but only if it is when it is a gamete and the offspring is born with it, or if the mutation is passed on to every cell in the body which hasn't really been done yet.
Evolution can only occur if the change is passed on to the offspring, and that can only happen if the change is present in it's gametes.
That's not really a new adaptation for the organism (humans) already had the ability to do so. As I recall, an adaptation is caused by a mutation that is determined beneficial by natural selection. Mutations generally happen in gametes, so therefore adaptations are passed on. If I'm wrong on this, feel free to correct me. It's been a while since I learned this.

Anyways, I think I worded the phenotype response wrong. Natural selection and adaptation work on phenotypes. The physical results (ex: wings, legs, etc.) are what are decided upon in natural selection and adaptation in accordance with it's appropriate and available niches.

In brightest day, in blackest night, No evil shall escape my sight.
Let those who worship evil's might, Beware my power, Green Lantern's Light
Slave of Justara
Home~The Gaming Universe~Forums
#1703  
View Public Profile Visit AznBlade's homepage Find more posts by AznBlade Add AznBlade to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 9/11
(05-Feb-2003 at 13:27)
an adaption doesn't have to be from a mutation, that was my point, and any adaptions that happen during an organisms life aren't genetic mutations, another example is thing's like muscle growth, if the muscles sre used more often they grow. It's still an adaption, but not a genetic one. An adaption is anything that happens to an organism to make it cope better in it's environment, if it's because of a genetic anomoly when it was concieved or whether it's genes kicked off a process to help it cope, it's still an adaption it didn't have at the moment. Before a person lived in the cold area his blood was thinner etc then when it helps his blood thinkens and he adapts, to go right back again when he goes back home, another adaption.
An evolutionary adaption (i made that term up, but i think it goes well) has to be a genetic mutation or just a good set of chromosomes, ie selective breeding.

All High Monkey0 The Great, Alcholic Feary and Cullinary Genious.
#1704  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Monkey0 Add Monkey0 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 234/330
(05-Feb-2003 at 15:50)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Monkey0)

an adaption doesn't have to be from a mutation, that was my point, and any adaptions that happen during an organisms life aren't genetic mutations, another example is thing's like muscle growth, if the muscles sre used more often they grow. It's still an adaption, but not a genetic one. An adaption is anything that happens to an organism to make it cope better in it's environment, if it's because of a genetic anomoly when it was concieved or whether it's genes kicked off a process to help it cope, it's still an adaption it didn't have at the moment. Before a person lived in the cold area his blood was thinner etc then when it helps his blood thinkens and he adapts, to go right back again when he goes back home, another adaption.
An evolutionary adaption (i made that term up, but i think it goes well) has to be a genetic mutation or just a good set of chromosomes, ie selective breeding.
Ag lets try again shall we monkey0. Yes the adaption does take place during the organisms life time and as such would appear to have no genetic basis, but the fact is that in order to make the adaption it must have originally had the genes for the adaption just not have them activated. When the adaption becomes necassary the genes are activated that allow for the adaption, and hey presto the organism adapts. eg. a bug on agar containing starch as the carbon source will produce enzymes that break down the starch. If you then move it onto agar containing no starch but fructose insted then the bug will stop producing enzymes that break down starch and make enzymes that break down fructose. THis is adaption but the adaption could not have taken place if the bugs never had the genes to produce the fructose digesting enzymes. Genes are switched on and off for whne they are needed and not needed. THus all adaption has a genetic basis. THe more adaptable you are the bigger range of places you can go and this is generally an evolutionary advantage so adaptability evolved.

-:knowledge is meerly a degree of how strongly you belive something, if you know something then you believe it to be true beyond all doubt:-
#1705  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Enderwig Add Enderwig to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2060/2095
Donated $0.52
(06-Feb-2003 at 00:49)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Monkey0)

an adaption doesn't have to be from a mutation, that was my point, and any adaptions that happen during an organisms life aren't genetic mutations, another example is thing's like muscle growth, if the muscles sre used more often they grow. It's still an adaption, but not a genetic one. An adaption is anything that happens to an organism to make it cope better in it's environment, if it's because of a genetic anomoly when it was concieved or whether it's genes kicked off a process to help it cope, it's still an adaption it didn't have at the moment. Before a person lived in the cold area his blood was thinner etc then when it helps his blood thinkens and he adapts, to go right back again when he goes back home, another adaption.
An evolutionary adaption (i made that term up, but i think it goes well) has to be a genetic mutation or just a good set of chromosomes, ie selective breeding.
...As stated earlier, that's not really considered an evolutionary adaptation because gene frequency doesn't change as the organism already had the genes to do that.

My general point is that adaptations can be passed on. You originally stated (correct me if I'm wrong) that adaptations won't. I believe you just acknowledged that they can.

In brightest day, in blackest night, No evil shall escape my sight.
Let those who worship evil's might, Beware my power, Green Lantern's Light
Slave of Justara
Home~The Gaming Universe~Forums
#1706  
View Public Profile Visit AznBlade's homepage Find more posts by AznBlade Add AznBlade to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as danies400)
Posts: 57/1062
(19-Feb-2003 at 18:13)


I think evolution is incorrect,as on the news today I heard about a japanese female monkey that actually fought the men to get jiggy with the ladies( )

*shoots Igor*

Signature suspended by D4n1es for not being able to think up an original one or code it right...
#1707  
View Public Profile Visit D4n1es's homepage Find more posts by D4n1es Add D4n1es to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Old lmc
Posts: 27/1206
(19-Feb-2003 at 19:59)


I used to believe in evolution, then I read this;

Quote:
(Originally posted by danies400)

I think evolution is incorrect,as on the news today I heard about a japanese female monkey that actually fought the men to get jiggy with the ladies( )
#1708  
View Public Profile Visit lmc's homepage Find more posts by lmc Add lmc to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Old lmc
Posts: 29/1206
(19-Feb-2003 at 20:07)


I'll pay you handsomely for the video!
#1709  
View Public Profile Visit lmc's homepage Find more posts by lmc Add lmc to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2093/2095
Donated $0.52
(20-Feb-2003 at 00:21)


Quote:
(Originally posted by danies400)
I think evolution is incorrect,as on the news today I heard about a japanese female monkey that actually fought the men to get jiggy with the ladies( )
Please remember this thread is dealing with a serious topic. If you'd like to present your poor excuses for jokes some where, do it in the lunatic assylum.

In brightest day, in blackest night, No evil shall escape my sight.
Let those who worship evil's might, Beware my power, Green Lantern's Light
Slave of Justara
Home~The Gaming Universe~Forums
#1710  
View Public Profile Visit AznBlade's homepage Find more posts by AznBlade Add AznBlade to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Old lmc
Posts: 34/1206
(20-Feb-2003 at 01:36)


This thread should be in the Lunatic Asylum!
Creationism, seriously, sheesh!
#1711  
View Public Profile Visit lmc's homepage Find more posts by lmc Add lmc to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 58/396
(20-Feb-2003 at 05:52)


JAPANESE FEMALE MONKEYS

Homosexuality in animals is not a new thing


NOAH

There is evidence to support a great flood in the biblical era. However, it was limited to the area of the Dead Sea and Red Sea, so there would not have been many animals that would have to have been loaded onto the boat. Remember, to the people of that time, where they lived pretty much WAS the world. Sure, they would have known about China and Egypt, but they may as well have been other planets (read 'A Short History of the World' by Geoffrey Blainey)


MATTER

It has been a while since first year physics, and watching that Steven Hawkings' Universe series, but as I understand it, the singularity from which the big bang occured contained energy. Physicists know that matter = energy, according to E=mcc. From here on in I will probably get my terms mixed up so forgive me: The singularity exploded. As the universe cooled, energy interations formed quarks and other bits and pieces, which formed protons etc (or as Phoebe from friends put it "all the crap" thats inside atoms), and then the molecular strong force pulled those together to create atoms - at first only Hydrogen and then probably Deutrium and that decomposed to Helium...... and so on through the periodic table. Then gravity came in, made stars and the reactions there made other things yada yada yada you know the rest.

What happened before the Big Bang doesnt matter, because time didnt exist.


ORIGIN OF LIFE

*shrugs* I like the idea of lightning starting a chain-reaction in organic molecules (thats a carbon-based molecule). Its very Frankenstein. Beyond that, I label myself as agnostic.


CREATION

One word: codswallop. Its a myth made up by primitive folk to explain phenomena they didnt understand. Much like many UFO, Bigfoot and other Jersey Devil type stories


EVOLUTION

It aint perfect, but its the best we got. I liked the idea (I forget who posted it) that creation is based soley on faith, whereas Evolution is based on logic and scientific method. In any case, evolution has been observed to be correct at least on a small scale.
#1712  
View Public Profile Visit metao's homepage Find more posts by metao Add metao to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Lord Drizzt)
Posts: 1130/3305
Donated $2.20
(20-Feb-2003 at 07:18)


Quote:
JAPANESE FEMALE MONKEYS

Homosexuality in animals is not a new thing
it's not new, but homosexuality is "man-made". sheep have been found to be homosexual too.

Quote:
NOAH

There is evidence to support a great flood in the biblical era. However, it was limited to the area of the Dead Sea and Red Sea, so there would not have been many animals that would have to have been loaded onto the boat. Remember, to the people of that time, where they lived pretty much WAS the world. Sure, they would have known about China and Egypt, but they may as well have been other planets (read 'A Short History of the World' by Geoffrey Blainey)
a possibility. but if it wasnt global, people could easily flee to somewhere else to escape such a flood. there also is some evidence that suggests there was a global flood (a layer of the atmosphere being all water

Quote:
MATTER

It has been a while since first year physics, and watching that Steven Hawkings' Universe series, but as I understand it, the singularity from which the big bang occured contained energy. Physicists know that matter = energy, according to E=mcc. From here on in I will probably get my terms mixed up so forgive me: The singularity exploded. As the universe cooled, energy interations formed quarks and other bits and pieces, which formed protons etc (or as Phoebe from friends put it "all the crap" thats inside atoms), and then the molecular strong force pulled those together to create atoms - at first only Hydrogen and then probably Deutrium and that decomposed to Helium...... and so on through the periodic table. Then gravity came in, made stars and the reactions there made other things yada yada yada you know the rest.

What happened before the Big Bang doesnt matter, because time didnt exist.
from what i understand the big bang didnt occur after time started. so where did the energy come from

Quote:
CREATION

One word: codswallop. Its a myth made up by primitive folk to explain phenomena they didnt understand. Much like many UFO, Bigfoot and other Jersey Devil type stories
how is the big bang not a myth? what would classify the big bang more plausible than creation? i can say that the big bang is "a myth made up by modern folk to explain phenomena they didnt understand".

Quote:
EVOLUTION

It aint perfect, but its the best we got. I liked the idea (I forget who posted it) that creation is based soley on faith, whereas Evolution is based on logic and scientific method. In any case, evolution has been observed to be correct at least on a small scale.
maybe so, but faith is based on logic.

s o u l f i r e
#1713  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Drizzt Add Drizzt to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 60/396
(20-Feb-2003 at 08:06)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Lord Drizzt)

it's not new, but homosexuality is "man-made". sheep have been found to be homosexual too.
So have deer, monkeys, even frogs. I dont know what gives you the idea that homosexuality is man-made. I wouldnt consider it a 'natural' state of things, but neither would I say that it was man-made.


Quote:
(Originally posted by Lord Drizzt)
but if it wasnt global, people could easily flee to somewhere else to escape such a flood. there also is some evidence that suggests there was a global flood (a layer of the atmosphere being all water
Who says they didnt flee? And of course, flash floods move like avalanches, so you can't outrun THEM. Id like to see your sources for a global flood during human history.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Lord Drizzt)

from what i understand the big bang didnt occur after time started. so where did the energy come from
The Big Bang occured at the moment time started. Any cosmology paper will tell you this. Because time is defined in various ways, most commonly by alpha decay or the interval light takes to reach destination B from A, before the Big Bang, there WAS no time. It is very Pratchettian really, if you read any of the Death books. Things just existed. Or rather, Nothing (note caps) existed. While the CAUSE of the big bang is unknown, the theory states that the energy was contained within the singularity.


Quote:
(Originally posted by Lord Drizzt)
how is the big bang not a myth? what would classify the big bang more plausible than creation? i can say that the big bang is "a myth made up by modern folk to explain phenomena they didnt understand".
I never said it wasn't. But it is a MORE LIKELY explanation than 'God created the Earth in 7 days'. Scientific method and logic supports the Big Bang. NOT Creation.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Lord Drizzt)
maybe so, but faith is based on logic.
True. But logic is based on evidence. Thus, faith can become out of date logic changes. Logic changes when new evidence is found. Creation became undoubtably out of date earlier this century, with the discovery of the universes' background radiation.

Im not saying the Big Bang, or Evolution, are correct. They are just the best ideas we have. Just as the Earth being flat, Creation, and the Earth being the centre of the universe were a thousand years ago.
#1714  
View Public Profile Visit metao's homepage Find more posts by metao Add metao to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Lord Drizzt)
Posts: 1132/3305
Donated $2.20
(20-Feb-2003 at 10:37)


Quote:
(Originally posted by metao)

So have deer, monkeys, even frogs. I dont know what gives you the idea that homosexuality is man-made. I wouldnt consider it a 'natural' state of things, but neither would I say that it was man-made.
you probably misinterpreted me. i meant that without humans there would be no homosexuality

Quote:
Who says they didnt flee? And of course, flash floods move like avalanches, so you can't outrun THEM. Id like to see your sources for a global flood during human history.
here
http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1137.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...v23n2_coal.asp
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-210.htm

if you want more sources i can give you more

Quote:
The Big Bang occured at the moment time started. Any cosmology paper will tell you this. Because time is defined in various ways, most commonly by alpha decay or the interval light takes to reach destination B from A, before the Big Bang, there WAS no time. It is very Pratchettian really, if you read any of the Death books. Things just existed. Or rather, Nothing (note caps) existed. While the CAUSE of the big bang is unknown, the theory states that the energy was contained within the singularity.
and then you have a question of how the energy was there in the first place, and in the end you still dont really know how the whole universe was started.



Quote:
I never said it wasn't. But it is a MORE LIKELY explanation than 'God created the Earth in 7 days'. Scientific method and logic supports the Big Bang. NOT Creation.
7 days? that depends on your interpretation. the bible says that the universe was created in 7 days, but it also says that to God, one day is a thousand days to us and a day for us is a thousand days for God.


[/quote]
True. But logic is based on evidence. Thus, faith can become out of date logic changes. Logic changes when new evidence is found. Creation became undoubtably out of date earlier this century, with the discovery of the universes' background radiation.[/quote]
not so. in fact, faith can even end up acknowledging every single thing that science ever came up with. the bible describes the big bang suprisingly well, and has pretty much the correct order.

Quote:
Im not saying the Big Bang, or Evolution, are correct. They are just the best ideas we have. Just as the Earth being flat, Creation, and the Earth being the centre of the universe were a thousand years ago.
and yet even in science you can say that earth IS the center of the universe.
anyway, the bible never said the earth was flat, and in a way, it could say that the earth was round (according to my friend, though i havnt seen a passage in the bible which says that)

s o u l f i r e
#1715  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Drizzt Add Drizzt to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 64/396
(20-Feb-2003 at 14:41)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Lord Drizzt)

you probably misinterpreted me. i meant that without humans there would be no homosexuality
Im not sure what you mean by this. Seems to me thats like saying without humans there would be no heterosexuality.

hmmm I note they are all Bible-thumping sites. Not exactly Nature. Id mention their bias, but its kinda obvious. I didnt see evidence of a flood in human history in those articles though - only in pre-homo sapiens history. And one article disproved young-earth creationism. Its good to know that even the most backward of people can catch up eventually (although I note one article claimed only 1600 years between Creation and Noah. And another claimed the Earth was less than 5000 years old. Honestly, and Im supposed to believe thats Science?).


Quote:
(Originally posted by Lord Drizzt)
and then you have a question of how the energy was there in the first place, and in the end you still dont really know how the whole universe was started.
Thats pretty much the state of Cosmology at the moment, yeah


Quote:
(Originally posted by Lord Drizzt)
7 days? that depends on your interpretation. the bible says that the universe was created in 7 days, but it also says that to God, one day is a thousand days to us and a day for us is a thousand days for God.
Now you're avoiding the point. The point was that science has pretty much disproven that God created the Earth. Whether he created the Universe is a different kettle of fish. Science hasnt got that far yet. Id say we never would, but 1000 years ago they would have said the same thing about God creating the Earth. Whether God started the process of life, is again, another issue.


Quote:
(Originally posted by Lord Drizzt)
not so. in fact, faith can even end up acknowledging every single thing that science ever came up with. the bible describes the big bang suprisingly well, and has pretty much the correct order.
I think what youre getting at here is my former Relious Education teachers' definition of faith: Are you sure that *Insert far-away city* exists? How do you know it isnt one big hoax? Dogma is a movie you should see

Quote:
(Originally posted by Lord Drizzt)
and yet even in science you can say that earth IS the center of the universe.
anyway, the bible never said the earth was flat, and in a way, it could say that the earth was round (according to my friend, though i havnt seen a passage in the bible which says that)
Again, you missed my point. I wasnt saying the Bible was wrong everywhere. I was simply saying that the Big Bang and Evolution are the best ideas we have, just as those outdated ideas were the best we had 200 years ago.

I saw a documentary on Creation vs Evolution in the US on TV about a year ago. I thought, 'what a load of BS, even my (Catholic) high school gave up teaching Creation as scientific fact years and years ago. Surely no-one is still teaching that as fact'.

Looks like I was wrong.
#1716  
View Public Profile Visit metao's homepage Find more posts by metao Add metao to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 148/154
(20-Feb-2003 at 22:16)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Lord Drizzt)

it's not new, but homosexuality is "man-made". sheep have been found to be homosexual too.
How is homosexuality "man-made" when it is found in animals? Did human force male sheep to have sex with other male sheeps?

Quote:
a possibility. but if it wasnt global, people could easily flee to somewhere else to escape such a flood. there also is some evidence that suggests there was a global flood (a layer of the atmosphere being all water
Atmosphere being all water? Where the hell did you get this idea? Would you provide some data of this along with the other stuff you owe me? You know, the fossil of giants and your explanation for posting a link that have zero relevence with eyes. I've notice that everytime i demanded answer you would just simply disappear from this thread for a while.

Quote:
from what i understand the big bang didnt occur after time started. so where did the energy come from
What are you talking about? Your sentence/question have no relevence. I won't pretend to be an expert in physics, although i've taken a few college level class. Thus i won't be able to answer this, but would you kindly tell me exactly what qualification do you have on this subject?

Quote:
how is the big bang not a myth? what would classify the big bang more plausible than creation? i can say that the big bang is "a myth made up by modern folk to explain phenomena they didnt understand".
Big bang is a theory. It has evidence supporting it. The greatest minds of physics in past centuary came up with it. Of course, you might be able to derive other explanation for dopplar effect on electromagnetic radiation we received from space. Maybe your are our next nobel prize winner.

Quote:
maybe so, but faith is based on logic.
Loooooolllll. Look up the definition of faith in the dictionary.

Last edited by yourdoom, 20-Feb-2003 at 22:18.
#1717  
View Public Profile Find more posts by yourdoom Add yourdoom to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Lord Drizzt)
Posts: 1136/3305
Donated $2.20
(20-Feb-2003 at 23:25)


Quote:
(Originally posted by metao)

Im not sure what you mean by this. Seems to me thats like saying without humans there would be no heterosexuality.
heterosexuality is natural, and most animals are heterosexual. humans introduced homosexuality. how is this supposed to have revalance with creation or evolution?

Quote:
hmmm I note they are all Bible-thumping sites. Not exactly Nature. Id mention their bias, but its kinda obvious. I didnt see evidence of a flood in human history in those articles though - only in pre-homo sapiens history. And one article disproved young-earth creationism. Its good to know that even the most backward of people can catch up eventually (although I note one article claimed only 1600 years between Creation and Noah. And another claimed the Earth was less than 5000 years old. Honestly, and Im supposed to believe thats Science?).
even if there are flaws, you can't say there isn't evidence. and evidence is what you asked for.



Quote:
Now you're avoiding the point. The point was that science has pretty much disproven that God created the Earth. Whether he created the Universe is a different kettle of fish. Science hasnt got that far yet. Id say we never would, but 1000 years ago they would have said the same thing about God creating the Earth. Whether God started the process of life, is again, another issue.
no, science hasnt disproven that God created the earth. seriously, how do you disprove that? "proof" in science isnt exactly proof, its simply something more liable than simply "evidence".
God created the earth. how did he do that? who knows. can i say it wasnt the big bang? i cant. i can i say it is a 7 day creation? no.

Quote:
I think what youre getting at here is my former Relious Education teachers' definition of faith: Are you sure that *Insert far-away city* exists? How do you know it isnt one big hoax? Dogma is a movie you should see
how so? you're telling me logic will disprove creationism someday based on your belief that creation is not true. how is that supposed to convince me? or do you mean something else?

Quote:
Again, you missed my point. I wasnt saying the Bible was wrong everywhere. I was simply saying that the Big Bang and Evolution are the best ideas we have, just as those outdated ideas were the best we had 200 years ago.
so are you saying in 200 years the big bang and evolution will become outdated, thus invalid too?
Quote:
I saw a documentary on Creation vs Evolution in the US on TV about a year ago. I thought, 'what a load of BS, even my (Catholic) high school gave up teaching Creation as scientific fact years and years ago. Surely no-one is still teaching that as fact'.

Looks like I was wrong.
creation is not taught to me as a scientific fact, but i guess there are some christian schools that do teach it as a fact.

Quote:
(Originally posted by yourdoom
How is homosexuality "man-made" when it is found in animals? Did human force male sheep to have sex with other male sheeps?[/quote]
looks like you should read my reply to mateo


Quote:
Atmosphere being all water? Where the hell did you get this idea? Would you provide some data of this along with the other stuff you owe me? You know, the fossil of giants and your explanation for posting a link that have zero relevence with eyes. I've notice that everytime i demanded answer you would just simply disappear from this thread for a while.
you know, you should start reading and interpreting. anyway i guess i forgot about that post, but the link has everything to do with my point.

Quote:
What are you talking about? Your sentence/question have no relevence. I won't pretend to be an expert in physics, although i've taken a few college level class. Thus i won't be able to answer this, but would you kindly tell me exactly what qualification do you have on this subject?
i dont understand the details of the big bang or evolution either, and in my science classes ive had one unit of the big bang. however, i do know that in part of the theory, there was no time before the big bang. true? or are you going to deny this as well as everything else i say here?


Quote:
Big bang is a theory. It has evidence supporting it. The greatest minds of physics in past centuary came up with it. Of course, you might be able to derive other explanation for dopplar effect on electromagnetic radiation we received from space. Maybe your are our next nobel prize winner.
you took me literally again. my point is that mateo's comment on creation can be used similarily on evolution + the big bang.

Quote:
Loooooolllll. Look up the definition of faith in the dictionary.
Loooooolllll. think before you reply.

s o u l f i r e
#1718  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Drizzt Add Drizzt to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2094/2095
Donated $0.52
(21-Feb-2003 at 00:35)


People, just let this thread die already. We've debated it to the fullest it can go! At any rate, I'll still give my imput.

First off, I'm tired. I just spent 8 hours during lab day. Because of this, I won't be quoting.

As far as I can understand, time was in motion before the big bang. Time is another dimension, so therefore the actions in ours doesn't necessarily effect that of time. We've yet to fully understand the connection, so this can neither be supported nor denied with full truth. Therefore, the references to the origin of the energy of the big bang can only be stated as hypothesis.

I scrolled through the few articles, and I decided I would quote something where one particular person claimed science has disproven the idea that a higher being created the universe. I would like to adress this.
Quote:
Now you're avoiding the point. The point was that science has pretty much disproven that God created the Earth. Whether he created the Universe is a different kettle of fish. Science hasnt got that far yet. Id say we never would, but 1000 years ago they would have said the same thing about God creating the Earth. Whether God started the process of life, is again, another issue.
Exactly what proof of this is there? I have yet to see solid evidence disproving the idea that God created the universe. I doubt there are any first, or even second hand accounts of this. I see no proven experiements that have been replicated and validated through the scienfic method that have come up with conclusive results. Please, tell me what this science is that's disproven God.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
On my final note, there are more than one types of a belief. There are old and new earth creationists. There are punctuated equilibruist(sp?) and gradualist evolutionists. There are also theistic evolutionists. Has anyone bothered to read any of their hypothesis? The big bang, evolution, and the idea of God don't cotnradict. The big bang doesn't state there is no God, but rather there was some sort of driving singularity. The idea of God has little to do with 7-day creationism (which is what seems to be on debate). God can be seen as an independant variable for which the idea can be sustained without the use of the bible, nor the 7-day idea. Rather, God can be seen to fill the unexplainable holes in science. An example is that some believe the singularity was created by God. The support comes from the idea that energy needs to have some sort of "mover" to react. Some sort of "first action" is needed to energize the singualrity. Please consider all options before trying to state something as if it were a conclusive fact or as if you speak for all who believe in God, evolution, or what have you.

In brightest day, in blackest night, No evil shall escape my sight.
Let those who worship evil's might, Beware my power, Green Lantern's Light
Slave of Justara
Home~The Gaming Universe~Forums
#1719  
View Public Profile Visit AznBlade's homepage Find more posts by AznBlade Add AznBlade to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 149/154
(21-Feb-2003 at 00:52)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Lord Drizzt)

heterosexuality is natural, and most animals are heterosexual. humans introduced homosexuality. how is this supposed to have revalance with creation or evolution?
That is a HUGE assertion, apparently you know something i don't know. Maybe you can demonstrate how animal learned homosexuality from humans?

Quote:
even if there are flaws, you can't say there isn't evidence. and evidence is what you asked for.
First of all, those sites are clearly biased. Secondly, if those "evidence" can stand its ground, why aren't any of them published in peer-reviewed journals such as Nature? Or even submitted for peer review?

Quote:
you know, you should start reading and interpreting. anyway i guess i forgot about that post, but the link has everything to do with my point.
No it doesn't. I would like to see the layer of atmosphere that is composed of water personally. But since i don't have the divine power to do so, i would settle with an explanation on how liquid water can stay in the atmosphere. Now, would you kindly show me the giant fossils and your explanation on how the link that you post a while ago has to do with the evolution of eyes?


Quote:
i dont understand the details of the big bang or evolution either, and in my science classes ive had one unit of the big bang. however, i do know that in part of the theory, there was no time before the big bang. true? or are you going to deny this as well as everything else i say here?
I dunno whether time exist before the big bang or not, since it is not my area of experty.

Quote:
you took me literally again. my point is that mateo's comment on creation can be used similarily on evolution + the big bang.
The big bang is based on the scientific method. It is a lot more plausible than your creation theory and has a lot more weight behind it.

Quote:
Loooooolllll. think before you reply.
This is the literal definition of "faith" i have in my dictionary.

Faith- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.

Someone needs to think before they reply.

Last edited by yourdoom, 21-Feb-2003 at 00:53.
#1720  
View Public Profile Find more posts by yourdoom Add yourdoom to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 14:36.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.