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: 105/330
(26-Nov-2002 at 04:06)


i woul dcheck this with your friend as what you just wrote is a very misguided understanding of evolution. for example you seem to think that some evolution takes place without change in dna which is simply not true.

DArwin never refuted his work. THe closest he came was by saying something along the lines of, if someone were to find a organ or organism so complex it can not be explained by evolution then the theory will fall. THis is not an exact quote, though i think the quote has already been posted somewhere in this thread, it is however the jist of what he said.

Just a side note but has everyone forgotten about Wallace?
#701  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Enderwig Add Enderwig to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Old Xei
(Posted as Zeida)
(User is Banned)
Posts: 165/210
(26-Nov-2002 at 04:16)
Quote:
(Originally posted by yourdoom)



Got these from this website.
http://infoweb.magi.com/~godfree/flaterth.html
Thank you, your assistance is greatly appreciated. I don't really carry a bible around and memorize quotes from it.
#702  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Xei Add Xei to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Mordorian)
Posts: 42/381
(26-Nov-2002 at 04:18)


Wallace the co-discoverer of natural selection who said:

Quote:
In all works on Natural History, we constantly find details of the marvellous adaptation of animals to their food, their habits, and the localities in which they are found. But naturalists are now beginning to look beyond this, and to see that there must be some other principle regulating the infinitely varied forms of animal life. It must strike every one, that the numbers of birds and insects of different groups, having scarcely any resemblance to each other, which yet feed on the same food and inhabit the same localities, cannot have been so differently constructed and adorned for that purpose alone. Thus the goat-suckers, the swallows, the tyrant fly-catchers, and the jacamars, all use the same kind of food, and procure it in the same manner: they all capture insects on the wing, yet how entirely different is the structure and the whole appearance of these birds! . . . What birds can have their bills more peculiarly formed than the ibis, the spoonbill, and the heron? Yet they may be seen side by side, picking up the same food from the shallow water on the beach; and on opening their stomachs, we find the same little crustacea and shell-fish in them all. Then among the fruit-eating birds, there are pigeons, parrots, toucans, and chatterers--families as distinct and widely separated as possible,--which yet may be often seen feeding all together on the same tree; for in the forests of South America, certain fruits are favourites with almost every kind of fruit-eating bird. It has been assumed by some writers on Natural History, that every wild fruit is the food of some bird or animal, and that the varied forms and structure of their mouths may be necessitated by the peculiar character of the fruits they are to feed on; but there is more of imagination than fact in this statement: the number of wild fruits furnishing food for birds is very limited, and birds of the most varied structure and of every size will be found visiting the same tree."
#703  
View Public Profile Visit Steigere's homepage Find more posts by Steigere Add Steigere to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 106/330
(26-Nov-2002 at 04:31)


yep thats probably the guy. THe co proposer of the theory of evolution. By the way i presume you posted that particular quote for a reason. If its an argument against evolution then the reason there is a large variety of ways that say birds have adapted to eating fruit is because of the randomness of mutation. The birds will all radomly mutate and when those random mutations lead to an advantage to eating fruit that mutation is succesful. There are of course more than one mutation which could end up as improving the birds ability to eat fruit. A good analogy is how we eat food. Some have developed forks, others chopsticks, others tongs etc. All are good ways of handling food wothout actually handling it but yet they are all different solutions. The variation of fruit eating birds is just different solutions to the same problem.

If this quote was not meant as an argument against evolution then i dont see why you chose this particular quote.
#704  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Enderwig Add Enderwig to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 225/1184
(26-Nov-2002 at 04:38)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Enderwig)
If this quote was not meant as an argument against evolution then i dont see why you chose this particular quote.
I think you'll probably find he's on your side...

Anyways, for all you we are so closely related to monkeys its not funny people, here is a study done by evolutionists that claim we really arent that closely related to them...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1125dna.asp
#705  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aussie Dravid Add Aussie Dravid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Mordorian)
Posts: 43/381
(26-Nov-2002 at 04:45)


I am on the side of evolution until it is disproved with sufficient evidence to back it up.
#706  
View Public Profile Visit Steigere's homepage Find more posts by Steigere Add Steigere to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Mordorian)
Posts: 44/381
(26-Nov-2002 at 05:00)


This is from the same article at: http://

Quote:
While the results confirmed that single nucleotide substitutions did account for roughly 1.4 percent of the differences, in accordance with previous estimates, Britten also found that indels account for a further 3.9 percent of divergence. This gives a rough estimate of five percent difference, he said.

"There seems to be a deep interest in this question," of how genetically similar we are with chimpanzees, said Britten. "Increasing the number is mostly a technical matter though; we are still the same distance away as we were before, and that is about five million years," he said.

The new estimate could be a little misleading, said Saitou Naruya, an evolutionary geneticist at the National Institute of Genetics in Mishima, Japan. "There is no consensus about how to count numbers or proportion of nucleotide insertions and deletions," he said.

Indels are common in the non-functional sections of the genome, said Peter Oefner, a researcher at Stanford's Genome Technology Center in Palo Alto, California. Scientists estimate that up to 97 percent of DNA in the human genome has no known function. However, he added, indels are extremely rare in gene sequences.

"We haven't observed a single indel in a [gene] to date between human and chimp," said Oefner. Therefore, the revised estimate doesn't alter the amount of DNA that holds information about our species. Humans and chimps still differ by about one percent in gene sequences, he said.

Nevertheless, "5 percent is probably closer to what people thought [the difference would be] a priori," said Nelson. Even the smaller figure of 1.5 percent is quite large across the three billion or so nucleotides that make up the human genome, he said.

Researchers hope that studying the differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes could provide insight into language, intelligence, and other factors that define our species. To this end researchers are now in the process of deciphering the chimpanzee genome.

Despite the small genetic differences between our species, the chimpanzee doesn't suffer from many afflictions that regularly affect people—illnesses ranging from malaria to some types of cancer. Studying the genetic differences between chimps and humans may provide insight into some of these human diseases
#707  
View Public Profile Visit Steigere's homepage Find more posts by Steigere Add Steigere to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as dravid)
Posts: 226/1184
(26-Nov-2002 at 05:58)
The Creation Model:

*By the acts of a Creator.
*Creation of basic plant and animal types with characteristics complete in first representatives.
*Variation and speciation limited within each kind.

Predictions Concerning the fossil record:

*Sudden appearance in great variety of highly forms.
*Sudden appearance of each created type with characteristics complete. Sharp boundaries separating major taxonomic groups. No transitional forms between higher categories.

Evolution Model

*By naturalistic mechanistic processes due to properties inherent in inanimate matter.
*Origin of all living things from a single living source which itself arose from inanimate matter. Origin of each kind from an ancestral form by slow gradual change.
*Unlimited variation. All forms genetically related.

Predictions Concerning the fossil record:

*Gradual change of simple forms into more and more complex forms.
*Transitional series linking all categories. No systematic gaps.

Please correct me if I'm worng, but I belive that is what both Models propose. Now looking at the data available to us, which theory has the best support??
#708  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aussie Dravid Add Aussie Dravid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 70/728
(26-Nov-2002 at 06:13)
Quote:
And yet a lot of scientific discoveries have been made and continue to be made by following principles that directly come from the Bible...
Um, yeah...examples?

Quote:
Please correct me if I'm worng, but I belive that is what both Models propose. Now looking at the data available to us, which theory has the best support??
Because the creation model is so flexible (i.e. god could have put everything there), any evidance that supports evolution can be made to support creation. It is however worth noting that although god could have created everything a billion years, a million years, a thousand years, or ten minutes ago, simply because of a lack of total proof that god didnt create everything in seven days a couple of thousand years ago that it is still not reasonable to believe it. For all we know, god could have created everything an hour ago, but just because we can't conclusively prove that he didnt doesnt make it reasonable to believe it
#709  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Rabbousamai Add Rabbousamai to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Lady Jasmine X)
Posts: 157/867
Donated $0.40
(26-Nov-2002 at 07:21)


it basically all comes down to, are you a science person who relies on evidence, or a you a spirtual person who can belive things without needing evidence to prove it

Signature suspended by Starfriend for violating the forum's rules.
#710  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Jasmine X Add Jasmine X to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Lord Drizzt)
Posts: 473/3305
Donated $2.20
(26-Nov-2002 at 09:54)


http://infoweb.magi.com/~godfree/flaterth.html

ok you're taking the bible literally here. if you take the bible literally, you'd find contradictions too numerous to number. there is not one contradiction in the bible. it's only how we translate it. the original text was in ancient hebrew, laster translated on to the recent language during jesus's time. then it was translated into latin. latin was later translated into a whole ton of other languages. if you think its a contradiction, i tell u its not. interpret the contradiction yourself.

s o u l f i r e
#711  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Drizzt Add Drizzt to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 23/154
(26-Nov-2002 at 13:24)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Lord Drizzt)

http://infoweb.magi.com/~godfree/flaterth.html

ok you're taking the bible literally here. if you take the bible literally, you'd find contradictions too numerous to number. there is not one contradiction in the bible. it's only how we translate it. the original text was in ancient hebrew, laster translated on to the recent language during jesus's time. then it was translated into latin. latin was later translated into a whole ton of other languages. if you think its a contradiction, i tell u its not. interpret the contradiction yourself.
I'm not the one who takes the bible literally here. Matter of fact, i care very little about the bible. It was dravid who was taking the bible literally, with all his scientific proof from the bible. My personal opinion is that since the bible is written very ambiguously, it can be interpreted in many different ways. Don't u think it is rather meaningless to quote anything from the bible?
#712  
View Public Profile Find more posts by yourdoom Add yourdoom to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 24/154
(26-Nov-2002 at 13:41)
Quote:
(Originally posted by dravid)

The Creation Model:

*By the acts of a Creator.
*Creation of basic plant and animal types with characteristics complete in first representatives.
*Variation and speciation limited within each kind.

Predictions Concerning the fossil record:

*Sudden appearance in great variety of highly forms.
*Sudden appearance of each created type with characteristics complete. Sharp boundaries separating major taxonomic groups. No transitional forms between higher categories.

Evolution Model

*By naturalistic mechanistic processes due to properties inherent in inanimate matter.
*Origin of all living things from a single living source which itself arose from inanimate matter. Origin of each kind from an ancestral form by slow gradual change.
*Unlimited variation. All forms genetically related.

Predictions Concerning the fossil record:

*Gradual change of simple forms into more and more complex forms.
*Transitional series linking all categories. No systematic gaps.

Please correct me if I'm worng, but I belive that is what both Models propose. Now looking at the data available to us, which theory has the best support??
fish ->amphibians -> reptile -> mammals + birds.

Which model explains this better?

Last edited by yourdoom, 26-Nov-2002 at 13:42.
#713  
View Public Profile Find more posts by yourdoom Add yourdoom to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Old Xei
(Posted as Zeida)
(User is Banned)
Posts: 170/210
(26-Nov-2002 at 20:38)
Quote:
(Originally posted by yourdoom)



fish ->amphibians -> reptile -> mammals + birds.

Which model explains this better?
Circular logic. Your question is invalid. You begin with the presumption that amphibians came from fish, which produced reptiles, and then mammals/birds. That's based on the theory of evolution. So you can't ask whether creation or evolution supports your statement better.
#714  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Xei Add Xei to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 25/154
(26-Nov-2002 at 21:06)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Zeida)



Circular logic. Your question is invalid. You begin with the presumption that amphibians came from fish, which produced reptiles, and then mammals/birds. That's based on the theory of evolution. So you can't ask whether creation or evolution supports your statement better.
Unfortunately, this is also the order of the fossil records......
#715  
View Public Profile Find more posts by yourdoom Add yourdoom to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 63/176
(26-Nov-2002 at 21:14)


ok, simply answer to all this. when you die, if you um, don't wake up, you just die, then thats it. if you wake up, and see God, you will find out who is right. if i am wrong then i will either just rot, or get to come back for another chance lol, so no loss. but, if ur wrong, what happens to u? also, who says christians don't use science? we simply look at things through a different lens so to speak. two ppl can see the same exact thing, and come up with two completely different stories. i personally believe in creation and the God of the Bible, some do in part, some don't at all. it saddens me, but there is nothing i can do other than present what i believe is truth. if u disagree with my truth, there is no piont in my arguing with u. without divine intervention, a firmly rooted nonbeliever is as likely to change his mind as a firmly rooted believer.
*steps off soapbox *

REDNECK AND PROUD OF IT!!!!!!
save a horse, RIDE A COWBOY!
#716  
View Public Profile Find more posts by barnball Add barnball to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1586/2095
Donated $0.52
(26-Nov-2002 at 23:24)


Quote:
I meant modern scientists (the ones that are alive). People that lived centuries ago aren't exposed to the informations available today.
That's not exactly fair then, because as far as I know, the only biologists tht have made major contributions to genetics, etc. that are still alive are Watson and Crick...

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
#717  
View Public Profile Visit AznBlade's homepage Find more posts by AznBlade Add AznBlade to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 71/728
(27-Nov-2002 at 00:05)
Quote:
Circular logic. Your question is invalid. You begin with the presumption that amphibians came from fish, which produced reptiles, and then mammals/birds. That's based on the theory of evolution. So you can't ask whether creation or evolution supports your statement better.
Because god could have dumped everything there a thousand years or ten seconds ago, proving against creation is impossible. Because creation 'science' changes whenever obsticles are encountered, it seems to be not a science at all. One of the semi-important questions in philosophy is the differention between science and non-science, the demarcation problem to some people. One of the better explanations is by a guy called Karl Popper. Ill summerize his main points
--> Confirmations are easy to find if you look for them
--> Confirmations should only count if they result from risky predictions. (i.e this can't be done with creation, with evolution its clearly shown, for example theres a case about moths in a smokey environment, it was predicted that the non-smokey colored ones die out faster)
--> Every good scientific theory is a prohibition, it forbids certain things to happen. (eg evolution forbids a weaker species to survive preferentially or to the expense of a stronger one, relatively)
--> A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. (eg evolution is refutable by something like the reduction of complexity of structures...i can't think of something which can happen which would refute creation).
--> A test of a theory is an attempt to falsify, not to prove. Testibility is falsifiability (Im pretty sure creation is untestible...evolution can be tested by digging around).
--> Confirming evidence only counts if it is the result of a genuine test of the theory, i.e. a serious but unsuccesful attempt to refute it (for example when people dig for fossils of decreasing complexity but find they can't).
--> A genuine scientific theory is not held together by ad hoc assumptions...this means that it does not escape refutation by tacking on extra bits. (For example, at first, god created humans, dogs, cows etc (this is back in medieval times) , then dinosaurs/ancient fish etc were discovered, so a new theory became that god gave everything a kick, and then all the evolution started).

This model is possibly not perfect, but its the best out there, and recognized as such. It is clear that creation doesnt pass, the other question is whether or not evolution passes. At one extreme, its debatable, and at the other, it does. Of course, this doesnt prove that creation doesnt exist, it simply shows that its not at all scientific...its just a guess based on blind faith, with the same backing that my blind faith that i have an invisible elephant in my back yard has
#718  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Rabbousamai Add Rabbousamai to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 26/154
(27-Nov-2002 at 00:08)
Quote:
(Originally posted by AznBlade)


That's not exactly fair then, because as far as I know, the only biologists tht have made major contributions to genetics, etc. that are still alive are Watson and Crick...
Lol............................................
#719  
View Public Profile Find more posts by yourdoom Add yourdoom to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1/2
(27-Nov-2002 at 00:12)
PROVE IT

name one contradiction in the bible.... the us government hired a chance expert on the matter if the bible could be true or not...... he took amonth researching it and told them the number saying that it is true is to big to calculate... he said its the equivelent of filling the entire state of texas full of quarters three feet high.... having one marked with an x.. and one person randomly picking it up.... if you can tell me any contridictions that say the bible is not true please tell me
#720  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bassman257 Add Bassman257 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 11:20.

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