quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Cetona wrote:
Theres obviously quite a few there. Are there any in particular you want me to address?
Nope.
As it pertains to my argument, I only mentioned high number of contradictions to illustrate how it's logically impossible to accept the Bible (including its two creation stories) as literal truth. No need from me for you to rationalize it, because then you're not accepting the Bible as literal truth.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Genesis 1:25-27 says that he made animals, then Man.
Then, that site claims this
quote:
2:18
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.2:19
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
That site forgot one very important word. Verse 19 says that "Now the Lord God HAD (as in, previously) formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Cetona had this to say about Tron:
I'll make a long post tomorrow about all that. Too tired to do it right now.
Oh, yippie. [ 11-20-2002: Message edited by: Karnaj ]
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Remind me to bookmark this so I can blast the heck out of all the kids in philosophy.
Centona, Karnaj has pwned you on many, many levels and you know why? BECAUSE EVOLUTION TOOK PLACE.
And no, they did not mess up those passages, there ARE two stories of the creation in the Old Testament. Because 90% of it is a metaphor. NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY!
Creationism in itself can be true together with evolution, (God starts life, life evolves, whatever) but it's still a belief. Until you have some kind of backing for the idea of Creation, it's a belief - not a theory.
"In this corner, wearing the blue trucks and wielding the big textbook of science... Karnaj!"
*crowd cheers and stomps it's feet*
"And in the other corner, wearing the green trunks and swinging the mighty bible... Cetona!"
*somewhere in the back someone shouts "Kick ass for god!*
"OK gentlemen, at the sound of the bell, I want a good clean fight. No hitting below the belt or distractions with pictures of scantily clad elves"
"Ladies and gentlemen... lllleeettttsssss geeettt reeeaaaaadddyy to ruuuuuuuuuuuummbblee!
quote:
Nobody really understood why Zaza wrote:
Creationism by the Bible simply isn't plausible. There's too much shit disproving it, honestly.Creationism in itself can be true together with evolution, (God starts life, life evolves, whatever) but it's still a belief. Until you have some kind of backing for the idea of Creation, it's a belief - not a theory.
Law of Parsimony - It's far more likely that the universe got to that point on its own than having a god intervene.
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Vorbo Goatboy was all like:
Law of Parsimony - It's far more likely that the universe got to that point on its own than having a god intervene.
You had me confoozled--I know that as Occam's Razor. 
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Vorbo Goatboy had this to say about Punky Brewster:
Law of Parsimony - It's far more likely that the universe got to that point on its own than having a god intervene.
I know. I don't believe in Creationism, but I don't think it impossible either. [ 11-20-2002: Message edited by: Zaza ]
They could still be watching and probably wondering when the whole thing's gonna blow up, either that or they're too busy laughing. One of the two
(yet another theory - see how easy it is to pull theories out of thin air?)
ben(at)netmastering(dot)nl
First of all, Evolution is NOT a turtle laying an egg that hatches into a bird. That is flat out impossible (well impossible for the time being, who knows what we might do with cloning and all that stuff).
Instead, evolution is the change over many many many generations of a species. At no point, at absolutely, positively, no possibility at ALL will you get a creature that survives long enough to grow to adulthood and have children that is not a species by our definitions of species.
What can happen though, is that with time, a subset of a species can become isolated from the main body of their species. A storm blows a flock of birds to an island they can't get to, a land bridge becomes flooded, a volcano erupts, a river changes course so it no longer feeds into a lake, or whatever. In any case, we now have 2 groups of what starts out as the same species but they can no longer mix together.
Time goes by, those two groups reproduce isolated from eachother and changes start building up. One species might be living in a heavily forested region while the other is now in a plains region. The first species might end up having all the lighter coloured creatures get killed by predators while the darker ones tend to hide better and survive longer to reproduce. Meanwhile the plains species might find prey hard to come by, but the grasses very palatable, so the ones with teeth more suited to chewing grasses survive better. (Survival of the fittest)
A thousands of generations later (remember we are talking periods of time of millions and billions of years here), we look at these two sub-sets and we can see that they are similar, but when we try to bring them together to reproduce, no viable offspring are produced; thus two species have come from one; Evolution in action.
At no point in all this, can we point and say "That is a transitional form"... Or more properly, at ALL points we can point to a member of the species and say "That is a transitional form."
The flaw about looking for Transitional fossils, is thinking that the transitional fossils are not species/remains of living beings themselves. So what ends up happening is someone asks "Find me the Missing Link between homo sapiens and the primitive primates we came from.". Scientists point to Lucy and the other fossils we've found and the person then goes "But where is the missing link between Lucy and primitive primate?". IOW, they keep moving the goal posts and failing to recognize that every fossil, and every living creature about is both the result of a long series of transitional fossils/remains, and a transitional creature for something in the future itself. (unless it becomes extinct but that's another matter)
So, in any case, arguing about 'Transitional Fossils' is a stupid, non-argument and shouldn't be brought up again. 
PS: I believe that Evolutionary theory is a valid theory and the best theory we have for the evidence we have. Now if someone came along and came up wiht another theory for how and where life as we know it came from which does NOT ignore all the evidence we have for evolution currently, then I will jump to that one in a heartbeat.
quote:
However, an organic molecule can certainly form from inanimate matter, and life began on this planet with nothing more than a molecule whose atoms happened to be arranged in such a manner as to permit self-replicating chemical reactions.
Has anyone been able to reproduce this, or come close to it? Serious question, I don't know the answer. Evolution CANNOT be proven true if this has not been proven true. The big bang and everything else that has to do with evolution could be true, but if theres no proof of the way life began, you cannot show evolution is a fact.
quote:
The fossil record, the homology of animal species, the geographical placement of related species are all consistent with evolution theory while being inconsistent with a so-called "creation theory".
Wrong. For the fossil record, how can you ignore the Cambrian Explosion? (The early and relatively sudden of appearance of many life forms with major differences.)
Homology- Similarity in structure is not necessarily evidence for common ancestry. Similar structures may not develop from similar genes or cells, as we might expect if they came from a similar ancestor. For example, the guts of Sharks, lampreys, and frogs, develop from different parts of the embryo. For Another example, fruit flies and hornets. They show very similar body traits, yet they have different genes and a different development pathway.
And please explain how that is inconsistent with the creation theory? (Another serious question)
quote:
What about the Galapagos birds for an example of evolution in a fairly short time span?
That was not evolution. For an example of what happened There was a drought one year, but the finches with big beaks all survived. In the next generation, most of the birds beaks showed roughly a 5% increase in size. However, the generation following a rainy year always showed a 5% decrease in size, showing no net evolution. It just oscillates back and forth.
quote:
As it pertains to my argument, I only mentioned high number of contradictions to illustrate how it's logically impossible to accept the Bible (including its two creation stories) as literal truth. No need from me for you to rationalize it, because then you're not accepting the Bible as literal truth.
Of course not all of it is literal truth. Some things are metaphors, but most of those things on that site are thrown completely out of the context they were meant to be in.
quote:
One word is supposed to make the Bible factually accurate?
I never said that, I said it disproved that there were 2 creation stories.
quote:
And no, they did not mess up those passages, there ARE two stories of the creation in the Old Testament.
Go look at a real bible, and look at the passages that are listed on that site as self-contradictory. You'll find that most of them have words misplaced/removed/change. Please point out anywhere in an actual Bible that contradicts itself, and I'll point out a rational explanation for it.
quote:
I guess God can violate the laws of physics. But wait! If God can do that, then that nullifies creationism as a science, and indeed, a valid objective explanation.
True. I never claimed creationism as a science; in fact, you even claimed it wasn't even a theory.
And a couple things from the old abortion thread.
The "mutated" fruit flies.
Some of these mutated fruit flies, when we "forced" them to evolve, grew 4 wings. Since there are no muscles attached to these wings, this is an evolutionary dead end. In fact, according to the concept of natural selection, mutations must be beneficial to be passed on, yet most mutations don't provide any advantages.
Antibiotic resistant bacteria.
These mutated bacteria don't survive too well on their own, as the "fitness cost" is too great. In fact, the first strain overcomes the second "mutated" strain as soon as the antibiotic is removed.
And one point I'd like to make myself. Darwin knew there were gaps in the Cambrian fossil record and hoped that future discoveries would fill this in, but the opposite has been true. Evolutionists commonly use the Artifact Hypothesis (which says we were not sampling the fossils efficiently enough, or that the earliest animals were soft-bodied and unable to be preserved.) to fill in the missing gaps. However, scientists have recently found Pre-Cambrian, microscopic soft-bodied sponge embryos. And if an embryo can be preserved, an animal can be preserved as well, proving that if those gaps really existed, we would have found them.
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Cetona said this:
*snip the abiogenesis quote*Has anyone been able to reproduce this, or come close to it? Serious question, I don't know the answer. Evolution CANNOT be proven true if this has not been proven true. The big bang and everything else that has to do with evolution could be true, but if theres no proof of the way life began, you cannot show evolution is a fact.
*bangs his head against the wall repeatedly*
Once AGAIN, I must point out that there is no such thing as a scietific proof. There are only theories that fit the facts. Evolution fits the facts. It is an observed phenomonon. Broken fucking record by now.
You are also wrong in attempting to group abiogenesis, evolution, and the Big Bang. They are three completely different theories, and one's validity is NOT dependent on the other two.
Of abiogenesis, I will say that it has been reproduced in laboratory conditions. It was done back in the 50s, by throwing a bunch of inanimate matter in a beaker and pumping gigawatts of power through it (to simulate high UV radiation, volcanic activity, or electrical discharge present on early earth), and poof! The inanimate matter formed an organic molecule. Not that that has any bearing on evolution whatsoever, no matter how much you want it to, but I figured I'd answer it for you anyway.
quote:
Wrong. For the fossil record, how can you ignore the Cambrian Explosion? (The early and relatively sudden of appearance of many life forms with major differences.)
Sorry, the Cambrian explosion STILL supports evolution. You're erroneously assuming that the fossil record is equally represented at all time periods. You're also erroneously assuming that the Cambrian explosion represents and explosion of many differed life forms. It's merely a greatly increased number of fossils found.
This is because around this time organisms started to mineralize their exoskeletons using the abundant calcium and carbonate from the surrounding seawater. Previously to this, organisms had entirely organic exoskeletons similar to many insects today. This type of exoskeleton is not easily preserved and usually decays too rapidly to survive as a fossil. The much tougher mineralized exoskeletons preserved far better, resulting in a large increase in the number of fossils. THAT is why we see more of them than before, not because God decided to spice things up.
quote:
Homology- Similarity in structure is not necessarily evidence for common ancestry. Similar structures may not develop from similar genes or cells, as we might expect if they came from a similar ancestor. For example, the guts of Sharks, lampreys, and frogs, develop from different parts of the embryo. For Another example, fruit flies and hornets. They show very similar body traits, yet they have different genes and a different development pathway.
You're misrepresenting the word. As it pertains to evolution, structures are homologous only if they were derived from the same structure in a common ancestor.
quote:
And please explain how that is inconsistent with the creation theory? (Another serious question)
Because it's consistent with evolution. It does not resort to "GOD DID IT." Besides, there is no creation theory.
quote:
*snip the galapalgos bird quote*
That was not evolution. For an example of what happened There was a drought one year, but the finches with big beaks all survived. In the next generation, most of the birds beaks showed roughly a 5% increase in size. However, the generation following a rainy year always showed a 5% decrease in size, showing no net evolution. It just oscillates back and forth.
It's still mircroevolution. Sure, the birds aren't changing into a whole new species, but it's still a minor change in the composition in the gene pool over time in response to an environmental demand. Simply saying "NO ITS NOT" doesn't change this fact.
quote:
Of course not all of it is literal truth. Some things are metaphors, but most of those things on that site are thrown completely out of the context they were meant to be in.
It's the King James version of the Bible. I'm not going to get mired in semantics; my point has been made. Let it rest.
quote:
Go look at a real bible, and look at the passages that are listed on that site as self-contradictory. You'll find that most of them have words misplaced/removed/change. Please point out anywhere in an actual Bible that contradicts itself, and I'll point out a rational explanation for it.
This is as good a Bible as any. The credibility of my source should not be in question just because you don't like what it says. Last time I checked, the King James version of the Bible was fairly widely-used version.
quote:
And one point I'd like to make myself. Darwin knew there were gaps in the Cambrian fossil record and hoped that future discoveries would fill this in, but the opposite has been true. Evolutionists commonly use the Artifact Hypothesis (which says we were not sampling the fossils efficiently enough, or that the earliest animals were soft-bodied and unable to be preserved.) to fill in the missing gaps. However, scientists have recently found Pre-Cambrian, microscopic soft-bodied sponge embryos. And if an embryo can be preserved, an animal can be preserved as well, proving that if those gaps really existed, we would have found them.
You're misquoting the artifact hypothesis; the fact that the animals were soft-bodied made it UNLIKELY that they would be preserved, not impossible. The fact that we find much fewer fossils of these soft-bodied creatures shows the artifact hypothesis to be correct, and does indeed fill in those gaps of the fossil record.
As for the other stuff from the abortion thread, I didn't claim it, so I'm not claiming accountability for it. [ 11-20-2002: Message edited by: Karnaj ]
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
