| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/14/2005 10:36:18 PM · #401 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
However, there's a lot of doubt about that bit concerning the sun standing still in the sky for a whole day. While temporarily halting the Earth's rotation would almost certainly instigate seismic events, I think there would be more widespread damage than the collapse of a single city's exterior fortifications. |
(psst ... GeneralE ... walls of Jericho and sun standing still are two different Biblical stories ...) |
Oops -- must read before citing. |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 12:31:52 AM · #402 |
Just found this site, which lists all the creationist arguments (a long list!) and debunks them one by one.
Message edited by author 2005-04-15 00:32:08. |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 12:34:24 AM · #403 |
| Don't do that........you will take all the fun out of reading this thread. Boo hoo hoo..........:O( |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 12:40:19 AM · #404 |
Originally posted by karmat:
I had to read Origins of the Species in college for a British lit class.
edited to try and get everything right. stoopid typos |
One you missed. The book is called 'The Origin of Species'
That 'the' is frequently misplaced and quite significantly changes the meaning. |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 01:15:08 AM · #405 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by karmat:
I had to read Origins of the Species in college for a British lit class.
edited to try and get everything right. stoopid typos |
One you missed. The book is called 'The Origin of Species'
That 'the' is frequently misplaced and quite significantly changes the meaning. |
Ahh Gordon, been a long time. |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 01:15:52 AM · #406 |
One of my favorite predictions made by evolutionary theory has to do with genetics. The following is not my original idea and it was spelled out to me by someone smarter than I in the simplest terms so that I, and my short attention span, would be able to grasp it. Iâm going to keep it very simple, perhaps overly simple, because, not being a geneticist myself, I certainly wouldnât be able stand up to any in depth questioning.
It has been known for some time that humans have 23 chromosomes and chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans all have 24 chromosomes and the coding DNA for chimpanzees and humans is about 98% the same. Although there are chromosomal difference between all of the species, especially in chromosome 4 and 17, chromosomes 6, 13, 19, 21, 22 and X have identical banding patterns for all four species. If youâve even seen gene testing on the television, you know what I mean. Chromosomes 3, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20 and Y appear the same in three of the four species â humans being on of them. The only chromosomes that really stand out are the human chromosomes 2 and the chimpanzee, gorilla and orangutan chromosomes 2p and 2q. Remember, they have one more chromosomes than humans.
Now, chromosomes have genetic sequences at their ends called the telomere. Basically, the telomere tells the chromosome âthis is the end.â Chromosomes also have sequences in their center call centromere which tells the chromosome âthis is the middle.â So, when taking into account the telomeres and centromere, a chromosome looks, figuratively, something like this:
endCHROMmiddleOSOMEdne
Letâs get back to chromosome 2 in humans.
If evolutionary theory is correct and humans and chimps are related, then human chromosome 2 ought to look like chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q smushed together. In other words, the pre-human 2p and 2q must have fused together at sometime in the past. (Although it is rare, similar species with different chromosome numbers have been known to breed successfully.) Not only that, as evidence of this fusing, human chromosome 2 ought to have 2 centromeres and 4 telomeres. When the investigation was completed, not only did human chromosome 2 âbandâ like chimp chromosome 2p and 2q smushed together, but it also looked, figuratively, like this:
endCHRmiddleOMdneendOSOmiddleMEdne
Now, Iâm not going to say that this evidence âprovesâ evolution, but I will say that it is consistent with evolutionary theory and the existence of the extra centromere and telomeres was predicted based on evolutionary theory. Iâm going to bed. Iâm really tired.
For those who are interested and would like to read more, here is my source for writing this.
Thanks for your time.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2005 10:11:34 AM · #407 |
So it should be not only possible, but probable, that in the not to distant future, scientists will do in-vitro fertilization to create an APE zygote, then do a gene-splice to turn it into a human zygote, implant it in a surrogate mother and voila, a human child. And that wouldn't be prohibited by the ban on "human" cloning. I can hardly wait.
Oh, by the way, does this mean that bestiality really shouldn't be frowned upon because it is really only having sex with your cousin? |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 10:17:56 AM · #408 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Oh, by the way, does this mean that bestiality really shouldn't be frowned upon because it is really only having sex with your cousin? |
Is this what qualifies as scientific debate in the circles you run in?
|
|
|
|
04/15/2005 10:36:25 AM · #409 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
Oh, by the way, does this mean that bestiality really shouldn't be frowned upon because it is really only having sex with your cousin? |
Is this what qualifies as scientific debate in the circles you run in? |
Scientific, no - but it IS a logical extension of the moral code that a society develops when it denies the existence of a moral authority outside of themselves ( i.e. God ). In the absence of absolutes, there are no boundaries that remain fixed. |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 10:41:04 AM · #410 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Scientific, no - but it IS a logical extension of the moral code that a society develops when it denies the existence of a moral authority outside of themselves ( i.e. God ). In the absence of absolutes, there are no boundaries that remain fixed. |
If there is no God, then itâs logical to want to have sex with chimpanzees? You saying that, if I could prove to you to your satisfaction that there is no God, you would want to have sex with chimpanzees?
|
|
|
|
04/15/2005 10:47:18 AM · #411 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
Scientific, no - but it IS a logical extension of the moral code that a society develops when it denies the existence of a moral authority outside of themselves ( i.e. God ). In the absence of absolutes, there are no boundaries that remain fixed. |
If there is no God, then itâs logical to want to have sex with chimpanzees? |
If you say so. I didn't.
Originally posted by milo655321:
You saying that, if I could prove to you to your satisfaction that there is no God, you would want to have sex with chimpanzees? |
Nope. Wrong on two accounts. 1) There is no way that you could prove to me that there is no God, and 2) I wouldn't want to have sex with chimpanzees in any event.
But some people do.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2005 10:56:30 AM · #412 |
| Now this is just getting stupid. Nothing more can be gained by continuing this discussion. It has run it's course and nobody has switched sides. Imagine that! |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 10:57:16 AM · #413 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by milo655321:
If there is no God, then itâs logical to want to have sex with chimpanzees? |
If you say so. I didn't. |
Nor did I, but you did imply it might be OK if the theory of evolution theory were true.
Originally posted by RonB:
Nope. Wrong on two accounts. 1) There is no way that you could prove to me that there is no God, ⦠|
Such is the nature of fervent religious belief. (Not that Iâm trying to prove that any god do not exist; itâs an impossible task to disprove a universal negative.)
Originally posted by RonB:
and 2) I wouldn't want to have sex with chimpanzees in any event. |
Neither do I. I like women, theyâre all soft and curvy and they smell nice.
Originally posted by RonB:
But some people do. |
And you know these people personally?
|
|
|
|
04/15/2005 10:58:52 AM · #414 |
Originally posted by papa:
Now this is just getting stupid. Nothing more can be gained by continuing this discussion. It has run it's course and nobody has switched sides. Imagine that! |
Don't blame me. He's the one talking about sex with animals. I'm just trying to clarify his position. |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 11:05:12 AM · #415 |
| Not blaming anyone, just think there is nothing more to be gained by this conversation. |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 11:07:06 AM · #416 |
Originally posted by papa:
Not blaming anyone, just think there is nothing more to be gained by this conversation. |
I agree, at least not down the wild monkey sex road that this thread appears to be taking. |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 11:27:30 AM · #417 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by milo655321:
If there is no God, then itâs logical to want to have sex with chimpanzees? |
If you say so. I didn't. |
Nor did I, but you did imply it might be OK if the theory of evolution theory were true. |
1) I didn't say that you did. Hint: "IF" introduces a conditional statement not a declaratory statement.
2) No I didn't imply anything. I ASKED if it shouldn't be frowned upon, I didn't imply it shouldn't be. Hint: "Does this mean" introduced a question, not a statement.
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
Nope. Wrong on two accounts. 1) There is no way that you could prove to me that there is no God, ⦠|
Such is the nature of fervent religious belief. (Not that Iâm trying to prove that any god do not exist; itâs an impossible task to disprove a universal negative.)
Originally posted by RonB:
and 2) I wouldn't want to have sex with chimpanzees in any event. |
Neither do I. I like women, theyâre all soft and curvy and they smell nice.
Originally posted by RonB:
But some people do. |
And you know these people personally? |
No, but I don't know why it would be relevant whether I did or not. |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 11:43:24 AM · #418 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Nor did I, but you did imply it might be OK if the theory of evolution theory were true. |
1) I didn't say that you did. Hint: "IF" introduces a conditional statement not a declaratory statement.
2) No I didn't imply anything. I ASKED if it shouldn't be frowned upon, I didn't imply it shouldn't be. Hint: "Does this mean" introduced a question, not a statement. |
Great. Then let me ask you directly. Is it OK with you for a person to have sex with chimpanzees if the theory of evolution is true? Or would you rather drop the subject and get back to the discussion of legitimate science? I would rather get back to the discussion of legitimate science.
Originally posted by milo655321:
And you know these people personally? |
Originally posted by RonB:
No, but I don't know why it would be relevant whether I did or not. |
Oh, itâs not relevant. I was just openly wondering, since you brought it up in the first place, whether you had any personal knowledge on the matter of bestiality. Just as a matter of public record, I donât. Now, are you willing drop the subject, as papa wisely suggests, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether evolution is a legitimate scientific theory?
|
|
|
|
04/15/2005 11:47:01 AM · #419 |
| Why would anyone believing in Christian salvation care what was taught in schools or what the non-believers think anyway? I mean, if you are a good Christian then you will be going to heaven in the afterlife and that's all that should matter to you. Are you worried that your children may be exposed to alternative thinking that could change their minds? If the life here is just transitional then why give a hoot about this debate? |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 11:57:25 AM · #420 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Nor did I, but you did imply it might be OK if the theory of evolution theory were true. |
1) I didn't say that you did. Hint: "IF" introduces a conditional statement not a declaratory statement.
2) No I didn't imply anything. I ASKED if it shouldn't be frowned upon, I didn't imply it shouldn't be. Hint: "Does this mean" introduced a question, not a statement. |
Great. Then let me ask you directly. Is it OK with you for a person to have sex with chimpanzees if the theory of evolution is true? |
It's OK with ME ( doesn't impact me, personally ) for a person to have sex with a chimpanzee whether the theory of evolution is true or not - as long as the chimpanzee is past the age of consent and does so. What two mammals do in the privacy of their own bedroom / cave is none of my business :-(. On the other hand, I don't think that beastiality should be an acceptable social norm, as many other sexual deviations have / are becoming.
Originally posted by milo655321:
Or would you rather drop the subject and get back to the discussion of legitimate science? |
I have no preferences either way.
Originally posted by milo655321:
I would rather get back to the discussion of legitimate science. |
That's fine, then.
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by milo655321:
And you know these people personally? |
Originally posted by RonB:
No, but I don't know why it would be relevant whether I did or not. |
Oh, itâs not relevant. I was just openly wondering, since you brought it up in the first place, whether you had any personal knowledge on the matter of bestiality. |
No, I don't. Is personal knowledge a requirement for taking a position? If so, I DO have personal knowledge on the matter of God. Do you have any personal knowledge on the matter of evolution?
Originally posted by milo655321:
Just as a matter of public record, I donât. Now, are you willing drop the subject, as papa wisely suggests, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether evolution is a legitimate scientific theory? |
Of course I'm willing to drop the subject. It takes TWO to debate. I'm only one.
Message edited by author 2005-04-15 12:02:52. |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 11:59:49 AM · #421 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Why would anyone believing in Christian salvation care what was taught in schools or what the non-believers think anyway? I mean, if you are a good Christian then you will be going to heaven in the afterlife and that's all that should matter to you. Are you worried that your children may be exposed to alternative thinking that could change their minds? If the life here is just transitional then why give a hoot about this debate? |
Why would anyone risk their own life by jumping into the surf to save a child being carried out to sea by an undertow, rather than just think to themselves "I'm safe - to hell with them" ( literally ). |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 12:11:52 PM · #422 |
Originally posted by RonB:
It's OK with ME for a person to have sex with a chimpanzee whether the theory of evolution is true or not - as long as the chimpanzee is past the age of consent and does so. What two mammals do in the privacy of their own bedroom / cave is none of my business. On the other hand, I don't think that beastiality should be an acceptable social norm, as are other sexual deviations.. |
Hmm ⦠Iâll be interested to see that day when a chimpanzee gives informed consent. (Remember: The veracity of the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the existence of a god.)
Originally posted by RonB:
I have no preferences either way. |
I prefer talking science over talking bestiality. In my opinion, bestialityâs gross.
Originally posted by RonB:
No, I don't. Is personal knowledge a requirement for taking a position? If so, I DO have personal knowledge on the matter of God. Do you have any personal knowledge on the matter of evolution? |
Yes, my immune system has had to battle bacteria and viruses that have been made stronger through evolutionary process, like yours probably have.
Originally posted by RonB:
Of course I'm willing to drop the subject. It takes TWO to debate. I'm only one. |
But youâll have to admit you are the one who brought up bestiality.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2005 12:58:13 PM · #423 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
Is personal knowledge a requirement for taking a position? If so, I DO have personal knowledge on the matter of God. Do you have any personal knowledge on the matter of evolution? |
Yes, my immune system has had to battle bacteria and viruses that have been made stronger through evolutionary process, like yours probably have. |
The Creationist position has never denied micro-evolutionary processes, such as those which result in new strains of bacteria. The debate is about MACRO-evolution. Some have accused me of mis-using the term THEORY when speaking of scientific THEORIES. But some, like you, continue to mis-use evolution to refer to both micro- and macro- evolution. Creationists, as I say, do not dispute micro-evolution, only macro-evolution. Perhaps both sides could use the micro- and macro- prefices henceforth to avoid confusion and erroneous charges.
Oh, and while on the subject of the use of the word THEORY. In most science texts, OTHER theories, when referenced, actually employ the word "theory" in their name - e.g. "Today, we will begin a study of Electronic's THEORY", or "Economic THEORY" or "The THEORY of Relativity", etc. It seems to be only "evolution" ( and note that it is almost never referred to as MACRO-evolution ) is presented without the "theory" qualifier in virtually all modern textbooks. |
|
|
|
04/15/2005 01:03:07 PM · #424 |
If you truly believed in the Christian afterlife then that child being carried out to see by the undertow would be going to heaven and to be closer to god. Then why save the child? A child without the maturity to make choices would certainly be going to heaven then. For that matter, any adult Christian living a good Christian life would also be going to heaven, but if she/he were sick or injured seriously, then why try to save that adult with medical care? Certainly that adult would be in heaven with god.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Why would anyone believing in Christian salvation care what was taught in schools or what the non-believers think anyway? I mean, if you are a good Christian then you will be going to heaven in the afterlife and that's all that should matter to you. Are you worried that your children may be exposed to alternative thinking that could change their minds? If the life here is just transitional then why give a hoot about this debate? |
Why would anyone risk their own life by jumping into the surf to save a child being carried out to sea by an undertow, rather than just think to themselves "I'm safe - to hell with them" ( literally ). |
|
|
|
|
04/15/2005 01:15:34 PM · #425 |
| People were created to value life. It is a gift to be cherished. We are also created with compassion for others. Christians have a role model in Christ Jesus that healed the sick and, raised the dead, cast out demons. He did not withhold help, so why should we if we are able? |
|
