Mongol Horde
Resident Savage Army
I'll agree with you on that one FL2.
The Age-old Argument
- Thread starter Tekki
- Start date
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
What are you agreeing with? The scathing rebuttal to Scorch, or the devastating rebuttal to Algernon Pondlife?
(I can't help but notice that after shooting out evolution's legs, noone has replied.)
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
OK. It has been eleven days, and no-one has picked up the gauntlet from where it fell after I threw it last time.
Let the victory celebrations begin!! Strike up the John Phillip Sousa music!! Form up ranks, and begin the parade!!
I win!!
I win!!
I win!!
Let the victory celebrations begin!! Strike up the John Phillip Sousa music!! Form up ranks, and begin the parade!!
I win!!
S
stellar converter
Guest
one of you posted you did not believe in the "7 days thing" in Genesis. did you ever consider that it was not meant literally, like so many things in the bible and other scriptures?
did moses(he wrote genesis) have a chance to keep track of the time in the vision he saw? he just split it into 7 sections, probably like the lord instructed him to. similar to the seven seals in Revelation(or apocalypse for non english speaking, i think its apocalypse anyway). they represent 1 thousand years each in the history of the earth.
(i only bothered to read the first page of this post, so dont blame me if i repeated anything)
i believe to evolution to a certain extent, but i also believe in creation.
did moses(he wrote genesis) have a chance to keep track of the time in the vision he saw? he just split it into 7 sections, probably like the lord instructed him to. similar to the seven seals in Revelation(or apocalypse for non english speaking, i think its apocalypse anyway). they represent 1 thousand years each in the history of the earth.
(i only bothered to read the first page of this post, so dont blame me if i repeated anything)
i believe to evolution to a certain extent, but i also believe in creation.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
For some idiot reason, I can't get PMs to work. This stupid web browser at work has apparently been crippled so that almost nothing works. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/frown.gif" border=0>
[This message has been edited by FearlessLeader2 (edited May 13, 2001).]
Ah, but you see, if they can deliberately misinterpret the Bible, it makes it so much easier to discredit it. Turning symbolism into literalism is the primary weapon of biblical 'debunkers'.
Oh, now you're whining because they make ridiculously unreasonable demands of people? Moses was Jewish, are you saying he couldn't afford a Timex? Oh, they hadn't been invented yet...excuses, excuses.
Well, now, you see, to you and me, that might be considered precendent, but for them it is circular reasoning, even though the two similarites merely establish consistency of writing style. Such consistency, naturally, underscores the Oxford English Society's conclusion that all 60-some-odd books of the Bible were in fact written by the same author. But they don't want to hear that.
In greek, the word Revelation is apokalypsis. It's unfortunate that apocalypse has been corrupted down through the years to possess a totally different meaning, as that new meaning is often applied to the book of revelations, thereby changing it's intent with the stroke of a pen.
I'd be careful making broad declarations like that. Given that radio astronomers have detected the background heat from the Big Bang, and now have a vey accurate age for the universe, we know that the universe is some 17 billion or so years old. Say instead that the 7 days were distinct stages or acts of creation, that is more accurate. The pasage "...a thousand years are as a day to the lord..." is often misused to try putting exact numbers on Biblical dates. But if you examine more Bible numbers, you find that 1,000 is another symbolic number, used to represent any vast sum. Myriad, a term for a unit of 1000 soldiers, was used extensively by the later inspired writers to describe large sums, often of people. Given this, a godly 'day' could be any vast stretch of time, even millions or billions of years. You have to remember god was using men who did not have the benefits of a university education, the Internet, or a word processor to set His story down in print. He had to make do with what was available.
Actually, it is your responsibility to read the entire post before responding. If you go over old ground by choosing ignorance, others have every right to 'blame' you. Call that a slap on the wrist for guidline violation.
Now this here is where we differ. I used to think similarly, that evolution was a 'tool' of god's, but after years of study, debate, and thought, I can't conscience that belief, so I have abandoned it. I just can't support an argument that cannot support itself.
[This message has been edited by FearlessLeader2 (edited May 13, 2001).]
animepornstar
Deity
i have only read a few of the posts in this thread but i must add that universe will not contract cause it´s flat. it was proven last year.
B
BorderPatrol
Guest
And if you go to the edge of it you'll fall off!!
------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0>If you cross the border, you better have your green card!<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0>
[This message has been edited by BorderPatrol (edited May 14, 2001).]
------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0>If you cross the border, you better have your green card!<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0>
[This message has been edited by BorderPatrol (edited May 14, 2001).]
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Are these last two posts some lame attempt to discredit my position with ridicule? I assure you, my arguments are solidly backed in science, real science, and not the pseudo-scientific claptrap that has been spewed and shot down.
If you haven't got an argument, better get off the battlefield. I'm not above fighting an unarmed opponent in a battle of wits. It's great for my ego!
If you haven't got an argument, better get off the battlefield. I'm not above fighting an unarmed opponent in a battle of wits. It's great for my ego!
B
BorderPatrol
Guest
Lighten up dude! Sheesh! I'll give you something signifiant tomorrow. My post was just a joke at the notion that the universe has bee proven to be flat. They proved the Earth was flat before Chrisopher Columbus crossed the ocean! For now, take care Fearless. But you better get your wits ready for tomorrow
------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0>If you cross the border, you better have your green card!<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0>
------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0>If you cross the border, you better have your green card!<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0>
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Actually, one of the Greek guys, a math type, maybe Pythagoras himself, proved the earth was round, by measuirn the angle of sunligh in two deep wells at different spots on the earth at the same time. He got the size pretty close too. Someone doubtless can provide specifics.
And I thought the tone of my last post was fairly light-hearted.
And I thought the tone of my last post was fairly light-hearted.
Magnus
Diplocat
The Holy Bible is not scientific. It is Religion. Creationist Science is total B.S. just trying to discredit Evolution, which IS Scientific.
CeramicCyanide
Chieftain
We can sit here and argue evolution and creation for eons and eons before we either evolve and prove the evolutionists right or face final judgment proving the theologians correct. I am personally an agnostic. I believe in God, but I do not believe in the church.
Now this is my stance, evolution does exist, it can be proven to occur and it is how life developed. The "primordial soup," i think, exists in the foam of breakwaters on some pre-time beach.
Now you mention the statistic impossibility for life to evolve on earth, but the problem here is that no matter where, we as human life, evolved it would still be earth.
The galaxy is so vast and varied that life's chances, though statistically impossible on just one planet or even billions of them can still come about considering the size of the galaxy (if you drop a coin enough times, statistically it will eventually land on it's side).
Mutation, although I'm not expert, can exist without the presence of radiation. All mutation is is a mismatch in genetic sequencing. Because it is genetic it doesn't always have to breed out. This is where you get into dominate and recessive traits (e.g. blue eyes: if a couple comes together and both have only the blue eye genes then the offspring will have blue eyes, if one carries a brown eye gene and a blue eye gene than there is, i believe, a 50-50 chance of a blue eyed offspring, but if one has brown eyes and one has blue there is only a 25% or less chance of blue eyes offspring the brown eye gene is dominate {I'm not an expert on this, but it's in any high school level biology book}). Now if the mutation is in a dominate gene, then there is a significant chance it will be passed on, but not a definite one, hence it dies out. If it is on a recessive gene then it more than likely will breed out. As for the fruit flies, a fruit fly is not an accurate depiction of all species and therefore cannot be used as an example that all mutations breed out of all species all the time. Hence mutation brings about change.
That's where you get into natural selection, also known as Darwinism. It is survival of the fittest. Now, just because that mutation is there and will remain in all offspring having a parent with that mutation does not mean that the mutation will stay. This is due to the fact that the mutation may be detrimental to the life expectancy, viability of embryos, ability to procreate, etc., of the bearer of said mutation. Therefore, it doesn't get a chance to breed as often and the gene doesn't get spread around as often and eventually will just disappear.
It also seems to me that those defending creationism are behind the misconception that evolution is a quick process 6000 yrs isn't even the blink of an eye from an evolutional, or geological standpoint.
All life is evolving all the time, however, the changes are so minute that they cannot be seen by the naked eye. A rather crude example of this would be to look at yourself now, today, and then in a year. You don't think that you've changed too much (maintaining that you still look at yourself during that year) but those who haven't seen you in that period will tell you "Wow you've grown," "Man you look different."
(i should apologize now if this is making no sense, I'm tiered and I'll clarify all arguments later on)
Now, I'm not going to sit here and say there is no God (if my post sounded as such I am truly sorry and I meant no offense to anyone or their belief system), what I am trying to say is that evolution is the reason for life as we know it now, and that chaos is the source of all this life.
This is all I can think of for now, smoke is billowing form my ears, so I bid you all a good night.
P.s. I am wholeheartedly sorry for any offense this post has caused.
------------------
Ceramic Cyanide
Now this is my stance, evolution does exist, it can be proven to occur and it is how life developed. The "primordial soup," i think, exists in the foam of breakwaters on some pre-time beach.
Now you mention the statistic impossibility for life to evolve on earth, but the problem here is that no matter where, we as human life, evolved it would still be earth.
The galaxy is so vast and varied that life's chances, though statistically impossible on just one planet or even billions of them can still come about considering the size of the galaxy (if you drop a coin enough times, statistically it will eventually land on it's side).
Mutation, although I'm not expert, can exist without the presence of radiation. All mutation is is a mismatch in genetic sequencing. Because it is genetic it doesn't always have to breed out. This is where you get into dominate and recessive traits (e.g. blue eyes: if a couple comes together and both have only the blue eye genes then the offspring will have blue eyes, if one carries a brown eye gene and a blue eye gene than there is, i believe, a 50-50 chance of a blue eyed offspring, but if one has brown eyes and one has blue there is only a 25% or less chance of blue eyes offspring the brown eye gene is dominate {I'm not an expert on this, but it's in any high school level biology book}). Now if the mutation is in a dominate gene, then there is a significant chance it will be passed on, but not a definite one, hence it dies out. If it is on a recessive gene then it more than likely will breed out. As for the fruit flies, a fruit fly is not an accurate depiction of all species and therefore cannot be used as an example that all mutations breed out of all species all the time. Hence mutation brings about change.
That's where you get into natural selection, also known as Darwinism. It is survival of the fittest. Now, just because that mutation is there and will remain in all offspring having a parent with that mutation does not mean that the mutation will stay. This is due to the fact that the mutation may be detrimental to the life expectancy, viability of embryos, ability to procreate, etc., of the bearer of said mutation. Therefore, it doesn't get a chance to breed as often and the gene doesn't get spread around as often and eventually will just disappear.
It also seems to me that those defending creationism are behind the misconception that evolution is a quick process 6000 yrs isn't even the blink of an eye from an evolutional, or geological standpoint.
All life is evolving all the time, however, the changes are so minute that they cannot be seen by the naked eye. A rather crude example of this would be to look at yourself now, today, and then in a year. You don't think that you've changed too much (maintaining that you still look at yourself during that year) but those who haven't seen you in that period will tell you "Wow you've grown," "Man you look different."
(i should apologize now if this is making no sense, I'm tiered and I'll clarify all arguments later on)
Now, I'm not going to sit here and say there is no God (if my post sounded as such I am truly sorry and I meant no offense to anyone or their belief system), what I am trying to say is that evolution is the reason for life as we know it now, and that chaos is the source of all this life.
This is all I can think of for now, smoke is billowing form my ears, so I bid you all a good night.
P.s. I am wholeheartedly sorry for any offense this post has caused.
------------------
Ceramic Cyanide
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Oka-ay, two broad generalisations, neither supported by any evidence... This looks like a job for...FearlessLeader!!
In defense of the Bible's scientific accuracy...
1) In every instance where the Bible impinges upon science, it either agrees totally with what has been discoverd, or boldly steps into areas where science has made little progress.
1a 1) "...he has folded the expanses of the north around to meet the south..."
1a 2) "...the sphere of the earth hangs upon nothing..."
2) In Genesis, the creation account reads like a primer version of the sequence of events cosmologists have pieced together from the Big Bang onward. First, Light(and a whole damn lot to start), then the heavens(stars) and the earth. Then, day and night(as the solar system settled into a natural rythym). Then the earth cooled, seas formed. Then life, first fish in the water, then plants on land, then all manner of animals.
3) Archaeologists use the Bible as their number one reference tool for finding lost cities and such.
Now for the discrediting of evolution...
(As if I hadn't already done a bang-up job of it...sheesh, some people are NEVER satisfied.)
1) It is based on natural selection and mutation.
1a) Natural Selection, while it does occur, has never been shown to produce new species. Further, man has experimented with the process for some 8,000 years, creating all manner of new breeds of dogs, cattle, sheep, horses, and other domesticated animals. Never in the course of this accellerated, vastly magnified version of natural selection, have we managed o coerce a rabbit to emerge from a dog, a sheep from a chicken, or in fact anything different from the starting breed pair. Damning evidence indeed.
2) Experiments on fruit flies, a prolific and rapid breeder with a very small genetic structure, have proven beyond doubt that DNA is a higly resilient chemical, capable of repairing itself, and correcting all defects, positive and negative, within a few generations at most.
Given that evolution is based on two natural phenomenon doing the exact opposite of what it has been shown that they do, it can be clearly seen that evolution is not at all scientific, and is in fact some sort of hustle.
Would anyone else like to make any unsupported generalisations? I need something to keep me awake here at work...
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Ceramic Cyanide--
First off, allow me to tip my hat in honor of your rather imaginative handle. I always appreciate an evocative monniker.
Now for the first salvo:
The fruit fly experiment was not aimed at fruit flies, it was aimed at DNA. It was not proven that fruit flies remove mutations from their gene pool, it was proven that DNA repairs itself.
As to the universe being large enough for even a statistical impossibility to occur: well, yeah, sure, but just because it's dimly possible doesn't make it true. And we're not talking about just one statistical impossibility, we're talking about a statistically impossible array of statistically impossible events.
First off, allow me to tip my hat in honor of your rather imaginative handle. I always appreciate an evocative monniker.
Now for the first salvo:
The fruit fly experiment was not aimed at fruit flies, it was aimed at DNA. It was not proven that fruit flies remove mutations from their gene pool, it was proven that DNA repairs itself.
As to the universe being large enough for even a statistical impossibility to occur: well, yeah, sure, but just because it's dimly possible doesn't make it true. And we're not talking about just one statistical impossibility, we're talking about a statistically impossible array of statistically impossible events.
Magnus
Diplocat
The Bible is simply not science - you cannot compare it to the science of evolution - period. apples and oranges.
B
BorderPatrol
Guest
I find your post very interesting FearlessLeader, as for discrediting evolution... I don't know. I think that the Bible is an interpretation of evolution and I am open to what you are saying I am just not convinced.
For one thing when you said the following:
------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0>If you cross the border, you better have your green card!<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0>
For one thing when you said the following:
The one thing I noticed is that over those 8,000 years mahn may have not been able to get things to change in a single generation but over time many of those species have changed somewhat and as a matter of fact, man himself has evoloved in both intelegence and appearance. We don't have as many teeth for example. Not arguing with you, just thought that might be something to chew on.
------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0>If you cross the border, you better have your green card!<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0>
CeramicCyanide
Chieftain
It's true that DNA repairs itself, but some mutations cannot be repaired. Evolution deals with behavioral adaptations which then give rise to the change in genetic structuring. This exsplains why a rabbit didn't come form a dog. If, i'd wager, a group of dogs was fed a diet consisting of lesser and lesser portions of meat and more portiosn of plant life over the course of many many generations, that the genes that make the dog a carnivour will mutate, slowly changing it to suside on a diet of mainly plant life. (if that didn't make sense, i'm sorry, i could better exsplain it in person)
I get lost in all the math of your statistics (i knew i shoudl've paid more attention in algebra class instead of playing Drug wars on my TI 83), however, just because somethign is a statistical rarity doens't mean it will not happen. I know it's pale in comparison to your unliklyhood, but, you are unlikley to die in a plane crash, however, they still do happen. Doezens of them a year, and that's just confined to one planet. Now when you get into the fact that the universe is so vast that it defys mesurment, you can see, or atleast i can, where it is very likly that there be recurrances of life's evolution on countless worlds.
We do not yet understand the nature of the few few moments of evolution; how all those chemicals came together to make somethign that is "alive" and the sheer thought of the complexity of even the simpilest paramecium (spelling?) astounds me. However, i do know enough about luck, which in itself is just the chance of a favorable occurance, that there are times when statistics will fail and a random, almost impossible event will occur and re-occur, even proliferate.
But that's just my opinion, i could be wrong
------------------
Ceramic Cyanide
I get lost in all the math of your statistics (i knew i shoudl've paid more attention in algebra class instead of playing Drug wars on my TI 83), however, just because somethign is a statistical rarity doens't mean it will not happen. I know it's pale in comparison to your unliklyhood, but, you are unlikley to die in a plane crash, however, they still do happen. Doezens of them a year, and that's just confined to one planet. Now when you get into the fact that the universe is so vast that it defys mesurment, you can see, or atleast i can, where it is very likly that there be recurrances of life's evolution on countless worlds.
We do not yet understand the nature of the few few moments of evolution; how all those chemicals came together to make somethign that is "alive" and the sheer thought of the complexity of even the simpilest paramecium (spelling?) astounds me. However, i do know enough about luck, which in itself is just the chance of a favorable occurance, that there are times when statistics will fail and a random, almost impossible event will occur and re-occur, even proliferate.
But that's just my opinion, i could be wrong
------------------
Ceramic Cyanide
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
You do realize that posting this pathetic tripe in the face of my last post is so not effective that it is laughable.
YOU are making a faith-based argument, against an argument backed with facts. I find myself in the highly enviable position that most evolutionist's start in by default. Now I am the one with credibility, and you are the spittle-frothed raving lunatic, shouting from the hilltops. Thanks so much for making this easy.
You are closing your mind by saying that science solves everything. It seems that ppl have turned science into almost a religion. Science just cannot be wrong in most people's eyes. To those ppl I say look at all the sciencetific rules we have broken. The speed barrier. That used to be the fast a person could move. That is just one example. Just because you can't see it, don't mean it ain't there.
------------------
<FONT face="tahoma">
All rights reserved, all your base are belong to us. </FONT f>
------------------
<FONT face="tahoma">
All rights reserved, all your base are belong to us. </FONT f>
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Well, I'm trying...
That's Natural Selection, not evolution. How many times do I have to go over this ground? It's nothing but scorched earth and tank tracks...
Nice pun.
Our technology has certainly improved, but given that it had to start somewhere to get where it is today, you can't say that just because we know more we 'evolved' intelligence. Necessity is the mother of invention, and as we have become more populous, our society has neccesitated new means of doing things. We've always managed to improvise a new technology to suit our needs, so it seems we've always been smart. We just didn't NEED jets back in the days of the Roman Empire.
[This message has been edited by FearlessLeader2 (edited May 15, 2001).]
