Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

A companion to the Homestar Runner Wiki
It is currently Sat Jul 20, 2019 7:12 am

All times are UTC




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 854 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 29  Next

Pick the response that most accurately applies.
I believe in evolution and I am not an atheist. 19%  19%  [ 15 ]
I believe in evolution and I am an atheist. 44%  44%  [ 34 ]
I am a young earth creationist. 13%  13%  [ 10 ]
I am an old earth creationist. 9%  9%  [ 7 ]
I believe in Intelligent Design. 5%  5%  [ 4 ]
I don't know what to believe. 3%  3%  [ 2 ]
Other. 8%  8%  [ 6 ]
Total votes : 78
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 4:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:47 pm
Posts: 613
Location: Not here
I probably won't add much, but I will say that I am a pretty stauch evolutionist, just given the amounts of scientific evidence provided for it. However, I am open to the concept that some divine force may have created life but then allowed life to more or less evolve on its own to suit its own desires. Plus, I find the whole Adam & Eve story to seem rather implausable, since to me, the idea that the human race came from two individuals seems rather odd and it doesn't quite explain differing ethnicities (unless enough time passed from the Adam & Eve thing to account for the creation of differing races on their own terms, but my skepticism still holds).

Also to note, both Christians I know quite well (including my girlfriend) believe that evolution is an actual theory, but don't believe it applies to humans; another view that's been expressed in this thread, I know, but I thought it'd be interesting to note. (Interesting to note as well is the thought my girlfriend holds that, while she thinks Adam & Eve happened, post Adam-Eve God then created other groups of people, which would help explain the differing races thing again.)

_________________
Yeah. Shut up, kid.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 9:03 pm
Posts: 1449
Location: Totalslava.
I believe that Adam & Eve is a story-lesson, much like many other articles in the Old Testament and New. I am as sure as you can be on something that's inconclusive that evolution is what happened, but like Nineten said, being open is the best thing.

_________________
Evidence of the ol' glassies! Nothing up our sleeves, no magic little Alex! A job for two who are now of job age! The police!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:57 am
Posts: 2981
Location: Oklahoma City
TheNintenGenius wrote:
Plus, I find the whole Adam & Eve story to seem rather implausable, since to me, the idea that the human race came from two individuals seems rather odd and it doesn't quite explain differing ethnicities (unless enough time passed from the Adam & Eve thing to account for the creation of differing races on their own terms, but my skepticism still holds).


That's another thing. The whole story is pretty much blown to pieces by math. You can't really get a population of 2 to a population of 6 billion in the span of time the Bible suggests. Especially if you allow for the great flood (killing most of humanity so the whole thing must start anew even sooner than that; not only are we Adam's descendants, we are Noah's), which is disputable, and factor in disease, wars (Genghis Khan alone polished off a good part of the population), just plain short life expectancy... I'm pretty sure the numbers don't work out. 6000 years ago there was not a huge number of humans, but not a tiny number, either.

- Kef


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Don't underestimate the power of human reproduction, Furrykef. By my calculations, the human population would only have to increase by about 8% every 20 years in order to produce a 6 billion population. Heck, the population of the US increases at a faster rate than that (as a matter of fact, the US population has nearly doubled since 1960).

_________________
ImageImage


Last edited by Didymus on Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:57 am
Posts: 2981
Location: Oklahoma City
The population of the US is also a million times better off than a population of humans 6000 years ago would have been. Life expectancy is through the roof (by comparison, at least), disease is a problem but on a much smaller scale, we probably won't have to worry about becoming some wild animal's food...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
But even if you account for higher mortality rates, you could still easily populate an entire planet with a relatively low population growth rate. As I stated in my last post, a growth rate of only 8% every generation is sufficient, and right now, that rate is about 30%.

Besides, keep in mind the high mortality rates of modern warfare, disease and lack of medical care in third world countries, plus the fact that, even with increased lifespan, people still die of old age.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 9:03 pm
Posts: 1449
Location: Totalslava.
Didymus wrote:
But even if you account for higher mortality rates, you could still easily populate an entire planet with a relatively low population growth rate.


But 6,000,000 from two people?

_________________
Evidence of the ol' glassies! Nothing up our sleeves, no magic little Alex! A job for two who are now of job age! The police!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Run the numbers, Freakyblue. It's entirely possible.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:47 pm
Posts: 613
Location: Not here
The numbers might be possible, but there's still the whole "if everyone came from two people, where do we get blacks, asians, caucasians, hispanics, Native Americans, inuits, polynesians, Indians, etc." conundrum. If Adam & Eve does hold true, I'd think my girlfriend's idea sounds most likely, but otherwise it's a good question.

_________________
Yeah. Shut up, kid.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 9:03 pm
Posts: 1449
Location: Totalslava.
What about birth defects? I mean, we're all different, but small things like facial features can't be birth defects. Plus, wouldn't that just bury the entire reproduction system in incest? Wouldn't that be at all contradictory to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah?

_________________
Evidence of the ol' glassies! Nothing up our sleeves, no magic little Alex! A job for two who are now of job age! The police!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
First, I don't see how Sodom and Gomorrah have anything to do with incest. Second, at least in the earlier stages of the human race, it was not considered wrong to marry a close relative. Third, it is my own belief that the genetic code was purer back then, with fewer defects, and that subsequent mutations caused humanity to change over time, allowing for multiple ethnicities and racial characteristics (most of which were adaptation to differing environments--Evolution, if you will). In time, this practice became taboo, mostly because it was entirely unnecessary, but also because it would create all sorts of strange relationships. I am reminded of the Application to Live in Arkansas, where it says, "To whom are you married (check all that apply): Mother, Sister, Daughter." In Hebrew Law as recorded in the Old Testament, it was mainly to preserve the integrity of family inheritance. It's complicated.

I'm not arguing that you have to believe it happened this way. I am only pointing out that, with the statistics of population growth which we do have, it is entirely possible.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 9:03 pm
Posts: 1449
Location: Totalslava.
About Sodom and Gomorrah- I'm not a very religious person, so I'm not exactly sure, but I thought that in the Bible passage of Sodom and Gomorrah there was rampant disobeying of the Ten Commandments, and that some father had relations with his daughter? I'm not sure where I got this from, but a refreshment of the story would be good.

_________________
Evidence of the ol' glassies! Nothing up our sleeves, no magic little Alex! A job for two who are now of job age! The police!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
The Ten Commandments had not been given yet. They wouldn't be around for another 500 years or so.

The problem with Sodom and Gomorrah: the Bible says that it was on account of wickedness (not specified) and cruelty that they were destroyed. (Many people believe that it was on account of homosexuality, but keep in mind, the reference to homosexuality in that story was rape.)

In the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham's nephew Lot lost his whole family except for two of his daughters. Because they were so far from civilization, the two daughters decided to seduce Lot so they could continue the family name (which, in the ancient world, was dreadfully important). The resulting kingdoms of Moab and Ammon were the result. The Israelites considered these two kingdoms to be essentially inbred hicks.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 9:03 pm
Posts: 1449
Location: Totalslava.
Ah. Wow, I really need to brush up on this. I think I'm a bit out of my league discussing this, being 14 and all, but it's nice to have something of an intelligent conversation every now and then.

_________________
Evidence of the ol' glassies! Nothing up our sleeves, no magic little Alex! A job for two who are now of job age! The police!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 12:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:50 pm
Posts: 213
Location: In the land of Sporks.
TheNintenGenius wrote:
The numbers might be possible, but there's still the whole "if everyone came from two people, where do we get blacks, asians, caucasians, hispanics, Native Americans, inuits, polynesians, Indians, etc." conundrum. If Adam & Eve does hold true, I'd think my girlfriend's idea sounds most likely, but otherwise it's a good question.


Genetic mutations could have occured, giving certain individuals a darker skin colour, who then reproduce and create more of similar features/attributes/etc. This type of thing occurs in animal populations constantly, maybe that was what occured in humans if the Adam and Eve story is the truth.

_________________
"well, I'll just uh, put these pants on." ~Homestar


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: De Evolution
PostPosted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 2:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:30 am
Posts: 333
Location: Lansing, MI Honorific_Title: Lord
Fhqwhgadshgnsdbkhsdabkfab wrote:
the only real physical advancements were with the ridge over the eyes, ... ridge right under our mouth, in our jaw
You are about 100 years old in your evolution theory. Modern evolutionists say that Neaderthals did not evolve into modern man. But you believe it anyway, without evidence. That's more faith than any of the Christians here have!

Fhqwhgadshgnsdbkhsdabkfab wrote:
doesn't it seem like creationists don't seem to believe in ... every post-1933 advancements in science?
I myself took advantage of stem cell research just this year. I believe in adult stem-cell research. As Didymus said, I don't believe in sacrificing others' lives to help mine against their will. One of the post-1933 developments in medicine was the useage of twins and Jews against their will for medical research by Nazi Germany, so for that one post-1933 advancement... no. I don't want it.

Didymus wrote:
I also happen to love MP3's (obtained ethically, of course)
Me too!


Didymus wrote:
For cloning: there are ethical questions involved in cloning that even geneticists are asking.
For example, who will be the clone's parents/legal guardians? Will it be the corporation that grew it? The clone will be a human, and any time a U.S. citizen creates a human the normal way there are legal and ethical obligations that a laboratory is not well suited to perform. The clone will have rights, too, like anyone born in the U.S. And one of its rights will be to refuse medical procedures, the very procedures that cloning advocates want to raise them in order to perform.

Didymus wrote:
However, I would be willing to support stem cell research if they could find a means to harvest stem cells without producing such a meat market.
I actually donated some stem cells. It didn't hurt much at all. I suggest you go to your local Red Cross and have your HLA typing performed so that if anyone needs your bone marrow stem cells, you can chose to donate some. There are a number of hospitals trying to build up a list of eligible donors. You could save a life. And donate blood while you're at it. Of course, only if you're over 18, or if you have your parents' permission.

Fhqwhgadshgnsdbkhsdabkfab wrote:
i'm not old enough to understand
Yes, you are :) . Little children understand Adam and Eve just fine. You're plenty old enough. You're right that people should not be overbearing at you, as that's not appropriate in this friendly forum. But no one here is so much better than you that you should feel inferior.

Fhqwhgadshgnsdbkhsdabkfab wrote:
i just don't like that creationists saying that if your views on the homo sapien's coming into existence is scientific instead of divine, that you should go to hell fo being sacreligious.
That stated view is not exactly discrimination in the way you're thinking of it. While some people probably come off that way to you, rest assured that nobody goes to hell because of monkeys.

TheNintenGenius wrote:
I probably won't add much, but I will say that I am a pretty stauch evolutionist, just given the amounts of scientific evidence provided for it.
The amount of evidence? Or the amount of public school science teachers teaching it as fact? Keep one thing in mind (apologies in advance to any science teachers here), science teachers are not scientists. 95% of them just teach whatever the book says to teach without doing any research. Many of the "facts" science teachers taught in high school just 25 years ago have been completely revoked by the actual scientific community. So to just believe whatever they say is blind faith, much more than creationists could ever muster up.

TheNintenGenius wrote:
However, I am open to the concept that some divine force may have created life but then allowed life to more or less evolve on its own to suit its own desires.
Why? I mean, why are you open, and why would it do such a silly thing? When I make something, I use it for my own purposes. Maybe God is better than I am.

TheNintenGenius wrote:
doesn't quite explain differing ethnicities
What differences? We're all the same. I've been all over the world and there's really no difference. I mean, there are cultural differences, but there's a bigger difference between you and your parents culturally than there is between you and a Philippino teenager.

TheNintenGenius wrote:
while she thinks Adam & Eve happened, post Adam-Eve God then created other groups of people, which would help explain the differing races thing again.
I've heard that theory before, but I can't put my finger on it. Is that Mormonism or something?

furrykef wrote:
The whole story is pretty much blown to pieces by math.
I am a mathematician... what operation would you like me to perform? Allow me to create an Excel Spreadsheet. Assume the population of earth to be 2, doubling every 100 years. Now take into account that the Bible seems to imply that we're just over 6000 years into creation. 2 Quintillion people. In fact, 6 Billion people only takes about 3200 years at that very conservative rate, considering that when you were born, there were less than 5 billion people, and now we're over 6 billion! So, actually, your argument is what's blown to pieces by math. Whoever told you this fairy tale about population being too big for Adam and Eve must think you're a chump. I have more respect for you than that.

TheNintenGenius wrote:
there's still the whole "if everyone came from two people, where do we get blacks, asians, caucasians...
There's no appreciable genetic difference. We're all the same color, just different shades. It's a chemical in skin cells called "melanin." So there's really only two colors: melanin and albino. And melanin parents can have an albino child without any mutations, therefore that's not even proof of evolution. Height differences are as much nutritional as they are genetic (who's one of the tallest players in the NBA right now? Oh, a Chinese man!). So, who can name a trait that's actually proof of race? Of evolution? If there is something to one race being more evolved than another, what race is the superior one? You see, "believing" evolution leads directly to racism, and if you truly truly believe in evolution then you have to be a racist. To be an egalitarian evolutionist is a direct contradiction in terms. Only a creationist can believe that all people were created equal.

Kaffiene wrote:
Genetic mutations could have occured, giving certain individuals a darker skin colour, who then reproduce and create more of similar features/attributes/etc.
I have only ever met a few mutants. They had Down's syndrome. I have never observed a single mutation that led to a different characteristic like you're attributing to races, and certainly never any one that could account for the evolution of anything. Mutations are always, without exception, destructive. Find me 1 contradiction and I'll admit that evolution is possible. But I don't think you can, because for all the "evidence" for evolution, it's all thought experements. There are no positive mutations in any observation I've ever seen or heard of!

With one set of exceptions... hear me out. Scientists have created new pet fish that have firefly DNA. So these fish now glow. It's really cool, and took thousands of years of scientific research to accomplish! Didn't happen in the wild, or in the swamp, or in the ocean, but in the hands of intelligent creators. So, there may be positive mutations at the hands of scientists.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 2:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Quote:
I have never observed a single mutation that led to a different characteristic like you're attributing to races, and certainly never any one that could account for the evolution of anything. Mutations are always, without exception, destructive. Find me 1 contradiction and I'll admit that evolution is possible. But I don't think you can, because for all the "evidence" for evolution, it's all thought experements. There are no positive mutations in any observation I've ever seen or heard of!

There is one hole in this theory: common human ancestry. If we believe that all human beings are descended from common human ancestors, as most Christians do, then we must acknowledge that racial differences must have come about through adaptation of some sort. How else can you account for the ethnic differences?

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Adaptation
PostPosted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:30 am
Posts: 333
Location: Lansing, MI Honorific_Title: Lord
Didymus wrote:
There is one hole in this theory: common human ancestry. If we believe that all human beings are descended from common human ancestors, as most Christians do, then we must acknowledge that racial differences must have come about through adaptation of some sort. How else can you account for the ethnic differences?

I don't account for ethnic differences genetically. The genetic variation between two random Brits is almost as much as between a German and a Puapa New Guinea tribesman. I have not been informed of alleles that are restricted to one race, if you have become aware of them, do let me know!

At any rate, I do believe in adaptation, just not positive mutation. Adaptation is well within our observations. Natural selection, even! I simply think it's a destructive selection, each natural selection eliminating alleles. As far as variation goes, I've been told that mathematically speaking, two relatively disparate human parents could (given a theoretical amount of time, of course) produce enough genetically unique individuals to fill the entire known universe completely.

The argument that "people are too different to be the genetic results of a mere two people worth of genes" boils down to the same argument as "there's not enough time in 5000 years to make 6 billion people." The numbers I've been given are plenty. If someone has specific numbers they want crunched, thow them my way! I mean, isn't the human genome project public domain? Human DNA is about two-thirds of a Gig of data... so you'd better have broadband :)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
You've already read my numbers in earlier posts, I presume. In fact, there are two considerations I left out of my original calculations.

(1) I ran the numbers at a 6 billion X increase in population when I should have run it at a 3 billion X increase, taking into account that there were two original parents. This amounted to a slight decrease in the average percentage (7.6% per 20 years, to be precise).

(2) Kef's response was that our ancestors did not live as long. Two responses:
    a. We have longer lifespans, but we tend not to have children beyond our 40's. The breeding population only needs to survive into its 40's; beyond that, age of death does not really factor into population growth.

    b. According to Scripture, our most ancient ancestors actually lived much longer than we do. If you take the numbers literally, they often exceeded 900 years old. And if, for some odd reason, their breeding cycle was also drastically greater, then a single pair of ancestors could easily populate a small nation by themselves.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 3:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:07 pm
Posts: 890
Location: Royse City, TX
Buz wrote:
TheNintenGenius wrote:
while she thinks Adam & Eve happened, post Adam-Eve God then created other groups of people, which would help explain the differing races thing again.

I've heard that theory before, but I can't put my finger on it. Is that Mormonism or something?


I'm not sure where that theory is from, but it's not something the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Could be...
PostPosted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:30 am
Posts: 333
Location: Lansing, MI Honorific_Title: Lord
racerx_is_alive wrote:
Buz wrote:
TheNintenGenius wrote:
...post Adam-Eve God then created other groups of people...

I've heard that theory before... Is that Mormonism or something?

I'm not sure where that theory is from, but it's not something the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches.

Thanks for the clarification; it could be a JW belief. Since it's not a core belief of whatever group in which it's popular, I don't have a grasp on it. I usually only get the basics from my resources. Mayhaps TheNintenGenious will point out what faith/denomination his gf adheres to more specifically than Christianity? (tag)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 7:47 pm
Posts: 613
Location: Not here
She goes to a Southern Baptist church (which, given that she lives in Texas, makes sense I suppose), but she considers herself rather non-denominational, so for all I know, her idea could've been a thought she came up with entirely independently.

_________________
Yeah. Shut up, kid.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 11:59 am
Posts: 612
Location: Uck
Didymus wrote:
The problem with Sodom and Gomorrah: the Bible says that it was on account of wickedness (not specified) and cruelty that they were destroyed. (Many people believe that it was on account of homosexuality, but keep in mind, the reference to homosexuality in that story was rape.)


Gay rape, you mean. According to Gen 19:8, there's nothing wrong with rape, as long as it's heterosexual.

Buz wrote:
Why? I mean, why are you open, and why would it do such a silly thing?


Good point. That'd be almost as silly as sending people to be eternally tortured for not subscribing to a particular belief system.

Okay, I'll stop being snide now.

Quote:
You see, "believing" evolution leads directly to racism, and if you truly truly believe in evolution then you have to be a racist.


...what?! That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Evolutionists are racist because we believe that there are genetic differences between people of different races? That's like saying that we're sexist because we advocate the theory that the female anatomy is different from males'! Ugh... I don't know whether to laugh or retch.

Quote:
I have only ever met a few mutants. They had Down's syndrome. I have never observed a single mutation that led to a different characteristic like you're attributing to races, and certainly never any one that could account for the evolution of anything. Mutations are always, without exception, destructive. Find me 1 contradiction and I'll admit that evolution is possible. But I don't think you can, because for all the "evidence" for evolution, it's all thought experements. There are no positive mutations in any observation I've ever seen or heard of!


But just one post later you said that you believe in adaptation and natural selection - how, therefore, can you believe evolution to be impossible?

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Speciation
PostPosted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:30 am
Posts: 333
Location: Lansing, MI Honorific_Title: Lord
Upsilon wrote:
Quote:
You see, "believing" evolution leads directly to racism, and if you truly truly believe in evolution then you have to be a racist.

...what?! That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Evolutionists are racist because we believe that there are genetic differences between people of different races? That's like saying that we're sexist because we advocate the theory that the female anatomy is different from males'! Ugh... I don't know whether to laugh or retch.

Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry myself.

The point of evolution isn't differences (if it were, then Down's Syndrome and Bombay type Blood would be celebrated), it's instead about improvement of genetic codes. One allele is better than another. Possession of inferior genes is merit for death. That's evolution! If you believe that human "races" are actually genetically different, and you believe in evolution -- that better alleles should be seleced for and inferior ones selected against -- then poof! You're a racist. Nothing personal; I'm not saying you're going around lynching anyone, I'm simply saying you think one "race" is better than another. Eugenics. If you don't think races are genetically different, then you're not observing evolution in humans. If you don't think any one set of alleles is superior another, then you don't think evolution is important. So, if you're not a racist, then (unless you see a hole in my logic), you think evolution isn't happening, or that it's not important. Which is it?

Upsilon wrote:
Quote:
...There are no positive mutations in any observation I've ever seen or heard of!

But just one post later you said that you believe in adaptation and natural selection - how, therefore, can you believe evolution to be impossible?

Good question... here's my explanation:
Natural Selection and adaptation do not create alleles. They select amond existing alleles. Neo-Darwinistic and Post-Neo-Darwinistic speciation requires creation of new alleles through mutation. Darwinistic speciation did not require the creation of new alleles, but was based on a rejected theory of genetics that no self-respecting scientist believes today. If you're a Darwinist (not neo- or post-neo-) then you believe that the first bacteria to evolve had more genes than corn plants do, which has been disproven (I think). Anyway, I don't think mutation is ever positive (by observation), and neo-darwinsitic evolution can't occur without that. Natural selection and adaptation can.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 7:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 5:21 pm
Posts: 15581
Location: Hey! I'm looking for some kind of trangly thing!
Upsilon wrote:
Gay rape, you mean. According to Gen 19:8, there's nothing wrong with rape, as long as it's heterosexual.

No it doesn't. Pay attention to what actually took place. Lot was doing the only thing he thought he could do to protect his guests (which in the ancient world was a serious obligation). The passage does not say it was okay for him to do so, only that that was what he did. Keep in mind that just because one of the patriarchs does something does not mean that it is right, or that God condoned it.

But if this is the kind of "scholarship" the SAB promotes, I'm not impressed.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Stem Cell Donation
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:30 am
Posts: 333
Location: Lansing, MI Honorific_Title: Lord
Buz wrote:
I suggest you go to your local Red Cross and have your HLA typing performed so that if anyone needs your bone marrow stem cells, you can chose to donate some. There are a number of hospitals trying to build up a list of eligible donors. You could save a life. And donate blood while you're at it.

I misspoke. The National Bone Marrow Registry is building a list of eligible donors. Many minorities are especially underrepresented in this database, so a minority citizen with lukemia, sickle-cell, or myeloma has a low chance of being able to find a donor.

And on donating, it's no worse than donating a pint of blood. There's only a 1 in 60,000 chance they'll need your marrow, but if they do, you WILL save that person's life.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 11:59 am
Posts: 612
Location: Uck
Buz wrote:
The point of evolution isn't differences [...] Which is it?


You're playing with words a bit there. To side-step the debate of the existence of the superior race, I'll say just this. Racism is the dislike of another person or people based on their race. You claim that evolutionism causes this, because it gives rise to the notion of a superior race.

Now, imagine two friends of yours, one of whom is clearly better than the other at basketball. According to your theory, as one of them is better than the other, you should dislike the one who isn't as skilled. This is, of course, nonsense: although the physical capabilities of one friend may be better than the other, that has no bearing on how good a person they each are. So it is with evolutionism.

Quote:
Upsilon wrote:
Quote:
...There are no positive mutations in any observation I've ever seen or heard of!

But just one post later you said that you believe in adaptation and natural selection - how, therefore, can you believe evolution to be impossible?

Good question [...] Natural selection and adaptation can.


I have little qualification to argue or agree here, since I know too little about science.

Didymus wrote:
Lot was doing the only thing he thought he could do to protect his guests (which in the ancient world was a serious obligation). The passage does not say it was okay for him to do so, only that that was what he did. Keep in mind that just because one of the patriarchs does something does not mean that it is right, or that God condoned it.


You make a good point. While it's certainly debatable whether Lot was doing the right thing, I'd have to agree with your final sentence. (Noah's hangover comes to mind.)

Quote:
But if this is the kind of "scholarship" the SAB promotes, I'm not impressed.


Do you think it necessary to blame the Skeptic's Annotated Bible for every one of my mistakes?

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 10:28 pm
Posts: 4675
well i think evolution is correct. As the legendary manga "Phonix: A tale of the future" Puts it


Quote:
Humans call everything they dont understand "god"

_________________
Image
Image


Last edited by extremejon09 on Sun Oct 24, 2004 5:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:07 pm
Posts: 890
Location: Royse City, TX
Oh man, and I was just thinking that I had a grip on everything. Now I'm confused about creationism and God again...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 3:09 pm
Posts: 242
Um... I didn't exactly understand extreme_jon's post. (Does that make it God?)

Anyway, I'd rather not become a regular on this thread, but I read through the last page out of boredom. I have to say I was stunned when someone mentioned "differences between races." I never imagined this would even be an issue of conversation, much less controversy. This post is intended as an expression of surprise, not argument. I thought it was pretty widely understand that there aren't ethnic differences, biologically speaking! And even before reading the subsequent posts in which the word "racism" came up, the term Social Darwinism came to mind. (I recommend reading the previous link, the Wiki article on the term. It was an unpleasant but important and powerful part of turn-of-the-century history.) I believe someone actually spoke of "differences between races." While the concept of "race" is still one that's active in our vocabulary, it's largely thrown out in a scientific sense. There are "people groups," but not "races." The concept is an offspring of Social Darwinism; its agenda was to make the "races" as different as possible to justify one "race" being the master of the others. People actually believed that caucasians were "more human" than other races; some actually believed that Africans were a different species altogether.
So yes, cultural differences exist, and are significant, but in terms of biological differences--well, just consider for a moment the differences between breeds of dogs (and we still consider them one species!). How significant are human differences in comparison? Whoever it was was correct in pointing out that the sole difference in skin color is amount of melanin. That would be like talking about the differences, not just between a dachsund and a schnauzer, but between two dachsunds with lighter or darker coats.
And the context in which the discussion of human biological differences first entered the thread was an expression of doubt about the ability of two progenitors to account for all human differences. There are many difficulties with Adam & Eve, to be sure, but I'm afraid this isn't one of them. All human differences could be easily achieved through adaptation to environment (and would require far fewer adaptations than those among many other species like dogs). Sunnier climates mean more melanin--how is that hard? (Honestly, if someone told me all birds came from two "Ur-birds," I'd say there was too much diversity to account for. But there simply aren't dramatic biological differences among humans.)

_________________
"Good job, The Cheat! Now try harmonizing with the butternut squashes!" ... "Side effects include wine, women, and song."

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 854 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 29  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group