Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

A companion to the Homestar Runner Wiki
It is currently Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:12 pm

All times are UTC




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 848 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 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: Sat May 26, 2007 6:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:57 am
Posts: 125
Location: Mahna mahna!
Didymus wrote:

Quote:
I'm sorry for my blunt and unimaginative views, but I don't care about what happens after death. I worry about the present.

Have you ever stopped to think, what if that's the wrong approach, that maybe one day you might just have to stand before a Creator and be judged for the life you lived in this present? I do not discount that the present is also important, but to ignore the future strikes me as not a terribly wise approach. Point is, your future may very well be much more important than you give it credit.


Besides, you could get hit by a truck or have some kind of stroke in, heck, five minutes. You never know, so really, what are you to do if that should happen and you've never thought about it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2007 6:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 3:03 am
Posts: 73
Location: Mayall II, Andromeda galaxy
Linz wrote:
Didymus wrote:

Quote:
I'm sorry for my blunt and unimaginative views, but I don't care about what happens after death. I worry about the present.

Have you ever stopped to think, what if that's the wrong approach, that maybe one day you might just have to stand before a Creator and be judged for the life you lived in this present? I do not discount that the present is also important, but to ignore the future strikes me as not a terribly wise approach. Point is, your future may very well be much more important than you give it credit.


Besides, you could get hit by a truck or have some kind of stroke in, heck, five minutes. You never know, so really, what are you to do if that should happen and you've never thought about it?


If he does die, then what? He would be dead. I really don't see any reason for imagining what would happen if he were to suddenly die. In that case, I think if he focused on the present he would have lived a more fulfilling life than someone who constantly focuses on the past and future. The past is carved in stone, the future is all influenced, and it is influenced by the choices you make in the present.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2007 6:16 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 are only assuming that that would be the only consequence. You cannot state with any certainty or based on any observation that this would absolutely be the case. Therefore, telling him to simply ignore the future would be irresponsible, perhaps even dangerous.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2007 6:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 3:03 am
Posts: 73
Location: Mayall II, Andromeda galaxy
And to fear the future would simply be silly.

There is no defining case for either Creationism or Evolution. I see no reason for him, or anyone to heed something that has no proof to it, especially if they don't even believe it/care.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2007 6:55 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!
Except that the case for an afterlife isn't built entirely on a case for or against evolution or creationism. There may be other evidences brought to bear on that issue, some of which have already been discussed in other threads.

Furthermore, you choose the word "fear". One can take heed of something important without fear being the primary factor. Do you think I live in terror of the afterlife? No, I do not. Nevertheless, I still recognize it as being as an important issue, one not so easily dismissed as "silly."

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2007 9:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:06 pm
Posts: 192
Location: Athens, GA
zirnitra wrote:
And my belief, is that the Universe, life, and everything is far beyond our understanding.


In school I used to make similar arguments when I didn't want to take a test or write a paper.

Didymus wrote:
Have you ever stopped to think, what if that's the wrong approach, that maybe one day you might just have to stand before a Creator, etc.


I think we've been down this road a time or two before. Paging Mr. Pascal...

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2007 9:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 5:11 pm
Posts: 2713
While it's interesting to think about what might happen when you die, I don't think you should spend too much time on it. Nobody really knows, so you might as well find out you've just wasted your time.

I suspect someone will bring up Pascal's Wager in a moment...

IantheGecko wrote:
Did you watch that video? It's about this guy who's making an animation of people who believe in either evolution or creation. If you believe in the former, send in a picture of yourself holding up an apple. If the latter, hold up a light bulb.

I tried to make a joke;
Intelligent design ==> lightbulb (god)
Evolution ==> apple (no god)
Unintelligent design ==> spaghetti (flying spaghetti monster)

Anyway, some creationists agree that evolution happens, new species can evolve, but they will always be of the same "kind". I.e., dogs are dogs, cats are cats, but there may be diffrent "subspecies". They put macro- and micro- prefixes in front of evolution so they can say "microevolution" (cat => other cat) happens, but "macroevolution" (reptile => mammal) does not. The problem I see with this is that I can't see where the "barrier" between micro and macro lies and where it comes from. What's stopping a species from evolving a wee bit over a long period if it keeps evolving tiny bits over short periods?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2007 3:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:17 pm
Posts: 1670
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
zirnitra wrote:
I think it's amusing how it seems that everyone is always either evolution or creationism, as if there is no other stance on the issue.

I think both are a real load. I'm sorry for putting it harshly, but I do. I have seen no undeniable evidence supporting or disproving either. I also find it amusing how so many people will spend countless hours trying to prove one or disprove another, when in reality the idea that we, as humans, could ever truly know where we came from is ridiculous. We will never know one way or the other how we got here, so even trying is silly. It's just so much easier to live your life on without trying to constantly prove why you are right because you never will. When it comes down to it, it's all about faith. If you believe in creationism go right ahead. If you believe in evolution, more power to you. Just never expect to be able to say truthfully "I know that creationism/evolution is true," because you won't. Believe what you want, make sure you really believe in that, and then that's all you will have, a belief. And that's all you need.

And my belief, is that the Universe, life, and everything is far beyond our understanding.


FYI, there's more to Evolution than just a belief of how we came to be here. Without the understanding of biology that we have today as derived from the Theory of Evolution, we couldn't have developed so many of the medicines we have today. Biology as it is taught and understood anymore on any campus uses Evolution as its grammar. It's only through understanding the process of natural selection and adaptation (which, overtime lead to evolution) that we can understand how things like HIV continue to change, meaning we can more effectively learn how to combat such changes that may be detrimental to our health as individuals and as a species. So Evolution isn't just a fruitless endeavor to make any given Joe Atheist feel good--it ties into other fields of science that continue to develop our understanding of the universe in which we live, meaning we can continue to harness what the universe has given us to our own advantage for our own survival.

And no offense, but the idea of "well, we'll never fully understand it, so we might as well give up now" is one heck of a cowardly cop-out. Many scientists are well aware of the limitations of the human mind and our capacity for understanding and reason. That doesn't stop them from trying to learn as much new information as they can. If we all took your approach, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now because we wouldn't have developed the technology to communicate over vast distances. Heck, why not stop trying to learn ANYTHING, since all the information in the universe is beyond us, right? Why try to learn how physics and engineering can work? Or who/what/if God is, and why he/she/it operates as he/she/it does? Or why we learned to talk the way we talk? Or what that creature is over there and why it has foam coming from its mouth?

Just because we won't understand EVERYTHING doesn't mean that we should just stop trying to understand ANYTHING.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2007 4:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 3:03 am
Posts: 73
Location: Mayall II, Andromeda galaxy
PianoManGidley wrote:
FYI, there's more to Evolution than just a belief of how we came to be here. Without the understanding of biology that we have today as derived from the Theory of Evolution, we couldn't have developed so many of the medicines we have today. Biology as it is taught and understood anymore on any campus uses Evolution as its grammar. It's only through understanding the process of natural selection and adaptation (which, overtime lead to evolution) that we can understand how things like HIV continue to change, meaning we can more effectively learn how to combat such changes that may be detrimental to our health as individuals and as a species. So Evolution isn't just a fruitless endeavor to make any given Joe Atheist feel good--it ties into other fields of science that continue to develop our understanding of the universe in which we live, meaning we can continue to harness what the universe has given us to our own advantage for our own survival.

And no offense, but the idea of "well, we'll never fully understand it, so we might as well give up now" is one heck of a cowardly cop-out. Many scientists are well aware of the limitations of the human mind and our capacity for understanding and reason. That doesn't stop them from trying to learn as much new information as they can. If we all took your approach, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now because we wouldn't have developed the technology to communicate over vast distances. Heck, why not stop trying to learn ANYTHING, since all the information in the universe is beyond us, right? Why try to learn how physics and engineering can work? Or who/what/if God is, and why he/she/it operates as he/she/it does? Or why we learned to talk the way we talk? Or what that creature is over there and why it has foam coming from its mouth?

Just because we won't understand EVERYTHING doesn't mean that we should just stop trying to understand ANYTHING.


You seem to be presenting the theory of evolution as solid fact. The theory is just that-- a theory. Nothing more, nothing less. Did I ever say it was just made up to help an atheist on his way? No. I know atheists who laugh at the very idea of evolution. There is evidence to support it, but evidence is not solid proof. And we never will have solid proof. It's just that there are far too many ding-bats who believe that their "evidence" is proof.

Did I ever say we should stop learning all together? No, I did not. I said that there is no point in trying to explain life as a whole. Life is a gift, and it should be treated as such. When someone buys me a present, I don't ever ask myself "where did they buy this from?" or "where will it go when I am done with it?" because with that train of thought you never get the opportunity to enjoy the gift of life as it should be enjoyed. Developing new technology to communicate over long distances is NOT trying to find out where we came from/where we go. Developing new technology helps people to enjoy life. That's why everyone loves to play their PS3 or 360 or Wii or whatever they have. It helps them enjoy the life they have been gifted.

I agree we should not stop trying to understand anything, but there are some things that are just a real waste of time trying to understand because we simply never can. We know that everything has gravity to it. Do we know why everything has a gravitational pull? No. It just does. We are dealing with things far beyond our comprehension.

It's fine to speculate, go right ahead. It's just when those spectators believe they "know" that we have a problem.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2007 4:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 6:07 pm
Posts: 528
Location: A white, cushioned room where I am all alone...
zirnitra wrote:
You seem to be presenting the theory of evolution as solid fact. The theory is just that-- a theory.

A scientific theory. There are massive differences. Scientific theories are based off of tests and observations, and if they EVER last as long and undergo as much scrutiny as evolution, they usually aren't wrong. Relativity is also a theory, and so is plate tectonics, but you will be hard pressed to find anyone who claims that these are "just theories".

_________________
GENGHIS KHAN!!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2007 4:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:17 pm
Posts: 1670
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
Rogue Leader wrote:
zirnitra wrote:
You seem to be presenting the theory of evolution as solid fact. The theory is just that-- a theory.

A scientific theory. There are massive differences. Scientific theories are based off of tests and observations, and if they EVER last as long and undergo as much scrutiny as evolution, they usually aren't wrong. Relativity is also a theory, and so is plate tectonics, but you will be hard pressed to find anyone who claims that these are "just theories".


Same thing with gravity--it, too, is only a theory. So no, we DON'T know that "everything has gravity to it" in that regard. These things are only theories because we cannot observe them directly--we can only observe them indirectly through other things that CAN be observed directly. And like I said, Evolution DOES have its merits as a legitimate scientific theory when it comes to medicine. Medicine extends life, which in turn helps us have more life to enjoy, as seems to be your point, zirnitra. Also, remember that we don't all glean enjoyment from the same things. Some people really DO enjoy studying science--it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside and whatnot, and so they pursue it with their entire lives. So while it's good that you recognize what lines of thinking will let you enjoy YOUR life, don't assume that the same applies for everyone else.

Bottom line for me: I really have no problem with people believing in Young-Earth Creationism and rejecting Evolution. It's only when they contest that Creationism is scientific (or that Evolution is not) that it starts to get ridiculous, hence my challenge.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!


Last edited by PianoManGidley on Sat May 26, 2007 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2007 4:39 pm 
Offline
Pizza Pizza
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:05 pm
Posts: 10451
Location: probably the penalty box
zirnitra wrote:
Do we know why everything has a gravitational pull? No. It just does.
Actually, we kinda do know why... I don't claim to be smart enough to understand it, but essentially, mass curves space. Imagine a bedsheet being stretched. If you put a baseball on it, there is a depression towards the baseball spreading out in all directions. This is an analog to what anything with mass does to the universe. Why? That's beyond my understanding, but I'm not so sure it's beyond human understanding. I'm sure that a literature search would reveal several theories explaining it.

Now, to go WAAAAAAAY out there:
Keep in mind that, while "theory", is often thrown towards something as a way to make it seem less valid than "fact", however the two are not opposite. In simplest terms, a theory is a logical explanation of facts or observations.
Theories cannot ever be "proven", at least not in the true sense of the word. To prove a theory, you'd have to show it holds for every possible situation (in other words, you'd have to test it for an infinite number of cases). Theories CAN be disproved, however, by showing just one repeatable case where that theory doesn't hold. If you don't believe me, the crazy creationist person, ask Stephen Hawking (not a creationist?).

And, to avoid being fired, toastpaint. Image
before you ask, "toastpaint" means "this is way off topic, let's get back on topic. Generally, you don't toastpaint your own post, but I got us waaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic there. Plus, I'm a moderator. I can do whatever I want. :P

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2007 6:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:06 pm
Posts: 192
Location: Athens, GA
Rogue Leader wrote:
A scientific theory. There are massive differences. Scientific theories are based off of tests and observations, and if they EVER last as long and undergo as much scrutiny as evolution, they usually aren't wrong.


Here's a quote that further illustrates your point:

“…when you say (evolution) is a theory, not a fact, it makes it sound like theories and facts are opposite things, as if we’re really sure of facts and we’re not so sure of theories. In fact, theory in science is a higher level of understanding than facts because what theories do is they explain facts, they unite them.” – Dr. Ken Miller (biology, Brown University)

zirnitra wrote:
...there are some things that are just a real waste of time trying to understand because we simply never can.


I also have to reject this notion. It initially sounds like common sense, but it is actually an unsupportable statement. As PMG pointed out, the fact that something is unknown does not mean it is unknowable. As human understanding increases, our capacity for further knowledge increases with it. Our ever more sophisticated technology is aiding the process at an exponential rate; what we can't fit into our own brains our computers can process easily. I think the danger of us somehow hitting the wall of human knowledge is much less than that of us destroying ourselves with misapplications of our advancements.

As for evolution itself, you seem to be saying that we can never know for sure since we can't go back and see it happen for ourselves. Perhaps not, but we can collect the evidence and form the clearest picture possible of our origins. The process is well underway, heedless of "pragmatist" arguments that we can't know for sure so we're wasting our time. PMG already painted a clear picture of how evolution has become inextricably integrated with biology and related sciences, so there's little need for me to expound on it further.

DukeNuke wrote:
I suspect someone will bring up Pascal's Wager in a moment...


Well, there's the post I made right before yours...

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2007 7:39 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!
Just remember, I'm not the one who brought up the topic of afterlife in this thread. But if someone is going to bring it in, I feel it my duty as a theologian to ask some relevant questions. If it is to be considered irrelevant to the conversation at hand (which is, after all, centered on the origins of life, not what happens after life), then the responsible thing is to not bring it up at all.

Furthermore, what most critics seem to forget is that Pascal's Wager is not an isolated argument, but the summation of his Pensees, which do contain his reasoning for believing many of the suppositions on which the Wager is based (in other words, Pascal himself did not simply toss out the Wager without offering his reader information). So simply saying "Pascal's Wager! Pascal's Wager!" doesn't actually diminish the concerns it raises.

Nevertheless, since this is a topic about the origins of life, I suggest we dispense with all references to an afterlife and continue with our primary subject at hand.

In other words, Toastpaint.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2007 10:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:00 am
Posts: 3849
Location: Best Coast
DukeNuke wrote:
The problem I see with this is that I can't see where the "barrier" between micro and macro lies and where it comes from. What's stopping a species from evolving a wee bit over a long period if it keeps evolving tiny bits over short periods?
Barrier 1: Organisms not being able to reproduce with each other - A modern-day dog and a cat cannot mate, obviously. But if they came from the same descendants, their ancestors could. That means at some point some organism must have had some mutation where it could no longer reproduce with the species it came from (and, of course, if it were like most living things it would have to find another organism just like it to ever keep its genes going).
Barrier 2: Different number of genes - In any 'microevolutionary' mutation, the genes will be different but the number of them will be the same. A monkey and a human have different numbers of genes, but, like in #1, if they came from a common ancestor they had to have had some mutation down the line where it received a different amount of genes (and this change would somehow have to be beneficial). And again like #1, it would have to find another organism with the EXACT same number of genes still in order to reproduce.
If you believe that evolution can get/has gotten through those two barriers, then you believe in macroevolution. If you believe smaller, same-gene number and inter-species mutations, then you are only a microevolutionist but not a macroevolutionist.
As for that whole theory discussion, keep in mind that not all theories have the same truth value just because they're all 'theories'. Sure, gravity is also a theory, but by no means does that imply evolution is as sure a fact as gravity.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2007 11:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:17 pm
Posts: 1670
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
As for that whole theory discussion, keep in mind that not all theories have the same truth value just because they're all 'theories'. Sure, gravity is also a theory, but by no means does that imply evolution is as sure a fact as gravity.


How so?

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2007 12:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:00 am
Posts: 3849
Location: Best Coast
I'm saying gravity is more 'proven' beyond more doubt than evolution.
As far as science goes, of course evolution is the leading scientific theory. That's because as soon as you mention 'God', it can no longer become scientific by their standards. So no matter how much evidence you can come up with for creation or against evolution, evolution will still be the only scientific theory for how life began. Anyone who doesn't believe in God has no choice but to believe in evolution, but if you do, you have some choice.

_________________
Image


Last edited by ed 'lim' smilde on Sun May 27, 2007 12:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2007 12:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:17 pm
Posts: 1670
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
I'm saying gravity is more 'proven' beyond more doubt than evolution.


How? I mean, gravity as we know it today wasn't explained until Einstein, some time after Darwin explained the currently-accepted ideas on Evolution. Before Einstein was Newton, who got gravity wrong. Before Darwin was Lamarck, who got Evolution wrong.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2007 12:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:00 am
Posts: 3849
Location: Best Coast
Darwin had evolution 'wrong', too. Until recently, didn't we think humans evolved from Homo neanderthalensis, and then it was discovered that this was false? In addition, stuff about genes, mutations, and molecular structures weren't even discovered till the 50s.
This stuff isn't really relevant though, because the argument of this thread is whether or not evolution happened at all, not how it happened. What I'm saying is we know beyond more doubt that gravity happens (because we witness it every second) than evolution.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2007 1:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:17 pm
Posts: 1670
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
What I'm saying is we know beyond more doubt that gravity happens (because we witness it every second) than evolution.


We don't witness gravity--just the effects of it. But time isn't the only factor--it takes long periods of time to witness things like the earth revolving around the sun instead of vice-versa. But gravity, unlike heliocentrism or evolution, doesn't offend mankind's innate desire to be the center of attention, to be special and unique, a cut above the rest, in a class of our own, etc. The universe revolves around us less and less the more we accept that we are merely a small piece, an insignificant part of the whole, that we're but a cog in a greater working machine, and that's the real reason why evolution gets criticised so much. Because people are too childish to allow themselves to be out of the limelight. It seems like the greatest affront to mankind is to say that we're not important in any way, shape, or form...even if it's true in the grand scheme of things.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2007 8:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 5:11 pm
Posts: 2713
ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
Barrier 1: Organisms not being able to reproduce with each other - A modern-day dog and a cat cannot mate, obviously. But if they came from the same descendants, their ancestors could. That means at some point some organism must have had some mutation where it could no longer reproduce with the species it came from (and, of course, if it were like most living things it would have to find another organism just like it to ever keep its genes going).

Well, say you have a species. First, the species is divided into two or more groups that cannot reach eachother, say, on diffrent islands. The two groups will still keep evolving over the generations, but since the enviroment is different for the two groups, different genes will be propagated in each group. Eventually, they might reach a point where the two groups would not be able to mate with eachother again, even if they met. The most simple reason would probably be a big difference in size. Now, each member in each group can still mate with it's own. It doesn't go "Hey, mom! Dad! My sibblings and I are different species now so we can't mate with anybody, lol!".
ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
Barrier 2: Different number of genes - In any 'microevolutionary' mutation, the genes will be different but the number of them will be the same. A monkey and a human have different numbers of genes, but, like in #1, if they came from a common ancestor they had to have had some mutation down the line where it received a different amount of genes (and this change would somehow have to be beneficial). And again like #1, it would have to find another organism with the EXACT same number of genes still in order to reproduce.
If you believe that evolution can get/has gotten through those two barriers, then you believe in macroevolution.

I don't really know about this one. I think you were reffering to chromosomes, though. But I'm not sure why a difference in either genes or chromosomes would automaticly and totally make the organism unable to mate with any other of it's species. I'm not too much into genetics, but google and wikipedia came up with quite a lot on this subject if anybody's interested.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2007 9:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:06 pm
Posts: 192
Location: Athens, GA
ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
Barrier 2: Different number of genes -


This one's been cleared up for some time. Remember when DukeNuke linked us to that informative Ken Miller evolution video? The one I'm so fond of referencing and quoting? Here's a snippet, which clears up the 46 vs. 48 chromosome issue. At four minutes and twenty-two seconds it should be sufficiently undemanding of everyone's time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M

Point being, if you're going to try to pick at the gray areas of evolutionary theory make sure your info is up to date. There's been a recurring theme in this thread of creationist / ID arguments being trotted out that were in fact refuted and shut down years ago. I will once again recommend Dr. Miller's lecture, which can be found here in its entirety:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2007 6:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:00 am
Posts: 3849
Location: Best Coast
Mike D wrote:
ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
Barrier 2: Different number of genes -


This one's been cleared up for some time.
Yeah I know, Duke Nuke asked what the 'barriers' were, and I gave him the best answer I could think of. I didn't say those barriers were my scientific arguments against evolution.
Quote:
But gravity, unlike heliocentrism or evolution, doesn't offend mankind's innate desire to be the center of attention, to be special and unique, a cut above the rest, in a class of our own, etc.
In a way, it does. Evolution, as we think of it, requires some kind of natural selection, and humans are now pretty much too intelligent to have any more survival-of-the-fittest stuff, because we have morals and ethics so that we all work to help each other, treat each other equally, and allow everyone to live. Imagine if someone got some random trait that was helpful, like... stronger teeth. Do you really think that the rest of humanity would die out and we'd be overtaken by that one group with stronger teeth?
Quote:
Because people are too childish to allow themselves to be out of the limelight.
So if I think that people are created by God (via evolution or not) for a purpose, am I childish?

I think one thing that is childish is how everything about evolution is pushed on as fact. For many, many years (up until even when most of my teachers were in high school), it was taught that the appendix, tonsils, and tailbone were remnants of evolution and no longer had any function. We now know that that was wrong - the tonsils and appendix are part of the immune system (which is true... people who get tonsils removed get more sore throats), and the tailbone provides a base for muscles.
I don't know what other motive people have (people without a science degree, even) for forcing evolution on people. After all, aren't questioning and doubting ENCOURAGED in science?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2007 7:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:17 pm
Posts: 1670
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
Quote:
But gravity, unlike heliocentrism or evolution, doesn't offend mankind's innate desire to be the center of attention, to be special and unique, a cut above the rest, in a class of our own, etc.
In a way, it does. Evolution, as we think of it, requires some kind of natural selection, and humans are now pretty much too intelligent to have any more survival-of-the-fittest stuff, because we have morals and ethics so that we all work to help each other, treat each other equally, and allow everyone to live. Imagine if someone got some random trait that was helpful, like... stronger teeth. Do you really think that the rest of humanity would die out and we'd be overtaken by that one group with stronger teeth?


That did nothing to address what you quoted from me regarding how gravity is more easily accepted because it's not as offensive to what we want to hear. And I can still point out how our basic morals and ethics are derived from a need to survive and perpetuate our species.

ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
Quote:
Because people are too childish to allow themselves to be out of the limelight.
So if I think that people are created by God (via evolution or not) for a purpose, am I childish?


That's not what I said nor was it my intent, but if you wish to derive such a sentiment from my statement through some further investigation into yourself, that's up to you.

ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
I think one thing that is childish is how everything about evolution is pushed on as fact. For many, many years (up until even when most of my teachers were in high school), it was taught that the appendix, tonsils, and tailbone were remnants of evolution and no longer had any function. We now know that that was wrong - the tonsils and appendix are part of the immune system (which is true... people who get tonsils removed get more sore throats), and the tailbone provides a base for muscles.
I don't know what other motive people have (people without a science degree, even) for forcing evolution on people. After all, aren't questioning and doubting ENCOURAGED in science?


Evolution isn't always pushed on as fact. You're committing some straw man fallacies here. Evolution HAS been challenged and questioned, ever since its first inception, and not just from Bible-thumping ministers that say it's some sort of sleight against God. No matter who you are or how long you've been around, whenever you make some scientific claim, the rest of the scientific community is going to round on you like a pack of hungry wolves and demand evidence. Either you provide quantifiable evidence with repeatable tests that give the same results, or your idea is tossed out the window along with a bit of your dignity and credit.

If you wonder why SO many scientists across SO many applicable fields of study today believe in Evolution, you should go ask them. Ask them to explain why the theory is generally accepted to be true, when they are the leading questioning and skeptical minds. Ask them the concerns you have, where you think certain "evidence" may be wrong or misinterpreted...I'm sure they'll sort out any issues you may have. And keep in mind that just because we don't have an answer for every single detail spawning off from the process of Evolution doesn't mean that Evolution is fraudulent all together (a.k.a. the "God of the Gaps" argument).

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2007 11:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:00 am
Posts: 3849
Location: Best Coast
Quote:
That did nothing to address what you quoted from me regarding how gravity is more easily accepted because it's not as offensive to what we want to hear. And I can still point out how our basic morals and ethics are derived from a need to survive and perpetuate our species.
Well, you said that evolution goes against humans' idea that we are important - but I pointed out that evolution doesn't, and if anything, does the opposite.

The rest of that post I can pretty much agree with. Looking back at the post, it was a bit of a straw man attack. But I do plan to ask some kind of scientists questions when I get older (probably in college, maybe the professors will know a thing or two), but I think it's worth mentioning that not ALL scientists are even evolutionists...
Also, I don't see what's so bad about the 'God between the gaps' argument in this case. If I find an impediment to evolution that makes it seem impossible, and my best guess is that God must have designed it with a different approach from Darwinian Evolution, then... that's what I believe.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 27, 2007 11:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:17 pm
Posts: 1670
Location: Texas, U.S.A.
ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
But I do plan to ask some kind of scientists questions when I get older (probably in college, maybe the professors will know a thing or two)...


Good--ask lots of questions.

ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
...but I think it's worth mentioning that not ALL scientists are even evolutionists...


True, but many are--especially ones whose field of study ties into evolution, such as biology.

ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
Also, I don't see what's so bad about the 'God between the gaps' argument in this case. If I find an impediment to evolution that makes it seem impossible, and my best guess is that God must have designed it with a different approach from Darwinian Evolution, then... that's what I believe.


Fine. You can believe that. Just remember that just because something isn't yet explained by science doesn't necessarily mean it was caused by supernatural forces. We used to think people were possessed by demonic spirits and such before we learned about psychological and neurological disorders. And pointing out the pieces that we don't know yet doesn't disprove the pieces that we CAN explain through evolution.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2007 1:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:06 pm
Posts: 192
Location: Athens, GA
ed 'lim' smilde wrote:
But I do plan to ask some kind of scientists questions when I get older...


That's the best way to explore the issue. I suggest you focus on biologists, preferably from accredited universities. There are plenty of scientists whose fields have nothing to do with evolution. It's a bit underwhelming when people talk about scientists who believe in creation, just to have the subjects turn out to be mathematicians or social scientists. It's also unconvincing when people cite biologists who work at Bob Jones, Liberty University, or similar schools.

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2007 4:51 am 
Offline
Pizza Pizza
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:05 pm
Posts: 10451
Location: probably the penalty box
Mike D wrote:
It's a bit underwhelming when people talk about scientists who believe in creation, just to have the subjects turn out to be mathematicians or social scientists. It's also unconvincing when people cite biologists who work at Bob Jones, Liberty University, or similar schools.

Mike

Now you know how I feel about hearing about Global Warming.
The most qualified people really don't talk about it that much.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2007 3:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:07 am
Posts: 1267
Location: In Bibendum's tire fold.
StrongRad wrote:
Now you know how I feel about hearing about Global Warming. The most qualified people really don't talk about it that much.


Wait, Sean Hannity isn't qualified?

_________________
TIRES TIRES TIRES


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2007 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:33 am
Posts: 1661
Location: About 260 miles northeast of Stu's backyard.
DESTROY US ALL! wrote:
StrongRad wrote:
Now you know how I feel about hearing about Global Warming. The most qualified people really don't talk about it that much.


Wait, Sean Hannity isn't qualified?


Nope. And neither is Al Gore.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 848 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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