Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

A companion to the Homestar Runner Wiki
It is currently Fri Dec 03, 2021 7:47 am

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 ... 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: Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:45 pm
Posts: 5441
Location: living in the sunling, loving in the moonlight, having a wonderful time.
Acekirby wrote:
"Increase the information in the genome"? What does that even mean?

Okay, lemme see if I can clarify this a bit. Essentially, the basic function of DNA is to store the information of how to make a living organism. It's genes are the order and parts of what eventually leads to the proteins and cells that make up the entier being. Some genes hold more information than others in the sense that they make better proteins, actually make proteins, or more efficient ones. To increase a gene's information is to say that the DNA is altered in such a way as to make living better with positive changes. Genetic information is ultimately what makes life happen in something, so, more information on that life is better, generally. That's pretty much what evolution is thought to be, changes/increases in genetic information that improves upon life. An example of this is what the person's asking for.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 5:11 pm
Posts: 2713
Is bacteria evolving resistant to medicine concidered as an increase in information? If not, why not?

Also, what is the definition of a kind? Creationists tend to bring it up when discussing the flood in the bible.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:45 pm
Posts: 5441
Location: living in the sunling, loving in the moonlight, having a wonderful time.
DukeNuke wrote:
Is bacteria evolving resistant to medicine concidered as an increase in information? If not, why not?

Also, what is the definition of a kind? Creationists tend to bring it up when discussing the flood in the bible.


The first: not really. Antibiotic-resistent bacteria are simply strains that sacrifice one part of their genetics for the advantage of not being killed by a particular medicine.

The second: a kind, I take it, means simply the same as a species. Two of every kind, two of every species. Didy?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:06 am
Posts: 1809
Location: lol.
I'm going to postulate that "kind" doesn't have a meaningful biological definition. The Bible was written before that all was standardized. Therefor, it'll inevitably be twisted to match either side's argument.

Of course, the catch is that, if kind means distinct species, the ark becomes too small, I think. And if kind simply means "general type of animal", then obviously some change has to have occurred post-ark, such as evolution. I think that, in order for "kind" to make any logical sense, it needs to be just distinct enough such that any changes between kinds and their species can be attributed to microevolution.

Not that I actually know anything about the Bible or its vocabulary, so everything I've just said could very well be bull crap.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 6:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:06 pm
Posts: 192
Location: Athens, GA
Simon Zeno wrote:
Of course, the catch is that, if kind means distinct species, the ark becomes too small, I think. And if kind simply means "general type of animal", then obviously some change has to have occurred post-ark, such as evolution.


As I understand it apologetic opinions are divided on that issue, even amongst young Earthers. Some have the ark literally containing every species on Earth, others use the "kind" argument to limit the numbers (which implies post-ark species diversification on a level that modern biology would never dream of). The flood story relies so heavily on miracles that it hardly seems to matter; you can always just say the ark's capacity was another miracle.

Mike

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:57 am
Posts: 2981
Location: Oklahoma City
Clearly, part of the Ark's design was that at both ends of the Ark, there was a dimensional warp gate. If you walk through the gate at one end, you emerge at the other end except that it's a different copy of the interior of the Ark, where you can put more stuff. And if you walk into the gate at the end of that copy, you go into another copy, and so on. Infinite Arks in a single Ark shell!

What, you can't expect me to be serious all the time. :P

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:06 am
Posts: 1809
Location: lol.
It's like the bag of holding from D&D. OH SNAP, NOAH WAS A D&D NERD.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 5:11 pm
Posts: 2713
Simon Zeno wrote:
And if kind simply means "general type of animal", then obviously some change has to have occurred post-ark, such as evolution. I think that, in order for "kind" to make any logical sense, it needs to be just distinct enough such that any changes between kinds and their species can be attributed to microevolution.

Except, that wouldn't be micro-evolution. That would be super-evolution. Rather than having billions of animals evolving over billions of years, you have billions of animals evolving over thousands of years. See the difference in order of magnitude?
furrykef wrote:
Clearly, part of the Ark's design was that at both ends of the Ark, there was a dimensional warp gate.

Simon Zeno wrote:
It's like the bag of holding from D&D. OH SNAP, NOAH WAS A D&D NERD.

Yeah, hammer space would make sense. However, as far as I know, the bible doesn't say anything about anything like that. And an infinite storage in a boat is something that I think people would have bothered writing down. And then there's the thing that it was supposively built by man, not god. However, if someone could proove that you can build extradimensional portals out of wood...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 2:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:57 am
Posts: 2981
Location: Oklahoma City
DukeNuke wrote:
Rather than having billions of animals evolving over billions of years, you have billions of animals evolving over thousands of years.


Although I agree with your point, it'd be more accurate to say "millions of years"... as far as we know, evolution didn't really start going until maybe a billion years ago. Modern humans didn't come about until about two million years ago, though of course their ancestors have been around for longer. So a lot can still happen in a few million years. A few thousand, though, is not very likely.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:57 am
Posts: 2981
Location: Oklahoma City
The objection has been raised here a couple of times about the issue with different species having different numbers of chromosomes. Well, today I stumbled upon some text that explains it a bit. I don't know where it's originally from (I got it from a post on another forum).

Quote:
A lot of animals have different numbers of chromosomes. An often raised objection to evolution is that this means at some point an organism would have been born with a different number of chromosomes from the rest of the population but it wouldn’t have had anything it could mate with that had the same number of chromosomes so the mutation wouldn’t have been preserved. This objection is based on the false idea that animals with different numbers of chromosomes are incapable of interbreeding.

If this was true the existence of modern domesticated horses would be something of a genetic miracle. Domestic horse populations have 64 chromosomes… wild horse populations have 66.

In reality chromosome fissions and fusions are hardly an unknown phenomenon.

One such fusion clearly occurred after the hominids branched off from the rest of the primates. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, all the rest of the primates have 24. Evolutionary theory and the nested hierarchy then tells us this means there was a fusion event which reduced the number of chromosomes in humans to 23 after their ancestors split off from the wider population. If this prediction is true, we should be able to see clear evidence of it in a chromosomal analysis.

Lo and behold:

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

There is overwhelming evidence that human chromosome 2 is the product of the fusion of two chromosomes which just happen to look basically identical to two chromosomes found in chimpamzees… as seen in the image included in the above link.

Note that this is not just evidence that human and chimp genetic sequences kind of look the same. The telomere and centromere sequences in the middle of human chromosome 2 are clear indication that that chromosome is the product of the combination of two different pre-existing independent chromosomes. If humans had been independently created in their modern form rather than having evolved into it from a common ancestor with other animals there is no reason to expect find something like this in the human genome… but there it is.


- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:35 am
Posts: 646
Location: Hiding behind a gossip stone
I begun to think that evolution, instead of being described as "survival of the fittest," should be described as "survival of the sexiest." Regardless of how well you are adapted to your environment, if you reproduce a lot, your species will survive (and change). Fitness does, of course, affect "sexiness"—if you're not fit, you can't reproduce much—but reproductive capacity is the most important thing.

_________________
G D G G A B C D D D Eb F G G G F Eb F Eb D D C C D Eb D C Bb Bb C D C Bb A A Bb C Eb D D D D D D D

It just so happens I have a webcomic...
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?t=10852


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:09 am
Posts: 8987
Location: He remembered Socks!
We evolved to believe in creation.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 7:37 pm
Posts: 2455
Location: oh god how did this get here I am not good with computer
We were created to evolve.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:09 am
Posts: 8987
Location: He remembered Socks!
HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote:
We were created to evolve.

were created we evolve to.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 7:37 pm
Posts: 2455
Location: oh god how did this get here I am not good with computer
I see what you did there.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:11 am
Posts: 18942
Location: Sitting in an English garden, waiting for the sun
I think he's being personally reasonable. Who says God didn't create the common ancestors, then set evolution forth in motion?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:17 am 
Offline
Pizza Pizza
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:05 pm
Posts: 10451
Location: probably the penalty box
Magna Carta wrote:
IantheGecko wrote:
I think he's being personally reasonable. Who says God didn't create the common ancestors, then set evolution forth in motion?

Because there is no evidence.

How is there no evidence to suggest this didn't happen?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:01 am
Posts: 6245
Well, what evidence is there?

EDIT: :eek: Holy crap.

Never had a simulpost like that happen before....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:09 am
Posts: 8987
Location: He remembered Socks!
Magna Carta wrote:
As they say, Ju Ju, great minds think alike.

If that was true, then every scientist and his mother would have came up with the Theory of Everything at the same time.

Great Minds Think For Themselves.

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:11 am
Posts: 18942
Location: Sitting in an English garden, waiting for the sun
Image
You're just stalling now.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:24 am 
Offline
Pizza Pizza
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:05 pm
Posts: 10451
Location: probably the penalty box
Well, there's all sorts of evidence that things have evolved from earlier life forms.
It seems unreasonable that some puddle of ooze just appeared out of nowhere and life started coming from it.

If you're asking for proof that God set things in motion, then you're asking for proof of the unproveable.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:16 am 
Offline
Pizza Pizza
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:05 pm
Posts: 10451
Location: probably the penalty box
Magna Carta wrote:
StrongRad wrote:
If you're asking for proof that God set things in motion, then you're asking for proof of the unproveable.

Yes, this is what I'm looking for. Anyways, this is why I love Ockham's Razor - shave off all the unsubstantiated material in an argument. I don't particularly like the "God did it and then let things evolved" argument because the fact that "God did it" and the fact that he "let things happen" are unsubstantiated.

They're unsubstantiated to you, but that doesn't make them any less valid to me. Look, you can trash my beliefs if you want. It's not going to change a thing.

I'm not saying that creationism should make sense to you and I'm not saying the theory of creation is not riddled with apparent holes. I'll even admit it's needlessly complicated, but since you're the "prosecution" (telling me I am wrong), the burden of proof is on you.

Prove to me, unequivocally, that I am wrong and I'll gladly take up whatever you say.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 7:37 pm
Posts: 2455
Location: oh god how did this get here I am not good with computer
Actually, to the contrary, the burden of proof is always upon whomever makes the extraordinary claim, in this case being you, I believe.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:01 am 
Offline
Pizza Pizza
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:05 pm
Posts: 10451
Location: probably the penalty box
HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote:
Actually, to the contrary, the burden of proof is always upon whomever makes the extraordinary claim, in this case being you, I believe.

In this case, I'd say the burden of proof would be on both of us.

To say life spontaneously sprang forth from a puddle of random goo is no less extraordinary than that some mysterious, all-powerful being snapped their fingers and made it all appear.

If he's going to tell me I'm wrong, he bears the burden of proof. Besides, he claims everything he says is proven. If it's so simply and unequivocally proven, he should be able to come right out and show me.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 7:37 pm
Posts: 2455
Location: oh god how did this get here I am not good with computer
Fair enough. For the record, I too am a Creationist, I just wanted to make sure we had the burden in the right area.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:08 am 
Offline
Pizza Pizza
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:05 pm
Posts: 10451
Location: probably the penalty box
I'm not claiming Magna is incorrect... I'm saying he might be right, but I don't think he is.

Magna is the one saying that I am incorrect, so he should be able to prove to my how I am wrong.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:57 am
Posts: 2981
Location: Oklahoma City
StrongRad wrote:
To say life spontaneously sprang forth from a puddle of random goo is no less extraordinary than that some mysterious, all-powerful being snapped their fingers and made it all appear.


I dunno. Biological processes all boil down to chemistry and physics. It all revolves around DNA, and our bodies are just really, really complicated carriers and replicators of it. Considering that the very existence of all life on earth currently revolves around this bit of chemistry, I don't think it's a big stretch to believe that it originated in chemistry.

Especially when you consider the vast number of planets and stars in the universe. Even if there is a 1 in quadrillion chance of intelligent life forming on a given planet, there would be almost a 100% chance that life would evolve on at least one of them. The universe is that big.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 11:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:06 am
Posts: 966
Location: Locked out....
furrykef wrote:
Even if there is a 1 in quadrillion chance of intelligent life forming on a given planet, there would be almost a 100% chance that life would evolve on at least one of them. The universe is that big.
Alright, let's assume you're right. It has been shown that chemicals that were supposedly on the early Earth could have formed organic materials. Then, amazingly, these molecules decided to bunch together and form useless membranes and other useless pieces, which then became the vital parts of simple living organisms (according to the current model for the theory of evolution). I say that's impossible, but let's assume it happened.

We all know the story, these things supposedly grew and changed over billions of years and became everything there is on Earth now. That supposedly happened through evolution by natural selection. Now, I don't have a problem with natural selection: the environment can change, to favor organisms with certain characteristics, and the rest of the population dies. But the theory of evolution relies not on on natural selection, but on this surviving population then becoming more diverse so it can happen again.

So the population then has to have mutations. Mutations that actually benefit the organism in terms of it's survival. Riiiiiight. So an organism is somehow mutated, and instead of causing cancer or a negative genetic change as usual, the mutagen finds the perfect spot in the DNA sequence to alter a gene to create a new version of that gene. Then the changed organism has offspring that are also altered in a good way. Then, like clockwork, another climate change gets rid of the old type of the species.

That sounds a little too intricate and complex too happen randomly. Even over billions of years. Unless there was some intelligent designer controlling each part. Oops! That's not scientifically possible! So if life did somehow randomly form, there is a 99.99% chance that we would stay as small prokaryotic organisms swimming around in a puddle. Isn't that annoying!

_________________
SIBHoD.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 1:57 am
Posts: 2981
Location: Oklahoma City
But we have already empirically observed microevolution. And there's pretty much no reason microevolution doesn't naturally lead to macroevolution over a long period of time. I'm afraid that pretty much shoots a hole clear through your argument.

Also, who's to say that the membranes and such that evolved were useless at first? There's nothing in the theory of evolution that requires useless mutations.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:14 pm
Posts: 8899
Location: looking at my post and/or profile
Biscuithead wrote:
furrykef wrote:
Even if there is a 1 in quadrillion chance of intelligent life forming on a given planet, there would be almost a 100% chance that life would evolve on at least one of them. The universe is that big.
Alright, let's assume you're right. It has been shown that chemicals that were supposedly on the early Earth could have formed organic materials. Then, amazingly, these molecules decided to bunch together and form useless membranes and other useless pieces, which then became the vital parts of simple living organisms (according to the current model for the theory of evolution). I say that's impossible, but let's assume it happened.

We all know the story, these things supposedly grew and changed over billions of years and became everything there is on Earth now. That supposedly happened through evolution by natural selection. Now, I don't have a problem with natural selection: the environment can change, to favor organisms with certain characteristics, and the rest of the population dies. But the theory of evolution relies not on on natural selection, but on this surviving population then becoming more diverse so it can happen again.

So the population then has to have mutations. Mutations that actually benefit the organism in terms of it's survival. Riiiiiight. So an organism is somehow mutated, and instead of causing cancer or a negative genetic change as usual, the mutagen finds the perfect spot in the DNA sequence to alter a gene to create a new version of that gene. Then the changed organism has offspring that are also altered in a good way. Then, like clockwork, another climate change gets rid of the old type of the species.

That sounds a little too intricate and complex too happen randomly. Even over billions of years. Unless there was some intelligent designer controlling each part. Oops! That's not scientifically possible! So if life did somehow randomly form, there is a 99.99% chance that we would stay as small prokaryotic organisms swimming around in a puddle. Isn't that annoying!


You're stating this way too "I know it's true because it's what I believe in and that means that it is undeniably right and everything else is wrong and I don't care what you say you're still wrong".

_________________
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 ... 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