Most people would have just said 'cheese', or maybe 'green cheese'. The magic bit just made me laugh out loud. Thanks.
Printable View
Most people would have just said 'cheese', or maybe 'green cheese'. The magic bit just made me laugh out loud. Thanks.
Asiago d´Allevo in large amounts induces hallucinations!
Why do you think I am such a fan of cheese? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Logos
There are evolutionists that will agree that evolution does not rule out a devine being. Then there are those who state that evolution proves that there cannot be a devine being. The latter are what I call hard-core, unbending. The others will at least concede the possibility, even if they do not believe that said being had anything to do with the formation of life. Just as I am not hard-core creationist, for I will accept that man, animals, plant life, etc. has evolved since creation, and that this evolution has shaped us into what we are today, and that church is where you should teach creationism. A hard-core creationist would never do this, they would consider it blasphemy.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
No, and this is the second quote of mine that has been blown out of context. The first was my statement that people's beliefs were to be respected even if you felt them ridiculous. Suddenly, I am asked if I would respect the Nazis extermanition of the Jews! We're talking about creationism and evolution here. I disagree with and certainly do not feel I must respect any belief that takes away another's right to even exist! Unnameable, we have been to the moon and KNOW it not to be made of ANY type of cheese, so no, I would not call that a closed mind. But when dealing with many things, science closes its mind until something has to jar it open, then they'll believe it. Sadly, so do many religious people, to be perfectly fair. They'll deny sciencetific fact, such as the Earth is round. That's closed minded also. I don't believe they will ever prove a spieces changes into another. I've said before, you can create a mule, but it cannot reproduce itself. But change within the species is a proven fact. Take care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unnameable
In that case, I don’t think there is that great a difference. For both types of evolutionist, the fact of evolution is primary. The existence of God is a secondary issue. Some might say there might be a God, others that there isn’t. I seriously doubt that either camp is interested in evolution primarily because it either disproves or allows for the existence of God. The application of the phrase ‘hard-core’ serves to represent certain beliefs as extreme and to equate them with other extreme views. In your post you wrote, “to the hard-core evolutionist, it will be absolute proof of no Inteligent Design. To the hard-core creationist, it will be absolute proof that any form of evolution is complete nonsense.” Surely this equates the two positions in terms of what is considered extreme? I don’t feel that they are. An evolutionist who feels that there cannot be a God by virtue of his or her understanding of scientific processes doesn’t strike me as any more extreme than someone who doesn’t believe in leprechauns for the same reason. It’s not as if he or she is setting out to disprove the existence of God. Someone who denies the validity of the facts does strike me as extreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
First of all, I was replying to niteskytwilight when I asked the question about respecting Nazism (if that is what you are referring to).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
I’m sorry that you feel your comments were taken out of context but surely you yourself remove them from their immediate context when you make generalised statements or analogies? You are not saying that only Creationism should be respected but that views that could be considered ridiculous should be respected. This implies a general principle. You seek to gain acceptability for a theory by invoking such a principle. If you use that approach, surely those principles are open to scrutiny and I am allowed to ask about flaws I see in those principles. Similarly, you didn’t say “if you go into this investigation with your mind already made up” but “If you go into an investigation with your mind already made up.” For your principle to be valid it must apply to a situation other than the one you wish it to. Your approach relies on the idea that made up minds are closed. Whether you wish it to or not, such a statement has implications beyond the context in which you applied it. Firstly, you are assuming that the issue is about having an open mind. Secondly, if someone has a closed mind in this particular instance, then that does not therefore mean they have a closed mind generally, which you certainly were implying. Personally I think having a closed mind about certain ideas is sensible and consider it unfair that you suggest that people who have researched, read about, considered and dismissed certain possibilities are closed-minded.
Touche, amigo. I did not set out to offend you or anyone else. Thus we see the truth of "It depends on your point of view." Please accept my apologies and thanks for a lesson in logical dessertation. Have a wonderful day. :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
There are many that say we never went to the moon and that it was all filmed in Hollywood. Some even believe this as strongly as creationists & evolutionists believe in their respective ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Scientists perform experiments to prove their theories. Sadly, some ignore ambiguous results or even falsify evidence to keep their pet theories going. But this is a minority. The history of science is one of continuous refinement of theories, each one fitting the world better. Science only 'closes it's mind' to theories that do not fit the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Religious people perform no such experiments, they just point to the bit in the bible where it says, "Though shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." (or the equivalent in whatever book they believe in - I'm not singling out christians here) and look smug.
Lastly, the scientific community contains the same proportion of religious people as the rest of society. To discuss the 2 as somehow separate is disingenuous.
Actually, the Earth is an oblate spheroid. Flat-Earthers come into the absurd category in my book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Where do new viruses and bacteria come from then? The process of evolution is much easier to see in these little critters because the timescales are much shorter. Was the H.I.V. virus hanging around, not infecting anyone, for thousands of years? No, it evolved. Whether naturally, from a monkey disease in Africa, or artificially, in a CIA lab in a bunker in the Mojave, I have no idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Similarly with bird flu. At present, human to human infection does not occur. Should we just assume that God created this bug at the beginning of time, to attack avian species only, and take no precautions?
Well, XC, despite their evolving, and note that I say that they have, they are still viruses and bacteria. They haven't bumped up the evolutionary chart into something different entirely, like, say, an ameoba. Certainly we should take precautions. I said once that somewhere on this planet is a cure for every illness. But science has to find it, and that takes a lot of work. I saw a research scientist the other day on TV talking about how hard that is to do. He was standing in a snowstorm and said "Only one of these snowflakes will be the right forumla to cure a disease and be able to be taken by humans. We have to find it." That put things into perspective. Similiarly, the very DNA codes discovered by science make it harder for me to accept chance evolution. For example: They print out a DNA code for a certain man. It comes out as a sequence of bars, kind of like a bar code. Now, here in VA, a man was up for execution for the rape and murder of his sister-in-law--happened about 100 miles from here. It made National news as he swore he was innocent. He had given blood for a DNA test, then had his lawyer block it. On the day of his execution, the Governor gave him a final chance--a lie-detector test. He failed, and was executed. People protested. They finally did the DNA. It was 1 in an number to big to write against them executing the wrong man. He had a rare signature in his DNA which they said there was probably not another match for in the whole USA. That's unique. Can chance produce human DNA, given that every line has to come up true? Given enough tries, yes. Possibe, but unlikely. But I concede it's possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
Are you saying that all bacteria are of the same species? All Viruses? In that case, why not all birds? All mammals? Are humans just a variation on shrews?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Do you mean a 'natural' cure, already in existence? Or that a cure can be developed by medical science? If the former, is there also a cure out there for the diseases that haven't evolved yet? Or has the cure yet to evolve too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
I really don't follow your argument here. What do you mean by, "Can chance produce human DNA, given that every line has to come up true?" Chance didn't produce human DNA, evolution and natural selection did. The exact DNA sequence is unique to each individual, in every species. A species is merely a group of individuals with sufficiently similar DNA, that they can breed and produce viable offspring. There are 23 pairs of chromosones in every human cell. Every single one of these can be inherited from either the father or mother. The number of possible different individuals produced by combining the chromosones of the same parents is 25,852,016,738,884,976,640,000. That is the chance of you having the same genetic code of your sibling (unless you are an identical twin.) When you multiply this by the number of possible parents in the world, the numbers get really big and scary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
Not at all. Just still all bacteria and still all viruses. They did not become something else entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
Developed from things already here by medical research. And perhaps, if the disease is caused by a viruses that has mutated or evolved, a plant or something may have to evolve also for the cure to be found. I'm flexible to a certain extent, since I do believe we evolved since the dawn of time and continue to do so as new things arise for us to either adapt to or perish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
That scary number, called "helliacious" by my math prof., is why I discount chance as the begining of the evolution process. That is what I meant. Actually trying an experiment with primorial soup an infinate number of times could beat chance. To prove a theory, however, I was always taught that you must be able to discount random chance. My own opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
Actually, there is a greater similarity between the genetic makeup of a human and a cat than there is between some species of bacteria and others. The two mammals share over 75% of their DNA. Two separate bacteria species can have less than 10% in common. Which species evolved most? Saying that because they are still bacteria, they haven't 'become something else entirely' is inaccurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
I don't follow your logic here. That hellacious number is exactly why chance must be involved. With such a incredible number of possible outcomes from every successful mating, species are bound to diversify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
But what I really don't get, is how this ties in with the origins of life. No-one is suggesting that humans sprang from the primordial soup fully formed. The first 'life' was probably more akin to viruses. These can contain as little as a few dozen genes.
And exactly how long did the original experiment with primordial soup last? How many times was it repeated? I don't know, do you? No-one has any idea how long the conditions were right for life to begin before it finally did - Maybe it happened really quickly, say 10,000 years; maybe 100s of millions of years, that's time enough for a lot of experimenting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpse
Hey, here's a loop for ya. I believe in both creation AND evolution. I tried to explain this to one of my friends but she's a little close-minded when it comes to stuff like that. Okay, the scriptures merely say, and God made this and that but it never says HOW he made anything. There's the whole made them from the dusts of the earth somewhere, but I don't think it was exactly dirt. The scriptures are very old, written before anyone knew what DNA was or molecules so wouldn't they put what they saw and heard the way they understood it with what little knowledge they had back then?
So, God made this and that by using a chemistry set far more superior than any known to man... (okay, I'm being a bit sarcastic). He used these molecules and those and put them together to make different things (Okay, again, a little sarcastic and far more complicated than I'm putting things) . If you don't want to believe in a God or higher being, just use the same "they explained things the way they understood it with what little knowledge they had" idea again just say natural occurances brought across creation.
Okay, and where does evolution fit into this whole belief of mine? As far as I'm concerned, evolution can also be referred to as change. Humans have changed over the years. They've gotten taller (except for me :mad: ), things have changed a bit. We're not talking about evolution like X-men super-human evolution, just minor changes over the years that have added up to a slightly different appearance of humans over time. For example, my parents have/had wisdom teeth but lo and behold... I wasn't born with any. So, there ya go. Evolution, in a small way.
Wisdom teeth are so-called because you don't grow them until you are older (and presumably wiser, although that is not always the case). Were you born with any teeth at all for that matter? That would be evolutionarily interesting!Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Lady
Must...control...laughter.... :lol: ..........Quote:
Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe
.......
.........
Okay... I was going to look up the technical term for wisdom teeth but I'm too lazy to do that even though it would probably be a simple google away. I've heard that story about wisdom teeth though. I can assure you that I wasn't born with teeth already sprouting but I did after awhile get baby teeth and then my permanent teeth, though my mouth is so messed up (I blame it on my father) that I'm still waiting for one tooth to come down and I'm almost 18. I have to agree though, being born without any teeth whatsoever would be intriguing though annoying.
I didn't get my first wisdom tooth till I was about 20. But I was real wise like way before that! ;)