Page 16 of 34 FirstFirst ... 6111213141516171819202126 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 675
  1. #301  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Shopharim, you really have asked a good question, one that does not deserve the type of response Surur has given.

    Ben
    You appear to understand the question then. Mind restating it?

    Surur
  2. #302  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    Second, as far as radioisotope dating is concerned, it's amazing that rocks have to be a certain age before they can be dated.
    It's only amazing if you are not familiar with science or even everyday life. In order to determine the exact weight of something, you need to know the approximate weight beforehand in order to chose the right scale. Everybody knows you cannot determine the weight of a truck with a scale for letters. It's the same with radiocarbon dating.
    I find the methods of calibration for K-Ar dating to be kind of biased. How can a person know how old a rock is (in the millions of years), if there is no historical proof of it?
    You don't have a problem with K-Ar dating because of doubts about it's scientific validity, you have a problem with it because it contradicts your interpretation of the bible. You start with taking the bible literally (something luckily only a very small fraction of Christians do), and then, because of that, you feel the need to discredit each and every method which proves your belief wrong. Did anybody ever come across a (so-called, self-proclaimed) scientist who claimed earth is young WITHOUT simultaneously being a fundamentalist young earth Christian? Strange coincidence, isn't it? Why aren't there any Buddhists or Hindu people who find K-Ar dating "biased"?

    Unfortunately for your case, it is not only K-Ar dating which shows earth is much older than a few thousand years. In the links I provided, several totally independent methods of dating earth and the universe are mentioned. They are independent but still unanimously point to an age of several billion years. We are not discussing a few years difference here, it's a factor of one million. There is simply NO WAY earth can be only a few thousand years old, unless god deliberately made it look much older, which would be an odd thing to do for a god which gave us a brain to use it. You might as well say the sun circles earth and that it just looks differently for our scientific instruments.
    As it was said before, many of the top scientists in the world knew that the earth was flat just a few hundred years ago.
    That's wrong. A few hundred years back was Middle Age when your brand of dogmatic religion ruled and the scientific method was not invented yet.
    What if something is 'discovered' in the next few years that changes the theory of evolution again? Will you all jump on that new bandwagon?
    If there is good evidence for something new I will accept it. However, evolution is as scientifically sound as earth circling the sun, so it is indeed very difficult to imagine that something will overturn the basic principle behind evolution.
    3. I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and thus I believe when it says He created the earth in 6 days, He did it in 6 days. I do not know for sure if I am right or wrong. I am basing my belief on the evidence at hand.
    You are basing your beliefs on your beliefs, not on evidence at hand. You just try to discredit evidence of the contrary, with very weak arguments and rather cheap tricks such as the article you quoted.
    -for many centuries illnesses were treated by blood-letting (opening a vein so that the "bad blood" could be released).
    Again not based on science, but Middle Age unsupported beliefs.
    If they would have looked in the Bible they would know that God created man, and therefore there is a purpose for eveything in him...
    ... such as the vermiform appendix which has the purpose of becoming infected and killing its owner.
    These scientists used their brains to learn about the world and came to the wrong conclusions.
    Just as earth indeed circles the sun, evolution did and does take place, and earth is several billions of years old. Regardless of whether you feel comfortable with these facts, reality is not going to adapt just to suit your beliefs and your narrow interpretation of the bible, which even makes the highly conservative Pope shake is head.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3. #303  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    That's not where I was headed. I was seeking clarity on the statement that "animals" don't change into contemporaneous animals.
    Okay, my mistake then.

    Like Musicman247, I find it difficulty to follow the logic. Consider your example. At what point in time or in development are the west coast wingdings officially a different species from the east cost version? What do you call the west coast wingdings one generation short of the iteration deemed a new species? Why is not the former considered contemporaneous to the latter?
    First of all, you have to realize that "species" is a human construct. We have created the term "species" as a means to help us catagorize and distinguish between different organisms. As such, there are a number of definitions of "species", generally involving physical and genetic differences, reproductive incompatability, etc. But even those definitions can be misleading. For example, if we are talking about an organisms that reproduces via budding, there is no point is disucssing the reproductive incompatability aspect of species, because they reproduce individually!

    Since we have coined the term, we also arbitrarilly decide when a species is a "species". It isn't like there is a huge lexicon of organisms written on a tree somewhere, and we are just copying down the information.

    In my example, presumably the two divergent lines would be separated into different species when some biologist considers them different enough from each other. To answer your question about "one generation before" - keep in mind there is variation WITHIN the popuation. It isn't like ALL individuals in generation 3342 of the population suddenly give birth to the generation 3343, and they are suddenly different from the original wingdings. It is a gradual process of the accumulation of genetic changes. Perhaps initially only a few of the organisms might have slightly better eyes, and stay up a little later. Maybe 10 out of the 1000 offspring. But that allows them to get a little more food, reproduce a little more than the "bad eyesight, daylight" ones, so the next generation there are maybe 12 or 15 that have better eyesight and stay up a little later. Next generation maybe about 25 out of 1000, etc etc. It is not like they all were bad eyesight, active during the day, then suddenly the next generation they were all good eyesight, active at night. Eventually, assuming that night activity and good eyesight is strongly favored, most of them will be active at night with good eyesight.

    You last question also bring up another question that has caused problem - what is a population? Some people (notably ecologist) might define a population of organisms in a manner that involves the niche they occupy. So they might consider the west coast wingdings a different species once they fully occupy a different ecological niche. Evolutionary biologists might look more at reproductive capacity for populations - the idea that a population is a group of individuals that reproduce with each other. They might look at the west coast wingdings as a different species once they can no longer reproduce with the east coast population. A tradition phylogenist might look at morphological traits, etc.

    The short answer is...there is no easy short answer.

    Chris
  4. #304  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Shopharim, you really have asked a good question, one that does not deserve the type of response Surur has given.

    Ben
    Surur's answer is completely accurate and legitimate.

    Chris
  5. #305  
    For the record there have been many suggested changed and modifications to evolutionary theory over the years. One of the most well known was punctuated equilibrium. One of my fellow graduate students (back when I was one) was questioning the idea of speciation in sympatric populations, trying to see if simply behavioral differences could result in speciation.

    So while the general theory of biology has been accepted, much about the process is still being "tweaked". And, if evidence was discovered that would require a questioning of the whole process, the scientific method allows for that.

    Chris
  6. #306  
    3. I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and thus I believe when it says He created the earth in 6 days, He did it in 6 days. I do not know for sure if I am right or wrong. I am basing my belief on the evidence at hand.
    Herein lies the origin of this controversy.

    4. God wants us to learn about the world! He wants us to use our brain! But, unfortunately, sometimes when man uses his brain, he comes up with the wrong answers.
    That is the basis of the scientific method, you come up with a hypothesis to explain empiric observations, put those through testing and decide if to accept or reject such hypothesis. Has science ever been wrong, of course, however through continuous testing and observation theories are shaped and molded to accomodate the growing body of evidence.

    -for many centuries illnesses were treated by blood-letting (opening a vein so that the "bad blood" could be released). If these doctors had read the Bible, they would know that "the life is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11).
    And to think that happened in a time were science was directed by the Church, who would have thought!

    Did science also missed on the "cure" for leprosy as described in Lev 14:2-52?

    -decades ago doctors regarded the tonsils as "throw away" organs. A bi-product of evolution. Recently we have discovered that they do play an important part in our immune system. If they would have looked in the Bible they would know that God created man, and therefore there is a purpose for eveything in him.
    And since science is not rigid, new discoveries are allowed and accepted to further our understanding of the world around us.

    These scientists used their brains to learn about the world and came to the wrong conclusions. What's to say that the wrong conclusions are not being come up with today?
    Science does not have an answer to everything, many scientific believes were proven wrong and corrected. Scientific discovery is a dynamic and welcomed process, that is why I have choosen science over magic thinking.
    Have a great one...Doc D.

    Phillips VELO > Palm III > Palm V > Palm 505m > Treo 180 > Treo 300 > Samsung i500 > Treo 700p > HTC 6800 > Treo 800w > Treo Pro > Palm Pre > HTC Evo
  7. #307  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    ...The short answer is...there is no easy short answer.

    Chris
    That is the conclusion I reached. It's just that a blanket statement was made which, on its face, did not communicate the complexity.
  8. #308  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    I dont know why you have gotten so hung up on that one word. It simply implies that change takes time, and a modern dog wont suddenly change into a modern cat. When looking species change amongst contemporaneous animals, you have to look at their common past, not expect such a convergent change in the future.

    Surur
    I thought Dawkins offered that in theory any biomorph could have produce any other biomorph as an offspring, provided the necessary conditions existed such that the DNA instructions were effected.

    With common ancestry, wouldn't any characteristic that has ever existed be available to the entire family?
  9. #309  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    I thought Dawkins offered that in theory any biomorph could have produce any other biomorph as an offspring, provided the necessary conditions existed such that the DNA instructions were effected.

    With common ancestry, wouldn't any characteristic that has ever existed be available to the entire family?
    No. Genes are lost, genes are gained, genes change functionality.

    Chris
  10. #310  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    That is the conclusion I reached. It's just that a blanket statement was made which, on its face, did not communicate the complexity.

    Well, my answer about no easy short answers is in regards to what is a species, what is a population, and when do we define a "new" species.

    I think Surur's p[oint was that a contemporary animals can not suddenly give rise to completely different contemporary animals (ie, a cat can not give birth to a dog). Hi response is completely accurate and correct, is in entirely different than what I was talking about.

    Chris
  11.    #311  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    Music, it seems to me that you are working under a misperception of how evolution works.

    You talk about thingsl ike a cat evolving into a dog, or one genus evolving into another (I notice that you gave up on the new species argument, since I showed you examples of where a new species has evolved).

    But evolution doesn't work like that. Things don't suddenly and drastically change overnight. Species (and larger) changes are based on an accumulation of small changes that eventually leads to reproductive isolation (either due to genetic or behavioral incompatability).

    For example, let's imagine that you have a large populations of "wingdings". They all have very large ears, small eyes, are diurnal, and are spread over a large continent. Suddenly,the west coast of the continuent splits off to form an island, the population is split in half, meaning that the population on the island is isolated geographically from the population on the east coast. Perhaps the east coast population survives fine, but due to the geographic and environmental changes on the island, suddenly hearing is not as important as eyesight. On the island, suddenly there is evolutionary pressure for better eyesight, and not as much need to maintain the large ears. In addition, let's say the geographic shift has eliminated the normal, diurnal food source of these wingdings, so they are forced to hunt at night. Over time, they may start to spend more time in the day sleeping, awake at night. In addition, there will be morphological and physiological changes as they adapt to their new diet, their new island. But the population on the east coast still remains the same.

    After many MANY thousands of years, the organisms on the island would look VERY different from the organisms on the mainland. They would hunt at night, have a very different body shape, and who knows what else. Even if you "reunited" the two populations, they may not be able to breed together. Suddenly, new species (and possible new genus, new family, whatever).

    Now imagine this happening for millions and millions or years, all around the globe. Populations change, becaome isolated, may eventually spread, who knows what. But as the changes build up, new species, new genus', new families, new orders, etc will arise.

    Back to dog and cat. At some point there was an organism living that is the ancestor to the dog and cat (and many other organisms, probably). Somewhere in the geographic range of the organism, certain evolutionary pressures may have spurred the evolution of dog like traits. Elsewhere, cat like traits might have been favored. So different populations would evolve different traits, eventually (After many many many many years) leading to what we know as cats and dogs.

    Chris
    What would you say is the difference between your wingdings and humans?
  12. #312  
    I have a silly question - how many hours are in a day when measured by someone that is infinite (god has no beginning and no end, right?)?

    OK, here are some more silly questions:

    Is god a man or a woman? If he is a man, does he have a p e n i s? (you've got to be kidding me...we can't say p e n i s up here?) Weren't we made in his image? Is heaven another dimension or can I expect to be riding the clouds when I die someday? If god is all-knowing then he must know when priests are about to molest children well before they even grow pubic hairs themselves - what purpose does this serve? I mean, why let children be hurt in this fashion at all? So what is free will then if it doesn't truly exists at all? If my fate has already been decided for me why even try to change it?
  13. #313  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I have a silly question - how many hours are in a day when measured by someone that is infinite (god has no beginning and no end, right?)?

    OK, here are some more silly questions:

    Is god a man or a woman? If he is a man, does he have a p e n i s? (you've got to be kidding me...we can't say p e n i s up here?) Weren't we made in his image? Is heaven another dimension or can I expect to be riding the clouds when I die someday? If god is all-knowing then he must know when priests are about to molest children well before they even grow pubic hairs themselves - what purpose does this serve? I mean, why let children be hurt in this fashion at all? So what is free will then if it doesn't truly exists at all? If my fate has already been decided for me why even try to change it?

    You're right!
    Those are all very silly questions.
  14. #314  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    You're right!
    Those are all very silly questions.
    Trust me, I knew you couldn't answer them.
  15. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #315  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I have a silly question - how many hours are in a day when measured by someone that is infinite (god has no beginning and no end, right?)?
    Looks like god allowed his creation of the galaxy to dictate what god termed day and night. Doesn't it seem reasonable that he would've thought of that first? Guess god just learned from his accidents.

    Is god a man or a woman? If he is a man, does he have a p e n i s? (you've got to be kidding me...we can't say p e n i s up here?) Weren't we made in his image?
    According to the bible, Man was created in god's image. God then saw that Adam was lonely, so Eve was then created. You've heard the song 'Spirit in the Sky'? Well, this is why I refer to him as the 'great big d__k in the sky'. After all, it's biblically accurate. Then again, so are talking mules.
  16. #316  
    Well I'm not trying to poke fun necessarily - my post was to point out that there are many contradictions and paradoxes in religion. The faithful will claim that that is the nature of having faith...the "you're not supposed to know" position. The scientist will point to questions like this and assert it's some of the million reasons that religious dogma isn't based in reality.

    Personally, I don't rule out that there may be a god or supreme being but I also reject about 99% of the pure fiction that has been spun over thousands of years by organized religion - each in which are willing to kill the other over who made up better lies and who is a pagan, heathen, or infidel for not believing those lies. And if there is a god I don't believe they'd want us killing one another any more than do I accept that they know a priest may be placed on this earth to do awful things to young boys in a confessional some day. That is to say - I believe in free will and reject the notion of fate altogether.
  17. #317  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I have a silly question - how many hours are in a day when measured by someone that is infinite (god has no beginning and no end, right?)?
    thinking about timelessness within a context bound by time can be daunting. The duration of a day is equivalent to the duration of one complete rotation on the axis
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post

    OK, here are some more silly questions:

    Is god a man or a woman?
    It seems that the distinction between male and female is a construct reserved for creation. However, a review of the characgteristics ascirbed to Holy Spirit tend towards what we (used to) consider feminine
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    If he is a man, does he have a p e n i s? (you've got to be kidding me...we can't say p e n i s up here?)
    There is no compelling evidence one way or the other that I've noticed in the text
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Weren't we made in his image?
    and likeness
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Is heaven another dimension or can I expect to be riding the clouds when I die someday?
    Presently within another dimension seems to fit the description. However, I have not come across a compelling statement in the text. Incidentally, the discovery of an "earth-like" planet 20 light years away already has some speculating that such is the "new earth" descirbed in the Revelation.
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    If god is all-knowing then he must know when priests are about to molest children well before they even grow pubic hairs themselves - what purpose does this serve? I mean, why let children be hurt in this fashion at all?
    Free will comes at a high price
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    So what is free will then if it doesn't truly exists at all? If my fate has already been decided for me why even try to change it?
    I'm still working on the concept of ominscience. My current rationalization is that one who knows all possibilities by definition knows all things (hence the, albeit crude, software programmer illustration). In terms of relativity, though, that party 'a' knows what is going to occur, does not mean that party 'b' is not exercsing free will.
  18. #318  
    Nice reply Shop! I appreciate the thoughtful reply rather than attacking.
  19. #319  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    I'm still working on the concept of ominscience. My current rationalization is that one who knows all possibilities by definition knows all things (hence the, albeit crude, software programmer illustration). In terms of relativity, though, that party 'a' knows what is going to occur, does not mean that party 'b' is not exercsing free will.
    You are absolutely correct. If party A knows what will happen, but does not convey this information to party B, and there is no way for party B to know, then it APPEARS that party B has free will. Each individual in party B has free will relative to each other, but not to party A.

    But according to religion, God didn't give us the appearance of free will. Nor did he gives us free will relative to each other, but not to God. He gave us free will.

    Chris
  20. #320  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    What would you say is the difference between your wingdings and humans?

    Seeing as I made wingdings up, and you haven't given me a reference for what sort of difference you are looking for, I could say everything is different, or nothing is different.

    In terms of evolutionary theroy, nothing is different. (Well, with a slight caveat - some people feel that cultural evolution has in some ways replaced biological evolution in humans...our capacity for building tools and adapting our environment to us instead of the other way around decreased environmental pressures that may lead to evolution).

    Chris

Posting Permissions