M|STJimBob

This is what I try to to do for myself.works for me,maybe it will enlighten some.


1.Have a Mine that is open to Everything,but not Closed.

2.You can't Give Away what You don't Have.

3.There is No Justified RESENTMENTS.

4.Don't Die with Your Music in You.

5.EMBRACE SILENCE.

6.Give up YOUR PERSONNEL HISTORY.

7.YOU CAN'T SOLVE PROBLEMS WITH THE SAME MINE SET.

8.TREAT YOURSELF WHAT YOU WANT AND HAVE.

9.TREASURY your Divinty.

10.WISDOM.

11. PEOPLE ARE AWAYS LOOKING TO GET PISSED OFF.

Switch

That 'scientific' link you provided is flawed. The author incorrectly present the scientific theories that he is criticizing. Moreover, some references are to books from over 50 years ago. In modern biology, a text 10 years old is FAR behind current understanding. We've developed in leaps and bounds since some of his sources.

It seems that creationists want science to be really simple. They expect to be able to understand molecular genetics and evolution with a short read while they drink their morning coffee. I doubt many of them are prepared to admit that they are simply unable to understand the debate because they lack the education in terms of biology, genetics, and/or chemistry. To use an example from the artical, DNA is not like a library and RNA isn't checking a book out. I'm sorry creationists, but childish caricatures of genetics do not suffice if you're attempting to make a real scientific criticism.

The author doesn't seem to know that not all biotic entities use a double stranded DNA with RNA translation mechanisms. The earliest life forms were likely to be RNA only. A single circular loop, non-helix, with no DNA at all. Such things still exist -- see bacteria.

Its painful for me to read the whole thing, but if the first few pages are indicative of the whole piece, its extremely lacking in scientific understanding.

Allow me to quote some of the elegant points this article makes.
I'm going to say it, it might sting:
If you sincerely think this is a valid point, I'm afraid you are sincerely stupid.

__________________
|TG|Switch

Better known as:
That noob who crashed the chopper.
That noob who ran over the mine.
That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle.
That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

Switch

Noah's Ark

That has nothing to do with common decent. Its because we're created beings.
If you know almost anything about modern evolutionary biology, you would realize how ridiculous you sound. I will gladly tell you what books to read to develop an understanding. There will be a lot, though.








--- ps

The creationist banana... that was satire right? Please tell me the guy didn't actually believe it.

__________________
|TG|Switch

Better known as:
That noob who crashed the chopper.
That noob who ran over the mine.
That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle.
That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

Embiggener

At first i thought the same, but try clicking on some related videos


bunch of these debate videos with kirk cameron and friend that loves bananas

its not satire, sadly

ednos

It's on purpose.

__________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~ Bertrand Russell
I have a tendency to key out three or four things and then let them battle for supremacy while I key, so there's a lot of backspacing as potential statements are slaughtered and eaten by the victors. ~ Magna Centipede

Requital

MANCHESTER, England, Oct. 24 (UPI) -- British biologists said changes in the shape of the head of St. Bernard dogs argue against the theory of creationism and can only be explained by evolution.

University of Manchester researchers, led by Chris Klingenberg, examined the skulls of 47 St. Bernards spanning 120 years, from the time the breed's standard was first defined. They found features stipulated in the breed standard -- broader skulls, a steeper angle between the nose and forehead and a pronounced ridge above the eyes -- became more exaggerated as breeders selected dogs for the desired physical attributes.

In effect, said Klingenberg, the breeders provided a unique opportunity to observe sustained evolutionary change under known selective pressures.

"Creationism is the belief that all living organisms were created according to Genesis in six days by 'intelligent design' and rejects the scientific theories of natural selection and evolution," he said. "But this research once again demonstrates how selection -- whether natural or, in this case, artificially influenced by man -- is the fundamental driving force behind the evolution of life on the planet."

The findings appear in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

So this dog has a sloped forehead? That doesn't seem very significant to me. I guess for science to prove to me that Evolution is realistic they need to demonstraight something a little more substantial. I want to see proteins form on their own in a cup of water. I want them to combine into DNA or even RNA and create a complex cellular structure. When that happens you will have proof, but until then it's just a guess. Go ahead and send me a couple titles of the books and I will pick out a few sentences that don't hold water.

Because someone attempts to make a difficult subject more understandable to the lay person doesn't mean it is trivial.

__________________

Requital

Your argument is stipulating that Common Decent gave the DNA the proximity. My argument is that God created everything and thus the DNA is in close proximity. If Humans were more insect like you would simply say the DNA is almost the same to and insect. So your point is that it can't be because God created it. It has to be because of evolution.

That has no more evidence than my belief, and I don't even study Modern Biology, you would think you could come up with something a little more substantial than uh... "Because I said DNA!". Sweet. I get it. DNA. Of course that proves that man evolved from chemicals and proteins and "go juice" to become a highly intelligent multi cellular creature. Why didn't I even think that DNA was the source of why I am?

Wait...I do! DNA is exactly right. It is the design of how to construct multicellular beings. I agree! I just don't see where that DNA came from outside of God. That is what you need to prove. How did we get from nothing, to proteins, to cells, to creatures. If scientist can repeat that, there wouldn't be an argument. Right now it's just speculation and micro evolutionary theory.

__________________

BeSiege82

I want to make a point Beatnic:

you are the one with the falicy regaurding the books of the Bible

1) as I said earlier, Jewish scribes were taught how to copy exactly the ancient texts of what is now the cannonical books of the Old Testament- the Jewish Torrah;

2) the Christian New Testament is correct, even though many of the copiers were not professional scribes, they copied the manuscripts- this is where you have the translating part of Hewbrew to Greek to Latin and then back to Hebrew: the word man might go from man to men to guys and then to mankind, it means the samething. If you look at all of the copies of the manuscripts of the cannonical books of the New Testament you would find that it all means and tells us the same thing.

Tell me now, how is the Bible today completely different from the original texts? Tell me Beatnic, how does one refute the falicy of the Qumran Caves' Scrolls?

Please others answer me, I truly doubt certain people will even bother reading this or answering me.

__________________
lTG-Irrl BeSiege82
A former platoon leader...

"Courage grows strong at the wound."
"Virescit Vulnere Virtus."

"{My grump-o-meter starts to make a high-pitched whine when I point it at your post, though.}" -- Axis

Switch

Ednos, I don't think it was an intentional straw man. The author just doesn't understand what he's talking about. In as much that he doesn't care to understand it, I suppose that makes it one.

Requital... I'm afraid you just don't know what you're talking about either, even less so than the author of that article. I apologize for the stupid remark, but to me this is like arguing that the world is flat. Its hard for me to comprehend that someone with access to the internet didn't have access to at least a basic education on the issue. I'm assuming you're a little older and went to school prior to the inception of evolution/genetics/biology as standard curriculum (actually, for some reason thats beyond me, this is still an issue in some areas).

Lets break this down into components for you. First, how many arguments are we clumping together as one? I see 3. Initial creation of 'all', human creation, and general evolutionary principal.

Lets not argue points 1 and 2 yet... lets start with 3.

Do you not believe in the principle of evolution as a basic biological process?
(This topic is more complicated that it may appear. First we'll cover the mechanisms behind population genetics... we'll save novel alleles and mutation for MUCH farther along in this discussion)

If you don't, please say so and I will gladly demonstrate that it exists and is active in our world. I will go into as much detail as you like, at your request. For now, I'll go over some basics off the top of my head. I was a TA for two bio labs while in college 'Organisms & Evolution' and 'Cells & Molecules' I may come up with ALOT for off the cuff, don't be alarmed

Let the lessons begin!

Evolution is a major tenant of modern biology and its effects are evident in all areas of modern science. Its documented, studied, experimented with, and is a rather old concept (heredity) in the basic sense of forced selection for farming, animal rearing, and predicting illnesses in families.

For evolution to occur, you need three conditions to exist.
I. You need variation in a population.
II. You need the trait in question to be heritable.
III. You need differential reproductive success in favor of a particular trait.**
Given enough time this model produces evolutionary change in a population.
That simple.
** Some individuals are more gooder and makin' babies.

Functional Example: Field mice to house mouse
I. Fur color
II. Various genes code for color, all heritable.
III. Selection pressure of predators creates differential reproductive success.

Scenario: Take a large population of mice, varied color. White, black, brown, grey, tan, etc. Put them in an outdoor field environment and monitor their progress. Over time, predators will effectively eliminate the individuals who are not blended into the surroundings. White mice will go, grey mice, tan, etc etc until what remains is a population of darker grey/brown/black mice that are well camouflaged to their surroundings. After enough time and several bouts of reproduction, the population will not resemble what you started with. In some extreme cases, certain traits can be completely lost. If, for example, all the white mice died before having a chance to reproduce, the alleles (the variable portion of a specific gene) responsible for white coat may no longer be available in the gene pool. This population has begun to evolve. Please note that this evolution is not intentional or intelligently designed. Its a matter of selection and the species in question has no intent to change in any way.
(Eugenics is an issue with humans, but we'll leave that be). This is a very very basic demonstration of evolutionary principle in action, survival of the fittest, etc etc.

If we had taken the same population and threw them in a house with a few cats, it is not likely that we'd see any change in allele frequencies (whats floating in the gene pool) Since their camouflage would have little effect in preventing a cat from snatching them as they leave their hidey hole, there wouldn't be any expected success for any individual of any particular color. Colors would certainly mesh with reproduction, but the gene pool would remain full of all varieties.

Alrighty, hellgate london just finished dl'ing. Let me know if you have any problems with what i've said so far. Baby steps, we'll educate you yet!

__________________
|TG|Switch

Better known as:
That noob who crashed the chopper.
That noob who ran over the mine.
That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle.
That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

mentholated

I would love to attend this class, PM me some more information.

Requital

Nope, I have not problem with the concepts you have presented. I don't disagree with the concept of adaptation within a species. Again, look at the article I quoted about the St. Bernard's sloped forehead. Look at the facial features of the different races of humans. In fact let me give you a Biblical example that helps support that theory. When the tower of bable was constructed God confused the people by forcing them to speak different laguages. Thus societal groups could form and hereditary selection could commence, combined with environmental natural selection that killed off those who couldn't cope with the outside influences. Again variation within a species is wholey and totaly plausible. It can be observed and quantified. That isn't the part of evolutionary science that is flawed. I am ready for the next step.

Am still waiting for the titles of the books you suggest hold up Evolution as science.

__________________

Requital

They won't respond to you because they think that "The Arc" proves the non plausibility of the Bible. Archiological evidence points to a Flood, but it was dated to be too far back in time for man to have experienced. Even if the dating system is flawed and can't be proved to work properly, they are still going to go with it because it holds up the argument that the Arc could not be true. I am not sure why the Arc is a fairytale. Is it because of the two by two concept?

Now, if the Arc couldn't have happened because of the animals not being able to repopulate the world I am going to laugh, because isn't that evolution in a nut shell?

__________________

ednos

Do you know what else can be observed and quantified? Species branching off into separate species. It happens on a regular basis with some small rain forest life, and it might just happen to more complex creatures (e.g., mammals) over several years. I don't understand why this *isn't* plausible, given the tiny amount of DNA that has to be different to produce a new species and the wild b0rking of DNA that goes on during faulty copying and such. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.

Can someone remind me how the concept of evolution (or any other scientific concept arising thus far) is incompatible with the concept of God?

__________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~ Bertrand Russell
I have a tendency to key out three or four things and then let them battle for supremacy while I key, so there's a lot of backspacing as potential statements are slaughtered and eaten by the victors. ~ Magna Centipede

Requital

Evolution is pivitol because it brings up the question of, "Because, if God did not create the world and the creatures in it, there has to be a way for Life to have arrisen so that Evolution can take God out of the equation of life. If Man does not need God to exist: God does not exist." That is the end premise. It is a bit flawed, but has some sembalence of logic to it.

__________________

ednos

Evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of the world. Evolution doesn't take God out of anything. It focuses on the development of life as time progresses. I still don't understand how it leads to the conclusion that God does not exist, or, on a larger scale, how anything in the Bible contradicts anything in science.

__________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~ Bertrand Russell
I have a tendency to key out three or four things and then let them battle for supremacy while I key, so there's a lot of backspacing as potential statements are slaughtered and eaten by the victors. ~ Magna Centipede