Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FascistLibertarian wrote:
because of cultral selection every new generation is getting worse not better. The fitness of hunter gathers was much better than our current genetic fitness. People with disorders and defects died or were culled from the population. In the past someone like me would have died bc of my poor eyesite but now thanks to cultural selection I could have offspring and pass on those bad genese. This is but one example but very few people alive now woupld be genetically fitter than people 10,000 years ago. On the other side we have developed resistences to many diseases (which mostly come from domesticated animals) so it is somewhat of a grey area.

Evolution is the theory which best fits the present evidence. If the evidence changes the theory will change. People who believe in intellegent design are working backwards. They decide the answer they want then try and fit the evidence to support their answer. This isnt science its dogma.

Quote:
There are no fossil record that shows a species evolving into another species and amazingly man just showed up in the fossil records fully "evolved" within the last six thousand years or so.


really, you deny the existence of early hominids? Man just showed up 6,000 years ago eh. :roll:


Early hominids and other primates are simply different [lower] species of human.

The fact is the fossil record shows just that - sudden appearance and sudden disappearance of species - this is known as the proverbial missing link - as there are no intermediary forms in the fossil record.

While the earth wasn't created within the time lines advanced by most creationists - it isn't the product of random evolution over the time lines which the evolutionists assert.

Of course the whole 6000 year teaching is rather silly as the two creation stories in the Torah are to be taken as allegory - not as a literal account.

These time lines are based on a teaching that a 1000 years on earth are as a day of God - again - that is to be taken as allegory - because - it's safe to say that time as we know it doesn't exist in God's realm. God lives in an eternal moment...while we experience time in three phases; past present and future.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Intelligent Design: Fact or Fable? Reply with quote

urbanmonk wrote:
Do the "weak" genes that "we lose" not contain information?
When we gain "strong ones" we're not gaining new information we're only becoming more specialized, weaker actually.


1. Why is more specialized "weaker"?

2. It is a false assumption that we are becoming more specialized. We used to just eat plants. Now we eat plants and meat. That means we evolved to be LESS specialized.

3. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that when we lose weak genes we are losing information but when we develop stronger ones we aren't gaining it.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

don muntean wrote:
Craig wrote:
don muntean wrote:
so we take all the materials and we place them in a lot and we place some explosive on-top - how many times would we have to detonate the pile to come up with a house?


Enough times until the rubble piled up in such a manner that you could find shelter underneath it.


:lol: - much like crow-like thinkers who take shelter in a shanty of theories...


A shanty is closer to a house than an ameoba is to a human.

BTW: What created your God. I could have a field day with analogies regarding creating something from nothing. Try this...

You have no raw materials and no explosives. Suddenly you have a house. How did this happen? (Feel free to use this analogy on another forum westmanguy)
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
don muntean wrote:
Craig wrote:
don muntean wrote:
so we take all the materials and we place them in a lot and we place some explosive on-top - how many times would we have to detonate the pile to come up with a house?


Enough times until the rubble piled up in such a manner that you could find shelter underneath it.


:lol: - much like crow-like thinkers who take shelter in a shanty of theories...


A shanty is closer to a house than an ameoba is to a human.

BTW: What created your God. I could have a field day with analogies regarding creating something from nothing. Try this...

You have no raw materials and no explosives. Suddenly you have a house. How did this happen? (Feel free to use this analogy on another forum westmanguy)


What created God? That sounds like a question to ask a Mormon :wink: - of course all energy [including us] has always existed and - God the 'energetic' - is the source of all energy...thus - nothing is from nothing...
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

humans created God
the whole process evolved though
unorganized religion, organized religion, polytheism, monotheism

its pretty obvious to me @ least
cant have organized religion before humans started farming and we have stratified societies and division of labour
ideas like the lord is my sheppard just wouldnt come to anyone besides herders
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

don muntean wrote:
What created God? That sounds like a question to ask a Mormon :wink: - of course all energy [including us] has always existed and - God the 'energetic' - is the source of all energy...thus - nothing is from nothing...


The energy always existed? It had no start? I'm not satisfied with that answer.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FascistLibertarian wrote:
humans created God
the whole process evolved though
unorganized religion, organized religion, polytheism, monotheism


My whole problem is when people outright dismiss either theory as ridiculous or absurd. They are both plausible so express your preference and why you prefer it but it is quite arrogant to pretend like you know. Nobody knows for sure.

Personally, I think religion is better at explaining the "why". And science is better at explaining the "how". In fact, science doesn't even think that explaining the "why" is necessary. Both science and religion ultimately have deficiencies.
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
don muntean wrote:
What created God? That sounds like a question to ask a Mormon :wink: - of course all energy [including us] has always existed and - God the 'energetic' - is the source of all energy...thus - nothing is from nothing...


The energy always existed? It had no start? I'm not satisfied with that answer.


"...Energy is converted from one form to another, but it is never created or destroyed..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:

Personally, I think religion is better at explaining the "why". And science is better at explaining the "how". In fact, science doesn't even think that explaining the "why" is necessary. Both science and religion ultimately have deficiencies.


Very good point...evolution can be seen as a process - not a cause.
urbanmonk





Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 307
Reputation: 16.8Reputation: 16.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:31 pm    Post subject: Re: Intelligent Design: Fact or Fable? Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
urbanmonk wrote:
Do the "weak" genes that "we lose" not contain information?
When we gain "strong ones" we're not gaining new information we're only becoming more specialized, weaker actually.

1. Why is more specialized "weaker"?

2. It is a false assumption that we are becoming more specialized. We used to just eat plants. Now we eat plants and meat. That means we evolved to be LESS specialized.

3. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that when we lose weak genes we are losing information but when we develop stronger ones we aren't gaining it.


By weaker I mean not as diverse as before. The species only becomes stronger in a specialized way and if conditions change that species may no longer carry the genes required to survive. My point in this was that evolution requires new genetic information in order to work. Any examples of "mutation" always involves the loss of genetic information. Fish that have lived in caves for generations and no longer have eyes have lost genetic information (not evolved). You could say they are stronger and if they stay in the cave you would probably be right but overall they have become weaker imo.
I believe original man possessed all the possible variations but natural selection has reduced them to the point where some variations are no longer in evidence (ie: Neanderthal Mans pronounced bone structure etc)

Quote:
My whole problem is when people outright dismiss either theory as ridiculous or absurd. They are both plausible so express your preference and why you prefer it but it is quite arrogant to pretend like you know.

Point taken but I was mostly responding to TAJ and trying to point out that his belief in evolution, like mine, also requires faith in seemingly impossible circumstances. I'm otherwise more humble than arrogant...
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:51 pm    Post subject: Re: Intelligent Design: Fact or Fable? Reply with quote

urbanmonk wrote:
By weaker I mean not as diverse as before.


That's not true. Mutations happen all the time keeping diversity up.

Quote:
The species only becomes stronger in a specialized way and if conditions change that species may no longer carry the genes required to survive.


Absolutely, that is why some species go extinct. I'm not sure how that translates into an argument against evolution. We are constantly adapting to the stresses of our environment. We gain new and enhanced capabilities based on requirements. If the requirements change too quickly an entire species can be destroyed.

Quote:
My point in this was that evolution requires new genetic information in order to work. Any examples of "mutation" always involves the loss of genetic information.


This simply is not true. We have the same number of DNA sequences today as we had 100,000 years ago. And the diversity of our DNA is greater today than 100,000 years ago when the population of the earth was 100,000.

Quote:
Fish that have lived in caves for generations and no longer have eyes have lost genetic information (not evolved).


No. They have evolved. Eyes served no purpose so why waste energy having them. It is equally easy to gain abilities as it is to lose them.

Quote:
You could say they are stronger and if they stay in the cave you would probably be right but overall they have become weaker imo.


The diversity of fish has become greater. Now you have fish with genes tailored to caves and fish with genes tailored to lakes. If an asteroid hit and blocked out the sun the fish in the cave would survive. Therefore, the diversity provided by evolution has made fish stronger.

Quote:
I believe original man possessed all the possible variations but natural selection has reduced them to the point where some variations are no longer in evidence (ie: Neanderthal Mans pronounced bone structure etc)


Certainly this is true. But as you pointed out with your fish comparison it is possible for genetic variations to increase. You provided a wonderful example of evolution resulting in greater diversity.
urbanmonk





Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 307
Reputation: 16.8Reputation: 16.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:01 pm    Post subject: Re: Intelligent Design: Fact or Fable? Reply with quote

Craig wrote:

Certainly this is true. But as you pointed out with your fish comparison it is possible for genetic variations to increase. You provided a wonderful example of evolution resulting in greater diversity.

Variations within a species not a new species, nothing new was added or ever is (micro evolution)
"You say black I say white, you say bark I say bite"... :)
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
In fact, science doesn't even think that explaining the "why" is necessary. Both science and religion ultimately have deficiencies.


Science does explain the "why", it's just not as mystical as religion's "why".

Then again, I'm not so sure that religion explains the "why"...if the only purpose of humans is to serve God, then what is the purpose of God?
Riley W





Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 857
Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5
votes: 10
Location: Manitoba

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc, are you the same gc from Canadian Content forums?

(sorry, off topic I know)
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Intelligent Design: Fact or Fable? Reply with quote

urbanmonk wrote:
I believe original man possessed all the possible variations but natural selection has reduced them to the point where some variations are no longer in evidence (ie: Neanderthal Mans pronounced bone structure etc).


I'm certainly not an expert on religion, but I thought according to the bible we all descended from Noah and his wife? If that's the case, how did such variation arise?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  


 
Jump to:  
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
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Intelligent Design: Fact or Fable?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB