HAGANE NO RENKINJUTSUSHI
HAGANE NO RENKINJUTSUSHI
full metal alchemist
full metal alchemist
 



Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

43 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Evolution? Creation?, What do you believe in?
What do you believe in?
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 207
Guests cannot vote 
Username05
post Mar 12 2005, 10:50 AM
Post #61


Alchemists
***

Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 15-January 05
From: Oddworld
Member No.: 5,739



QUOTE(What @ no bacon?,Mar 12 2005, 10:42 AM)
QUOTE(Username05 @ Mar 12 2005, 05:34 PM)
QUOTE(What @ no bacon?,Mar 12 2005, 10:20 AM)
QUOTE(Username05 @ Mar 12 2005, 05:14 PM)
But the Albinism will spread, it may even end up with everyone being albino.
The reason brown hair and brown eyes will be is because it cancels the other colors out. but being albino cancels out the brown, so unless all albino people are killed or don't have children it will spread just as brown eyes and hair will.

Tell me a change for the better the human race has taken.
[snapback]131367[/snapback]


Albinism will spread... wha? Where'd you hear that? Albinos are rarer now than they were 200 years ago, and the chances of an albino child being born, even to an albino parent are very slim. Case-in-point, my dog's father is an albino boxer, but she herself has brindle hair and brown eyes, and none of the other dogs in her litter exhibit any albino traits, either.

I'm not a biologist, or anything, but that's just a bogus assertion that you made.
[snapback]131370[/snapback]



That isn't true there are not fewer albinos, and your dog now caries the albino gene his/her puppies could be albino, or there puppies or so on, but the albino gene in your dog will not deminish. The albino gene can spread, it may not, but if both paernts carry it there child will. Just because you aren't albino dosn't mean it isn't in your genetics. If only one of the parents have it there is only a slite chance, that is why I said "it may even end up with everyone being albino"
[snapback]131377[/snapback]

What proof do you have? Show me statistics that point to a rise in albinism in the general population, then we'll talk.
[snapback]131383[/snapback]



I didn't say there were more! I said there is no fade away of albinism. you said it was going away, there is no way to cure albinism

And genes are not cut down the middle, there is even a chance that they will carry almost none of the albinism, but there will always be some traces of both parents genes.


--------------------
IPB Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carnal Malefacto...
post Mar 12 2005, 10:52 AM
Post #62


Gallery Mod Emeritus
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 11,000
Joined: 24-August 04
From: In your daughter's bedroom, chanting lines from the Necrololicon
Member No.: 526
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Username05 @ Mar 12 2005, 05:50 PM)
QUOTE(What @ no bacon?,Mar 12 2005, 10:42 AM)
QUOTE(Username05 @ Mar 12 2005, 05:34 PM)
QUOTE(What @ no bacon?,Mar 12 2005, 10:20 AM)
QUOTE(Username05 @ Mar 12 2005, 05:14 PM)
But the Albinism will spread, it may even end up with everyone being albino.
The reason brown hair and brown eyes will be is because it cancels the other colors out. but being albino cancels out the brown, so unless all albino people are killed or don't have children it will spread just as brown eyes and hair will.

Tell me a change for the better the human race has taken.
[snapback]131367[/snapback]


Albinism will spread... wha? Where'd you hear that? Albinos are rarer now than they were 200 years ago, and the chances of an albino child being born, even to an albino parent are very slim. Case-in-point, my dog's father is an albino boxer, but she herself has brindle hair and brown eyes, and none of the other dogs in her litter exhibit any albino traits, either.

I'm not a biologist, or anything, but that's just a bogus assertion that you made.
[snapback]131370[/snapback]



That isn't true there are not fewer albinos, and your dog now caries the albino gene his/her puppies could be albino, or there puppies or so on, but the albino gene in your dog will not deminish. The albino gene can spread, it may not, but if both paernts carry it there child will. Just because you aren't albino dosn't mean it isn't in your genetics. If only one of the parents have it there is only a slite chance, that is why I said "it may even end up with everyone being albino"
[snapback]131377[/snapback]

What proof do you have? Show me statistics that point to a rise in albinism in the general population, then we'll talk.
[snapback]131383[/snapback]



I didn't say there were more! I said there is no fade away of albinism. you said it was going away, there is no way to cure albinism
[snapback]131388[/snapback]

It IS going away, because fewer and fewer people are carrying the gene.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Username05
post Mar 12 2005, 10:55 AM
Post #63


Alchemists
***

Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 15-January 05
From: Oddworld
Member No.: 5,739



^Do you have proof of this?


--------------------
IPB Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carnal Malefacto...
post Mar 12 2005, 11:03 AM
Post #64


Gallery Mod Emeritus
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 11,000
Joined: 24-August 04
From: In your daughter's bedroom, chanting lines from the Necrololicon
Member No.: 526
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Username05 @ Mar 12 2005, 05:55 PM)
^Do you have proof of this?
[snapback]131392[/snapback]


QUOTE
In ocular-cutaneous albinism, individuals inherit an "albinism gene" from both parents. Where an individual receives one albinism gene and one normal gene, that person will not show outward signs of the condition, but will become a carrier of the recessive gene. Where two carriers of the recessive gene have a child together, that child will have a one in four chance of receiving two albinism genes, and having albinism. The child will have one in four chances of getting neither albinism gene, having normal pigment, and not being a carrier. The child has two in four chances of getting one normal and one albinism gene, having normal pigment but being a carrier. The incidence of carriers in the British population is approximately 1 in 50.
What this extrapolates to is a gradual decline in the incidence of carriers, even among children whose parents were both carriers.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Username05
post Mar 12 2005, 11:15 AM
Post #65


Alchemists
***

Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 15-January 05
From: Oddworld
Member No.: 5,739



Ok, I have been proven wrong, but that happends all the time, so we went from evolution/creation to Albinism, that is evelution, lol laugh.gif . It was fun while it lasted.
But we still havn't finished talking about Creation/Evolution. I still stand in the creationist view.


--------------------
IPB Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carnal Malefacto...
post Mar 12 2005, 11:18 AM
Post #66


Gallery Mod Emeritus
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 11,000
Joined: 24-August 04
From: In your daughter's bedroom, chanting lines from the Necrololicon
Member No.: 526
Gender: Male



The question is, why? I know that a lot of people have been indoctrinated to accept the creationist view, but why try to discredit a view that, while not infallible, has some actual scientific backing, only to turn around and support one that has none whatsoever? Why not look for an alternative explanation?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Username05
post Mar 12 2005, 11:35 AM
Post #67


Alchemists
***

Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 15-January 05
From: Oddworld
Member No.: 5,739



Because there is history in creation. There are places found that where talked about, and places destroyed in the ways they described in the Bible.

Is there a solid fact that Evolution is true? because I havn't heard one.


--------------------
IPB Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carnal Malefacto...
post Mar 12 2005, 11:36 AM
Post #68


Gallery Mod Emeritus
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 11,000
Joined: 24-August 04
From: In your daughter's bedroom, chanting lines from the Necrololicon
Member No.: 526
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Username05 @ Mar 12 2005, 06:35 PM)
Because there is history in creation. There are places found that where talked about, and places destroyed in the ways they described in the Bible.

Is there a solid fact that Evolution is true? because I havn't heard one.
[snapback]131410[/snapback]


What history? Like I said, a lot of what's written in the bible is based on real events, but the story of the 7 day creation is definitely not one of them.

Evolution's hard evidence is in paleontology. The discovery of fossils of animals that have long since disappeared from the planet, but still provide clues as to how the animals that do exist today came to be as they are.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ἀρχή
post Mar 12 2005, 11:42 AM
Post #69


State Alchemist (Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,775
Joined: 4-December 04
From: Somewhere new that makes me better than you
Member No.: 3,228
Gender: Male



QUOTE(What @ no bacon?,Mar 12 2005, 01:18 PM)
The question is, why? I know that a lot of people have been indoctrinated to accept the creationist view, but why try to discredit a view that, while not infallible, has some actual scientific backing, only to turn around and support one that has none whatsoever? Why not look for an alternative explanation?
[snapback]131402[/snapback]


For me it's the arrogance of science. I don't like the fact that once someone says, "it is scientifically proven that..." well, that's not enough for me. If you study scientific method, you realize that there are a lot of assumptions and non-empirical elements to the conclusions given. I don't like to base any metaphysics on science as that would be ultra empiricism, which has so many problems.

Technically to believe in creationism is a faith issue with regard to the authority of the Bible. To prove creationism is a lost cause. Just like proving the existence of god, the point is to show that it is not irrational to believe in the Genesis 1 creation. This leaves one to show that there is value to scripture. The value of scripture (bible) is authenticated based on tradition. There is always room for criticism, but the tradition is long standing. Because of the preciousness and care given to the Law of Moses over the years, it has some credibility of being original and accurate.

The move from simply thinking of the Bible as factual content to being the Word of God is a spiritual move. One that acknowledges that faith is not irrational when supported by reason.

In interpretational thinking, it is even a faith step to believe that cause and effect have value, so faith thinking is even used in scientific reasoning. So, this faith is not irrational. The point is that science is not infalliable and has plenty of faith/irrational aspects to it. It's just that because it's a holy modern word, we don't defile science by thinking of the faith aspects of it.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Username05
post Mar 12 2005, 11:49 AM
Post #70


Alchemists
***

Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 15-January 05
From: Oddworld
Member No.: 5,739



Just ask yourself, "Was somebody there?"
How did the Big Bang start?
Where do the dates originate from in a book of fossils?
When did that goup in a pond "evolve" into something liveing?
Was the earth created in 7 days?
How did that liveing thing survivr if plants where not liveing yet? (this one can be switched around because plants need carbon dioxide from people, and people need oxygen from plants.)
How did the atmosphere come to be?

See It is imposible to know these things because nobody was there.


--------------------
IPB Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carnal Malefacto...
post Mar 12 2005, 01:54 PM
Post #71


Gallery Mod Emeritus
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 11,000
Joined: 24-August 04
From: In your daughter's bedroom, chanting lines from the Necrololicon
Member No.: 526
Gender: Male



I'm getting the impression that the people arguing against evolution don't know much about the theory, at all.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RemyLeBeau
post Mar 12 2005, 05:55 PM
Post #72


Citizen
*

Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 1-March 05
From: Wisconsin
Member No.: 8,849



What, No Bacon?

I can't see how you feel justified asking people for statistics when you provide none yourself. What study showed that albinos are diminishing? Genetically, that would not happen.

IF all albinos on earth stopped procreating (A major feat, and more distinct than the shady explanation you regurgitated) then there would still be albino children born, because Mendelian genetics shows - two Brown-haired people can still have an albino child, there is just a small chance of it. And also, what proof do you have that in China around 200 BC there were more albinos than now? I defy you to show evidence.

Your argument begs the question much more than you accuse his of, since you hypocritically ask for evidence without showing any.


I also have a new piece of evidence: The Big Bang first states that all the gas in the universe coagulated into a tiny dot. (It never mentions WHERE the universe came from, it assumes it was just... there.) This violates physics already because gas does not coagulate in a vacuum. It expands. Imagine opening the airlock of a spacecraft in deep space. Would the air stay in? No. Neither would air be able to turn into a tiny little dot no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence.

Then, assuming the gas somehow came together, it would have to start spinning around and around. Why? Noone knows. (Was it an act of *gasp* God?) Then, after the dot started spinning for some reason, it exploded. This violates the known laws of physics, but that's okay, because it's done so already quite a few times.

This comes to the point of my argument: The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum states that when a spinning object explodes, all the little pieces will be spinning the same direction. Why is it that some of the outer planets (I might be wrong but I think it's Uranus and Jupiter) spin the other direction, or even on a different axis?

And don't try to tell me that the planet was hit by an asteroid or something like that, because if the Big Band was just an explosion, the entire universe would be a ring of ever-thinning material, not planets in every direction.

Please explain to me how this is 'Scientific fact'. I really want to know, because if it is, this is no science I know of.


EDIT -
Please stop double and triple posting, or I'll sic the Grammar Police on you.


--------------------

It was like that when I got here.

Check Out My Portfolio!
-Remy LeBeau
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carnal Malefacto...
post Mar 12 2005, 06:21 PM
Post #73


Gallery Mod Emeritus
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 11,000
Joined: 24-August 04
From: In your daughter's bedroom, chanting lines from the Necrololicon
Member No.: 526
Gender: Male



The albino thing is common sense. Albinism is rare to begin with, and when there's only a chance that when two people that carry the recessive gene mate produce an albino child, and just as good a chance that the child won't carry the gene at all, and the other half of the children not exhibiting albinoid features, of course the numbers are going to shrink, because the odds of the gene being bred out of existence within a single bloodline is much better than it burgeoning, because you're VERY unlikely to see two albinos have a child together. Just think about it from a mathematical perspective.

And don't accuse me of offering 'shady explanations', because what I posted came straight out of an encyclopedia. There's nothing at all shady about it.

As for the origin of the universe... the lifespan of the universe is, to put it simply, eternity. What happens beyond that eternity, both before and after, there's really no way of knowing. I consider the origin of the universe an entirely separate issue from the origin of mankind. And there's no possible answer for it, because no matter what route you take to explain it, a question of causation remains. If you ask, 'where did the matter that existed before the 'Big Bang' come from?', you should also ask, 'If God created the universe, where did God come from?'

You're asking questions that you yourselves can't answer. The same is true of all religious apologists.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ἀρχή
post Mar 12 2005, 06:53 PM
Post #74


State Alchemist (Colonel)
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,775
Joined: 4-December 04
From: Somewhere new that makes me better than you
Member No.: 3,228
Gender: Male



This is getting a bit more off point at times. As far as evolution itself is concerned, it doesn't matter whether there is a god or not. What matters is whether God created all living creatures as they are without evolutionary change.

There is anecdotal/paleontological (sp?) evidence that suggests that there were changes in species. For instance, simple similarities between species makes it seem plausible. It may be inconsistent with other scientific concepts, but this is typical of scientific thinking anyway. Not all of it has to gel right away. So, to constantly argue the scientific impossibility of it is really meaningless.

Science changes as time goes on. In another 100 to 500 years, new laws or more comprehensive laws will be understood that will make these laws you use now meaningless. So using science only hurts your cause as you will have to concede that there is a possibility of the arguments you use as becoming obsolete.

Thus, the argument should be framed as to the status of the theory. Is it a testable theory or not? Can it defeat experiments that are designed to prove it wrong? Are there experiments possible to actually test it at all? This is the true weakness of evolutionary theory. It's not even appropriate to call it a scientific theory, but rather a historical-analytic recreation of species change over time. Basically it's more of a historical issue rather than hard science and is more prone to typical problems of interpretation.

Again, I'm a conservative christian with a fairly conservative theology, but I don't like using science itself as a basis for refuting something like this. It's been shown too many times that previous scientific thought has been wrong by new scientific thought (that's why I don't like Argument by Design very much).

Bacon simply has to say that although there may be more involved than we think, it's still plausible because of the historical evidence we've uncovered. There's a possibility that there is something more comprehensive at work, but we don't know about it yet. For all we know, once every million years the laws of nature change to allow for all this stuff. We still don't know the full consequences of 100% exposure to radiation that's not filtered by magnetics of the earth (the sun spots/flares are still partially filtered and if they weren't, we'd probably be fried sad.gif ).

Call creationism what it is - a theological belief based upon the belief that the verses in the Bible are true and accurate. Science cannot prove theology, it can only assist in showing that it's rational.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Carnal Malefacto...
post Mar 12 2005, 07:28 PM
Post #75


Gallery Mod Emeritus
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 11,000
Joined: 24-August 04
From: In your daughter's bedroom, chanting lines from the Necrololicon
Member No.: 526
Gender: Male



Trying to build an argument for Creationism on a scientific basis is like trying to build a house on quicksand.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

43 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 > » 
Fast ReplyReply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 2nd July 2016 - 02:42 AM



Copyright 2003-2004 PhoenixNetworks, LLC. All rights reserved.
Copyright Notice. Privacy policy. Acceptable Use Policy. Terms of Service.
Page Generation Time: 0.0655 seconds.
Currently Selected Stylesheet: css/default.css