|
Creation vs Evolution (pg. 31)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Wow … just wow. |
My sentiments exactly. I'm almost speechless at his utter stupidity. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
My sentiments exactly. I'm almost speechless at his utter stupidity. |
I was trying to be nice about it, but yeah. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Well Torontotrance's "challenge" wasn't that the bible still retained some legitimacy though passed down through thousands of years, compiled by difference sources, etc., etc., etc., his challenge was to prove that the bible had no contradictions, was literally true in every respect, and was the direct word of God therefore nothing about it could be disputed. ;)
|
Sorry occ, I should have read back further in the thread to see that.
The Torah is claimed to be the direct word of God, but I didn't know that anyone would claim the Bible to be. If it were I'm sure that there wouldn't be Apocryphal texts such as The Book of Enoch, The Odes of Solomon, The Gosphel of Mary, etc.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/ |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Sorry occ, I should have read back further in the thread to see that.
|
It's an easy thing to miss considering it was all the way back on page 15. It was quite a challenge I must admit ... here it is in a nutshell:
| quote: | | I dare any of you anti religious people to read the entire bible from Genesis to Revelation, jot down every single "supposed error" you find then come back to me and I'll be happy to cover every single point with you. I put that as a challenge to you anti christians or anti creationists. As I've stated before, no one has ever taken me up on my offer and I don't think that will change. The Bible stands for itself anyway, it does not need my input to prove it. The Bible stands for itself and it's reliability is unmatched by any other written work in history. So there is my challenge, I doubt any of you will actually bother taking me up on my offer, it seems to me that most anti religious people talk a good game but when you dare them to do something to back their opinion up by reading the Bible and trying to find all the errors then coming back to me. Surely one of you might actually attempt it, I don't think any of you have the balls nor do I think you would find an error, but as I said the Bible speaks for itself and the historical finds have backed up it's version of history. |
I started to get all giddy thinking about the volumes of dirt I was going to bring up ... unfortunately I decided to test the waters with only one contradiction (and admittedly it's probably a minor transcription error, but it still confronts his challenge and it's fairly irrefutable) and I never heard back since. Hence my disappointment in the "challenge" after such hypocritical bluster :(. |
|
|
| quddha |
| quote: | Originally posted by Urbanmessiah
Evolution are weak genes being kicked out of the body by stronger genes, through hard work, so the person evolves gaining stronger genes. Humans adapt to harsher conditions thus evolving.
|
Bahahahahahahahahahahha.
Its so sad how so many people (even those who believe in evolution) don't even know what it really is and how it works. Especially when it's so simple. Darwin himself never wanted to use the term "evolution" because it implied that things were getting progressively better. But natural selection had no "ultimate-goal". No such thing as superior and inferior.
1.) Populations of organisms increase exponentially.
2.) But this is not reflected in the population size which remains relatively stable.
3.) This is due to limited resources.
4.) Therefore there must be a struggle for these resources.
5.) There are many unique individuals within a population, and there is an inheritance of characteristics (fat parents have fat babies, chinese parents have chinese babies)
6.) Therefore the characteristics of those who successfully reproduce are passed on to the next generation.
7.) After time, when these happens over and over again, these successful characteristics will increase inside the population because they're being selected for. (The hairy elephant is more successful at reproducing during the Ice Age, so eventually after many generations, you have Woolly Mammoths. Not a 'better' elephant, just one adapted to the current conditions) If there was a force in nature that said only humans over 6ft tall can have babies, then after a long amount of time, humans will evolve to be taller.
New characteristics are introduced into the population through mutations, we now know in DNA. Most are bad, or have no effect. But sometimes, they might be beneficial, and help those who have it outcompete those who don't have it.
This is basically how natural selection works. It makes so much sense that Darwin and Wallace came up with it at the same time, without knowing anything about genes or DNA. Discovery of genetics only further supported this model.
This explains why there are lemurs in Madagascar, or weird animals in Australia, or birds all over the world but only specific birds in specific locations. The easy way out would be to say "because God made it that way." If that was our way of thinking for most of science, we'd never understand anything. Why is the sky blue? "just accept it, God made it that way."
Humans have big egos, and think we're too great to have come from such a simple process. But in reality, we're just as successful in reproducing, and maybe even worse than the cockaroach. Why does Natural Selection have so much controversy when it makes so much sense, and there's plenty of supporting evidence? I figure there'd be more debate over something abstract like the theory of relativity. But I guess that doesn't threaten Man's "superiority" over other organisms. |
|
|
| Urbanmessiah |
"The strong survive" have you never heard of that saying or something?
Natural seletion is the "strongest survive" Survive till breeding age therefor they reproduce their stronger genes. Tell me how why did humans evolve? Offspring don't just take looks from their parents, they take intellegence fat everything.
Are you trying to say that by breeding more and more and overpopulating the earth, that we are somehow evolving? The "harsher conditions" cause more of the weak to be phased out of reproduction.
Your point number 6 is exactly what I'm saying I don't know where you are coming from here. Your point 6 is the exact same argument as mine that you have quoted. OH MY GOD! I think we may just misunderstsand each other and may agree come to think of it. My arguments seem to be tying into what your saying. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Urbanmessiah
"The strong survive" have you never heard of that saying or something?
Natural seletion is the "strongest survive" Survive till breeding age therefor they reproduce their stronger genes. Tell me how why did humans evolve? Offspring don't just take looks from their parents, they take intellegence fat everything.
Are you trying to say that by breeding more and more and overpopulating the earth, that we are somehow evolving? The "harsher conditions" cause more of the weak to be phased out of reproduction.
Your point number 6 is exactly what I'm saying I don't know where you are coming from here. Your point 6 is the exact same argument as mine that you have quoted. OH MY GOD! I think we may just misunderstsand each other and may agree come to think of it. My arguments seem to be tying into what your saying. |
His point number 6 is pretty much the basic principle of evolution. But the difference between you and other people is that from that point on you somehow manage to draw conclusions about communism and nazis. But I believe his main point was to say that evolution is not "weak genes being kicked out of the body by stronger genes".
Anyway, while I do agree that giving people with genetic defects a previously unexistant possibility of reproducing is ulitmately harming human gene pool, I don't think that situation will go on indefinitely, considering that we are practically on the verge of being able to manipulate our own genes, and therefore repair all the damage that's been done. |
|
|
| quddha |
| quote: | Originally posted by Urbanmessiah
"The strong survive" have you never heard of that saying or something?
Natural seletion is the "strongest survive" Survive till breeding age therefor they reproduce their stronger genes. Tell me how why did humans evolve? Offspring don't just take looks from their parents, they take intellegence fat everything.
Are you trying to say that by breeding more and more and overpopulating the earth, that we are somehow evolving? The "harsher conditions" cause more of the weak to be phased out of reproduction.
Your point number 6 is exactly what I'm saying I don't know where you are coming from here. Your point 6 is the exact same argument as mine that you have quoted. OH MY GOD! I think we may just misunderstsand each other and may agree come to think of it. My arguments seem to be tying into what your saying. |
Do you mean "survival of the fittest?" First of all, that was NOT something written by Darwin or Wallace, but by Herbert Spencer (who was a popular writer, but a misunderstood the whole theory of natural selection). That saying has nothing to do with organic evolution.
Fitness in terms of biology means the ability of an organism to reproduce and make viable offspring. It has nothing to do with intelligence of physical strength. In all my biology courses that dealt with evolution, this point has been emphasized.
Let me give an example. Michael Jordan, or Bill Gates. Strong, highly successful, rich, powerful people. Then you have my uncle, weak frail man who passed away recently from lung cancer. Who is more fit? Well, my uncle had 7 children, all who are grown up and have children of their own. So he has successfully passed on his genes to the next generations. Can we say the same about Jordan or Gates?
Tell me, what then do you consider strong genes and what do you consider weak genes? Physical Strength? Weak scrawny people pass their genes on just as well as strong people. Intelligence? Dumb uneducated people have lots of kids too.
Do we have "stronger" genes than cockaroaches? No, we both survive equally well, and maybe they are even better than us at reproducing. So really, there is no such thing as "stronger" genes, because it all depends on the pressures imposed by the environment.
For example, a fat light skinned person will have strong genes for arctic weather with little sun-light, while a skinny dark-skinned person will have strong genes for heavy-sunlight and hot conditions. Or a woolly mammoth during the ice age, and a modern elephant in africa.
So to summarize, there is no such thing as a universally "strong" or "weak" gene. Remember, an important point in evolution is that organisms don't get "better" as they evolve. They just change with the times.
In today's times, things like intelligence, physical strength, skin colour, are probably all NEUTRAL genes. In that they don't make a big difference in your fitness. An evolutionist would look at this and say that our environment (including society etc.) doesn't select against dumb people or scrawny people. So what? Evolution just happens, it doesn't happen for reason.
Social Darwinists on the other hand think this is bad, and think that we should alter society to favour those who are physically stronger and more intelligent (what they would consider "good" genes). What for though? In our present conditions, this doesn't make us any more fit to reproduce.
| quote: | | You Evolutionists are all a bunch of Social Darwinist racists. Who think that blacks arn't evovled because they look like monkeys. Maybe your views were accepted in Classical time but welcome to modern time and your rascist views are no longer accepted. |
This is particularly offensive. In none of my biology courses have we ever discussed "race". We did touch on it in Anthropology, where it was taught that there is no such thing as race. (you will find white people who are darker than some black people etc. there is no clear cut definition). Most evolutionists make it a point that it has nothing to do with Social Darwinism, which is a false and outdated theory that incorrectly used evolution as evidence.
In fact, most evolutionists would probably think that the mixing of individuals with diverse genetic makeup would probably produce healthier offspring than have people breeding with others of similar genes. Like how mutts are usually healthier than pure-breds.
Please, you do not understsand biological evolution, and you've mixed it up with Social Darwinism. It is obvious you've never taken a course on evolution before, I'm curious to where you've been taught this nonsense? |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by quddha
Please, you do not understsand biological evolution, and you've mixed it up with Social Darwinism. It is obvious you've never taken a course on evolution before, I'm curious to where you've been taught this nonsense? |
Creationists genetically predisposed to stupidity. :clown: Seriously, they are people who are seeking comfort from a simplistic view of the world (same kind of appeal Bush has). If I can't see it or it doesn't make sense to me then it must be hog wash. |
|
|
| Urbanmessiah |
"fitness in terms of biology means the ability of an organism to reporduce and make viable offspring" "it has nothing to do with intelligence and physical strength".
Oh after reading this second paragraph I'm not even going to read that freakin page that you wrote.
Take a look at that qoute you said. Just think about it common sense imagine your a cave man or something, that quote is malarky.
Intelligence and strenght have everything to do with finding the best mate and surviving till breeding age. |
|
|
| quddha |
| quote: | Originally posted by Urbanmessiah
"fitness in terms of biology means the ability of an organism to reporduce and make viable offspring" "it has nothing to do with intelligence and physical strength".
Oh after reading this second paragraph I'm not even going to read that freakin page that you wrote.
Take a look at that qoute you said. Just think about it common sense imagine your a cave man or something, that quote is malarky.
Intelligence and strenght have everything to do with finding the best mate and surviving till breeding age. |
Whatever, stay ignorant. You choose to be stupid thats not my problem, I've tried to explain it to you, but you refuse to learn.
If you would've read the rest of my message, you would've seen how i explained my point. I know plenty of weak and dumb people who have large families, while lots of intelligent and strong ones who have no kids at all. Maybe intelligence and strength did have a factor in ancient times, but the pressures of natural selection are always changing (a concept you can't seem to grasp). In our world, intelligence and strength has little to do with genetic fitness. If you think you're gonna have more kids than me just because you can benchpress more, you're an idiot.
The fact is, i am not a caveman. So i don't need to be strong or very intelligent to have kids. Maybe you're a caveman, i dunno. |
|
|
| Seventil |
Haha...
Leave for a month...
Oh my.
Well, I don't know where to begin. What's up, guys? Heh. |
|
|
|
|
