NWR (Not Wedding Related)

advanced search

Religulous type Question

Online Users: 1,240 guest(s), 2 user(s). Replies: 330

hellokitty4ever Posts : 744 Registered: 6/6/07
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 3:35 PM Go to message in response to: MsDenuninani

Quack. Quack. 

Mrs. D, you're right on key!........hey that rhymes!



Photobucket

email friend | report thread
Reply

Tsunami Posts : 17 Registered: 10/13/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 5:06 PM Go to message in response to: hellokitty4ever

Hm... I think "Church of Idunno" flows off the tongue better. XD Thanks everyone for lightening the mood. This thread definitely needed it. :D

MsD, thank you for the compliment. _ You stated what I was trying to say quite well, so I won't talk more on the subject.

SocalGal, and interesting idea indeed. I don't want to drag on ya, so please don't take my criticism of it personally. I'm just inspecting the idea from my viewpoint. ;) From what I recall, it is widely accepted that prehistoric Earth did have more free atmospheric oxygen. Oxygen levels do have a very direct effect on how large insects can become, due to their unique respiratory system (their bodies are filled with hollow tubes that lead directly from the outside to the organs--no lungs, no oxygen in the blood! So weird...). However, I trust my entomology professor and his fellow taxonomists if he says that fossilized dragonflies are of a different species from modern dragonflies. So, I can accept that species may have had to adapt to changing atmospheric levels, but I personally think they adapted through evolution. Some, like crocodiles, required so little adaptation that they didn't need to evolve into separate species. Others, such as dragonflies, underwent slightly more significant changes and actually evolved into new species. I do not feel that the main spirit of this idea contradicts evolution.

On the good-theory-bad-theory debate... Theories are somewhat "innocent until proven guilty". If they continue to be supported by facts (that is, they continue to make predictions that are shown to be correct by testing or observation), they continue to be accepted. If their predictions are proven wrong, they may be abandoned. So far the evolution theory has not been proven wrong--predictions about similar features in different species and microevolution continue to be correct. The fact that the "prediction" of macroevolution has not yet been proven does not mean it has been disproven. 

I think Wikipedia (not always the best source of info I know lol but oh well) has a pretty good explanation of scientific theories too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory.

email friend | report thread
Reply

ciscokid Posts : 119 Registered: 8/8/07
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 6:33 PM Go to message in response to: MsDenuninani

We do not assume extrapolations are true unless we have evidence for them. You talked about giving medications to different people. And yet even medications cannot be given until extensive testing is done and evidence is gathered, with reference to both safety and efficacy. We often assume that if a medication works in animals, then it will work in humans. Sometimes this is true. Sometimes it is not. If we could automatically assume that we could make extrapolations, then we would see if a medication worked in animals, then immediately give it to humans to treat the disease state.

And yet this is now how things are done. Medications are tested in animals, then in healthy individuals, then in a few individuals, and then in more individuals before they can be marketed to a disease state. Before we can give a medication to Beth or Ana, that medication has had extensive evidence gathered to support its use. And yet the theory of evolution lacks this evidence.

With the theory of gravity, we did lots of research before we went to the moon to support our theory that gravity existed there as well as here, to prove that extrapolation. We sent nonmanned expeditions, gathered information, and did lots of testing. That extrapolation was researched and the evidence supported it. Evolution simply lacks this evidence.

If the amount of transition that would have had to occur if evolution were true had actually happened, we would have lots of transitional fossils - probably at least as many of those as we do of fossils of recognized species, since the adaptations were so slow and occurred over millions of years. And yet we lack them.

My understanding of science is that you make an extrapolation and then look for evidence to support it. If there is no evidence to support it, then you probably scrap it. If there is only a little evidence to support it (such as a small-scale observation), you certainly don't make it the center of your understanding of what you have observed. Especially when so many things argue against it:

1. The "Cambrian" explosion - an incredible number of living organisms are found during this time, fully formed and fully functional. Prior to this presence, we have no transitional forms or other evidence for evolutionary ancestors. Evolution would necessitate that these recognizable species had some predecessor. I'm not talking about the origin of life here. But evolution states that it occurs over a long period of time with small adaptations. If this is so, where did all of these creatures "magically" appear from?

2. Irreducible complexity of living organisms - some species, like the bombardier beetle, could not have "transitioned." It's just not possible. You have a normal beetle. If it doesn't immediately develop the capability for that explosion (small though it is) to work perfectly the first time, it dies. Thus its contribution is lost in the gene pool. That couldn't have been the result of numerous small changes. Any in-between would kill the organism

3. Sexual reproduction - this type of reproduction is much more complex, much more energy consuming, and much less efficient than asexual reproduction. Completely ignoring the fact that it would be impossible that two organisms would develop the capability of sexual reproduction at the same time, it proves no benefit to the creature (by a survival standpoint) to reproduce sexually. The purpose of natural selection, on which evolution is based, emphasizes selection for traits that enhance survival. Not only does sexual reproduction not enhance survival, it enhances the susceptibility of organisms to their environment, particularly the female. And yet most of the organisms we encounter on a daily basis (excluding bacteria and such) produce sexually. Evolution cannot explain the development of sexual reproduction.

If human error did occur in humans' reception of the Bible as dictated by God (which I don't believe), then how can we find no scientific inaccuracies in the Bible (or historic inaccuracies, or any other kind of inaccuracies)? How is it that a Book written over thousands of years, with dozens of authors, does not make any mistakes? That also, as I stated earlier, just does not add up.

 



email friend | report thread
Reply

Tsunami Posts : 17 Registered: 10/13/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 6:58 PM Go to message in response to: ciscokid

1. There are some situations in which adaptive radiation, followed by evolution, can occur quickly, such as when species enter into an uninhabited area or with species that reproduce rapidly. There are many different theories as to what happened during the Cambrian Explosion (because it is not certain what happened yet) most of which do not suggest evolution was not involved. 

2.  Irreducible complexity has been disproven through computer models that show it is possible for species to form complex structures. The person who developed this theory has never tested it.

3. The existence of sexual reproduction is a huge support for evolution. As you pointed out, it wastes a lot of time and effort, so why bother? The answer is it allows for adaptation to the environment at a much more rapid pace than asexual reproduction, in which species can only change through mutation (which usually occurs at a very slow rate).

If I remember correctly, this entire thread was started because the story of Noah shoving 2 of every species currently existing on a boat which later gave rise to viable populations of  species with none of the deleterious affects of inbreeding was one of the scientific inaccuracies of the Bible. The fact that the Bible involves and sort of supernatural being at all makes it unscientific.

email friend | report thread
Reply


LittleRoo Posts : 1,054 Registered: 2/17/07
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 7:34 PM Go to message in response to: MisterKelley

"You're wrong!!!! humans were created froam a mixture of Unicorns and rainbows and put on this earth by Santa Claus, and assisted by the Easter Bunny. "

MK--what about the Holiday Armadillo??


We've been married a year!!!!

 

email friend | report thread
Reply

Tsunami Posts : 17 Registered: 10/13/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 8:48 PM Go to message in response to: LittleRoo

Y'know Ciscokid, LittleRoo is right! It makes perfect sense. Unicorns and rainbows, I see it now. XD

In serious though, let's stop this. I believe that evolution is a scientific fact supported by substantial evidence, and you do not. I very much doubt that either of us is going to change the other's beliefs. I also have a lot of stuff to do besides making lengthy posts in an seemingly endless debate, as I am sure you do as well. So let's leave it at that--LittleRoo wins :)

email friend | report thread
Reply


CatStandish Posts : 2,767 Registered: 6/20/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 9:25 PM Go to message in response to: Tsunami

Arrrr the world was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.    From the text:  He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease."

Arrrr and if ye wonder why I be talking like a pirate, it is because it is forbidden to be teaching of the Flying Spaghetti Monster unless one be dressed as a pirate.  I'm in my pjs, so I'm talking like a pirate to compensate for my blasphemy.

Pirates are the chosen ones of the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- as evidenced by the increase in global warming as they have decreased in numbers.  Our faithful Somalian pirates are trying to reduce the effects of global warming by their recent activities -- but we know it is going to take a lot more than that.

So dress like a PIRATE on your wedding day and save the world!!

 


Misty

wedding countdown

Visit our Wedding Website

email friend | report thread
Reply

ciscokid Posts : 119 Registered: 8/8/07
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 10:03 PM Go to message in response to: Tsunami

I understand that I am not going to change your beliefs. I do regret that, but the beauty of living in America and other free countries is that neither of us is forced to believe anything.

However, thank you for an intelligent conversation. You did not, at any time, talk down to me or insinuate that I was an idiot. I appreciate that. It is somewhat refreshing to have a conversation about this topic with someone who can state their position without assuming that anyone who does not believe the same thing that they do is innately a bad person and that they should automatically change their beliefs just because "I say so." Others on this board have not been so reasonable. If we cannot agree, at least we can be respectful of each other.

I do have other important things. My grandfather passed away this morning in the early hours, so I'm afraid my heart lies in other areas now.



email friend | report thread
Reply

hellokitty4ever Posts : 744 Registered: 6/6/07
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 10:12 PM Go to message in response to: ciscokid

Cisco, sorry to hear of your grandfather's passing.  Like I said before, I have really enjoyed reading all the discourse.  Hugs to you.


Photobucket

email friend | report thread
Reply

Tsunami Posts : 17 Registered: 10/13/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 10:33 PM Go to message in response to: ciscokid

I am glad to hear that you enjoyed our discussion. I felt it was quite a good practice in debate, as well as a sort of research project, since I tried to always check my facts before making a post.

I am sorry to hear about your grandfather, however. I hope you manage to somehow find comfort during such a time.

email friend | report thread
Reply


CatStandish Posts : 2,767 Registered: 6/20/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 10:41 PM Go to message in response to: ciscokid

I am also sorry to hear about your grandfather.  I'll send warm wishes to you and your family.

Misty

wedding countdown

Visit our Wedding Website

email friend | report thread
Reply

ciscokid Posts : 119 Registered: 8/8/07
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 10, 2008 11:01 PM Go to message in response to: CatStandish

Thanks to everyone for your concern. Although it was somewhat expected due to the fact that he was very sick for a very long time, it is always difficult to lose a family member.

email friend | report thread
Reply


MisterKelley Posts : 258 Registered: 7/11/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 11, 2008 12:03 AM Go to message in response to: ciscokid

Just FYI, the coccyx, although purported by many to be unnecessary remnants of a tail, supports the muscles that keep you from pooping in your pants. Now, if you don't like yours, I'm sure we can see about having it removed ;-).

Cisco, I never said that there was not a FUNCTION of the Coccyx, I said that it's the remants of a tail. What I find absolutely hysterical is that lots of people (including you) call this a work of fiction, call Bulls**t on things like this and yet swear up and down that some guy got swallowed by a big fish and lived inside it for 3 days. How can I take a story like that seriously?

QUOTE- You stated that if we wrote a book now based on what we know, then people 1000 years from now wouldn't believe our ignorance. And yet the scientific statements that the Bible makes are not ignorant. In fact, some of the statements that are made were not known when the Bible was written, and have only lately been discovered to be true:- END QUOTE

WHat I said was the only way people 1000 years from now would laugh at our writing of the bible, is if it was written in such a way that is so ambiguous that they can't be absolutely sure as to it's meaning.

Leviticus 17:11 - For the life of the flesh is in the blood.

Obviously, they didn't know how important blood was back then. Only a few hundred years ago, we were still "bleeding" people to try to cure them when they were sick. And yet scientists aren't laughing at Moses' ignorance.

So what you want me to believe is that a race of people who invented Astronomy, Calculus, Democracy, Eginneered stuctures that still stand over 2000 years later, Created the modern system of banking.The same people who not only built the great pyramids but also placed them in the EXACT SAME POSITION as the 3 stars in belt of the Constellation Orion, didn't understand how important blood was?  Trust me Cisco, cavemen found out pretty quickly how important blood was, just ask the family of the unfortunate caveman that got half eatten by a Velocoraptor. no blood = no life for the flesh.

And the Bible cannot be twisted into whatever a man or a religion wants it to be. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That's pretty concrete. "I am the Lord. I change not." That's pretty concrete.

The bible can and is twisted into whatever a man or religeon wants it to be. - Jim Jones, did this, David Koresh did this, Charles Manson did this, Heaven's Gate did this, Earnest Angley actually used to put on a BS act that he could cure and heal people because he was anointed by god and people believed it. Now, here's something interesting- Born again christians are always saying how they're ready when the Rapture comes. Ready to assend into heaven and sit beside god. Well Jehoviahs Witnesses believe that only the 144,400 souls mentioned in the book of Revelations make it to heaven. Everyone else is stuck down here on good old Planet Earth.How many of those do you suppose are Christians? and if all of them are christians, I have a pretty good feeling that 144,400 people have become born again long before 2008. So you have to believe that Jehovah's WItnesses are wrong and that they interpreted the bible incorrectly. which brings me to my final point (finally)

Some of the passages of the Bible (not all) were written from visions and are not literal (as you well know). Do you refuse the worth of every work of literature that is allegorical or otherwise not literal?

Of course I don't. But I don't need to rely on the "Little Engine that Could" or Shakespear to save my soul. If my soul depends on believing in and living by the words of the Bible to have any hope of everlasting life, then I have the right to hold the authors to a highest standard, I hold them responsible to ensure that I understand exactly what God intends.

Driving that train, High on Cocaine, Misterkelley better watch your speed.

MisterKelley - Now specializing in Trainwrecks and Jackassery

email friend | report thread
Reply

ciscokid Posts : 119 Registered: 8/8/07
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 11, 2008 12:09 AM Go to message in response to: MisterKelley

MisterKelley, as I stated above, I have just lost my grandfather and right now, quite frankly, have neither the time nor the energy to argue with you. I apologize for denying you the satisfaction.

Other people seem to understand this concept and have actually given me their sympathies.

Good night, Mister Kelley (BTW, if you are MisterKelley, what exactly are you doing on a brides website anyway?).



email friend | report thread
Reply


MisterKelley Posts : 258 Registered: 7/11/08
Re: Religulous type Question
Posted: Nov 11, 2008 12:20 AM Go to message in response to: ciscokid

I'm sorry about your Grandfather, I just found out last week that my father passed away. I deal with death and dying all the time. (EMT you know). And I'm on a brides website because it's fun to post where my wife enjoys posting. You can find me on Harmony Central too as well as about 5 other Music message boards and Tennis Wherehouse.

MisterKelley - Now specializing in Trainwrecks and Jackassery

email friend | report thread
Reply
RSS

Join

Email

App

App

WIN

Give a Subscription to Brides Magazine as a Gift

Find Local Vendors

From Florists to Photographers...

are you a vendor? Click Here

Find your BRIDES wedding website below

Subscribe to Brides magazine