C'jais Posted November 22, 2002 Author Share Posted November 22, 2002 *Calls in C'Jais to back claims* Wha? Who summoned me? Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider I find a single celled animal coming from a bunch of goo, know how to survive and maintain itself from death, know how to create more single cell animals, turn into a multi-celled animal, and do this with out any help what so ever to be unlogical. Also that the DNA code which is one of the biggest code ever known came about by 15 billion of years of error. And untill one of the following is done by random chance I will not even start to believe darwinist. Boeing 767 etc... The boeing 747 argument is bad - it'd be like me requiring a direct divine intervention, right now. Besides, you cannot compare how long it took for the first nucleic acids to appear, to a boeing 747 (which is endlessly more complicated) being created in junk yards. For the first cells to appear took a hideously long time, maybe even more than one universe's lifetime. By "15 billion years of error", I assume you mean mutations. Mutations are not errors, they are changes. Natural changes even. On another note, some mutations won't even change anything - it'll result in a switch from one aminoacid to another, but this switch needn't be vital, since they can code for the same thing. Also, saying that mutated creatures are sterile, isn't true at all. In the first cells on earth, there wasn't any DNA in them - there were RNA (as in some virii). RNA can replicate itself, it can be made bigger, and it can have an enzyme like function. Given time, a short RNA string could produce a short protein string, which would help immensely in cell creation. Don't jump to cells at the first stage, "life" started out as reproducable RNA strings which is created by C, H, N, O and P. Nothing else. DNA code as you know it has evolved tremendously, it can now code for 50.000 different proteins, but the first life didn't even need to code for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 23, 2002 Share Posted November 23, 2002 And you know that the first cell was not complex how? I'll try to keep that in mind. The messages that you refer to, however, are replies to different posts. [/Quote] You can still do that in one post. Just take a look at Redwing's post whereas that has so far been absent from creationis/[/Quote] Both sides have people that are unlogical. I even get on Christain's cases for useing the kind wrong argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 23, 2002 Author Share Posted November 23, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider And you know that the first cell was not complex how? You can still do that in one post. Just take a look at Redwing's post Regarding cells, they were nearly not as complex as our eurkaryote's are today, and they evolved from something very simple. Redwing's posts are very tiresome to respond to, since you have to edit the whole thing before you can reply to him. I'd appreciate it if he didn't divide other people's posts up like that, IMHO. The reason that Evolution, and not Creationism, should be teached at school is that evolution can be proved. Creationism is based on beliefs - we could also teach voodoo magic to people studying medicine, but I'm sure you wouldn't want that. Or maybe put some aboriginal shamanistic religion into the mix while we're at it. We should not start mixing religion with science - if people go and get an interest in that stuff afterwards, fine with me, but let's give them a neutral starting point at first. All the time, you have to remind yourself that Christianity is a religion, not the religion - when you do that, your views will truly be open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 23, 2002 Share Posted November 23, 2002 Originally posted by Cjais Regarding cells, they were nearly not as complex as our eurkaryote's are today, and they evolved from something very simple. You still did not anwser my question. How do you know they were not as complex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted November 23, 2002 Share Posted November 23, 2002 *walks in* *chokes* so...much...to...reply...to... x.x Is it just me, or is this whole debate unfairly weighted on this forum? Considering the number of people on each side... Cheap shot yes, but it does raise an interesting pont: In the bible, God is personified several places - Ezekiel (I think) sees God himself, God moves over the face of the waters, "God sees me", Adam and Eve hides from God and God has human traits. Why is God portrayed as a man, when he clearly can only exist as some supernatural "force"? Do you Christians believe in him as a person, or as a force of nature? A person, of course. God is clearly not a man. He made man. If he did indeed create everything, he must have some sort of motive - whether or not we understand it is irrelevant. What will God do when mankind no longer exists, or has developed into a race we cannot even imagine? What role did we then play in God's grand scheme of things? According to the Bible, that won't happen. Our souls will exist eternally, while this world along with our human bodies will eventually come to an end. We won't have the chance to develop into something else. What we are discussing here is TRANSLATED texts that make up the current accepted version, King James, is believed to be the most accurately translated version. There are more than one version of the Bible, all coming from the same text, which one is more believable than others? It's NOT. Not even the King James version is completely accurately translated, which really bugs me. But that's another debate entirely. To me that just makes me think that they can't even get the translation correct, but are willing to say that this version is the correct one. I assume that unless you can read Hebrew, then there is an English slant on the text, that due to the way the Bible was written and how English is structured, that it may not be giving the message as it was delivered............. They can get it almost correct. You realize there are people who read Hebrew and Greek, right? (However, with too many translations, they didn't DO IT CORRECTLY but again that's a different subject and doesn't generally apply to the texts being discussed here) We're discussing God in this thread too, it's the same topic - disprove God and you disprove creationism. But I shall let it rest for the sake of peace. You can't disprove God, and I'm willing to stake everything on that. In fact, I already have ^.^ Se my above post on Neanthertals and realise that being different species means being incapable of interbreeding (not inbreeding, that's different). If creation theory is correct, they weren't a different species (the idea that they could interbreed is supported by scientists on the evolutionary side, too - that's where I heard about it) If all geological layers were found in the same place in the correct order, it would be well and truely incredible. The geological layers are upside-down because of tectonic activity. The time at which the layers were made can be identified be combining the order of the layers, fossile records, polar turns ect. in a HUGE (understatement of the year) puzzle. Without completely accurate dating, you simply delve into circular reasoning. Besides, an immense flood could have created the layers. The problem is, we have to disprove God, and they have to prove him. If creationists start to disprove science as a whole or evolution which belongs to science it starts to get "murky". Can't, and can't. I'm not trying to prove God exists, notice. -Transitional fossiles have been found. You don't understand - the argument is that no "mistakes" have been found. I won't explain more because I dont support the argument anyway ^_~ -Evolution has been proven to occur, even in our short timespan as humans. I don't disagree, although I'm surprised to hear that [are you sure about it?] -The chance that life could have spawned from amino acids or life was seeded from outer space in form those very same amino acids or backteria is not impossible, and very plausible. But where did they, the "seeds", come from? -You cannot simply take a fluctuating or non-steady variable and then extrapolate it backwards and assume it holds true. True. -It is pointless to question what happened before the Big Bang, or created it, since time or the laws of physics did not exist before then - it would be like questioning who created God. Except according to creation theory, God was not created. Really though, that's an incredibly arbitrary statement. And it blurs the line very rapidly in this argument; if you appeal to the existence of something else that created the Big Bang, why are you arguing that God doesn't exist in the first place? -meep! I can't finish this. I have to leave. ^^;; *posts and runs* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rad Posted November 23, 2002 Share Posted November 23, 2002 I do not have much tine, so I will only make a short post: quote: Se my above post on Neanthertals and realise that being different species means being incapable of interbreeding (not inbreeding, that's different). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If creation theory is correct, they weren't a different species (the idea that they could interbreed is supported by scientists on the evolutionary side, too - that's where I heard about it) I think I should just specify what a species is. In order to fulfil the requirements to be a species, then you have to be able to produce fertive offspring. For example, you can make a lion and a tiger have sex, but the offspring would be sterile and not capable to have "children" thenselves. Or you could say that every species can be grandparents. And Homo Sapiens Sapiens (us) is a different species than Neanthertals and Homo Erectus and other extingt humanlike beings. That is the newest science I known concerning especially that topic, but of course you can be right in: the idea that they could interbreed is supported by scientists on the evolutionary side, too - that's where I heard about it But I do not think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 23, 2002 Author Share Posted November 23, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider You still did not anwser my question. How do you know they were not as complex? What do you mean with complex? They certainly weren't as complex as our cells are today, not by a long shot. You assume the first life on earth just popped up in shape of a fully functional cell. It evovled from building blocks of life, much more simple and created from elements that were already present on the old earth: H, O, N, C, S, P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 23, 2002 Author Share Posted November 23, 2002 Originally posted by Redwing (A)According to the Bible, that won't happen. Our souls will exist eternally, while this world along with our human bodies will eventually come to an end. We won't have the chance to develop into something else. (B)You can't disprove God, and I'm willing to stake everything on that. In fact, I already have ^.^ ©Without completely accurate dating, you simply delve into circular reasoning. Besides, an immense flood could have created the layers. (B) Can't, and can't. I'm not trying to prove God exists, notice. (D)You don't understand - the argument is that no "mistakes" have been found. I won't explain more because I dont support the argument anyway ^_~ (E)I don't disagree, although I'm surprised to hear that [are you sure about it?] (F)But where did they, the "seeds", come from? (A)Regarding the old doomsday argument, I'll keep that in mind for future reference. We already are developing into something else - we're getting taller, losing body hair, our brain is improving, and if we eventually go to live in outer space our bodies will shape and evolve to fit that: extra lungs, our feet evolving to be as manipulative as our hands since we won't need them for walking, tougher skin to adapt to low pressure, and our nose and mouth will loser their function as breathing mechanisms. Eventually, our future race will appear as superhumans compared to us. (B)While you can't disprove God, you can prove he hasn't made any divine intervention yet, therefore he can be ruled out. If he hasn't done anything yet, then why do we need him? He must be irrelevant. In other words: You can't disprove God, but you can prove we don't need him to to exist, therefore we have no real reason to believe in him. (D)What's a mistake? a mutation? You're assuming that we're developing into a fixed goal, a final race. Mutations aren't errors or mistakes in this, they're simpy changes, because there is no final race that we strive towards. ©See my Great Flood argument and link. If the great flood did happen, all life would have been wiped out, and it would need a Noah's ark to keep it alive. Since Noah's ark is a physical improbabilty in many ways, the flood did not occur. Noah cannot carry the entire world's biosphere on a big boat. Completely accurate dating? While nothing will ever be completely accurate, C-14 test have already shown the world to be at least 50k years old. The light from the stars are millions of years old. (E)Evolution does occur - new bacteria strains are being formed as we speak, bigger races are changing to fit the environment (eg - birds), and we ourselves are changing compared to ancient humans. We've found fossils of the entire evolution of horses and their hooves. In old times, people hought that the hippo was close to a pig - modern genetics have shown it resembles a whale in genes, and a transitional fossil have been found to prove this - basically it was once a whale who got too close to the shore and evolved crude legs to support it. There have been found several dinosaur fossils with feathers, not just one or two. While I do not believe this can be debated in any way, you are free to try. Faith and religion too, can be proved with evolution: Maybe people with a sense of faith and belief that a higher power holds them dear fights better and thus is more able to produce offspring. Maybe a tribe with a belief in religion have a vastly increased sense of community, and it binds the individuals closer together. (F)The seeds you are talking about - elements - were created from the matter released in the Big Bang, electrons and stuff. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_schick/bigbang.html But if we stop, and go no farther, why go so far? Why not stop at the material world? ... By supposing it to contain the principle of its order within itself, we really assert it to be god; and the sooner we arrive at that Divine Being, so much the better. When you go one step beyond the mundane system, you only excite an inquisitive humor, which it is impossible ever to satisfy Take a close look at this- Why do we need some higher power? If God is unemployed, then why do we need to believe in him? What is your belief Redwing? That the bible is the truth to the max? Creationists have a habit of acting like guerrilla soldiers, hiding up in some mountains and sometimes coming down to ask: "Well, how do you explain this frog?", and then they retreat back up. I highly suggest you all read this article: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00002A2D-B02B-1C72-9EB7809EC588F2D7&pageNumber=1&catID=2 It deals with why most creationists use the "God of the gaps" tactic, why Creationism isn't science and why it wouldn't result in proving creationism if evolution was disproved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwing Posted November 23, 2002 Share Posted November 23, 2002 x.x notimeforthisdebatejustgonnareplytolastpost - pleasedon'thateme? Why do I believe in God? Simply, what I have seen in my life convinces me that something has to be controlling it. Also, my belief in God has changed my life. You'll have to leave it at that, because my private life isn't going to be put down here. ^_~ A) We're still completely human. By the way -how do you know our brain is improving? As for the rest, that's as arbitrary as you think the Bible is. ^.^ So get back to me when it comes true B) How can you possibly prove he has or hasn't made any divine intervention? That sounds kinda silly to me. ^^ D) [Whoa! Where's "C"?] Nooooooooooo. I mean, evolutionary changes that didn't produce a viable product. I haven't assumed anything C) [Oh! There it is ^_^] That's why I support evolution. ^_^ Noah would have only had to carry a few examples of the species existing then. The rest of the current biosphere developed - evolved - after the Flood. ^_^ They have? ^.^ Last I heard they'd only proved it to be over 10k. Light from stars could have easily been altered by God. I mean, by definition. ^.^ E) Oh, that. Certain creationists just say that's 'adaption'. Besides, I said I didn't disagree. ^_^ (Although I'm not convinced of some of those details) You forget I'm not disagreeing with evolution. I just think God did more, because he said he did. F) Exactly. That is where all the arguments here become pointless. Technically, God would be an all-powerful alien. Something we cannot understand. Supernature. Because nature is really only what we currently understand. Take a close look at this- Why do we need some higher power? If God is unemployed, then why do we need to believe in him? Umm, what does that have to do with the article? Besides, how can you simply state "God is unemployed" without omnipotence? God cannot be proved through science. Because science is a product of human understanding, if we COULD prove God through science, that would mean he's a product of human understanding! As for the article: I agree with most of it. I will comment on something to clarfy it, though: "Because science rules out supernatural explanations, intelligent-design creationists believe that it promotes philosophical materialism and thus devalues faith." Your previous article just showed (albeit from a biased POV) that science cannot rule out supernatural explanations. Which is why the idea that it does should not be taught in schools. (I don't think creationism should be taught in schools either, mind you.) Oh! Almost forgot! "What is your belief Redwing? That the bible is the truth to the max? Creationists have a habit of acting like guerrilla soldiers, hiding up in some mountains and sometimes coming down to ask: "Well, how do you explain this frog?", and then they retreat back up. " A) Yes. B) ...meh? That isn't my fault. Why don't you ask them? ^_~ edit: Finished reading the article. Certainly there are legal and scientific problems with the teaching of intelligent-design creationism. But perhaps of most concern, it misrepresents science as an inherently antireligious enterprise, and evolution as the first step down this slippery slope. This is no way to improve science literacy in America Hey! I agree. In fact, that's what I was just saying to refute an earlier part of the article. *points up* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted November 23, 2002 Share Posted November 23, 2002 It is impossible to prove anything 100% (exept your own existence), nor can you disprove anything 100%. Everything is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 24, 2002 Share Posted November 24, 2002 How did the single cell animal survive? Tell me that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted November 24, 2002 Share Posted November 24, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider How did the single cell animal survive? Tell me that. I dont know,go ask history! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 24, 2002 Share Posted November 24, 2002 Mutations aren't errors or mistakes in this, they're simpy changes, The type of mutations that produce something completely new(That none of the parents have)occur when there is an error in the DNA code last time I checked. The only mutations I see are Extra fingers or toes Siamese twins Deformed faces Unable to reproduce And many more I fail to see how this helps. And don't give me that wait a million years. There should be changes happening right now. We should be different at least in one way from people 3-4 thousand years ago. You know it would not happen all at once. One last question. If there is no God why do we have to obey the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted November 24, 2002 Share Posted November 24, 2002 Originally posted by Tyrion Then again,there's no way to prove god either,so... Is there any way to prove he doesn't exist? I didn't think so. While you can't disprove God, you can prove he hasn't made any divine intervention yet, therefore he can be ruled out. If he hasn't done anything yet, then why do we need him? He must be irrelevant. In other words: You can't disprove God, but you can prove we don't need him to to exist, therefore we have no real reason to believe in him. Have you noticed nothing? We believe GOD created us, there for making him TOTALLY Relevant. God has done MANY MANY things, your to blind(or) you just dont want to believe it, people see miracles and try to prove them with science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted November 24, 2002 Share Posted November 24, 2002 Originally posted by ZDawg Is there any way to prove he doesn't exist? I didn't think so. Have you noticed nothing? We believe GOD created us, there for making him TOTALLY Relevant. God has done MANY MANY things, your to blind(or) you just dont want to believe it, people see miracles and try to prove them with science. What you may think are miracles maybe are just coincidences... Even notice how a christian say that if someone lives it's a miracle, but when someone dies it's because of god's master plan? Doesnt that undermime the importance of miracles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted November 24, 2002 Share Posted November 24, 2002 One last question. If there is no God why do we have to obey the law? Because if we didn't, the community wouldn't work out. Is there any way to prove he doesn't exist? I didn't think so. We must assume that he doesn't exist until there is reason to belive that he do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 24, 2002 Author Share Posted November 24, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider How did the single cell animal survive? Tell me that. What should kill it? "God of the Gaps" problem: if the direct hand of God explained unknown natural phenomena, once a natural explanation was discovered for it, God was left with one fewer gap to fill, reducing His majesty. Pennock details how intelligent-design creationists zero in on currently unsolved problems, such as the origin of life and the Cambrian explosion of invertebrate phyla, and declare them to be "too complex" to be explained by natural cause, requiring explication by an unnamed "intelligent agent." Theologically, you're still stuck with the God of the Gaps, and scientifically, you're confusing the unexplained with the unexplainable. This is what you do, Raider - you, are confusing the unexplained with the unexplainable. The type of mutations that produce something completely new(That none of the parents have)occur when there is an error in the DNA code last time I checked. I fail to see how this helps. And don't give me that wait a million years. There should be changes happening right now. We should be different at least in one way from people 3-4 thousand years ago. You know it would not happen all at once. One last question. If there is no God why do we have to obey the law? Raider, you are calling it an error in the DNA code, when it is really a change - there are no "errors" in nature, only good or bad changes. You are calling it an error because you think as a human, you assume nature is working towards some set goal or race. And I will tell you to wait a million years, when it comes to human changes. Why? Do you really think a deformed face is going to win over a non-deformed one? No, people are not going to breed with that human, and the mutation will die. What law are you referring to? Are you thinking of some specific law, or law as a whole? If you think of it as a whole, then the answer is: "Because people need laws" - you cannot run a society without laws, and God has absolutely nothing to do with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 24, 2002 Author Share Posted November 24, 2002 Originally posted by ZDawg Have you noticed nothing? We believe GOD created us, there for making him TOTALLY Relevant. God has done MANY MANY things, your to blind(or) you just dont want to believe it, people see miracles and try to prove them with science. Will you be so good as to mention some of the things God has done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 24, 2002 Author Share Posted November 24, 2002 Originally posted by Redwing A) We're still completely human. By the way -how do you know our brain is improving? As for the rest, that's as arbitrary as you think the Bible is. ^.^ So get back to me when it comes true It is not as arbitrary as the bible, it is a fact the ancient people had more bodily hair to protect themselves from the elements without clothes. Humans are considerably smarter than they were thousands of years ago, based on brain size. Once I prove it is true, will you then lose your faith? B) How can you possibly prove he has or hasn't made any divine intervention? That sounds kinda silly to me. ^^ I cannot prove it, because you think God is something that operates out of the established laws of physics - but tell me where you think he did a miracle, and I will explain that with science. D) [Whoa! Where's "C"?] Nooooooooooo. I mean, evolutionary changes that didn't produce a viable product. I haven't assumed anything Evolutionary changes rarely does produce a viable product, but out of millions of bad changes, a good one will occur that subsequently will prove to be useful. Increased brain size and very manipulative hands are two of them. C) [Oh! There it is ^_^] That's why I support evolution. ^_^ Noah would have only had to carry a few examples of the species existing then. The rest of the current biosphere developed - evolved - after the Flood. ^_^ You do not understand how nature works together. Every creature works in a symbiose with every other - if you remove just one creature, another will die. It would take billions of years to develop the current biosphere if he only took a few samples, because life would have to start all over again, if he killed a few races and we have those races today. For example, if he only took 2 samples of each race, it'd result in inbreeding and the race would suffer from it. How would he feed the animals, how would he take care of their natural habitat, how could he possibly build a ship big enough? There are a billion of questions pointing at the falsity of Noah's fabled ark. Light from stars could have easily been altered by God. I mean, by definition. ^.^ Why would he want to do that? So he can give you evidence for the negative? You forget I'm not disagreeing with evolution. I just think God did more, because he said he did. Because he said he did? You mean: "Because the bible told me so". F) Exactly. That is where all the arguments here become pointless. Technically, God would be an all-powerful alien. Something we cannot understand. Supernature. Because nature is really only what we currently understand. You got it! God could prove to be a bunch of aliens experiementing with our planet and lives, and this is why it is folly to think so, unless we have proof of it. By all means, go on and believe what you will, but you can only prove the negative, not the positive. God cannot be proved through science. Because science is a product of human understanding, if we COULD prove God through science, that would mean he's a product of human understanding! "Because science rules out supernatural explanations, intelligent-design creationists believe that it promotes philosophical materialism and thus devalues faith." Your previous article just showed (albeit from a biased POV) that science cannot rule out supernatural explanations. Which is why the idea that it does should not be taught in schools. (I don't think creationism should be taught in schools either, mind you.) What you quoted said that science actually rules out the supernatural. In science, there is no supernatural, there is only the natural. Show me where it said that science cannot rule out the supernatural. Oh! Almost forgot! "What is your belief Redwing? That the bible is the truth to the max? Creationists have a habit of acting like guerrilla soldiers, hiding up in some mountains and sometimes coming down to ask: "Well, how do you explain this frog?", and then they retreat back up. " A) Yes. So, since you believe everything in the bible, word for word, once science has proven that there was no great flood, your belief will fall. It is dangerous to think that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted November 24, 2002 Share Posted November 24, 2002 Originally posted by Cjais Will you be so good as to mention some of the things God has done? In my own life... When i was 11 years old I could not walk. GOD healed me and there is no other way of putting it. I Dare you to try and convince me other wise. You try being run-over by a 5000 pound CAT Tractor and living to tell the tale. We must assume that he doesn't exist until there is reason to belive that he do. Sense when was it guilty until proven innocent? Because you personally can’t feel/touch/see you don’t believe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 24, 2002 Author Share Posted November 24, 2002 Originally posted by ZDawg In my own life... When i was 11 years old I could not walk. GOD healed me and there is no other way of putting it. I Dare you to try and convince me other wise. You try being run-over by a 5000 pound CAT Tractor and living to tell the tale. Since when was it guilty until proven innocent? Because you personally can’t feel/touch/see you don’t believe? Were you Christian before that incident? I'm sorry to hear that, by the way If it had happened to another person, he might have thought it was a pink squirrel named Xquoilzoq, living on a planet light years away, who had sent his little alien helpers to cure his legs. Not very reasonable, but just as valid as if God had cured him. What makes you believe in God/the bible compared to old Norse mythology/Allah/Scientology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted November 24, 2002 Share Posted November 24, 2002 Originally posted by ZDawg In my own life... When i was 11 years old I could not walk. GOD healed me and there is no other way of putting it. I Dare you to try and convince me other wise. You try being run-over by a 5000 pound CAT Tractor and living to tell the tale. Sense when was it guilty until proven innocent? Because you personally can’t feel/touch/see you don’t believe? What about the other million or so people who are crippled still? Did they recieve a "miracle"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted November 24, 2002 Share Posted November 24, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider The type of mutations that produce something completely new(That none of the parents have)occur when there is an error in the DNA code last time I checked. The only mutations I see are Extra fingers or toes Siamese twins Deformed faces Unable to reproduce And many more I fail to see how this helps. The changes in DNA could very well be errors, but their continuation means that the lineage beyond the "error" survived it's environment. During the time of the Black Plague, about 700 years ago, there were those who were immune to the bacteria's, Yersinia pestis, effects. Research has isolated the reason: an "error" in the DNA, which they refer to as the Delta-32 Deletion. Interestingly enough, the blood-line of these individuals who survived the plague are also extremely resistant, if not immune, to the HIV virus. This mutation in DNA structure has given a significant percentage of the population the resistance to two major epidemics of man. I'd say that is helpful. One last question. If there is no God why do we have to obey the law? You mean man's laws, or god's? In any group dynamic, you'll see norms develop which become the "rules" of the group. Take this thread for instance. Societies are but mega-groups that have mega-norms we have established into laws so that consequences can exist to govern our behavior. Violate the law, pay the consequence. SkinWalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 24, 2002 Author Share Posted November 24, 2002 Very well expressed Skin! Once and for all: A change in the DNA code isn't an "error" - it's just that, a change. It may be a good or bad change (mostly bad), but it is false to assume it's a mistake on life's part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted November 24, 2002 Share Posted November 24, 2002 Man! I go away for a couple of weeks and Cjais starts a thread on evolution -v- creation without me! ** Stands at Cjais' back: "got you covered here, Bro!" --------------------------- I noticed in going through this thread (took a while, whew!) that there was some typical "dating methods" arguments being made. I'd like to point out that Carbon dating is but one method that scientists use to date a find. Many times this can be done by merely examining the geologic strata that the find was located in. For instance, if I go behind my house, I'll find clam shells that are between 60 - 90 million years old. I know this is the case, because the Limestone formation here, known as the Austin Chalk, is that old. If I needed to be more specific, I could use many other techniques: Carbon 14 - works best on wood and plant material, less well on animal remains, such as bone. This is because it measures the amount of carbon-14 isotope remaining in the sample. C-14 has a half-life of 5, 570 years, making the identification a matter of mathematics. However, this is limited to artifacts of less than 70, 000 years. Potassium / Argon dating - Potassium 40 decays into argon gas at a known rate. When a volcano erupts lava the lava cools forming mineral crystals. The argon gas is trapped in the crystals. The relative proportions of Potassium 40 and argon gas are measured. From this the time since the lava was formed can be calculated. Uranium / Lead dating - Uranium decays into other elements at a known rate. There are intermediate elements produced which eventually decay into the final elements. There are two main atomic isotopes U235 and U238. They decay at different rates and go through different intermediate steps. These rates are constant. The different rates of decay act as a cross-checking mechanism to make sure the dating is consistent. The range of this dating method can be used to date geological deposits over 4 billion years of age. There are many other methods as well... Fission Track, amino racemization, Thermoluminescent dating, and paleomagnatism. The latter being where one would examine the alignment of magnetic molecules in relation to the magnetic north. Basically, mag north changes and by matching alignments with those of known dates one can determine the local date. Most of these methods are used in conjunction with each other. Frequently, specimens are dated by comparing to specimens above and/or below the specimen in the strata it was found. Scientist take into account tectonic and glacial movements as well as other factors. Scientists make mistakes... but they hold each other accountable by posting their findings in peer-reviewed journals and get "flamed" in public for being sloppy with research, so that helps keep them accountable. When mistakes are noted or found, their theories are revised. I forget what the fundalmentalist claim is for the age of the planet, but it is ridiculously low in that it doesn't account for the massive amount of time the Earth needed to get to the point it is Geologically. If you were to make a scale chart of the geologic timeline in which the time of man was the width of a dime, the chart would rival the tallest buildings of many cities. In geology, nothing happens fast. Even earthquakes are the result of millions of years of tension and stress. I can source most of this if anyone wants it (I typed most from memory, some from a set of notes I had from a class). Hope this helps SkinWalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.