Jedi Council Forums - Religious Sanctuary Thread

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Religious Sanctuary Thread
Qui-Rune Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 6/1/02 7:05pm Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread - Date Edited: 6/1/02 7:38pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Qui-Rune
	Darth Brooks, Im curious...how old is the Earth? Another question.... What do feel is precise about the structure of the universe? -----signature----- "Many believe that their destiny lies at the end of their Journey....but in the end it is the Journey that matters."
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
JediofJade Registered: Aug '99	Date Posted: 6/1/02 7:53pm Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread - Date Edited: 6/1/02 7:53pm (1 edits total) Edited By: JediofJade
	lol, cydonia. No one is right! You can't trust anybody! -----signature----- "There...are...four...lights!"
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_SnowDog Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 6/1/02 8:40pm Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread - Date Edited: 6/1/02 9:06pm (7 edits total) Edited By: Darth_SnowDog
	Mutations are tricky things, and generally a mutation in one generation doesn't appear in the next. For example, an average sized person may have a child that is a dwarf, but the liklihood is the progeny of the individual affected by dwarfism will be of average height. Now I know I'm wasting my time for several reasons: 1. As I predicted, you didn't even once attempt to address the Hox gene issue. Of course no Creationist addresses it... because a) they cannot refute it's evidence of macroevolution. b) they don't understand it. How can you debate against something you don't even understand properly? Don't tell me I don't understand it... because I too have read every one of those articles... and no scientist disagrees with my interpretation of their implications. 2. Apparently, you've never heard of male pattern baldness (or any other trait for that matter). It's incredibly hard to say this without at some point observing the complete idiocy of your argument, but I'll try... 3. You keep talking as if throngs of scientists dispute evolution theory... PPOR. Crap or get off the pot, for once. 4. Might I remind you that Creation theory isn't accepted at all by the scientific community, and, much more importantly, isn't even accepted by the whole of the religious or even Christian community. There are plenty of Christians who don't agree with your literal interpretation of Genesis. Of course they must be idiots, but not you. After all, you know more about religion and science than the rest of the world, don't you? If you have some mind-boggling proof that I misunderstood each of those articles, and that the scientific community at large is entirely and completely wrong in their conclusions founded upon over 100 years of scrutiny, testing, research, refinement, analysis and repeated observation, be my guest and present the expert testimony here... I'm waiting. How many times have experiments in Creation theory produced consistent results? Not once. Why? Because Creationists generally don't conduct their own research. They read a few snippets of someone else's work, in which case they are no more scientific in their analytical methodology than those of us bantering here on the JC, and then they cut and paste together different factoids from unrelated studies, without having done one shred of testing on their own, and call it proof. Darth_Brooks, referring to the above paragraph of yours: As any scientist knows... just because a genotypic mutation doesn't manifest itself in every successive generation's phenotype, does not mean at all that the mutated gene isn't there in the offspring. Male pattern baldness is a perfect example... Women are carriers of this recessive-trait mutation, but rarely do women ever actually develop baldness themselves. What is the 'intelligence', the catalyst that enacts the mutation process described? What pushes the button? Who said there has to be "intelligence... pushing the button?" You need to read Douglas Futuyma's book, Evolutionary Biology. I'm tempted to FedEx you a copy... just so you can demonstrate at least a basic understanding of the principles of evolution... both micro- and macroevolution. "Therefore, it is extremely difficult to infer the phylogenetic tree of human populations from mtDNA variation. For this reason, a number of authors have emphasised the importance of studying many nuclear genes to resolve this controversy." What does this prove to say that it's "extremely difficult"? That all of evolutionary science is wrong? Does the shroud of Turin being a fake prove that Jesus never existed? Unlike Creationists, evolutionists don't sit around and pray for conclusive evidence to fall from the sky. They continue to scrutinize their findings when they are not satisfied, and feel that more evidence needs to be gathered. This is science... Nothing in science is taken for granted or accepted as fact. Nothing in science is presented before the scientific community, at least not by reputable scientists, without having spent years, and sometimes decades, gathering more and more data until the most skeptical minds will be convinced. Unlike the blind devotees of Creation, Scientists are constantly seeking more proof for their own theories. I don't see any Creationists questioning their sources (I say sources because, as I mentioned before, they rarely if ever do any of their own primary research). For the last ten years, Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist and pre-eminent figure in evolutionary science, has been keeping his gloves out of the Creation vs. Evolution ring, and quietly gathering masses and masses of research to, for once and for all, shut the mouths of Creationists. I believe this year he is finally releasing his work. But, as I've misinterpreted your stance previously, your being Hindu, allow me to ask, are we discussing evolution from a godless universe, or from a universe model predicated upon a Creator? One question, is according to evolution life emerged, a common amoebic ancestor, from the primordial ooze, so that leaves us with one life form that should have developed unmolested by other life, and thus no real need for diversity or an evolutionary process. No need to adapt; but then we're also talking about abiogenesis, and the whole reasoning becomes circular. Were you born yesterday or did you flunk ninth grade biology? Amoeba, as any scientist will clearly tell you, was not our common ancestor. If there is no need to adapt to environmental changes, how on earth did life manage to survive the last 3.8 billion years? Oh wait... the earth is only 6000 years old because the Bible says so, and that must be true, because the Bible says it's true. I'm sorry, what was that you were saying about circular reasoning, hmm? Abiogenesis, by the way, has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is the process by which life evolves. Abiogenesis is concerned with how life began. Two different fields of study. As I've stated at least 20 other times in these threads, astrobiology is the greater field of multidisciplinary study which deals with the greater scope of how life began, how it evolves, how the environment evolves, how the universe evolves, and so on... Evolution is only one component of astrobiology. Evolution theory doesn't deal with where and when and how life began. Reread those articles about the research being done at NASA's Ames center. What precisely does my ethnicity have to do with my stance on evolutionary theory? And, for that matter, are you assuming that Hindus believe in a godless universe? Or, conversely, that the universe actually had to have a beginning? Hindus, for the record, believe neither. -----signature----- I am boycotting theforce.net because of their homophobic, bigoted policy concerning fanfic romance. Others who believe this is bigotry should boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mister_Bunny Registered: Apr '01	Date Posted: 6/2/02 2:41am Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
	White moth, grey moth... _D_B overlooks that one color is a mutation of the other. Didn't have to occur the same millenia that the birds started hunting moths. So a "trigger" argument doesn't do much. -----signature----- Please hurry.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Qui-Rune Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 6/2/02 8:14am Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread - Date Edited: 6/2/02 8:16am (1 edits total) Edited By: Qui-Rune
	This debate of Evolution versus creationism will continue as long as there is someone who wants to believe in one or the other. It is obvious that physical evidence does not matter to some. Evidence will always be interpreted the way that the individual wants to comprehend it. The Church has always been blind to many discoveries of science. Look at Galileo for instance. Galileo thought that the sun was the center of the known universe, not Earth and not only was Earth revolving around the sun but so were other planets. Galileo also discovered Jupiter and several of it's moons. However, because this contradicted the holy scriptures, the church had imprisoned Galileo. Silly man....he should have known that Earth is center of all things and it was "created" just for us! Today, of course the church has no choice but to recognize the solar system's structure as fact. So it conveniently has altered it's interpretations over time to fit modern discoveries and understanding. This will continue to happen until eventually, it's foundation will have no basis for modern understanding. I'm sure however that their will be some who will be kicking and screaming, trying to hold on just as a child trying to hold on to a security blanket or taking the training wheels off of a bicycle for the first time. -----signature----- "Many believe that their destiny lies at the end of their Journey....but in the end it is the Journey that matters."
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
JediofJade Registered: Aug '99	Date Posted: 6/2/02 9:51am Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
	wait...are you saying the bible says that the earth is the center of the universe? And, please, everyone, do not talk of the Church of England as if it is the Christian church or the representation of all religions. I know some may not have meant it to sound that way, but still, everyone here seems to be rather avid about jumping all over misconstrued details. And also, keep the flaming to a minimum. You may have said you're going to keep this as a cold flame war, but obviously some of the posters here aren't mature enough to do that. Grow up, people- stop insulting others for their ignorance or viewpoint. This should be a debate, not some "You're wrong, I'm right" fest. Thank you! -----signature----- "There...are...four...lights!"
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
_Darth_Brooks_ Registered: Sep '00	Date Posted: 6/2/02 12:07pm Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
	Qui-Rune, I don't know how old the Universe is. No one does. Let me offer a few borrowed facts; Missing Origin: The big bang theory assumes an original concentration of energy. Where did this energy come from? Astronomers sometimes speak of an origin from a "quantum mechanical fluctuation within a vacuum." However, in the big bang theory, no vacuum existed before the explosion. Actually there is no consistent secular origin theory, since every idea is based on preexisting matter or energy. Missing Fuse: What ignited the big bang? The mass concentration proposed in this theory would remain forever bound as a universal black hole. Gravity would prevent it from ever expanding outward. Missing Star Formation: No natural way has been found to explain the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies. An explosion should produce, at best, an outward spray of gas and radiation. This gas should continue expanding, not form intricate planets, stars, and entire galaxies. Missing Antimatter: Some versions of the big bang theory require the equal production of matter and antimatter. However, only small traces of antimatter-positrons and antiprotons, for example-are found in space. Missing Time: Some experiments indicate that the universe may be young, on the order of 10,000 years old. If true, then there is not sufficient time for the consequences of the big bang theory to unfold. A short time span will not allow for the gradual evolution of the stars or life on Earth. Missing Mass: Many scientists assume that the universe will eventually stop expanding and begin to collapse inward. Then it will again explode and repeat its oscillating type of perpetual motion. This idea is an effort to avoid an origin and destiny for the universe. For oscillation to occur, however, the universe must have a certain density or distribution of mass. So far, measurements of the mass density are 100 times smaller than expected. In fact there are indications that the universe is accelerating outward instead of slowing down. The universe does not appear to be oscillating. The necessary mass or "dark matter" is "missing." Missing Life: In an evolving universe, life should have developed everywhere. Space should be filled with radio signals from intelligent life forms. Where is everybody? Missing Neutrinos: These small particles should flood the earth from the sun's fusion process. The small number detected raises questions about the sun's energy source and man's overall understanding of the universe. How then can science speak about "origins" with any authority? What do I feel is precise about the universe? Everything. We need go no further than right here on planet Earth; The eco-system is incredibly fragile and precise. If the planet were closer to the sun life wouldn't exist, if further life couldn't exist. There's a precise orbit around the sun, and a perfect rotation, oxygen content, ad inifinitum. It is easier to ask, what do you think is not precise and orderly in the universe? It's not a denial of physical evidence. It's not that physical evidence doesn't matter. It's the interpretation of that evidence, which is something I've attempted to explain. There is a distinction between a mutation, genetic triats, and macroevolution. No one disputes that. Not evolutionist or creationist. These are basic foundational understandings. It is not a mutation for a labrador retreiver to be black, chocolate, or yellow, which are all normal colorations of the species. These are natural variants in the standard genetic traits. If one of these dogs was born with a tail attached to it's skull, that would be a mutation. Is that mutatation macroevolution? Certainly not, and one reason is that the organism, a dog, hasn't dompletely changed into another organism, an animal not a dog. Now this is basic, and if some of you people don't understand where I'm coming from, then I suggest you retake Bio 101. I believe in genetic processes, in the same way that I believe all English words are made up of combinations from 26 letters in the alphabet. There is a commonality of material, but that in no way proves evolution. The word 'man' and the 'word 'fish' are both made up of letters of the alphabet building blocks, but one didn't evolve from the other. Because there is a commonality of material here, doesn't necessitate that one word evolved from the other. In the same way, the elemental building blocks of the universe exist and are being identified molecularly, but that doesn't prove any theory at this point, only that certain substances exist. That's why there is no scientific Law of Evolution. Never one time has anyone observed even as simple a substance as lead sprouting legs and running off. This is a fact. YOU SAID,"The Church has always been blind to many discoveries of science. " PPOR Many of the greatest scientists in history have been Christians. Marconi, Edison, Galileo, etc. In 2,000 years of Chruch history, you are able to mention the Galileo incident. Is your statement then overgeneralized. Yes. 1.)I brought up Galileo. Me, a Christian. 2.)I'd suggest you read the debate between Dark-Side and Grand Moff Monkey; not only have they debated this point, but DS conceded the victory to GMM. 3.) I've said this multiple times now; The Holy Bible never said anywhere that the sun circled the Earth, nor that the Earth is flat. Never, nowhere, ever, at any time. I read the Bible frequently, and have done word studies in Greek and Hebrew. Have you? 4.)If God said something, and a few men misinterpret those words, does that invalidate God or the words? It only invalidates the interpretations of those men. This is a simple concept. Have you ever said anything that someone misconstrued? Does that men you didn't say what you actually said because they misheard? Of course not. -----signature----- "I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays. " I AM AN ACT OF GOD. If you doubt it ask my insurance agent. Whom the Mod's would destroy they first drive mad.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Wylding Registered: Aug '00	Date Posted: 6/2/02 12:29pm Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
	Perhaps this should be re-named the religious contention thread, due to all of the arguing -----signature----- Jedi Master
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
cydonia Registered: Jun '01	Date Posted: 6/2/02 1:44pm Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
	I know, i didn't know this was a debate but apparently it is? -----signature----- when you're born a lover, you're born to suffer- Like all soul sisters and soul brothers
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
JediofJade Registered: Aug '99	Date Posted: 6/2/02 2:36pm Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
	my thought exactly, Wylding -----signature----- "There...are...four...lights!"
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
_Darth_Brooks_ Registered: Sep '00	Date Posted: 6/2/02 3:23pm Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread - Date Edited: 6/2/02 4:20pm (3 edits total) Edited By: _Darth_Brooks_
	Snow Dog, Do you suffer from a mild form of congenital Tourettes syndrome? You seem unable to contain yourself from lacing thin invective in your posts. Take a chill pill. Science looks for causes. Causes, Snow Dog. That means evolutionists look for causes, thus by extension, yes, science is definitely concerned with "triggers." Responses to your enumerated comments, and I do expect a retraction and an apology where appropriate. 1.)You predicted nothing. In which post did you predict I wouldn't answer? Now, go back up to my last post. Shall I copy paste? Do you see the paragraph with the name Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., Reread the words. Did I not say I was intending to return to that topic? Yes, I did. That also means your statement regarding no creationist addressing HOX is also fallacious. You just make this stuff up don't you? HOX doesn't prove evolution, it shows the possibility of a mechanism that might allow for evolution. That's all. It doesn't show macroevolution. 2 strikes; You predicted nothing. A basic lie from an assumptively arrogant stance. Sure, it's being nit-picky, but still accurate. And, I did say I was returning to the topic specifically utilizing the words of Jonathan Wells. If this is any indication of your analytical prowess and comprehensive skills, you are indeed wasting OUR time. NO SCIENTIST DISAGREES WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION? Jonathan Wells does, for starters. Secondly, name the scientists who specifically cite," I agree with Snow Dog." You're utilizing exaggerative ad hoc. Besides, it isn't you they agree with; you're trying to agree with them. But you didn't seem to comprehend that the articles proved nothing that you stated. I suggest you reread the articles more slowly. 2.)Male pattern baldness is a genetic trait. Plain and simple. The complete "idiocy" of your statement is you didn't explain it's relevancy. I'm sure you meant something by it, but you didn't explain what. You didn't exhibit it's proof for macroevolution. You sourced a genetic characteristic. 3.) We'll start with Jonathan Wells, since he's been mentioned; Michael Behe David Berlinski Phillip Johnson Hugh Ross William Dembski Henry F. Schaeffer Walter l. bradley Nancy Pearcy Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer Steven Meyer Paul Nelson J.P. Moreland... ...(sighs)...that's a few names, drop in the bucket, but ones that I've personally read. I've listened to more than I could hope to remember, and certainly don't recall their names. The absurdity of your request would be equivalent to my asking you for the name of every person in a scientific discipline who adheres to evolution. A QUOTE: "Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each." Bruce Alberts President National Academy of Sciences 4.) See above. You are wrong again. It may not be the prevalent belief, but I don't know that for certain, so PPOR. Show me your data stating the personal beliefs of all scientists. No, I don't think those Christians who subscribe to evolution are "idiots". You're putting words in my mouth. I'll join them if evolution is definitively proven. YOU SAID:"How many times have experiments in Creation theory produced consistent results? Not once. Why? Because Creationists generally don't conduct their own research. They read a few snippets of someone else's work, in which case they are no more scientific in their analytical methodology than those of us bantering here on the JC, and then they cut and paste together different factoids from unrelated studies, without having done one shred of testing on their own, and call it proof. " I SAY: PPOR. That's mere exaggerative personal conjectural hogwash on your part. Wishful thinking. Back it up, or show me that you've an ounce of integrity and admit to having no authoritative basis for that kind of pseudo-libel. SHROUD OF TURIN: Personally, I don't care if it's a fake or not, but as a matter of fact the most recent data leans towards supporting the possibility of it being authentic. Surf the net and catch up. YOU SAID:"This is science... Nothing in science is taken for granted or accepted as fact. Nothing in science is presented before the scientific community, at least not by reputable scientists, without having spent years, and sometimes decades, gathering more and more data until the most skeptical minds will be convinced." I SAY: How soon they forget. We already discussed Neanderthal man and the scientific blunders, as well as the other anecdotal info I provided showing tremendous errors of scientists, and scientists of no integrity. You're broad thoughtless generalizations are ridiculous. (Again, do you really bother to read what's presented?) Just call and ask National Geographic magazine. Call the AMA and ask about all of the over the counter drugs that have been recalled after years of testing. YOU SAID: Unlike the blind devotees of Creation, Scientists are constantly seeking more proof for their own theories. I don't see any Creationists questioning their sources (I say sources because, as I mentioned before, they rarely if ever do any of their own primary research)." I SAY: Really? What area of scientific research are you currently employed? (Think about it. Nuff said.) We all rely on the best available information, and so do scientists across the board. YOU SAID:"One question, is according to evolution life emerged, a common amebic ancestor, from the primordial ooze, so that leaves us with one life form that should have developed unmolested by other life, and thus no real need for diversity or an evolutionary process. No need to adapt; but then we're also talking about abiogenesis, and the whole reasoning becomes circular. "Were you born yesterday or did you flunk ninth grade biology?" I SAY: I apologize, I thought you had discernment enough to realize I was being facetious to a point. I over generalized, as is your wont, so I guess I should apologize for intruding into your territory. I was concerned more with the giste than the particulars. But I noticed, that you avoided the principal displayed to challenge my metaphorical ameoba. How lacking. YOU SAID:"Abiogenesis, by the way, has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is the process by which life evolves. Abiogenesis is concerned with how life began. Two different fields of study." I SAY: You're weakly splitting semantical hairs here (and that's giving you some credit). Our discussion is about the origins of life; and the pertinence of abiogensis in this is: 1.) Would directly relate to the Big Bang 2.) Was a discarded and discredited scientific theory for centuries. 3.)Evolution would have started with the inception of life and thus is definitely concerned with how life began, especially in the context of this discussion. 4.) We are discussing creationism and evolution. YOU SAID:"What precisely does my ethnicity have to do with my stance on evolutionary theory? And, for that matter, are you assuming that Hindus believe in a godless universe? Or, conversely, that the universe actually had to have a beginning? Hindus, for the record, believe neither." I SAY: You brought it up (your ethnicity), not me. I'm not assuming anything, I'm asking. I was curious as to your specific take on cosmogony. SNOW DOG, You apparently don't understand my stance, gleaned from some of your some your insulting comments (Male pattern baldness). I believe in genetics, and in a flexibility within certain parameters (for instance, my arm is punctured, and under proper treatment my cells will go to restorative work, repairing what can be repaired. This is an endemic functioning of the involved epidermal cells. Over simplified). What I 'm getting at is the recognition of certain functions, which is accurate science, versus extrapolating that function into areas of mere conjecture, trying to lump it together indistinctively into another process. Observing a gene pool is not macroevolution, but a mixing of traits in a particular organism, not the emergence of a new organism. People don't give birth to tigers. You're trying to confer onto those articles more than the articles content did. What we're seeing in HOX isn't actually something new; we're getting a closer look at a mechanism, that much is new, but we've seen the genetics played out in the physical, by the naked eye, from time immemorial. Let's be fair shall we? Before I subscribed to any notions of creationism, I had already been indoctrinated into evolution, not the other way around. Both in high school and college. Carl Sagan was a favored author. However, as stated, my encounter with Christ infused a paradigm shift, while I still held to the tenets of evolutionary thought as taught by the curriculum I'd been exposed. Eventually, to be objective, I began reading the writings of creationist scientists. Judging from the words in your last post, you've evidently never actually sat down with any of the more serious scientific material published by respected Creationists. The fact that you insinuate there are none is proof. I'd suggest that you begin a research into the available materials for a more objective and impartial understanding in this area. The truth is you are trying to refute something that you really know nothing about, which is folly. My stance is totally open to the truth, despite what you may think. The imperative in my Scriptures is to embrace the truth. For now, there is no incontrovertible proof, and the data is extremely interpretive, not black and white, open and shut, as you so passionately attest. You have a lot of hyperbolic negative stereotypical images of Christianity, for some reason. It seems almost an avid hatred. But it isn't accurately reflective of the true generalities of Christians, Christianity, or the Holy Bible. So much propaganda. I've no doubt that you're a relatively intelligent specimen, but you aren't actually as thorough in your approach as you would have some believe, and you definitely aren't particularly evenhanded. This has started to become more heat than light, and I for one, won't respond to mere aggressive obstinacy or insults. -----signature----- "I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays. " I AM AN ACT OF GOD. If you doubt it ask my insurance agent. Whom the Mod's would destroy they first drive mad.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Saint_of_Killers Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 6/2/02 4:49pm Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
	"Missing Star Formation: No natural way has been found to explain the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies. An explosion should produce, at best, an outward spray of gas and radiation. This gas should continue expanding, not form intricate planets, stars, and entire galaxies." Gravity pulls stuff together. " Some experiments indicate that the universe may be young, on the order of 10,000 years old." What experiments are these? "How then can science speak about "origins" with any authority?" So because there's some things they can't explain yet, nothing they say can be taken seriously? As I pointed out earlier, religious organisations have been wrong before too, that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything. Same with science. "We need go no further than right here on planet Earth; The eco-system is incredibly fragile and precise. If the planet were closer to the sun life wouldn't exist, if further life couldn't exist" It's not so much that the ecosystem and location is perfect for the life here, but rather the life here is perfect for the ecosystem and location. Life adapts to environment, not the other way around. -----signature----- We enter into life naked and howling, covered with blood. The fun doesn't have to end there. Who to himself is law, no law does need, offends no law and is a king indeed Abraham failed the test. TAKE A BOW MISTER BUNNY!!!
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Qui-Rune Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 6/2/02 6:04pm Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread - Date Edited: 6/2/02 6:14pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Qui-Rune
	Darth Brooks, Ok...Breath. Anyway. let me touch briefly on just a few things. I don't want to get winded. You said, "No natural way has been found to explain the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies. An explosion should produce, at best, an outward spray of gas and radiation. This gas should continue expanding, not form intricate planets, stars, and entire galaxies." It is not very simple to explain, but let me give it a shot. After the initial explosion of the Big Bang, particles of energy which were under intense heat (heat even more intense than the sun) traveled away and began to collide to form quarks. All the while, a cooling process begins right after the explosion. Quarks collided to form protons and neutrons (and antiprotons and antineutrons) at a ten-thousandth of a second after the intial explosion. Annihilations of particles of matter and antimatter began, eventually leaving a slight residue of matter. After about a minute, the temperature cooled enough to allow protons and neutrons to stick together when they collided forming the most simplistic and most abundant elements in the universe...hydrogen and helium...which is what STARS are made of. As the cooling continued, these simple elements collided in large quantities and formed clouds of gases, stars, etc. A good analogy would be steam. As steam cools, the steam forms condensation and then water droplets. Now in order to understand how certain planets were formed, you have to know what happens inside stars. Nuclear fusion. The simple elements compressed upon eachother because of gravity. All the while being "fused" under intense heat and this is where the more complicated elements were formed. Hydrogen fusing with Helium to form Berilium, etc. Until heavier elements, such as iron, are formed. Earth has an iron core. It's core is still molten. Towards the outside of the planet, you have more simple elements...Hydrogen, Oxygen (H2O), and of course the gases in the atmosphere...by-products of the chemistry of the planet. Remember this...the universe did not expand into existing space after the Big Bang; it's expansion created space-time as it went. Now, what experiments have showed that the universe is 10,000 years old? The Universe in fact is @ 15 billion years old. Oh...by the way...the dark matter is not missing. Scientists know of it but are still in the process of understanding it. You see, our galaxy and thousands of galaxies in our "cluster" are moving towards "something" at 600 Km per second. They attribute this to a large cluster of dark matter. One more thing. Life. Life, in my opinion is abundant. The Universe is so vast, however that we do not know of intelligent life elsewhere. (I do believe that Earth has been visited, but that's a whole other post.) Life finds a way to exist. Most people think that life needs certain things to exist... sun light, oxygen, the perfect temperature, etc. Truth is, one should not be so narrow in thought. Look at Earth for example. Go to the deepest depths of the ocean, where light does not penetrate, temperatures are just above freezing and it's so dense their is no free floating oxygen. Life found a way to exist. Evolving by volcanic vents that spew sulphur dioxide. Life will find a way. Fossilized bacteria on Mars? Of course. Mars has water....a lot of water frozen at it's poles and under the surface. Evidence where rivers onced flowed is abundant. So why not? Anyway...that's all I have for now. Just remember... the mind is like a parachute; it only works when it is opened. Talk to you soon. -----signature----- "Many believe that their destiny lies at the end of their Journey....but in the end it is the Journey that matters."
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_SnowDog Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 6/2/02 6:36pm Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread - Date Edited: 6/2/02 6:47pm (3 edits total) Edited By: Darth_SnowDog
	HOX doesn't prove evolution, it shows the possibility of a mechanism that might allow for evolution. That's all. It doesn't show macroevolution. And again... you dance around the issue. Denial. The UCSD study, if you actually read the particulars, does show a mechanism by which macroevolutionary changes can occur. That is, of course, if you understand the definition of macroevolution... (or evolution for that matter). Reread all those sources again. Then you might come across this key point in the UCSD article: The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation, but because it effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolution—the absence of a genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs. “The problem for a long time has been over this issue of macroevolution,” says William McGinnis, a professor in UCSD’s Division of Biology who headed the study. “How can evolution possibly introduce big changes into an animal’s body shape and still generate a living animal? Creationists have argued that any big jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn’t be able to perpetuate itself. And until now, no one’s been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome.” If you failed to understand the core point of this entire study, it demonstrates that macroevolutionary changes are a function of master genes that, when mutated, switch many other genes in a hierarchical manner. In other words, only one gene needs to be mutated to trigger a chain reaction of tens, maybe hundreds, or even thousands of other genes related to that HOX gene. They did it with live organisms, effectively demonstrating how crustacean DNA can be mutated so radically as to produce offspring that would fall into the insect class--in one generation... now imagine ten such iterations, 1000, 1 million... Let's get to the meat of the matter... If creationists have some staggering evidence against evolution (or to actually prove Creation, for that matter), why don't you present it here? I'm still waiting. My father is a scientist. He's also a theologian. He, like many others in his field, doesn't find enough evidence in favor of Creation. When I said that other scientists agree with my views... I mean to say that many scientists hold the same view as I, for the same reasons, on the same bases of evidence. Not just many... actually the overwhelming majority of scientists hold the same view towards evolution. What you did was produce a list of a few scientists... How many scientists are there in the world, Darth_Brooks? When's the last time you went to a scientific organization and heard them say they no longer endorse evolutionary theory? Care to show me a written statement from the NSF? I'm supposed to refute evolution just because 13 scientists out of the global scientific community disagree with it? Well, 50 percent of the world isn't Christian, and I can safely assume they don't hold to the Biblical model of Creation... or anything else maintained by the Bible and the Church's dogma. So, on that basis maybe I should just flat out say Christianity and the Bible is entirely a load of crap. But, despite your insistence that I hate Christianity and Christians, I have never held such a belief. Maybe it just bothers you that I have more love for Christ than I have for dogma and egocentricity. If you have just even one original study... one piece of primary research, conducted by "Creation scientists" that has anything whatsoever to do with proving creation (and not just disproving the opposite... just because B is untrue doesn't automatically make A wholly true... unfortunately, this is the presumption upon which even the biggest proponents of Creation hinge their argument), please present such a study here... or, more appropriately, in an evolution/creation forum. As for the list of names you threw down, I don't recognize any of them... Mainly because their "research", if you can call it that, isn't in the majority view of the scientific community. Show me one study conducted by them that isn't made entirely of primary research conducted by others, and then cut and pasted together to prove something that was not isolated and tested or hypothesized in any of the contributing studies from which they piecemealed their answers. I'm still waiting... You threw down a lot of names, but not one single original, isolated, blinded, controlled scientific study that actually demonstrates any of the claims made by creation theory... For the record, I have not entered into this discussion intending to discuss particularly the origins of life, but merely to dispel the myths Creationists have about evolutionary science. Again, I ask you... if the whole of the religious community doesn't even accept Creation, on what basis should the whole of the scientific community? Care to show me DNA from Adam & Eve? Care to explain away nuclide aging, Accelerator Mass Spectrometry and, well, molecular biology as a whole? If evolution can occur "within kinds", as one other JCer had suggested, but not on a macro scale... Could you explain to me precisely the chemical mechanism that sets these invisible boundaries on organisms? What kinds of evolution can't happen? How far does evolution go before your invisible force says, "No, you can't go here?" More importantly, why? These are questions I've never personally heard Creationists answer with their own research... but if you have some, I'd like to see it... primary research, not just snippets from studies which weren't designed to isolate the right variables for study. (In other words, don't do what another JCer did in another thread and try to prove gender segregation in the classroom works by posting excerpts from a study on School Policy formulation and Implementation). I don't hate Christians. I hate obstinacy and closed-mindedness. I like people who can think beyond the pages of a book or the words of a preacher (or Creationist spokesperson, for that matter). -----signature----- I am boycotting theforce.net because of their homophobic, bigoted policy concerning fanfic romance. Others who believe this is bigotry should boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Qui-Rune Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 6/2/02 6:56pm Subject: RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread - Date Edited: 6/2/02 6:59pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Qui-Rune
	Very good, Darth Snow-Dog....very good indeed. "If you have just even one original study... one piece of primary research, conducted by "Creation scientists" that has anything whatsoever to do with proving creation (and not just disproving the opposite... just because B is untrue doesn't automatically make A wholly true... unfortunately, this is the presumption upon which even the biggest proponents of Creation hinge their argument)" I think that quote of yours sums it up for the Evolution/Creation argument. Darth Brooks, "HOX doesn't prove evolution, it shows the possibility of a mechanism that might allow for evolution." I think Snow Dog's right...you're in denial. -----signature----- "Many believe that their destiny lies at the end of their Journey....but in the end it is the Journey that matters."
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 - Previous | Next | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »