main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Religious Filmmakers.

Discussion in 'Fan Films, Fan Audio & SciFi 3D' started by ApertureCaged, Aug 27, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. WhisperingDeath

    WhisperingDeath Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    May 25, 2002
    but I fail to see WHY this is odd.
    This is an oddity because in our vision of God he is not personable. Our vision of God is a tranciend person who is everywhere and can do anything at all times. When was the last time you saw God wrestling Abraham Lincon? You regard this as silly, and because you regard it as silly is exactly my point.

    As for the comment on that secular humanism as evil... I cannot contest your reasoning for it is the same reasoning I argue here. Religion is a system of control. It has been around since the dawn of time and one of its main purposes has been to control people and take away their 'evil' motives. Because if people truely realized that we are only here for a short time and then... thats it, what would happen?
     
  2. drippyzeo

    drippyzeo Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 11, 2002
    This is an oddity because in our vision of God he is not personable. Our vision of God is a tranciend person who is everywhere and can do anything at all times. When was the last time you saw God wrestling Abraham Lincon? You regard this as silly, and because you regard it as silly is exactly my point.

    Ok, before I respond to this, I'd like to you to - surprise, surprise - define your terms, so that we have some common ground to start from. Specifically, what do you mean by personable, and what do you mean by tranciend (did you mean "transcendent," by the way?) Also, watch those universal pronouns...who are you referring to when you say "our vision of God?" Because it seems we (as in, you and I) have differences about said vision.
     
  3. psychokillermike

    psychokillermike Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Apr 27, 2002
    All just details.

    Kill'a Mike :_|
     
  4. psychokillermike

    psychokillermike Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Apr 27, 2002
    I do not belive in the details of each religon. I belive in God. I live in the Bible belt. There are alot of good people here, but there are also alot of hypocrites. Example: They will preach about how gambling and the lottery is bad, but they will all hop in the chruch bus after sunday school to go buy lottery tickets or go to the casino.

    People and countries go to war over the details of their religons, even though they both belive there is only one God or one all powerful being.

    Details of religion are what causes most of the arguments and problems this tread is an example.

    Kill'a Mike :confused:

    Alright Sage let me have it!! :p
     
  5. WhisperingDeath

    WhisperingDeath Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    May 25, 2002
    Drippy - Oh no... I am Roman Catholic, I know all the answers to the questions I ask. I am just playing devil's advocate for fun. All my arguments are fact and scriptually verfiable, but I don't believe them, I just like debating. :)
     
  6. drippyzeo

    drippyzeo Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 11, 2002
    All my arguments are fact and scriptually verfiable

    See, this bothers me a little. Why wouldn't you believe in a fact?
     
  7. lokmer

    lokmer Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 15, 2000
    There's a wide difference between a fact and a verifiable argument.

    I can see the validity in a position, and if I'm open minded I may adjust my position to accomodate the truths/facts I perceive. That doesn't mean I buy the position wholesale.

    Playing devil's advocate is an excellent way of checking one's own beliefs - and if one is interested in truth, checking one's own beliefs is essential.
    -Lokmer
     
  8. Jedi_Ross

    Jedi_Ross Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Sep 2, 2001
    "No, because the stuff I believe in is founded in fact. There is a gargantuan difference here. Everything I "believe" in can be checked, double checked, measured, tested, and verified."

    Can you verify that man evolved from a soup through an accident? Give me impirical data! Give me records! Give me measurements! On the one hand, you weren't there to see it, neither were any of the scientists who argue it, and there is no record of it.

    "Because, and I thought this was obvious, what I mean is: If you don't watch yourself, and rationally double-check every thought you think, it is easy to fall into the traps of irrationality."

    *sigh* Sadly, you entirely missed my point. My point is, if the mind was not designed by an inteligent being and it developed randomly, the very reason with which you "double-check" yourself cannot be trusted! Your entire logic and reason system developed out of nothing! A cosmic burp!

    "The mind, the subconscious if you will, is not rational. The conscious mind, though, can be, if you are careful, take each step slowly, check yourself at every point, and double check again, making SURE to check if what you just thought was logical... or if it was a "hunch" or "gut feelign" or other invalid data."

    No, no, no. How can the conscious mind be rational if it evolved through an accident or mutation? It's not going to be. It's going to be a mess, utter chaos. THere is going to be no such thing AS logic or reason.

    Let's break down my argument logically shall we?

    If you do not believe in the possability of a design by some outside force, you must accept evolution and mutation and random chance.

    Everything evolved from chance through time.
    Therefore everything is random because everything is chance.
    Therefore the human brain developed through random chance.
    Therefore because the human mind developed randomly, human reason and logic are random.
    Therefore if human reason is random, it cannot be trusted to BE reasonable.
    Therefore in order for a person to argue through REASON and LOGIC, they must accept the possability of a logical and reasonable designer.
    THerefore any argument by a person who does not believe in a designer is going to be irrational and illogical by the very foundation of their thinking.
    Therefore, until they can trust in their logic, they cannot argue against the possability of a designer.

    Let's talk about presupasitions for a minute, shall we? In order for any inteligent and meaningful conversation to come about, things must be presupposed by all parties involved.

    You presuppose that evolution is how the world came about, that there was no outside influence by a designer. Right? You presuppose that life came about through random chance, an accidental thing. If this is the case, then reason and logic are random, and yet you continually argue that reason and logic are all we have. But if you're right, logic and reason are chance things that developed randomly and therefore can't be trusted to be right.

    I presuppose that there is a god, there is a plan, a reason for our existance, a meaning for all life. I presuppose that we were designed from a logical, reasoning being and therefore the human mind's faculties can be trusted because logic and reason were given to us by this logical and reasoning being.

    Both presuppositions require faith, you see? Strong faith and trust in the foundation of our seperate theories.

    "Humans havn't "made up" logic, it's a universal truth we have merely discovered and decoded."

    Can you tell me, please, that if we didn't "make logic up," as you argue that we made up God, then where did logic come from? Who made logic if humans didn't? Who coded the logic if we decoded it?

    You say that the human mind is wired to create gods in order to avoid looking at the dark reality that is oblivion. Can you tell me who wired that mind? Surely you're not arguing that it wired itself!? That's nonsense. A switch board doesn't wire itself. A computer doesn't construct itself.

    "But if I say that there is an invisible pink unicorn in my
     
  9. The-Matt-Man

    The-Matt-Man Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Pretty deep there Ross.

    -Matt (whom is not participating in this redundant loop any longer)
     
  10. swmaster

    swmaster Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Could we make a new thread without all the debate? And those who don't believe should kindly stay out of it. Your comments are not needed or wanted. Please respect this.


    On topic I am working on a Hunter : The Reckoning film and it will have many biblical verses in it (Mostly from the Judge). I woudn't mind discussing it in the new thread.

    [image=http://www.iw.net/~ddegroot/Image/Beyond.jpg]


    SWmaster

    You all have my prayers.
     
  11. Jedi_Spiff

    Jedi_Spiff Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jul 2, 2003
    GRRRRR...

    SCIENCE IS NOT THE STUDY OF FACT. Science is the study of observations. You know the noise in your film? That's not what you are trying to measure, it's what you did measure. Is the color of my skin in a particular frame the ACTUAL color of my skin? NO (esp on my camera) it is the result of a sensor and a system, each convolving their own features onto my image.

    There are NO SCIENTIFIC PROOFS, and there ARE NO SCIENTIFIC FACTS. It is the theory of relativity, not the theorem. If you are looking for facts LOOK AT MATH. All the rest is a waste of your time.

    GOOD SCIENCE AND GOOD LOGIC HAPPEN WHEN YOU MAKE YOUR HYPOTHESIS BASED ON YOUR EVIDENCE. If you look for God, you will find him everywhere you look. However, if you are NOT looking for God, you will not see God - this isn't a matter of "faith", this is a matter of evidence.

    If you start your argument with "God exists" or "God doesn't exit", the conclusion you reach will invariably be the one you started with. This is called bias. I AM NOT ATHIEST. I am agnostic. Science cannot provide a perfect answer to all the "why's" in the universe. I feel people invoke God to do this. But I also feel that "why" may be a bogus question. Random occurences? You'd be suprised what can come out of extraordinarily simple rules.

    -Spiff
     
  12. Jedi_Ross

    Jedi_Ross Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Sep 2, 2001
    It is deep, Matt. Very deep. If it isn't, it's not really fun arguing, is it? ;)

    I've always been facinated by this debate and have followed both sides intently. There is a huge debate between scientists that has been raging since Darwin on the evidence of evolution vs. creation. Most people, even christians have no idea that evolution is even being questioned and have no defenses against it.

    The christian side pretty much ignored Darwin's idea for years and didn't have good responses to their arguments, but there is now a huge number of christian leaders and scientists who are showing the serious flaws in the natural origins explanation.

    If you haven't already, check out www.answersingenesis.org and their amazing austrailian leader, Ken Ham, or www.drdino.com for Kent Hovind's site (espeicailly his "articals" section. he talks about all the evidence). Btw, Kent Hovind has a long-standing offer that if anyone can give impirical proof of evolution, he'll give them 250,000 dollars. It has stood since 1990.

    We cannot convince people that there is a god. But we can present them with a reasonable doubt in the evolutionary theory, enough doubt to rule out natural and uncontroled development.
     
  13. Sraw_Rats

    Sraw_Rats Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Nov 23, 2001
    Yeah, Hovind's out of Pensacola, Fl. I spoke to him on the phone once. Great tape series debunking Darwinism.

    Check out "Case For Faith" by Lee Strobel, if you get a chance.
     
  14. tumblemoster

    tumblemoster Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Can you verify that man evolved from a soup through an accident? Give me impirical data! Give me records! Give me measurements! On the one hand, you weren't there to see it, neither were any of the scientists who argue it, and there is no record of it.

    On the other hand, you don't exactly have a photo of God, now do you? And, while geolical evidence and imperical data suggest that evolution is in a fact a real and ongoing process (I CAN get you the data if you really want), there is no such evidence to suggest God.

    Therefore everything is random because everything is chance.
    Therefore the human brain developed through random chance.
    Therefore because the human mind developed randomly, human reason and logic are random.
    Therefore if human reason is random, it cannot be trusted to BE reasonable.
    Therefore in order for a person to argue through REASON and LOGIC, they must accept the possability of a logical and reasonable designer.
    THerefore any argument by a person who does not believe in a designer is going to be irrational and illogical by the very foundation of their thinking.
    Therefore, until they can trust in their logic, they cannot argue against the possability of a designer.


    You wrote a whole hell of a lot, but the first thing I saw was the above bit. You're thinking along the right lines, but you aren't thinking enough. The above line of reasoning has more holes that a spagetti strainer. If you can prove God exists, then prove it, don't argue around the point by trying to tell me reasoning itself is flawed.


    Can you tell me, please, that if we didn't "make logic up," as you argue that we made up God, then where did logic come from? Who made logic if humans didn't? Who coded the logic if we decoded it?

    You say that the human mind is wired to create gods in order to avoid looking at the dark reality that is oblivion. Can you tell me who wired that mind? Surely you're not arguing that it wired itself!? That's nonsense. A switch board doesn't wire itself. A computer doesn't construct itself.

    <...snip...>

    Prove to me that you can trust a mind that came to be through mutation and random chance. Give me factual data or imperical evidence that something that was created for no purpose and is derived from chaos can become ordered, reasonable and logical. There it is, laid out plain and simple, logically and reasonably, in black and white. The gauntlet is thrown down.


    Steven Gould would probably disagree. random number generators often display distinct patterns over time.

    What I'm saying is that if you take away the meaning of life, a very purpose for existing, why should a person bother being moral? Nobody's going to punish them. They are each the most important being in the universe to themselves.

    Perhaps we're evolved and enlightened enough to treat each other kindly simply because it's the right thing to do. Humans create purposes for living. At the rawest level, that purpose is pro-creation. Humanity will never lose the need to continue our species.


    Heck, the only reason there are LAWS is because of religion. Morality was created by religion, morality still exists because the governments of the world were created on the basis of right and wrong, and religion. This is blatantly obvious.

    Most of the religions of the world are exactly the opposite. Several religions teach the subjugation of women is a mans sacred right. There are other tribal belief systems that tell that the death of an enemy is the greatest gift one can offer his God.

    We cannot convince people that there is a god. But we can present them with a reasonable doubt in the evolutionary theory, enough doubt to rule out natural and uncontroled development.

    How about the reasonable doubt that already exists in the theory of God? Like, oh, say, the total lack of evidence? You are heading into the lights instead of jumping on another train track. You spoke of the scientific method. In science and philosophy, the burdon of proof is o
     
  15. Padawan_John

    Padawan_John Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 10, 2002
    Okay, let's try this one on for size . . .

    What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones-no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup?

    The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10 to the 113th power (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 1050 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10 to the 113th power is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe!

    Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell's activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 10 to the 40,000th power! "An outrageously small probability," astronomer Fred Hoyle Hoyle asserts, "that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup." He adds: "If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated spontaneously on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court."

    However, the chances actually are far fewer than this "outrageously small" figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: "Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life."




    My conclusion:
    [b]If it's so bloody impossible to occur by chance and at random, there must have been a guiding hand.[/b]

    Films don't direct themselves. Houses don't build themselves. Life isn't a random occurance - nor is the universe.

    :)

    I respect your rights to not believe in God. I can't fathom it, but I respect it.

    [blockquote]Now lets get back to making films.... [/blockquote]Amen to that. Maybe a fanfilm about a holy war between the Jedi and the Sith? I'm talking about 25,000 BBY - Force-empowered swords and all that jazz - no lightsabers, no recognizable ships.

    Somebody oughta make [u]that[/u] film. :D
     
  16. The-Matt-Man

    The-Matt-Man Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Go to a holy roller style revival and then talk to me about evidence.

    -Matt
     
  17. Figrin-Dan_Man

    Figrin-Dan_Man Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 4, 2002
    bible:


    Basic instructions before leaving earth.....or.....boring international book (of) lying evangelists?
     
  18. Jedi_Spiff

    Jedi_Spiff Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jul 2, 2003
    *Sigh*

    My input get's ignored :)

    To the person who mentioned Steven Gould and random number generators. Actually... there is no such thing (in computer code anyway) as a "random number generator". If you have ever used a "random number generator", then you have acheived something only slightly less remarkable than a perpetual motion machine. The correct term is "pseudo-random number generator" and to my knowledge, no TRUE random number generator exists.

    There are in fact deterministic patterns in all pseudo-random number generator outputs. A pseudo-random number generator creates sequences of numbers that STATISTICALLY follow a UNIFORM distribution. All other "generators" (i.e. gaussian noise generators etc.) convert the output of uniform distribtions to their desired shape.

    As for complicated patterns, amino acids etc. I suspect that the only real "Godly" input required to produce amino acids and the like is the simple set of fundamental forces that establish our Universe to begin with. How these rules came to be is completely irrelevant to our current situation, as it is beyond any experience we could ever comprehend. These initial rules were "forged" in the early stages of our universe when the energy density was so ridiculously high that any sense of reality as we know it does not apply.

    First off: the notion that everything would be chaotic and irrational is rediculous. There are fundamental forces (gravity, EM etc.) at work in the universe that are very simple individually, but when applied to the billions upon billions of particles in the universe can lead to very complicated interactions. These forces however apply order against entropy. It is by this order (attraction, repulsion etc.) that particles come to exist in the state we see today - atoms, molecules and up.

    It can also be mathematically demonstrated with choas theory and fractillian mathematics, that complex ordered structures will result from these simple rules. For example most things in nature from trees to lungs, to the neural pathways in your brain, can be described as statistical fractals. As for reason... Well, the notion of time is the very reason things may be as they are today.

    The reason the humanoid brain is built the way it is may well be because it was a successful itteration in the process. Its success is defined because it was able to propagate long enough in our universe and reproduce fast enough to make for a world population of 7 billion. We are not all the same because minor variations on the theme were also successful.

    "Amino acids couldn't possibly come together on their own without divine intervention". Pffft... The matter we are made of... mostly Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen, is extremely abundant on the surface of our planet. These molecules have also a very strong tendancy to bond to eachother.

    Imagine this: You have a planet with, let's say for argument, 10^50 atoms on it. All of these atoms experience 4 forces, and are flying around through space in this big mass, with energy being added constantly via the sun (yes... it's being lost to other things). These atoms are bumping and grinding along and are by the structure of the universe ATTRACTED to eachother. Would you be at all suprised that they formed a few chemical structures along the way? And seriously, they had 100s of millions of years to do so! I don't find the existence of life on Earth remarkable at all.

    I also fully expect that forms of life - intelligent or otherwise is probably abundant in the universe. I wouldn't expect it to look like us, or even be detected by us. I wouldn't even expect it to be Carbon based - though perhaps the notion that Carbon is the lightest of the 4 electron valence shell atoms gives it first dibs in the unverse as the most viable candidate for all life.

    Anyway... a little more OT: a "fanfilm of the Bible" is fine by me. The science there is no more ludicrous than the science of Star Wars. But hey... Star Wars is fun stuff and good source material. The good book is too. Hell
     
  19. MasterZap

    MasterZap Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Can you verify that man evolved from a soup through an accident? Give me impirical data! Give me records!


    Using your brand of logic, all the evidenc you need is out your window and in your body. We are here. That's the evidence. *ka-ching*

    *sigh* Sadly, you entirely missed my point.


    That is because you had none. :)

    My point is, if the mind was not designed by an inteligent being and it developed randomly, the very reason with which you "double-check" yourself cannot be trusted!


    Does not follow.

    Your entire logic and reason system developed out of nothing! A cosmic burp!


    No. Logic is logic. Unlike your god, logic IS, becaus logic proves itself. Very neat.

    You see, logic and mathematics is the closest I have to a diety. Why? Because they fit all the descriptios of a diety; They always were, they are absolute, the govern absolutely everything everywhere all the time, never change, are time-invariant, complete, perfect (ssh, nobody tell them about Gödel :) ), and un-touchable.

    So in that sense, I do believe in a diety. The difference? My diety is deaf, dumb, non-sentient, and wont listen even if you pray yorself blue in the face, sorry.

    No, no, no. How can the conscious mind be rational if it evolved through an accident or mutation? It's not going to be. It's going to be a mess, utter chaos. THere is going to be no such thing AS logic or reason.


    Eh, no, does not follow.

    Let's break down my argument logically shall we?


    Why? You are rejecting the very existance of logic. :)

    If you do not believe in the possability of a design by some outside force, you must accept evolution and mutation and random chance.


    I do! Very much so.

    Everything evolved from chance through time.


    Keyword here "evolved". While mutations are by chance, evolution is not. Evolution is a self-regulating system, automatically (with no "mind" needed) favouring the most survival-worthy specimen.

    Therefore everything is random because everything is chance.


    Nope. Take PixelMagics example. Throw a lot of dust in a big empty void, and wait a few billions of years. Pixelmagic says you still get dust. Unfortunately, he's wrong.

    Pixelmagic forgets, among other things, the law of gravity. Gravity will pick up on the slightest non-uniformity in the cloud of dust, and start to gather the dust into bigger lumps. You know what you get? A sphere. Or a collection of spheres. A perfect sphere, now THATS "random", right!?

    Furthermore, if you have enough dust, the weight of the dust crumbling on top of itself will, if enough dust exists, trigger the fission reaction turning the sphere of dust into... a star. Etc.

    Therefore the human brain developed through random chance.


    Absolutely not. It developed through evolution, aka "Natural selection". Again, it's a self-regulating system, and has been mathematically proven to always tend to the more complex.

    An EXAMPLE of Evolution:

    In your lung you have a ton of bacteria and germs and stuff. Some of them are growing. Oh look, you got pneumonia. So you go to Doc Brown and he gives you an antibiotic. Whammo. All germs and stuff - dead. Except those three over there. They had a random mutation which made then insensitive to this brand of antibiotics. So they survived.

    A year later, the ONLY kind of germs in your lung is that particular strand, because face it, they were the only ones left to multiply. So, maybe they grow enough to give you a second case of pneumonia. So, you go to Doc Brown. Doc Brown gives you same Antibiotic. Nothing Happens. Why? Due to evolution. You just evolved the bacteria in your lung. Lucky for you, Doc Brown has "Brand B" of antibiotic that wipes em out completely and you go home a nice healthy man. But you were just the witness of microevolution.

    Macroevolution is just
     
  20. Jedi_Ross

    Jedi_Ross Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Sep 2, 2001
    First off, we're all throwing off terms that have not been defined. So let's define them.

    Evolution:

    --MICRO-Evolution. Verifiable fact. Essentially, an animal will adapt slight variations in their appearence based on survival rate and eviromental specifications and demands. If there are a group of finches in an area where long-thin beaks are needed to get to the food supply, the short, thick-beaked birds will die out of the population and the birds with the longer beaks will reproduce and that gene is passed on.

    --MACRO-Evolution. Utter nonsense. Essentially, this theory states that over great lengths of time and random chance, helpful mutations will emerge in a population that mutates over itself again and again, adding more and more helpful parts until the animal or plant has been entirely transformed into an entirely different animal or plant.

    Most of these "proofs" of macro-evolution are merely micro-evolution. In fact, I dislike calling it micro-evolution, because it's not even evolution, it's really adaptation.

    See, micro-evolution isn't proof at all. The finches had the long-beaked gene in their DNA, just like they had the short-beaked gene. Everything about being a bird is encoded in the DNA. The beaks might have changed, but the finch is still a finch. You have poodles and st. bernards and terriers, but their all still dogs. They haven't changed kinds. Micro-evolution is slight variations among a population of animals of a same kind based upon the genes within the DNA. Macro-evolution is the changing of one kind of animal into another kind through time and genetic mutation (mistakes in the DNA information).

    Each kind of animal, bird, dog, cat, whale, human, each have, encoded within their DNA, all of the information they need to be a human or a bird or a dog or a cat. They have specific instructions as to what kind of living thing their going to be. The DNA does not contain any more information or code.

    But scientists have failed to explain why there are no missing links (and yes, before you begin talking about the different links that have been found, every one of them has been found to be either fully man, fully ape, or a hoax) being found in the ground. If the earth is millions of years old and animals have been mutating for millions of years, why is it that we aren't buried up to our eyeballs in the fossils of transitional forms? There would be far more transitional forms than fully formed and distinguishable animals. We wouldn't be able to step outside without stepping on some kind of transitional being or another. A lizard with half a wing perhaps, or a fish with half a lung. And speaking of breathing, why did lungs develop? They're just so annoying sometimes. The first being would have to develop lungs or gills to breath, but why bother breathing in the first place? I mean, the creature doesn't need air now, he hasn't developed lungs yet! He could go underwater, on the surface of the earth, heck, even into space and not have to worry about getting air. But things get helpful mutations, that's the concept of evolution. This little guy has already achieved perfection, how is developing through natural selection and chance a limiting factor going to be helpful? And if he developed with a limiting factor of needing air, he wouldn't have survived long enough to reproduce (assuming he could find a mate in the wide world) and pass on the gene mistake and get it to a new level.

    Intelligent design:

    --Intelligent design says, in essence, that the universe and all in it was designed by a being of intelligent and reasonable thought for a purpose, whatever that purpose may be. What particular deity you ascribe to this deed of design isn't the debate.

    "On the other hand, you don't exactly have a photo of God, now do you? And, while geolical evidence and imperical data suggest that evolution is in a fact a real and ongoing process (I CAN get you the data if you really want), there is no such evidence to suggest God."

    No, I wasn't there either, right enough. But I know somebody who was,
     
  21. MasterZap

    MasterZap Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 11, 2002

    --MICRO-Evolution. Verifiable fact.


    Well done.

    --MACRO-Evolution. Utter nonsense.


    Enough micro-evolutions on top of eachother, and voila.

    Do you have a problem extrapolating facts? You sure were able to extrapolate a whole religion, without evidence, out of the "possibility" of a creator, why can't you extrapolate a little bit with this? Strange.

    because it's not even evolution, it's really adaptation.


    The key event turning "adaption" into "evolution" is speciation. Speciation is when two species are form. Species are defined as "that which does not interbreed". (Note the word "does not", not "can not").

    A species can be formed, initially, by sexual choice. A monkey gets a big mane. A female monkey digs the big mane, mates monkey with big mane. THeir kids will be genetically predisposed to have big manes, and like monkeys with big manes. So they will pick out big maned mates. The big mane gene will be strenghtened in the populace doing this. Given enough time it can sort into two completely different sets of monkeys that do not interbreed - big maned, and small maned. And as soon as you have a separation, all "adaption" will become larger variations in the new "species".

    The beaks might have changed, but the finch is still a finch.


    While this is true, did you really give it billions of billions of years, or did you give it two generations?

    If the earth is millions of years old and animals have been mutating for millions of years, why is it that we aren't buried up to our eyeballs in the fossils of transitional forms?


    Because fossils only form under very specific conditions. 99.99999% of the biomass on the planet is lost forever in the cycle of life. You are making your claims based on the 0.00001% that fossilized.


    And if he developed with a limiting factor of needing air, he wouldn't have survived long enough to reproduce (assuming he could find a mate in the wide world) and pass on the gene mistake and get it to a new level.


    Look up microbioligy and the term "loss of scaffolding".


    No, I wasn't there either, right enough. But I know somebody who was, and he wrote it down in a recognized historically accurate book of the ancient times.


    You guys go on about this. Is the bible really that "historically accurate"? I mean REALLY? I was under the impression the debate was stil raging quite a bit about that? Heck did Jesus even actually exist? For sure?


    You missed my purpose. I'm not trying to prove God exists. I'm trying to show that if evolution is false, there is no other alternative to a designer.



    Again you go into a logical fallacy. If evolution doesnt work the way we think, perhaps there is a mechanism we do not yet understand? DOESNT MAKE THIS MECHANISM A DIETY!

    It is quite plausible that life actually did not originate on earth. There might be a much better place for the original amino acids to form. But once that is done, once we have DNA and replication, the rest handles itself. Organic debris could have been deposited on earth from wherever.

    It still does neiter prove a diety nor design


    Actually, it's a fully developed and obvious line of reasoning logic using logisitc rules. I have even run it by people trained in debate and logic.


    Oh really? I guess they didn't understand evolution either, did they?

    My thesis is to point out flaws in the evolutionary theory and give people a reasonable doubt as to it's "evidence"


    Okay, why dont you say so? Well, I don't agree. Evolution is logically obvious. Macroevolution is just extrapolation from microevolution, given enough time. And there has been plenty of TIME.

    and to eliminate any alternative but a designer.


    But it doesn't! And even if I would, hypothetically, agree that it DID, it doesn't mean that
     
  22. MasterZap

    MasterZap Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Kent Hovind has a long-standing offer that if anyone can give impirical proof of evolution, he'll give them 250,000 dollars. It has stood since 1990


    James Randi has a standing offer for a $M1LL1OOO.OOON dollars for a single, verifiable parapsychic, metaphysic or other "fantastic" event.

    It's been unclaimed since the 80's.

    /Z
     
  23. Sraw_Rats

    Sraw_Rats Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Nov 23, 2001
    Kent Hovind has a long-standing offer that if anyone can give impirical proof of evolution, he'll give them 250,000 dollars. It has stood since 1990


    James Randi has a standing offer for a $M1LL1OOO.OOON dollars for a single, verifiable parapsychic, metaphysic or other "fantastic" event.

    It's been unclaimed since the 80's.
    _______________________________________

    But the 'difference' is that you claim YOUR way is the only logical way.

    If it's so logical and provable, why hasn't anyone claimed Hovind's reward??

    Hint: It's not. It's just a 'faith' based religion.
     
  24. MasterZap

    MasterZap Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Possibly Hovind has included a requirement in his "proof" that is not meetable by current science.

    Lets turn this around.

    Does DNA exist? Yes.

    Could a mutation occur to change a beast, however slightly? Yes, this happen frequently

    Could a beast then, based on the survival quality of this new thing, spread this trait to the rest of it's gene pool? Yes.

    There. "microevolution", or what Jedi Ross calls "adaption".

    Now, you agreed DNA exists, right? And that mutations occur, right? The fact you mostly saw small mutations doesn't mean larger mutations do not exist.

    If a larger mutation causes a trait that is favorable, this will live on. Frankly, this is practically no limit on the size of the mutation, only, it has to be survivable, and useful, to get into the gene pool. Any useless, or un-survivable mutation rules itself out automatically. (While "all the data for making a Finch a Finch" is already in the DNA, as Jedi_Ross put it, a mutation is random creation of new data)

    The fact that we havn't personally witnessed a survivable large mutation with a useful outcome doesn't mean it cannot occur. Mutations do occur, you already agreed to that.

    So everytime there is a change, and the change is good, it is included in the gene pool. (Hmm, sounds like something out of a gospel there ;) )

    Now, if two groups of beast X are separated, for whatever reason (migration, continent shift, flooding, yada yada) they will be two separate genepools meeting separate sets of criteria, and their "adaption" as you have it will go into different directions. Eventually, the divergence will be huge. Eventually, given enough time separated, they will be species ("that which does not interbreed").

    Now, we have all agreed that
    - DNA exists
    - Time passes
    - Mutations do occur

    That is all the mechnisms necessary for evolution. Just because you consider a particular type of mutation "improbable", or just because you havn't observed a particular kind of mutation doesn't mean it's impossible. Frankly, a mutation could do absolutely everything, if it's "severe" enough.

    You do not need any further tools to explain evolution. Using what we know exists, evolution CAN occur.

    The major evidence used "against" evoluion are

    - no "missing link" evidence
    - comlpex constructs made of parts of no use individually
    - that it's "too damned unlikely"

    The "complex constructs made of parts of no use individually" is adressed by the "loss of scaffolding" concept I've mentioned numerous times before.

    The lack of evidence could be disturbing, but keeping in mind that a ver low percentage of the earths biomass is actually preserved for study as fossils.... it's also not so strange.

    And when you think about it, isn't the black panther the missing link between the cheetah and the tiger (or vice versa, or whatever?).

    Actually, looking at it that way, the place is CRAWLING with "missing links" of all shapes and sizes?

    Leaves only the probability argument. You just feel it's "unlikely" that the chain of events leading to us would occur "by itself".

    This is where Time enters.

    Consider an unlikely event. Gimme a number. Any number. Just pick one, I don't care.

    Now, consider that at your disposal, you have infinite time. Infinite is big. Infinite is really really big. Actually, infinite is so darned big..... that even the most unlikely occurance... is certain.

    If an event has a likelyhood of 1 in 10 to the 40,000:th power.... it still means that during an inifite timespan.... it will not only occur... but occur... an infinite number of times.

    The only way something does not occur, is if the likelyhood is Zero.

    And nobody around here gave a likelyhood of Zero, now did they?

    /Z

     
  25. Azionite

    Azionite Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Jun 10, 2002
    Zap,

    You bring up a good point about genetic mutations and if indeed there are genetic mutations, however small, then surely there must be larger genetic mutations.

    However, do you have any examples of genetic mutations resulting in a positive addition to the gene line?

    There are thousands of genetic mutations that occur and are passed from one generation to the next (High Cholesterol, Cancer, Multilpe Sclerosis, etc.), but I don't know of one genetic mutation that has added positively to the genetic makeup of the individual's descendants.

    I would think that if there were ANY chance of a positive mutation, then we would see some sort of result from that, however small.

    So, given infinite time, the mutations that are occuring will only make the species weaker rather than stronger. That completely goes against the premise of evolution.

    Edit:Spelling. Also, see the next post. Much more information than I could provide, sheesh! :p
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.