 |
| |
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by LordAzreal
"Evolution!", "No, CREATION.", "Evolution" "no, CREATION DAMN IT!!!", "uhm... Evolution", "YOU MAKE ME SICK!!! YOU GO TO HELL!!! YOU GO TO HELL AND YOU DIE!!!" |
Yeah I noticed there was an unusual amount of that. Even for a Creation vs. Evolution thread. Mostly it was because Draco had so little understanding of what he was copying from the Creationism sites.
quote:
Leave them to live in their dream world back in the dark age. Let them have blind faith. Its their problem, not anyone else's. |
If only that were true. It isn't. The Creationist keep trying to sneak their religious beliefs into the US school systems.
quote:
They won't change to your way of thinking because they are unmovable. And when they give you crap about what you believe, just turn and walk away, pay no attention, and get a restraining order of them if necessary. |
Actually I HAVE changed peoples minds upon occasion.
Besides I LIKE argueing. Its entertainment for me. The only problem is that it can be addicting.
If nothing else I have vastly improved my language skills and my typing speed. Not my spelling unfortunatly and I keep leaving words out. Sometimes when I look at something I wrote a while ago I wonder what the heck I had intended to say. Other times I wonder how I managed to say it so well. I am trying to increase the latter and decrease the former.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jethro83
|
|
Newcastle, Australia
Mar 2002
time: 15:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Messing with a loophole in the human psyche, that is all religion really is. |
 I couldn't agree more. Being a partial Deist, I see little value in revealed religion. If those sad sods want to sell their souls, minds and individuality to a revealed religion, by all means, that's their problem. Just don't expect people with healthy minds to follow suit.
Last edited by Jethro83 on 19-04-2002 at 17:09
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jethro83
|
|
Newcastle, Australia
Mar 2002
time: 15:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
If only that were true. It isn't. The Creationist keep trying to sneak their religious beliefs into the US school systems. |
Both creation AND evolution need to be taught, in order to help people to make up their own minds. When I was at high school, there was no effort to teach creation whatsoever. This matter shouldn't be allowed to go one-sided EITHER way.
quote:
Besides I LIKE argueing. Its entertainment for me. The only problem is that it can be addicting. |
Oh yeah. Arguments are an addictive form of amusement. Even when you are a third party observer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zachriel
|
 |
U.S.A.
Dec 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gibsie
Woah, Creationism should certainly not be taught in a conventional manner is is evolution! Perhaps in RE learning about Genesis it'd be okay to bring it up, but not on any level similar to evolution. The Flat Earth Society would no doubt start whingingmabout being included in the syllabus  |
Absolutely right. As a Christian, I know that religion does not belong in the science classroom, and that includes Creationism. When I mix chemical-A and chemical-B the solution turns blue, "because God made it so," is not a scientifically helpful answer.
By trying to cloak their religion with scientific trappings, they are hurting the Church, they are hurting science, and they are hurting their children. The truth matters, and it should matter most to Christians of all people.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zevico
|
|
Melbourne
Apr 2002
time: 15:18
|
|
why not just agree to disagree?
Draco, that's your opinion. However, the fact is that, whether or not the theory of evolution is true, it DID have a large impact on society. Hence it is a wonder. The END. Wonders are excuses to make some cool stuff happen in the game. Nothing Else. The end. Even if Wonders had to be true somehow, the programmers obviously felt that this part of the fame should be put it in. Call them evolutionists who ignore the truth if you like. don't buy the game if you feel so strongly about it.
Last edited by Zevico on 19-04-2002 at 17:49
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DrFell
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zevico
Draco, that's your opinion. |
Only problem is, his opinion is based on a load of creationist bullshit with no basis in real science. It scares me to think someone might believe in this (though this is just a dumb troll).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
Double post
Last edited by Ethelred on 19-04-2002 at 18:26
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by LordAzreal
Both creation AND evolution need to be taught, in order to help people to make up their own minds. When I was at high school, there was no effort to teach creation whatsoever. This matter shouldn't be allowed to go one-sided EITHER way. |
Creationism is a purely religous idea. The US public school system has no business teaching religion except perhaps in a comparitive religions class and I don't think the christians would be thrilled with the results of that sort of class.
You might as well be insisting on Flood theory so the students can decide for themselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
In reply to Rogan Josh
|
This is exactly what i'm saying with religious evolution. Religion just back peddles to encompass whatever made it blatantly wrong (if it can.)
For instance, the Catholic Church decided it couldn't win an 'Evolution doesn't exist' argument, so they back peddled to say God started it all in motion. Which will be valid up until someone proves it otherwise.
Essentially, the message from religion is: we're about the general idea, not those annoying little details, and forget what we said last week.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zachriel
Try not to let "Christians" confuse you as to what the Bible is about. It is not a science book. It is not a history book. It is an anthology of stories concerning the human condition and his relationship with God. |
It is scientific insofar as a big claim of the bible is that god created everything. If he didn't then whats he got to do with us?
God only exists through self-referential evidence of the Bible. God inspired the Bible which says God exists. Thats like saying Aliens really did create the human race, because L Ron Hubbard said so in his book. That had some stories in it about the human condition. What makes his implausible stories better or worse than the bibles?
You've failed to address a fundamental statement I made... 'and forget everything we said last week'. Religion changes to survive. If someone wrote a religious book at the time... and said thats it, then they'd need to be terribly ambiguous about the nature of a god or whether he did create or inspire anyone, since it would be under scrutiny for the rest of history. Unless you revise it. Exactly what the church has done through history.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Hello again everyone,
There seems to be a few basic problems here that need to be addressed. First there is the “speciation” argument. Hawaiian Wallabies and Australian Wallabies are both birds. That was Drako’s point. He and other rational people are looking for proof of a real change from one distinct animal to another. His point is still valid. It is speculation that asserts that it is possible for a catfish to turn into a cat, not evidence. Also the dog thing proves with several hundred years of experimentation that a wolf or dog remains in the same family and does not turn into another creature over time. What is proved is Variation within a particular kind of animal not evolution form one kind to another. Speculation is needed to prove otherwise. Experimental evidence shows that Drako was correct here. Of course the evolutionist will say that it simply takes more time. But in the mean time the prima facie evidence supports the view of Drako and the evolutionist must rely on speculation and subjective interpretation of fossils.
I see that no one has attempted to overthrow the information laws that I posted yet. No, I did not use the theory of Claude Shannon here because he does not address the true nature of information contained in a biological organism. That is not a refutation of Shannon’s work. Werner Gitt on the other hand address information not only on a statistical level as did Shannon but also on the true higher levels which define specified coded information which is in reality contained in DNA. So I must prove this here, I suppose so here goes:
In a tiny seed there exists all of the information necessary to make, regulate, maintain and reproduce a fully functioning organism. This is simply fact. It is the information contained in coded form in DNA that supplies all of the information for this miracle of life to take place. So let’s look on all five levels of information and see if DNA fits the definition.
1. Statistics.
This is a given and is what Shannon explored and is agreed by all. Statistics answers the following questions: 1. How many letters does the supposed alphabet contain? Answer; 4 (ACTG). 2. How many “words” are there in the “language”? Answer; About 64 (codons or triplets made up of the 4 letters). 3. How frequently do certain letters and words occur? This question defines a language as opposed to simply patterns or repeats of the same letter or word. DNA obviously is more than repeats and patterns. The statistical level helps us to understand the brevity or verbosity of information and the efficiency of communication but it gives us no clue to the actual meaning. For example if I sent a telegram which said “By all means come as fast as you can without delay or unnecessary preoccupation with trivial matters” that would be more information than if I simply said “Come now!”. The more detailed explanation is not considered on a statistical level – only the amount of information, i.e., more in the first and less in the second. As you can see, the increased information in the first example is largely fluff. The essence is in the second example and it is also more efficient because it uses less energy.
2. Syntax.
This is information in coded form. The questions that must be answered here include: 1. What combinations of letters (or symbols) make up the code? Answer; Any combination of ACTG (quaternary code) in triplets. 2. What criteria are used for constructing the code? Answer; It is composed of triplets that represent (generally) one of 20 amino acids. 2. What is the mode of transmission? Answer; It is transmitted chemically. Is it a true code? Answer; Yes, because DNA is irregular and the coded information within it cannot be explained by the laws of physics or chemistry. That is, the lateral attractions of ACTG are the same regardless of order along the string of nucleotides. Also the code has been broken and the translation method has been discovered. The syntax level of information is basically the grammar of the code. Or what is the acceptable order of words? In DNA the “words” must combine in a specific order so that the specified protein can be manufactured. Repeated words are allowed.
3. Semantics.
This is the actual meaning of the words or “sentences”. Both of the above requirements may have been met but we still do not know what this all means so that a seed can grow into a tree or whatever. For example I could say, “there is a barn flavored dog rising along the moon that caught a racoon that was transmitted sarcastically about the ionosphere.” That sentence is grammatically correct (according to WP grammar check) but there is no clear meaning. A developing seed needs to have instructions that make sense. This is accomplished in DNA by ordering the amino acids in a logical order that foresees the translation and eventual folding of the protein or enzyme into a specific shape and quality. “Make a tRNA molecule according to the following instructions . . . “ for example. Therefore the meaning of those instructions is to assemble amino acid “A” with amino acid “G” and amino acid “H” and amino acid “R” etc. in a specific order that has meaning to the organism.
4. Pragmatics.
This is the practical level. What does this actually do? Answer; It makes specific proteins. The whole idea of the code is to actually do something practical which is the making of specific proteins with a specific function that perform specific tasks that are useful in the organism. DNA when translated by the ribosomes and the accompanying machinery actually produces the desired product. Information to be useful must actually do something. The information contained in DNA actually works and has a practical value.
5. Apobetics.
Purpose or goal. What is the purpose of all of this? Answer; To make, regulate, maintain and reproduce a specific animal or plant. In other words, all of the other levels of information are combined to produce the goal which is a dog or a tree or whatever. The coded information in DNA accomplishes the goal that was intended. The seed was intended to make a tree. The goal was accomplished and the purpose was achieved.
Now about the question of the watchmaker analogy. Everyone who has objected to that analogy has used a circular argument to support their view. The fact that a living organism is self replicating and is affected by environment and other factors does not prove the inappropriateness of the analogy unless it is already assumed that evolution is a fact and it operates even before life exists. Of course that is the question of this thread so you are answering a question with a belief in evolution. Also, the entire purpose of the analogy is to show the absurdity of a machine arising from the earth spontaneously. The fact that a biological machine is even more complicated than the analogy only strengthens the case of the creationist.
“How do microbes acquire drug resistance?”
They either manipulate existing information like a computer program does or they a acquire new information from an outside source.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-04-2002 16:55
|