Printable View
Simply because there will never BE a true clone. Both me and you have a sense of self. I am this process, in this pattern, here. The laws of physics dictate that no other can be this process, in this pattern, here. Therefore, the clone is impossible. Makes it pretty straightforward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shambles
why does that imply a soul to you? it implies nothing of the sort to me. i can sort out the different selves easily based on the limitations of perspective and memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shambles
simply becousl All these things You state could be cloned, in the origional version of what i said,
But even after doing so,
You would not be the same
So something differs,
And untill some 1 comes up with a better word for it,
I will use the word soul
I beleve your definition of the word soul and my definition of the word soul Differ Greatly.
And that is where we get this hidious comunication break down.
You can say Your soul is your thought process. "cloneable"
or Your sence of self "cloneable"
Or a combination of both "cloneable"
But never the less even if you do clone them all Perfectly.
You would not be the same.
Which implies theres something els, that makes you who you are,
And thats what im calling a soul, "maby in years to come they will say Its a neuron that attaches its self to your frontal lobes"
But untill then i will call this Un known entity your soul
Just like if your parents concived you 3 days latter than they did realy,
Everything is the same,
But you would not be you,
You would be some 1 els.
So there for a difrent soul being or essance
then why don't you try to define what you mean by "soul". i ask you to do this because i do not believe in souls*, so i'm interested in how you think the disparity in personal identity between two people demonstrates the existence of a soul.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shambles
*the loose definition of soul that i'm using is something like dictionary.com's first entry: "The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity".
My definition of a soul isQuote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
The un known Part of you That makes you difrent from any clone you could ever make.
I dont beleve In SOULS as in how most people would think of a soul,
its just that the Word soul is The closest thing to what i beleve seperates me from any algorythum that may clone me precisley
I do not beleve in heven and hell I do not beleve The soul lives on,
I beleve That I am my soul,
And that My self is My soul and not any thought process or sence of self i may have.
My soul Is the part of me that makes me me,
Where as i could make a computer think its me and Act like me talk like me, Fool people in to thining it was me,
But it would never actualy be me,
As it would not have my soul
but that can be simply accounted for by the physical separation between bodies. a "perfect clone" and it's original aren't the same person because they don't occupy the same point in space, and therefor their perspectives will differ. necessarily, these two people are not the same person. i fail to see where a soul comes into the discussion at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shambles
that sounds like you are simply talking about self-awareness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shambles
Quick question:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shambles
I start two copies of a program on my computer. Each runs the same algorhythim. Are they the same thing?
Like i said,
its your definition of the word that differs from mine,
Quote:
Quick question:
I start two copies of a program on my computer. Each runs the same algorhythim. Are they the same thing?
Fundimentaly Not But neither do they have a sence of self,
or a thought process that can be duplicated for both,
I tell you what,
You Make up a better word than Soul for me to use,
And il use that
---------------------------------------
Self aware ness could also be cloned,Quote:
that sounds like you are simply talking about self-awareness.
along with thought processes.
and anything els you may want to sudgest
But would still not make the clone me.
Ok hows about this then.
You clone a tree.
And that tree is EXACTLy alike to the 1st one,
They are still not the same,
The simple fact that physics say thay are not the same must be atributed to some thing,
Simply saying theres standing els where does not mean they are not the same,
So something fundimentaly differs.
So A tree would also have my version of a soul
Even without a sence of self or a rational thought process something Makes it individual.
Not just that there standing els where
In fact Everything does,
with exeption to algorythms and writen words,
shambles, maybe you should find a better word for your thought than "soul". i think by using such a pregnant word, you're sewing much confusion.
a better word? well, it honestly sounds like you are just dealing with simple self-awareness. instead of "soul", to me it sounds like you are talking about "personal identity". but, i'm getting the impression that you are trying to grant a will or animation of some sort to "personal identity", which i don't understand.
you say "self awareness" could be cloned. but this is not all that is necessary for personal identity. the selves of two people differ, fundamentally, in three ways, imo.
1) the structure and function of the brain/mind - theoretically "cloneable"
2) the structure and function of the rest of the body - theoretically "cloneable"
3) the physical uniqueness (in space-time) of the body/mind - "not cloneable", do to simple physical laws
this third aspect is what accounts for your personal identity discrepancy.
Well, if they were written in Java, at least, they have enough sense of self to know what me.* is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shambles
Realistically, I don't oppose your use of the word soul, but it is more a redefinition of the word then it is anything else.
This may be a factor But i certanly beleve there is more to it than that,Quote:
you say "self awareness" could be cloned. but this is not all that is necessary for personal identity. the selves of two people differ, fundamentally, in three ways, imo.
1) the structure and function of the brain/mind - theoretically "cloneable"
2) the structure and function of the rest of the body - theoretically "cloneable"
3) the physical uniqueness (in space-time) of the body/mind - "not cloneable", do to simple physical laws
If you take in to account the cosmic foam theory of dimentions then You can indeed clone the 3rd physical uniqueness.
But then You still would not be the same,
But a combination of all 3 could in deed be What i deem to be My soul,
for lack of A better word,
And untill i get a better word Im afaraid i will continue to use my definition,
As it most closley describes how I feel about my self,
I must say however i have Really enjoyed this debate with many of you,
You have been verry civil and unlike most of the time in the back room we have been able to deabte this With out the need for insults,
ShambleS
:bow:
After a week and a half of looking at Chinese & Singaporean girls, I'm a convert. My religion is now the deification of the female form. God, the girls are luscious over here.
All kidding aside, I'm something of a Deist Christian. I believe in the Trinity & all of that, but I believe God has rather limited interaction with us down here. I've seen evidence contradicting this position, and I've seen evidence supporting it. But in the end, I have to ask myself if said Trinity exists (a question I don't have time to get into) why would I be here and what is my purpose? What is the purpose of humanity and what is the purpose of life? Seems like learning to deal with one's problems and move on to helping others with theirs seems like a good place to begin.
My 2 cents.
By the way, I'm gone 1.5 weeks, and we have 3!!!! people on warning level 3???? What the hell happened?
that's cool. imo, you are more confused about your idea than i am. ~;) i'll just remember that in the future if i see you talking about "souls".Quote:
Originally Posted by Shambles
i will ask you (or anyone) to explain how two separate persons can satisfy my third parameter for 'personal identity'. i think you are inventing a case that does not (actually can not) exist by saying that my third parameter can be satisfied by more than one person. imo, you are trying to jump over a paradox that is fatal to your claim: "But then You still would not be the same".
Yes, what you are talking of is of worldly purpose and pleasures. Those don't last long, as you won't know it because you don't believe in any religion. Plus, wouldn't it be better to just take a 50/50 chance? really WHAT IF heaven and hell existed suddenly when you die. You will regret alot to rott in a that disgusting place for eternity while others enjoy eternal peace.Quote:
Are you saying that because I am an Atheist I have no purpose in life? Not true sah! I have plenty of purpose, though I will die and it could all be for naught I will still try to make the world a bit better, to help some people. I will also try to have a good life. Isn't that purpose enough? To try to have a good, productive life?
but the cosmic foam theory of simentions, Is more than a hypothetical situation.
After all can you tell me where a black hole leads to?
But thats a difrent debate all together,
So i guess il just go to bed :)
Thank you 1ce more for a civil debate,
ShambleS
:bow:
There are alot of phenomenas that science can't explain. For example, most christians, unlike think-they-are-christians in this forum, really devout christians, experience a real weird thing (I don't know the name of the phenomena in English). When they pray really hard and really faithfully and devoutly for hours and hours, they suddenly speak prayer really rapidly(the words comeout automatically, eventhough they are not speaking anything) with another LANGUAGE!! this is true, my mother had it longago with a foreign language that she had never heard before (she only speaks Korean and some english) And there are alot of testimonies of it. One for example, longtime ago was an old lady (american) who invited this korean student immigrant(he goes to my church i think) to see if he can understand what she is saying because she doesn't understand what she is saying during prayer. When that lady suddenly had that thing, she surprisingly spoke rapid korean during prayer (note that she never knew any korean). It could be any language in the world, and there are thousands of testimonies about it, not just koreans. I must mention that all people I noted DO NOT have any psychological problems.
OK, that's IT! I will convert all you atheists to believers by scientifically proving that we are not the descendants of a monkey!! Did YOU know that the scientific comunity is pressuring forcefully to have US high school teachers to teach only about natural selection and evolution theory and never allow ideas of intelligent design, even if it can be right?! If evolution only pose as a theory, why can't we teach about the intelligent design AS a theory?!! There have been cases where when a high school teacher discussed faulty of evolution, he got fired. He wasn't teaching them about religion and creationism either. Here are some of the scientific facts:
*Bacterial flagellum, is much too interdependent with each other's part that it is impossible to work with a part missing, so natural selection cannot apply to it because it can never have been gradually developed. Also, try to look close to the flagellum, it is like a human engineering.
http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/flag_labels.jpg
*Modern scientist don't understand how DNA can be naturally formed in anyways. The formation of coded (specified complexity) information of DNA is more complex than your computer. Those codes can't be suddenly created naturally unless created by something. (not that religious, since some of you atheist can think that we are an alien experiment).
*Miller-Urey experiment produced only the basic stages of composition of life, but never was able to produce complex stages of the formation including RNA/DNA, proteins, and membranes. Plus geochemists now know that Earth's early atmosphere and conditions were far worse and the experiment do not simulate what might reasonably have happened under natural conditions of harsh early periods. (only some electricity in a experiment glass tube)
*The five factors can create a major barriers to chemical evolution. Oxygen in atmosphere (since oxygen can destroy the compound and prevent the chemical reaction that produce organic compounds), reversible chemical reactions (reversible reactions can tear the products into the previous state of building blocks), 3-D chemistry (optical isomers), chemical cross-reactions.
*Johanson's discovery of the ape, Lucy, was not a bipedal ape. Evidently they could walk SOMEWHAT upright, as pygmy chimps do today, but not in the human manner at all. seldom reminds us that he found the knee joint, the strongest evidence for upright stance, in a location some two to three kilometers away, and in a layer of rock some 200 feet lower. Clearly, the knee does not belong with the rests, but even if they do go together, the knee is not diagnostically upright, and; points more specifically to tree-climbing abilities. It is conclusice that two or perhaps three species have been wrongly combined in "Lucy." She was not a human ancestor. At best, she was a form of extinct ape; at worst, she was a mosaic, yet she is still touted as the best "evidence" for human evolution.
*The drawings of Haekel's embryos have always been the foundation for the evidence of evolution for century. These drawings are now found to be fake, thanks to modern science, because of their complete inaccuracy of portraying the embryos of animals during their early stages. Haeckel's drawings are oversimplified to the point of obscuring important differences between classes of vertebrates. Interestingly, this knowledge appears to be "old hat" among German biologists. Haeckel's drawings were not trusted, and Haeckel was accused of scientific fraud by a university court in Jena, where he worked and by other embryologists.
YET, textbook publishers foolishly do nothing to fix it.
http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/Richardson1.gif
Haeckel's rediculous imagination
http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/Richardson3.gif
Real embryos
*The tree of life illustrates the evolutionary changes that have occured. This too can be regarded as a mere hypotheses because the real fossil and molecular evidence shows a completely different story about the origin of numberous species that exists today (the fossil evidence shows that all of them came from exactly similar period at the right time)
*Homology, the science of simililarity of bones and vertebrate limbs, is an area which only supports the evolution. However, this view is comparing similarities of animal bones, which cannot make conclusion and only go in circles.
*The peppered moths case, which support the natural selection, is a very misleading and misunderstood topic, because some experiments regarding this case have been made in a complete artificial situation, which nature does not present.
*finches on the galapagos islands showed a sign of natural selection as their beak size increased as a drought came. BUT, darwin missed the fact that NO major change have occured and that after the drought, the beaks have returned to its normal size.
*To illustrate that there is no real difference between apes and modern humans, evolution supporters have made fanciful drawings of cave-men to make the reader believe it. Though there are hardly any evidence regarding this matter.
In conclusion, those fools have divided the biology community and criticized and rediculed those people who opposed Darwin's theory as being creationist. This is no different than the intolerance of during the scientific revolutions of the renaissance and the catholic inquisition!!!
I already know we did not decend from monkeys.
There were actualy 3 or four difrent species of human,
and then there were also Also monkeys,
I do not understand what you hope to proove by this,
try to Scientifically proove to me where god came from.
And if you say no 1 had to create god,
Then i wil say No 1 had to create life.
Now then you can see and watch mutations in the geen pool almost every day "deformed creatures are born"
This is what scientist would call a evolutionary throw back,
Not all mutations in the gene pool are benifactory,
but some most definatly are,
Then It becomes a survival of the fitest ,
Where the ones who mutated in a benificial way Find it easier to adapt and survive,
Humans didnt neciseraly Mutate just becous of evolution,
But becous of what they ate,
A high protine diet helped there brains to grow larger and more complex,
This aided their hunting abilaties and eventualy lead to the humans we know now.
Language was a Huge step in our evolutionary progress,
But Any one who has any real grasp of modern day science also knows The darwin theory to be false.
Humans were here
Many difrent forms
The larger humans suffered greatly from over heating. And had large nasal cavity's,
But could not run very far or fast,
There were a smaller pigmy race of humans,
These could not run very fast but were capable of longer distances but for obvious reason's would not be able to fend against the larger species of humans
Then there were What could be most closley related to us.
Who were smaller than the Large human species But also considerably larger than the pigmy race,
They were the ones who were best suited to the task of living on earth,
and were around just about the same time smilerdon (saber tooth tigers) were wiped out,
These creatures had the abilaty to run for up to 8 hours closley following four legged animals and although could not neciseraly catch them instantly They could out run them over a greater distance and Then capture the animal when it was spent of energy,
This can be witnessed to this day by some abiriginal tribes who still hunt in this manner,
The marrow from animal bones was also rich in protine which again helped form brain matter.
And in turn this species of human Was in deed dominant,
And that is how we are still here today,
and such animals as the saber tooth tiger have dissapeared, "speculated to have been killed of by early forms of human"
Again i fail to see how knowing any of this could Convert any atheist.
There are many things a human mind cannot fathom,
The knowlage that one day you will die and then you will be no more is Quite horendous once you think about it,
And you could end up with people saying IF im going to die any way What the hell And then they could go mad and Do what they wanted, With no regard for any one or anything
So inventing religion is a really good way to make people stay in line,
Its verry strange however that there are No repecussions in the here and now for not having a faith where acording to most religions Many years ago You would have had a plague of locusts or Seas of blood,
Or Mass floods for your lack of faith,
With so many Un beleveres these days Compared to when these storys are ment to have taken place. Wouldnt it be more likeley to happen now,
Than back then when lack of educcation left people more supseptable to beleving in a mythical figure.
I say There Is no God, ANd He MAY STRIKE mE DOWn With A Lightning Bolt right Now, If i am wrong
P.s
about the phenomenon you are refering to
I beleve its called speaking in toungs,
Oh yeah,
Im still here No lightning bolt.
So I guess god does not exist
TheWingedVictory,
Who said early life used oxygen?
We all have the same ancestors.
Development is dictated with PRECISION by the DNA. And these changes in the dna is randomly occurring.
These are not proofs at all ~:confused: I don't see any science either. ~:confused:
There is no god; and you can call all the priests, imams, mullah, pope, or any religious figures in the world and they will offer you this much evidence:
0
You're trying to put the burden on science to disprove an imagined being that has no scientific proof of existence in the first place. Can you prove there are elves? Can you prove there's a Jabberwocky?
Problem is you create a god-hole and you're trying to fit everything in it. That's not how it works. A square hole according to the bible - yikes - and everything fits into it.
Those Bibles and Koran are ones that have zero basis. Give me any basis of those writings? The basis for christianity are older religious like Zoroasterism and Judaism etc. What are the basis for those religions? You get the idea.
:charge:
I mentioned something, that intelligent design isn't only about God or a supreme being. It could be some ET from outer space. Plus I don't disagree with minor changes which animals adapt to certain conditions, in order to survive. What I was talking was chemical evolution and its nonsense. There is no current explanation for the later stages of life of chemical formation such as DNA, protein, and etc. Scientists still don't know it. I am criticizing the behaviors of modern scientific community. they behold a theory as the truth, which they never fully proven. All I gave you about those infos are not bsed.
I can't cuz religion is beyond the realm of science, and it's up to faith in the matter of God.Quote:
try to Scientifically proove to me where god came from.
Why don't Sunday Schools teach evolution?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWingedVictory
Being interdependent does not disprove evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWingedVictory
Those codes can quite easily be formed given a long enough time line. I suggest you read some popular science books to get the basics.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWingedVictory
Harsh enviroments does not preclude life. Also life may have started beneath the surface of the earth in far more steady conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWingedVictory
The early earth did not have much oxygen in the atmosphere... it was created later by life ~D . Not all chemical reactions are easily reversibile... otherwise life as we do now know it would desolve into its elements. Optical isomers does not disprove evolution anymore then a mirror does.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWingedVictory
How does Creationism explain lucy? How does Intelligent design explain lucy? Was it a case of poor project management and a rush to get the product out without proper testing?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWingedVictory
The best evidence for human evolution is having large segements of our DNA found in other lifeforms on this planet. This disproves both Alien intervention and creationism.
Are you stating that fossils are all from the same time period? Not according to isotopic dating schemes.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWingedVictory
How is it going in circles?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWingedVictory
The colour frequency change as the environment changed was very good evidence of evolutionary adapatation to enviromental stress.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWingedVictory
You do understand that this is proof of evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWingedVictory
DNA, bones, fossils, tools. That is four different fields of science that come to the same general conclusions that evolution has occured.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWingedVictory
Yes I saw on the news last night Stephen Hawking and Dawkins demanding that Churches teach evolution at Sunday schools. They also demand that will burn at the stake anyone who attempts to prove them wrong. Also a splinter group has been setup to blow up right to life clinics.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWingedVictory
Because the Japanese made them inferior...... ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Being interdependent means they could never have evolved in very gradual stages as natural selection upholds.Quote:
Being interdependent does not disprove evolution.
Is biology a religion to you? If you haven't been to a sunday school, Church and sunday schools only exists to expand christian student's knowledge on bibles and how to be a good christian because ur in a church not school. It's not about human knowledge and science.Quote:
Why don't Sunday Schools teach evolution?
oh hoho? how, could you explain for me how they could be formed given a long enough time? What chemicals under what conditions?Quote:
Those codes can quite easily be formed given a long enough time line. I suggest you read some popular science books to get the basics.
No, the best explanation from your evolutionists is that life started in a small pond somewhere. How is a chance that there might be a little pond protecting life under extreme conditions for thousands of years? A slim chance indeed. Also, plz the miller urey experiment was the condition under earth's primitice oceans. Moreover, your evolution theorists say that the earliest of all life dwelled in ocean, not land dweller. But since you believe it began beneath the surface, could you explain for me how it did?Quote:
Harsh enviroments does not preclude life. Also life may have started beneath the surface of the earth in far more steady conditions.
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise...y/Pmilurey.gif
Miller-Urey experiment during the 50s proved that they could create some of the basic ingredients of life, amino acids. With the help of earth's early atmosphere, including oxygen. But now we know that abundance of oxygen can also destroy. Chirality is a chemical term that means handedness. Although two chemical molecules may appear to have the same elements and similar properties, they can still have different structures. When two molecules appear identical and their structures differ only by being mirror images of each other, those molecules are said to have chirality. Your left and right hands illustrate chirality. Your hands may appear to be identical, but in reality, they are only mirror images of each other, hence the term handedness. For this reason, chirality can exist as a right-handed or a left-handed molecule, and each individual molecule is called an optical isomer. What is the problem of chirality? In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions. Chirality is a property that only a few scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality was missing in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes. Let's look at chirality in proteins and DNA. Proteins are polymers of amino acids and each one of the component amino acids exists as the "L" or left-handed optical isomer. Even though the "R" or right-handed optical isomers can be synthesized in the lab, this isomer does not exist in natural proteins. The DNA molecule is made up of billions of complicated chemical molecules called nucleotides, and these nucleotide molecules exist as the "R" or right-handed optical isomer. The "L" isomer of nucleotides can be prepared in the lab, but they do not exist in natural DNA. There is no way that a random chance process could have formed these proteins and DNA with their unique chirality. If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what we see in natural proteins or in natural DNA. How can a random chance natural process create proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of "R" molecules? Does this sound like random chance or a product of design? Even if there were a magic process to introduce chirality, it would only create one isomer. If such a process existed, we do not know anything about it or how it would work. If it did exist, how were compounds with the other chirality ever formed? Even if there were two magical processes, one for each isomer, what determined which process was used and when it was used, if this was a random chance natural process? The idea of two processes requires a controlling mechanism, and this kind of control is not possible in a random chance natural process. However, the problem with chirality goes even deeper. As nucleotide molecules come together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a twist that forms the double helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a twist in the chain because each component contains chirality or handedness. It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would not function properly. The entire replication process would be derailed like a train on bad railroad tracks. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of molecules within our body would have to be generated with the "R" configuration all at the same time, without error. If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be formed with chirality, how much less likely would it be for billions of nucleotides to come together exactly at the same time, and all of them be formed with the same chirality? If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products of opposite chirality? Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma. According to evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time. However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science in any amount of time. That is the dilemma, either natural processes cannot explain everything, or chirality doesn't exist. If you're in doubt as to which is correct, you are a living example of the reality of chirality. Without chirality, proteins and enzymes could not do their job; DNA could not function at all. Without properly functioning proteins and DNA, there would be no life on this earth. The reality of chirality, more than any other evidence, did more to convince me of the reality of an all-powerful Creator. I hope it will do the same for you.Quote:
The early earth did not have much oxygen in the atmosphere... it was created later by life . Not all chemical reactions are easily reversibile... otherwise life as we do now know it would desolve into its elements. Optical isomers does not disprove evolution anymore then a mirror does.
Best evidence is only DNA? Is is not possible that a supreme being or an Alien would have designed those DNA of ours and replicated some of it for every creature? Also, it is not possible for us and other creatures to have the identical large segment of DNA. It's simply all the physical traits and genetic codes. I'm sure we don't have a reptile skin, do we?And about the creationism, there is no SCIENTIFIC explanation for lucy. Simply because creationism is, almight god created all living matter. We don't know God's knowledge and how he did it, so you can't disapprove us because there could be thousands of possibilities. What I'm really pointing out is that johanson made a completely false evidence. I told you, Lucy, is actually collection of several other ape species. He didn't even answer a question regarding this matter at a college visit here in Washington state, and just skipped it. Why don't you make him explain Lucy.Quote:
How does Creationism explain lucy? How does Intelligent design explain lucy? Was it a case of poor project management and a rush to get the product out without proper testing? The best evidence for human evolution is having large segements of our DNA found in other lifeforms on this planet. This disproves both Alien intervention and creationism.
If earth layers and fossil records are inspected, it will be seen that all living organisms have been created instantaneously. The oldest layer of the earth, where fossils of living creatures have been found, is the Cambrian layer which has an estimated age of 500 million years. There are no animal fossils deeper than this layer. Animals belonging to this Cambrian layer have appeared suddenly in the fossil records with no pre-existing ancestors. These animals within the layers possess irreducibly complex organs like eyes, or systems like blood circulation and gills that only emerge in higher organisms.. Also there is no sign in the fossil records that these animals had progenitors. An editor of Earth Sciences, tells the following about sudden appearance of these living creatures: "Researchers have since uncovered thousands of exquisitely preserved fossils that offer a glimpse back to a pivotal event in the history of life. This moment, right at the start of Earth’s Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world’s first complex creatures. In a blink of geological time a planet dominated by simple spongelike animals gave way to one ruled by a vast variety of sophisticated beasts, animals whose relatives still inhabit the world today." The existence of infinite variety of animals within living creatures and the fact that there are different species with no common ancestors, have been an unsolvable problem for evolutionists. That is why evolutionary resources include an imaginary time interval of 20 million years before the Cambrian Period where they state that "the unknown" and beginning of life started. This period can be named as the "evolutionary cavity". Yet, nobody has been able to explain this evolutionary cavity until now.Quote:
Are you stating that fossils are all from the same time period? Not according to isotopic dating schemes.
According to the contemporary definition, a homology is something like a “family resemblance.” It’s a similarity that indicates two or more organisms are related to each otherm that they share a common ancestor. The authors of Science and Creationism:A View from the National Academy of Sciences explain it like this: “The skeletons of humans, mice, and bats are strikingly similar, despite the different ways of life of these animals and the diversity of environments in which they flourish. The correspondence of these animals, bone by bone, can be observed in every part of the body, including the limbs; yet a person writes, a mouse runs, and a bat flies with structures built of bones that are different in detail but similar in general structure and relation to each other.” Scientists, they add, have concluded that such structures “are best explained by common descent.” Homologies differ from similarities that are not acquired from a common ancestor. Thus, the eyes of humans and octopi are very similar, but scientists do not think their common ancestor had such an eye. Such similarities are called analogies. But using the contemporary definition of homology as evidence for common ancestry is circular reasoning. How do you know that two organisms share a common ancestor? Because they have features that are homologous. But how do you know the structures are homologous? Because the two organisms share a common ancestor. Leaving aside the problem of circularity, it is far from clear that similarities, as such, are best explained by common descent. If we knew there were a mechanism that could produce humans, mice and bats from a common ancestor, that claim would be plausible. But the mechanism is the very thing in question. In the absence of a mechanism, the fact of similarity does not compel a Darwinian explanation. After all, we see similarities between different kinds of cars, but we don’t conclude that one descended from another. Moreover, biologists knew about homologous similarities well before Darwin published his theory, yet the great majority concluded that they resulted from a common design rather than common descent.Quote:
How is it going in circles?
What I'm saying is that the whole experiment was an artificial blunder in a massive scale. Because scientists are now beginning to concede that the white variety of peppered moths flourished again well before the return of pollution-free trees, while the black type continued to thrive in areas unaffected by industry. Experiments have also shown that neither moth chooses resting places best suited to its camouflage. Most damning of all, despite 40 years of effort, scientists have seen only two moths resting on tree trunks, the key element of the standard story and the experiment. According to Michael Majerus, a Cambridge University expert on the moth, Dr Kettlewell tried to confirm the standard story simply by pinning dead moths on to parts of the trees where they could be seen easily by birds.Quote:
The colour frequency change as the environment changed was very good evidence of evolutionary adapatation to enviromental stress.
Also, scientists are now beginning to doubt even the basic presumption that birds were responsible for the changing fortunes of the different types of Biston.
That is just a tiny minor adaptation to the environment. Note that the beak size returned to normal. It never under took a major evolutionary change. Also the variation in the beaks also influences the finches' musical sound, which may play a role in how a female selects a mate. We humans really have not seen observation of the bird for centuries. We can't conclude that it is evolution in work.Quote:
You do understand that this is proof of evolution.
Apparently I'd like to see the fossils of those various cavemen.Quote:
DNA, bones, fossils, tools. That is four different fields of science that come to the same general conclusions that evolution has occured.
No, I haven't seen your bsed news last night.Quote:
Yes I saw on the news last night Stephen Hawking and Dawkins demanding that Churches teach evolution at Sunday schools. They also demand that will burn at the stake anyone who attempts to prove them wrong. Also a splinter group has been setup to blow up right to life clinics.
Plz prove why text books are using the world wide known fault Haeckel embryo drawings.
thewingedvictory
if you wish to clear your head of those outmoded creationist ideas, take a trip over to talkorigins. this site will inform you on current evolutionary science and it will help you dismiss all of that creationism nonsense you're struggling against, in detail. have fun.
:2thumbsup:
Are all ppl in this forum atheist?!! No one is reinforcing me!!!! What have happened to this world??!!
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. - Genesis 1:1
@big john
I have been to that site and convinces me nothing. I wasn't struggling either. There are alot of links to pro-creationists but I will make an armistice with you atheists, because it seems you will never give up your will. Perhaps someday you will know the truth. :bow:
well, looking at the vote, "christian" respondents are the plurality.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWingedVictory
i shoudn't expect you to have evidence to support this claim, should i? :shifty:Quote:
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. - Genesis 1:1
oh well, you know what they say, "you can lead a horse to water, you can force his mouth open, and you can pour the water down his throat... but you can't make him believe he drank it." that is what they say, right?Quote:
@big john
I have been to that site and convinces me nothing. I wasn't struggling either. There are alot of links to pro-creationists but I will make an armistice with you atheists, because it seems you will never give up your will.
i doubt it. i have a feeling that objective "truth", if such a thing exists, would be much too profound for me to comprehend. thanks for the sentiment though, and same to you. a little advice: first step in your search for knowledge would be to get rid of that creationist nonsense, though, i think it's holding you back. :bow:Quote:
Perhaps someday you will know the truth. :bow:
Well, I've read a few of those there arguements. After seeing the first claim about interdependencies, which assume any mutation must have a benefit for it to remain in the gene pool, I got a little annoyed. Interdependencies don't really mean anything to practical evolution, as it's perfectly acceptable for mutations with no benefit to continue to exist in the gene pool. Add in the complete lack of discussion of subtractive methods to reach that setup, and I'm gonna say it's meant to promote a religious agenda, not to perform any actual science.
Then I got to the chirality arguement, which doesn't so much as include a mention of self-catalysis - and which was incidentally, directly cut and paste from a website - and I'm deciding it's not worth really arguing, since I've encountered the old 'bury em in quotes from creationist websites' tactic before.