Adoption by Homosexual Couples
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. |
Nathan222 said:
I'm a Theist and yes, this is exactly what I think (see my last post which you so thoughtfully buried with yours). I truly believe that the meaning of our existence is essentially an esoteric game of hide and seek.
Think about it. We are given provable constants in a universe that is otherwise anything but. We are given just enough hints to keep us interested in the truth and the personal drive to remain that way. Doesn't this sound like a game being played with children to you?
| Do you think that you actually want to find God if all you do is go against what He says and expect to 'test' Him? |
I'm a Theist and yes, this is exactly what I think (see my last post which you so thoughtfully buried with yours). I truly believe that the meaning of our existence is essentially an esoteric game of hide and seek.
Think about it. We are given provable constants in a universe that is otherwise anything but. We are given just enough hints to keep us interested in the truth and the personal drive to remain that way. Doesn't this sound like a game being played with children to you?
| This criticism really isn't fair to ancient doctors. |
You are absolutely correct, and I agree with everything in this paragraph.
My point was more that science allows for things to change for the better... rather than stay stagnant.
While bleeding was done at one time... and may have even been the right thing to do based on what they knew... the point is that we don't do it any more*. Things have changed.
* we actually do still do it to remove in blood toxins, but we only do it for an extremely narrow range of cases and not nearly for the scope of things it was done for back then
| You are mentioning these great scientific people who have done so much for mankind with their discoveries. Let's name a few of them shall we? |
Maybe I could have phrased that differently. Perhaps I should have said "great minds" rather than "great people".
It's true that scientists are not benevolent people who are seeking only to improve society. They often have ulterior motives and sometimes are downright despicable. My main intent here was to glorify the process, rather than the individuals.
So point taken.
| Most Theists do not reject evolution, only the loudest ones happen to do that. |
I wasn't intending to lump in all theists. In fact... I didn't even really mention theism. I was speaking of people who reject evidence solely because of tradition.
As for the number of people who reject evolution... it's bigger than you might think. At least in the US:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html
| I will agree with you but you cannot convince me that it was entirely random. |
As a Deterministc Agnostic... I don't believe anything is truly random.
| There are sub-species of Homo Sapiens (I cannot remember what they are called right now) that we interbred with and eradicated who had better eye sight then us. You would think that the hybrids of the two who inherited both the better eye-sight and the cognitive ability to make tools, who bred instead of fought giving them a numerical advantage as well, would have dominated the other two but our research shows that this wasn't the case. |
I vaguely remember which species you're talking about... but can't remember exact details. Wasn't it that they had larger brains, but were physically weaker? Maybe they just were not strong enough to survive.
| If you choose to think that the only reason was to control the masses then I'm the one who will die a little inside. |
I have never made this claim.
closed account (9E360pDG)
Evolution says that a mutation forms in the parent organism and then the new organism becomes better fitted for that environment and the parent organism slowly dies out, right?
I wasn't trying to attack your point of view or twist your words. To be honest I was riding your coat tails so to speak, you have a way of writing that people around here like. People like to agree with you so this increases the likely hood that any responses to your posts will be read by people looking for some kind of flaw in the response. It's completely manipulative and underhanded, I know, but that's kind of is who I am.
Figures like this always depress me. I've seen them before and the nationalist in me wants to believe that the numbers are fudged somehow, or that weither Americans agree or disagree was based on some other criteria like if they didn't agree in it's entirety then they were said to disagree completely. But realistically I know that probably isn't the case.
@ Nathan222: That's one school of thought, yes.
| As for the number of people who reject evolution... it's bigger than you might think. At least in the US: |
Figures like this always depress me. I've seen them before and the nationalist in me wants to believe that the numbers are fudged somehow, or that weither Americans agree or disagree was based on some other criteria like if they didn't agree in it's entirety then they were said to disagree completely. But realistically I know that probably isn't the case.
@ Nathan222: That's one school of thought, yes.
Last edited on
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| Before i ask my question, what's the other school of thought? |
Mutation, Sex and recombination, and Gene flow.
Mutations can just as likely form in a Zygote and still result in a healthy fetus. Without constant genetic testing I can't see how you would be able to tell if a trait that was previously not present came from that one egg before it was fertilized, that one sperm when it was created or the resulting fetus after the two of them joined. It comes back to the control mechanism, where is it present?
EDIT: It also isn't required that the parent organism dies out. That is more due to environmental factors then the actual process. If there are enough resources for both to survive side by side then they probably will.
EDIT: It also isn't required that the parent organism dies out. That is more due to environmental factors then the actual process. If there are enough resources for both to survive side by side then they probably will.
Last edited on
closed account (9E360pDG)
So how did man evolve from monkeys/apes/chimpanzees/gorillas/gollum?
Last edited on
| Evolution says that a mutation forms in the parent organism and then the new organism becomes better fitted for that environment and the parent organism slowly dies out, right? |
Evolution first assumes that mutations occur between the DNA/RNA of parents and their subsequent offspring. This is backed up by theory and an overwhelming amount of evidence.
It then assumes that some mutations will be bad, some will be good and some will be neutral. Fair enough.
It is then stated that offspring with mutations that are bad for survival in the current environment are less likely to survive and those with mutations that aid survival are more likely to survive. This is backed up by both observational and experimental studies.
The final point is that offspring inherit the genes of their parents and thus over time inherit an on average better adapted set of genes. This is backed up by both observational and experimental studies.
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| So how did man evolve from monkeys/apes/chimpanzees/gorillas? |
closed account (9E360pDG)
The question, again:
| I wrote: |
|---|
So how did man evolve from monkeys/apes/chimpanzees/gorillas/gollum? |
| Nathan wrote: |
|---|
| So how did man evolve from monkeys/apes/chimpanzees/gorillas/gollum? |
We didn't. As Canis Lupus said, humans, apes, etc did not evolve from one another. Rather, they evolved from a common ancestor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
EDIT:
More interesting reads, if you're really curious:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
EDIT2: Allow me to correct myself. "Apes" is not a species, but is a categorization of species. Humans are a type of ape. So we didn't "evolve from" apes, we "are" apes.
Last edited on
closed account (z05DSL3A)
Who said man evolve from monkeys/apes/chimpanzees/gorillas/gollum?? The question is erroneous.
closed account (9E360pDG)
1) We were created by God.
2) We were created by nitrogen or sulphuric acid or some weird thing called a big bang.
--
1) God made all things for our enjoyment.
2) The thing called big bang spent an undesirable amount of time destroying and recreating till nitrogen/sulphur acid or some other inorganic substance magically (And they tell me magic is not possible. Hmm, didn't realise my gate could come alive) started developing life and the bacteria thingies came alive.
--
1) God made us in His image and likeness
2) Those bacteria thingies evolved for a very interesting amount of time from bacteria megalis to bacteria supergalis to something to dinosaurs to something with a massive head to homo erectus to something to man.
Maybe the definition of ancestor has changed.
--
I know i made mistakes but i believe you get the point.
Do you realise how funny what you expect me to believe man is? Like, seriously?
2) We were created by nitrogen or sulphuric acid or some weird thing called a big bang.
--
1) God made all things for our enjoyment.
2) The thing called big bang spent an undesirable amount of time destroying and recreating till nitrogen/sulphur acid or some other inorganic substance magically (And they tell me magic is not possible. Hmm, didn't realise my gate could come alive) started developing life and the bacteria thingies came alive.
--
1) God made us in His image and likeness
2) Those bacteria thingies evolved for a very interesting amount of time from bacteria megalis to bacteria supergalis to something to dinosaurs to something with a massive head to homo erectus to something to man.
Maybe the definition of ancestor has changed.
--
I know i made mistakes but i believe you get the point.
Do you realise how funny what you expect me to believe man is? Like, seriously?
Canis Lupus is right on point here. We did not evolve from monkeys.
Anyway, here is the mechanism by which evolution can cause drastic changes over long time periods. I take the example of a very simple living thing to start with, Pelagibacter ubique. Photo: http://www.fomosplanejados.com.br/img/assuntos/imagens/60/71.jpg
Pelagibacter ubique has got 1,354 genes in total. Now let's say that one of these guys replicates and makes a mistake in copying on those genes. We now got a new Pelagibacter ubique with 1353 genes that are an exact copy of the parent's genes, and one new one.
Okay, now let's suppose that in this case, the gene mutation was of benefit to Pelagibacter ubique and causes it to use less nitrogen, a hard to acquire resource for this little guy. Now the chances of this slightly mutated being surviving are increased.* The chances of it gaining enough food to reproduce are also increased. Some generations down the line, quite a few more of these Pelagibacter ubique with the one modified gene exist. Many thousands of generations later, they may have out-competed previous versions of Pelagibacter ubique and so Pelagibacter ubique may have two versions now, the original and the one which uses less nitrogen. In this case, we have divergence and over time, perhaps they may drift apart even further. In other cases, perhaps the original Pelagibacter ubique will be totally out-competed and become extinct. Anyway...
Many more generations pass and now one of those guys with the already modified gene has a mutation in another gene, this time allowing it to make a stronger cell wall, without using an extra energy. Great! This guy thrives too. Many thousands of generations later... We have another thriving Pelagibacter ubique with 2 modified genomes, that's 2/1354 we've changed so far...
...And as the millions upon millions of generations pass, more and more genes are modified. Some are also taken away, some new ones added. A million generations down the line, it's not even Pelagibacter ubique anymore, it's an entirely different species!
That is how all evolution happens.
*Conversely, any bad changes to the genome make the creature less likely to pass the gene on to offspring.
Anyway Nathan, I hope this makes you at least think about evolution in a new light. Nothing in the bible actually forbids evolution and everything in the world and the lab supports it. If you must put the action of evolutions existence down to god, at least give god the right to have made things a little more interesting; to allow things to evolve, so that he may look down on an ever changing world.
Anyway, here is the mechanism by which evolution can cause drastic changes over long time periods. I take the example of a very simple living thing to start with, Pelagibacter ubique. Photo: http://www.fomosplanejados.com.br/img/assuntos/imagens/60/71.jpg
Pelagibacter ubique has got 1,354 genes in total. Now let's say that one of these guys replicates and makes a mistake in copying on those genes. We now got a new Pelagibacter ubique with 1353 genes that are an exact copy of the parent's genes, and one new one.
Okay, now let's suppose that in this case, the gene mutation was of benefit to Pelagibacter ubique and causes it to use less nitrogen, a hard to acquire resource for this little guy. Now the chances of this slightly mutated being surviving are increased.* The chances of it gaining enough food to reproduce are also increased. Some generations down the line, quite a few more of these Pelagibacter ubique with the one modified gene exist. Many thousands of generations later, they may have out-competed previous versions of Pelagibacter ubique and so Pelagibacter ubique may have two versions now, the original and the one which uses less nitrogen. In this case, we have divergence and over time, perhaps they may drift apart even further. In other cases, perhaps the original Pelagibacter ubique will be totally out-competed and become extinct. Anyway...
Many more generations pass and now one of those guys with the already modified gene has a mutation in another gene, this time allowing it to make a stronger cell wall, without using an extra energy. Great! This guy thrives too. Many thousands of generations later... We have another thriving Pelagibacter ubique with 2 modified genomes, that's 2/1354 we've changed so far...
...And as the millions upon millions of generations pass, more and more genes are modified. Some are also taken away, some new ones added. A million generations down the line, it's not even Pelagibacter ubique anymore, it's an entirely different species!
That is how all evolution happens.
*Conversely, any bad changes to the genome make the creature less likely to pass the gene on to offspring.
Anyway Nathan, I hope this makes you at least think about evolution in a new light. Nothing in the bible actually forbids evolution and everything in the world and the lab supports it. If you must put the action of evolutions existence down to god, at least give god the right to have made things a little more interesting; to allow things to evolve, so that he may look down on an ever changing world.
| 1) We were created by God. 2) We were created by nitrogen or sulphuric acid or some weird thing called a big bang. |
How is the big bang any weirder than the idea of an all-powerful being who can create a universe?
Also, there's tons of observational evidence to support the big bang:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence
And again... it's not like people just make this stuff up. It comes about through observation, experimentation, and reproduction. Obviously we cannot reproduce the big bang, but we can try to reproduce aspects of it, such as the creation of dark matter (see the LHC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider )
1) God made all things for our enjoyment. 2) The thing called big bang spent an undesirable amount of time destroying and recreating till nitrogen/sulphur acid or some other inorganic substance magically (And they tell me magic is not possible. Hmm, didn't realise my gate could come alive) started developing life and the bacteria thingies came alive. |
Nothing to do with any of this has anything to do with "magic"... except for maybe the being you put so much faith in.
The creation of life is not yet understood. But the field of study is known as ambiogenesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
1) God made us in His image and likeness 2) Those bacteria thingies evolved for a very interesting amount of time from bacteria megalis to bacteria supergalis to something to dinosaurs to something with a massive head to homo erectus to something to man. Maybe the definition of ancestor has changed. |
Again, there is tons of evidence to support this. From similarities in our physical makeup, to fossil records, to migratory patterns, etc, etc.
| I know i made mistakes but i believe you get the point. Do you realise how funny what you expect me to believe man is? Like, seriously? |
It only sounds funny because you don't understand it. If you actually studied these fields, not only would it make lots of sense to you, but you would also see just how much evidence there is to support it.
But it's fine. You can (and I'm sure you will) continue to ignore all the evidence which suggests your idea of the origins of life and the universe are wrong. Continue to never question anything... and to be perfectly content in your little bubble.
I can't stop you.
This honestly seems like an argument between a 12 year old believing the world is flat because when you look down it's pretty flat so why question it any further and a college professor trying to explain the evidence that has been found to show that it is round.
...How is 1 easier to believe......It's not even an answer to anything.
Really didn't want to comment on this topic but I can't stop banging my head against the wall.
| 1) We were created by God. 2) We were created by nitrogen or sulphuric acid or some weird thing called a big bang. |
...How is 1 easier to believe......It's not even an answer to anything.
Really didn't want to comment on this topic but I can't stop banging my head against the wall.
To put this in perspective, Nathan...
1000 years ago... suppose you were to tell people about GPS, and tried to explain to them that it worked by launching giant satellites into space, and have them retain orbit around the Earth. Those satellites then beamed down invisible rays which communicated to a small device you kept on your person, which told you exactly where you were on the globe.
If you were to do that, they would have looked at you like you were a nutcase. And/or would have laughed you off saying your ideas were absurd.
Of course now... we know how to do all that. So it's not so absurd. Science has explained it. Now it is understood... and now it is no longer weird... or funny... or "magic". It's just reality.
This is exactly what you're doing. You're dismissing what is known about the universe and laughing it off because it seems magical to you. In another 1000 years when all of this is common knowledge... people will look back and wonder how anyone could have doubted what is, to them, just part of their reality.
1000 years ago... suppose you were to tell people about GPS, and tried to explain to them that it worked by launching giant satellites into space, and have them retain orbit around the Earth. Those satellites then beamed down invisible rays which communicated to a small device you kept on your person, which told you exactly where you were on the globe.
If you were to do that, they would have looked at you like you were a nutcase. And/or would have laughed you off saying your ideas were absurd.
Of course now... we know how to do all that. So it's not so absurd. Science has explained it. Now it is understood... and now it is no longer weird... or funny... or "magic". It's just reality.
This is exactly what you're doing. You're dismissing what is known about the universe and laughing it off because it seems magical to you. In another 1000 years when all of this is common knowledge... people will look back and wonder how anyone could have doubted what is, to them, just part of their reality.