Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #21  
Old 08-31-2006, 12:53 PM
South's Avatar
South South is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 2,489
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Too much to quote. Ponder this.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #22  
Old 08-31-2006, 01:55 PM
Louis's Avatar
Louis Louis is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 01-12-04
Location: Gatineau, QC, Canada
Posts: 1,106
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapper
Here is my eight year old daughter's take on the situation trying to convince her little sister and friend. She makes more sense than you guys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epps9UU97mw
Kev! Tell Maria that she rocks!
 
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-31-2006, 03:08 PM
Trapper's Avatar
Trapper Trapper is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 06-03-05
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 840
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Will do. Although I think she already knows.


<---Proud Papa.
 
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-31-2006, 07:33 PM
Brian's Avatar
Brian Brian is offline
Super Trooper
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Posts: 4,810
iTrader: 0 / 0%
for goodness sakes people....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
 
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-31-2006, 07:56 PM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,767
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian
I think I may have just found the perfect religion for me.
 
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-31-2006, 09:01 PM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-01-2006, 06:10 PM
littleFella's Avatar
littleFella littleFella is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 06-20-04
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,756
iTrader: 0 / 0%
spotted this funny sing today:
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	darwin.JPG
Views:	65
Size:	268.5 KB
ID:	3639  
 
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-01-2006, 08:27 PM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleFella
spotted this funny sing today:
I may be dense, but I don't get the humour of it.
 
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-02-2006, 12:07 AM
G10's Avatar
G10 G10 is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 05-10-04
Location: UK - Cheshire
Posts: 11,763
iTrader: 5 / 100%
If I remember correctly, that fish symbol is the symbol of life and creationism via god and it says "Darwinism" inside making it the two a complete contradiction - Something along those lines.

Plus, it's obviously sprouted legs and evolved on.
 
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-02-2006, 12:12 AM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I believe the fish is an early Christian symbol symbolizing Christianity. It may even be the first .. can't quite recall.
 
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-02-2006, 12:15 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by G10
If I remember correctly, that fish symbol is the symbol of life and creationism via god and it says "Darwinism" inside making it the two a complete contradiction - Something along those lines.

Plus, it's obviously sprouted legs and evolved on.
Yes, I'm aware of the implications and symbolism, I just don't see how that is amusing.
 
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-02-2006, 12:19 AM
G10's Avatar
G10 G10 is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 05-10-04
Location: UK - Cheshire
Posts: 11,763
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott
Yes, I'm aware of the implications and symbolism, I just don't see how that is amusing.
Oops, sorry, I misunderstood

I believe in God and creation but it did tickle me though. I think it's just someone attempt to wind Christians up
 
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-02-2006, 12:23 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
As a symbol of Darwinism, it kind of backfires if that's the purpose. The creature portrayed, of course, is a fairy tale. I kind of thought it meant to portray Darwinism in a similar light - as a fairy tale.
 
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-02-2006, 12:37 AM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott
As a symbol of Darwinism, it kind of backfires if that's the purpose. The creature portrayed, of course, is a fairy tale. I kind of thought it meant to portray Darwinism in a similar light - as a fairy tale.
The creature is simply a stylized fish. I think it's a direct contradiction, as G10 indicated, which would be amusing to some. The two stroke symbol was actually used by early Christians to identify each other, as I recall.







Last edited by Atom; 09-02-2006 at 12:45 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-02-2006, 04:02 AM
littleFella's Avatar
littleFella littleFella is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 06-20-04
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,756
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott
Yes, I'm aware of the implications and symbolism, I just don't see how that is amusing.
For you to find it amusing you would have to imagine for a moment it wasn't me who posted the picture. Then you might want to read the title of the thread and the content of the first post. These seem to be reflected in that sign. Which I btw. I believe to be true.
 
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-02-2006, 05:11 AM
littleFella's Avatar
littleFella littleFella is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 06-20-04
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,756
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by South
I read the article and pondered it. Other than some discrepancies between the sate ranges proposed therein and by scientists the article doesn;t appear to defeat evolution per se. As a matter of fact it appears to admit that it is occuring, but not in humnas. That is reminiscnet of the special position Catholic church assigned to humans and to the 3rd planet itself.

Also, the general tone of the article in various paragraphs indicates that the theory of evolution is a case closed and that all minute details are worked out. They are not. This is science and this particular branch of science is still work in progress, but with enough material to draw some general conclusions. Details may change, just like the position of the Earth within our planetary system "changed".

I'll try to address briefly the individual chapters and to indicate why I see some statements as flawed:

The beginning of trouble - lack of genetic diversity among modern humans
This chapter proposes that the fst value (genetic diversity) in humans is too low. Some problems with this argument:
- what would the correct fst be and why? If there is a correct fst value then it would indicate that evolution is at least a possibility, which in turn would allow for creationsim (in its classical sense) to be defeated
- if evolution is indeed a fact, then it would be natural that variations within various species are different. Why would fst value have to be identical throughout the species.

Still more trouble - Discontinuous morphological changes in the hominid lineage

Discontinuity is not there necessarilly because there wasn't any continuity. We do not have sufficient data. If we take a starting point (A) and the ending (present) point Z, and if we see that there have been changes, then we may lack details of C,F,G or Q, but what we have is sufficient to prove the change indeed occured.

Imagine a system of cameras in London, UK. You can track people's movemet's from one place within the city to another. The system is pretty good but doesn't cover every square inch of the city. You can track a person's path, and even with some of the points outisde the scope of the sruveillance cameras, you know where they came from and how they got to their destination. The fact that you may have lost their sight for a few moments at a time does not mean they did not start started out where they did, or that they never reached the destination.

Again, work in progress, but with enough material to suggest the evolution indeed occured.

Another problem - too many deleterious mutations

I have to admit I'm lost here. The first argument says there is not enough genetic diversity, and now it says the rate of mutations is so great that the diversification was so fast that would have finished off the species long time ago. I may need some help understanding this.

Recent origin of modern humans confirmed through molecular biology

Nothing there that would defeat the theory of evolution in general.

The nail in the coffin

I'm not sure what nail they are talking about. The parapgraph again doesn't defeat the theory of evlution in general. It only shows how some of its findings are constantly being corrected based on newer technologies and information. At least we can see the process, and we can see that science is not a dogma, but search for truth.

The Bottom Line

... can be best expressed by this quote;

Modern molecular biology tells us that modern humans arose less than 100,000 years ago (confirmed by three independent techniques), and most likely, less than 50,000 years ago. This data ties in quite well with the fossil record. Sophisticated works of art first appear in the fossil record about 40,000-50,000 years ago and evidence of religious expression appears only 25,000-50,000 years ago.

Far cry from 6K years as suggested by the Bible, huh? Can we really take the Bible literaly? Should we perhaps treat it as a spiritual guide rather than a scientific treatise?

The article fails to defeat the theory of evolution as such. It concentrates solely on some aspects of the evolution of homo spaiens. It treats the species as an isolated one, but the way the article is written it's hard to say which conclusions were actually expressed by te scientists and which are a religious fundamentalists' spin.

The last paragraph points us to Genesis, but fails to provide the proof that the words contained within it are a fact, not just an ancient fiction.
 
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-02-2006, 06:48 AM
South's Avatar
South South is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 2,489
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Yeah, in hind site I wished I hadn't even posted the link. Science can no more conclusively prove or disprove creation than it can evolution.

When dealing with such a matter, you have to use the evidence provided and draw your own conclusion. As a Christian, I KNOW that the Word of God is factual. I have personal experience that provides evidence of many parts of it that lead me to know that other parts must be true as well. I have watched things happen in my own life and my own body that science can't understand, which lets me know that God, not science, is the final word.

A non-beleiver still needs answers and so will find them where he can get them. I still hold that, Christian or not, evolution is a far reaching grasp for an explanation, but since those who hold science as their religeon (basis of truth) the supernatural, or that which is beyond the understanding of science, won't do. That is why evolution is now and will likely be for some time to come the explanation of choice.
 
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-02-2006, 07:00 AM
South's Avatar
South South is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 2,489
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleFella
Far cry from 6K years as suggested by the Bible, huh? Can we really take the Bible literaly? Should we perhaps treat it as a spiritual guide rather than a scientific treatise?
The bible can be taken quite literally aside from the parts which are made clear to be rhetorical examples. Remember though that it's a translated document, and it takes careful study and cross reference to understand the literals of it sometimes. The source language is often more specific than english can translate well.
 
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-02-2006, 07:11 AM
littleFella's Avatar
littleFella littleFella is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 06-20-04
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,756
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by South
Yeah, in hind site I wished I hadn't even posted the link. Science can no more conclusively prove or disprove creation than it can evolution.
This is the big problem IMO. There are both religious people and atheists who see a conflict between science and Faith (notice the capital F). I don;t see that conflict. To me the two are complement each other. Say this issue of evolution... what if the evolution is a part of so called "God's plan". If we, humans were given free will, why wouldn;t the rest of natural world be given free will also? Why would not the free will in hmans consists (among others) of the way we evolve on the biological level?

Quote:
Originally Posted by South
When dealing with such a matter, you have to use the evidence provided and draw your own conclusion. As a Christian, I KNOW that the Word of God is factual. I have personal experience that provides evidence of many parts of it that lead me to know that other parts must be true as well. I have watched things happen in my own life and my own body that science can't understand, which lets me know that God, not science, is the final word.
I respect your view and approach, and I hope you respect mine when I say I can't accept an individual experience as something to build my onw views upon. They may trigger some reflection and lead me to some revisions or my views, in the end perhaps even to rejecting the evolution, but I need more than one person's word. As of now evolution makes sense to me. Creationism with its 6K years of human history doesn't. Actually, never did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by South
A non-beleiver still needs answers and so will find them where he can get them. I still hold that, Christian or not, evolution is a far reaching grasp for an explanation, but since those who hold science as their religeon (basis of truth) the supernatural, or that which is beyond the understanding of science, won't do. That is why evolution is now and will likely be for some time to come the explanation of choice.
I do not hold science as my religion. I do not pray to scientists or mathematical formulas, even though when you look around you just can't escape the feeling that God indeed must be a mathematician .

I am a Christian by circumstance, birth and such. But I decided my money is better spent on real people's needs rather than a priest's new BMW. Like you, I Have also seen this and that and I just do not accept the entire Bible where it doesn't seem to add up in my mind. It doesn't even seem to add up the same way in the minds of various devout Christians. As I posted elsewhere, the Bible is impossible to be interpretted literally and as a factual document. Otherwise we would not have so many Christian denominations, each claiming that their reading of the Scripture is the only correct one.
 
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-02-2006, 07:17 AM
littleFella's Avatar
littleFella littleFella is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 06-20-04
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,756
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by South
The bible can be taken quite literally aside from the parts which are made clear to be rhetorical examples. Remember though that it's a translated document, and it takes careful study and cross reference to understand the literals of it sometimes. The source language is often more specific than english can translate well.
Yes, I often thought about that. Those who speak/read more than one language can certainly appreciate that. But then, most people cannot read the Bible in the original. Therefore what they get is someone else's view of what the Bible says.

A side note; a few years ago I talked extensively about religion with a friend of mine, a Born Again Christian. I thought he tipped the weight of his arguments towards nonsense when he stated that the Enlish language is the final way God wants us to understand the Bible and all other languages are just plain wrong. Not that he spoke any of them to be able to confirm the claim.

I never saw anything in the Bible about the English language. Still, he claimed his denomination takes the Holy Scripture literally
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How To Copyright scripts created by me ? lordofdalord Internet Legal Issues 4 04-20-2008 06:10 AM
A logo I've created ... Atom Graphic Design Forum 18 08-28-2004 08:23 AM
Just created - Link Exchange Danny SEO Forum 7 02-08-2004 06:35 PM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:43 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC