Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby

Forum Lobby The off-topic forum.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #21  
Old 08-26-2005, 11:32 PM
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 Murtaza
i guess this is just one debate that can go on and on.........
Yeah, I think so too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murtaza
BTW i do belive in God
Can you please provide some proof?







j/k ..
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #22  
Old 08-27-2005, 08:58 AM
SVB's Avatar
SVB SVB is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 3,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by southnow
Nobody. Who created the fisrt atom? Did it just "pop" into being or was it always there. There was always something, so if eternal existance can belong to atoms, particles, whatever, why not God?
Noone created the first particles. They were just there.
I think the existance of a few particles is more likely than the existance of a magic man who can make universes who just appeared out of nowhere. Its really stupid when you think of it. Im glad I didnt have that drilled into me as a kid, would hate to be deluding myself.
 
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-27-2005, 01:24 PM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I am not sure that I expressed myself correctly in my post #15, in response to JG's post #7, because I am not sure that I have a sufficient understanding of evolution biology to begin with, to be quite honest. Let me start over differently.

It seems to me that the article is saying that there are 100's or 1000's or even 1000000's of distinctly different special flight genes required to be present in a given creature and passed simutaneously to the next generation along with some added special (flight) genes which will stay with the larger group of flight genes when passed to the succeeding generation and so on. Of course, there will be redundant along with non-flight genes passed along with the special flight group of genes as well. What I believe he is saying is that this is virtually impossible to happen by chance. Something must tell that special group to remain together and be added to by more special genes which will also be told to stay with "their" group throught the generations, until you end up with a fully functioning specific bird.

Anyone else gather this?

Also, if only one of the hundred, thousand or million special flight genes is not present, it cannot ever be a fully functioning flying bird. It's as if the diversity of species is an exact science, rather than a random outcome of diversity, though the exact science can have random outcomes, but not vice versa.

It seems to me that codes must be written, genetic and otherwise.

Last edited by Atom; 08-27-2005 at 01:50 PM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-27-2005, 01:59 PM
South's Avatar
South South is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 2,492
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Bradley
I think the existance of a few particles is more likely than the existance of a magic man who can make universes who just appeared out of nowhere. Its really stupid when you think of it. Im glad I didnt have that drilled into me as a kid, would hate to be deluding myself.
Your entire statement show a sad understanding of what you're trying to criticize. It also shows the aggression of a very frustrated young man. Try dating more.
 
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-27-2005, 01:59 PM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Natural selection.


Is it just coincidence that nature just happens to possess a magical code writing attribute?
 
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-27-2005, 02:04 PM
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 southnow
Your entire statement show a sad understanding of what you're trying to criticize. It also shows the aggression of a very frustrated young man. Try dating more.
To be fair, I think that Stephen has been negatively affected by catholic schooling, and I for one can certainly identify with his rebellious nature. It still flares up in me occasionally to this day. I remember when I was his age, I believe that I was actually much worse. It's a miracle I even got through those years. lol

Last edited by Atom; 08-27-2005 at 02:27 PM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-27-2005, 02:26 PM
South's Avatar
South South is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 2,492
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Bradley
Its really stupid when you think of it.
The idea that species consist of a male and female, each possessing a needed half of what, when combined, spawns new life. That the male and female feel the natural urge to partake in the activity that brings the union. That sperm is programmed to seek out and invade an egg. That such an invasion results in cells developing into a human, animal, ect.

That species ingest food and the body is programmed to break it down and use it as needed to sustain itself.

That the lungs draw in air, removes the parts it needs, then distributes it to the body as needed.

That eyes gather reflected light which is in turn processed by the brain to give you an image of your surroundings.

That ears gather soundwaved from the air and send it to the brain which processes it and gives a recreation of the noise.

That the brain can think and reason through impulses in grey matter. The ability to see images in your mind and create new ideas.

I could go on for pages. The idea of this occurring by anything other than intelligent design, especially "by chance" is more than stupid, it's ridiculous.

Someone said earlier that science has "almost" created life through genetic altering (or something like that)...ect. Science can't even explain life, let alone create it. They don't know what makes life spawn, only that the correct combination of elements causes it to do so.

Last edited by South; 08-27-2005 at 02:30 PM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-27-2005, 02:39 PM
South's Avatar
South South is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 2,492
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atom
To be fair, I think that Stephen has been negatively affected by catholic schooling, and I for one can certainly identify with his rebellious nature. It still flares up in me occasionally to this day. I remember when I was his age, I believe that I was actually much worse. It's a miracle I even got through those years. lol
Yeah, I can understand that. But take the religeous aspect out of it. If I had never heard of the concept of a God, to explain thousands of seperate species of life coexisting and nourishing themselves from nature, having natural instincts to breed and protect themselves, consistant ocean ph balance, photosynthesis, pollination, ect, ect, someone would have to come up with something a lot better than "chance".
 
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-27-2005, 02:49 PM
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 southnow
Yeah, I can understand that. But take the religeous aspect out of it. If I had never heard of the concept of a God, to explain thousands of seperate species of life coexisting and nourishing themselves from nature, having natural instincts to breed and protect themselves, consistant ocean ph balance, photosynthesis, pollination, ect, ect, someone would have to come up with something a lot better than "chance".


Yeah, quite true for me too.
 
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-27-2005, 11:33 PM
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 jg_v7n
Some early dionsaurs are believed to have been covered in feathers. A random genetic mutation may cause a small ground based dinosaur to have more feathers on it's forearms than it's parents. This dinosaur by "flapping" it's forearms (not flying, just running and "flapping") may achieve a higher running speed than it's peers and therefore have more chance of escaping a predator and passing on it's genes
And what if the slight increase in speed is not sufficient for this creature with the "random mutation" to escape and survive? How often does this particular "more feathers random mutation" occur?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg_v7n
(including the genetic code for "more feathers" on the forearms).
This is where I get stuck. Wouldn't the basic code have to be changed within this one individual creature with the random gene, to pass the changed code along with the random gene to it's offspring? It wouldn't simply pass a misfit gene, it would have to pass a misfit gene with a changed basic code, to keep producing that random or odd mutation in future generations, wouldn't it? Otherwise wouldn't you just have two generations of birds that happened to have a few more feathers?

I just can't think of a reason why an odd random mutation should survive through each generation without reason, and unless the basic code somehow remained changed by the permanent addition of the random mutation from that random mutation on.

You see, I don't deny that eveloution of speices exists, only that it is somehow responsible for the origin of life.

Last edited by Atom; 08-28-2005 at 12:00 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-28-2005, 12:07 AM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
species*
 
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-28-2005, 04:05 AM
Ferre's Avatar
Ferre Ferre is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-15-03
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by southnow
The idea of this occurring by anything other than intelligent design, especially "by chance" is more than stupid, it's ridiculous.
Now THAT is based on realistic, intelligent, scientifical facts.

Funny how religious doctrines blurr someone's view on reality this much.
 
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-28-2005, 06:56 AM
SVB's Avatar
SVB SVB is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 3,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
What I see here is people rejecting the ideas of science, because they seem to think things are too perfect to happen by chance. And so what do they do? Immediately think someone designed everything. That's like inventing some new scientific theory, like, the sky is made of plastic, and saying, ohhh but it's much too perfect, it must be an artifically made substance, we don't care if your science gives other explanations, we believe this theory no matter what. It's ridiculous. At least produce some evidence other than the usual oh we cant explain these so some supreme being must have made it.
And to the brainwashed bible belt residing ignorant hillbilly who said try dating more, try dating people outside of your own family.
Don't know what that has to do with anything but you brought it up.

Last edited by SVB; 08-28-2005 at 07:01 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-28-2005, 07:42 AM
South's Avatar
South South is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 2,492
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Bradley
And to the brainwashed bible belt residing ignorant hillbilly who said try dating more, try dating people outside of your own family.
Don't know what that has to do with anything but you brought it up.
Down here I'd kick your eurotrash butt for a comment like that. But considering that it comes from a guy who lives in a land ruled for centuries by inbred royals I'll assume you just don't know the difference.

Science can't work without solid proof. If you're willing to accept whatever is thrown at you that's your choice, whether it stands up to logic or not. My views rely on observation, not logic, so I'm not bound by it. If you're gonna stand on science you have to follow the rules.

Sorry about the butt kicking comments. Ignorance only ticks me off when mixed with arrogance, but you're still a kid and so are given to both. You'll grow out of it.

I'll bow out of this one now and let you guys have at it.
 
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-28-2005, 11:55 AM
SVB's Avatar
SVB SVB is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 3,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atom
To be fair, I think that Stephen has been negatively affected by catholic schooling, and I for one can certainly identify with his rebellious nature. It still flares up in me occasionally to this day. I remember when I was his age, I believe that I was actually much worse. It's a miracle I even got through those years. lol
I agree...when you're surrounded by priests for 14 years and they have the EXACT same religous theory today as they did 14 years ago, completely disregarding all scientific advancements, and you soon realise that it's all one big money making tool, the whole brainwashing effect of religion wears off. Their mistake is targetting the children at around age 4 and targetting them with the exact same bull 14 years later, all based around a man made book. I mean, seriously, I think if someone believes a man on this planet not so long ago was able to come back to life, and continues to support that theory without even accepting some basic scientific facts has something wrong with them, and that is the majority of priests. Man coming back to life. Get real! I think everything happening due to "chance" is more plausible than a man coming back to life. Don't see how someone could even take that theory seriously! It's like a joke, or more likely, a story to give people hope...After all, this whole theory is based on a collection of man made books. Omg a middle eastern man wrote a book therefore it must be true!!! Sorry but I will go for the thousands of individual scientists who have spent their lives researching rather than random books some idiots wrote...If anything the only religions that could possibly be true are long extinct. They were followed by people who experienced things first hand, not just because they believed what they read in a book. Modern religions will die out some day, will be a tiny blotch in history when people believed this stuff. Probably laughed at in the future! It's funny watching people nowdays believe it, knowing full well that someday it will just be like any other ancient religion, dead.

Last edited by SVB; 08-28-2005 at 12:00 PM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-28-2005, 06:40 PM
ehman's Avatar
ehman ehman is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 04-14-04
Location: toronto
Posts: 102
iTrader: 0 / 0%
All the article does is rehash the irreducable complexity argument. Which has been played out time and again.

The dinosaur-bird was a bad example to pick because there is actually quite a bit of evidence that supports that birds evolved from dinosaurs, pretty much by random chance. The least he could have done was pick something like the evolution of the eye, where we dont have any fossil evidence (because soft tissue doesn't preserve well).


Quote:
If one single line of that code or one tiny gear of that watch is missing, the program will crash, the watch will not keep time, and the bird will be hopping around aimlessly over the ground unable to fly.
You got have a pretty crummy understanding of genetics to make a statement like that.

We all carry a 'mutational load' of deleterious (bad) alleles, but we have two copies of each gene, so if we have a broken copy, we usually have a backup. (this is also why inbreeding is bad).

I have seen estimates that every human being on average carries about 3 lethal alleles which are masked by a good copy.

Quote:
As more coins are tossed and more factors are introduced into the equation, the probability of them all coming up "heads" becomes less and less and very quickly becomes exceedingly small, even with a small number of coins.
This is bad mathematical reasoning.

Take a guess at how many of your ancestors (i.e. grandparents, great-grandparends, great-great grandparents etc...) throughtout history died before the age of 10.

Keep in mind the the lack of medical equiment, or even basic neccessities and other hardships people faced in the past.



















The answer is 0. Cause if they died before puberty, then they would not have been able to give birth and you would not be here.

The probability of this is even more astounding when you consider the number of sperm trying to reach the egg, before conception.

Now consider that there are over 6 billion of us on the planet.

The law of very large numbers says that no matter how unprobable an event is, given enough repetitions it will happen.

--------------------------------
Young earth creationism was dominant in science for a longer time than evolution has been, evolution only became the dominant theory after a lot of debate, and because the evidance increasingly seemed to point in that direction.

A lot of everyday applications of science are based atleast partially on evolutionary theory, everything from medical treatments to wildlife conservation.
 
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-28-2005, 09:15 PM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I have been reading up a bit on evolution theory and also re-reding Michael Langston's article (post #1). I got the impression from the article that what the article was really about was Mr. Langston's disapproval of evolution theory's claim to knowledge of the origin of life. My initial impression seems to be somewhat the case, as Mr. Langston raises the question: "Exactly how did life originate?". But there is one little detail that I discovered in my eveloution theory travels, that now has me thinking that Mr. Langston is being a bit devious in his article, and that is ...

... Darwin never asserted that life "arose from non-living matter" as a scientific proposition.
 
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-29-2005, 04:03 PM
frances's Avatar
frances frances is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 07-29-04
Location: Bradford
Posts: 123
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Bradley
Noone created the first particles. They were just there.
I think the existance of a few particles is more likely than the existance of a magic man who can make universes who just appeared out of nowhere. Its really stupid when you think of it...
Sorry to bump an old post, but i find this quite interesting...
in reply to Southnow also:
Do you not think that something other than the Christian God can have created the first existing matter...

Try reading on 'M'-Theory or 'String' Theory.
i am learning about it myself now.
 
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-29-2005, 04:27 PM
G10's Avatar
G10 G10 is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 05-10-04
Location: UK - Cheshire
Posts: 11,765
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Interesting read.

I am not really that bothered about this but here's my worth. (Glad to see the 2 cents has been out back in the list)

The chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup is:- 1 followed by 113 zeros but science and mathamaticians admit that any event above 1 followed by 50 zeros is dismissed as never happening.

Go figure!!!
 
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-29-2005, 10:18 PM
francis12 francis12 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 07-04-05
Posts: 13
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I just thought of sharing this one to you guys, it might share some points. The Elegant Universe
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby

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
Evolution (again) jg_v7n Controversial Social Issues 315 02-16-2007 09:11 PM


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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:18 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC