Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
General Trek
»
Religion
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [QB] [i]Me: First you need further analysis to figure out if there's some aspect of the concept that's the problem. Ryan: There is: God.[/i] We seem to be caught in a feedback loop. We've established that religion is NOT the problem in and of itself. Deal with it. [i]How, without a soul, does a six-week embryo even have a will?[/i] A) Who says they don't have a soul? Futher, what does soul have to do with will? You're arguing that there IS no soul, aren't you? B) Someone doesn't have to actively desire to prevent something to count it as being against their will. [i]The argument against abortion has everything to do with the idea that a non-thinking, non-feeling ball of cells has a soul.[/i] No, it has everything to do with the fact that they're living human beings. [i]There is the fossil record, showing a clear progression through time.[/i] Not evidence that any species has ever become a different sepcies. You can INTERPRET the record to mean that, but it's not outright evidence. [i]There are countless transitional fossils, showing intermediary forms between two distinct species.[/i] Like...? [i]I think everyone is familiar with the archaeopteryx[/i] Yes, and it's a hoax. Only two of the six specimines have feather imprints, those feather imprints being in rubber cement. Only one of those two has a furcula, which was implanted in said cement after someone chiseled out an indentation for it. That furcula is BACKWARDS, which would make it impossible for the creature to fly. [i]There is the genetic similarity of all forms of life.[/i] Which proves nothing. [i]Embryos, while not to the extent once thought, show a near-duplicate of the evolutionary path that an organism took to achieve its current form.[/i] And why would that be? I've heard this before, and I'd really love to know what it has to do with evolution. WHY, praytell, would a horse embryo evolve to look like an amphibian for a point in its development? [i]Places like Australia show clear isolation divergences of one population from the rest of the planet, resulting in marsupials taking the roles that placental mammals take elsewhere.[/i] Again, natural selection, not evolution. [i]The human spine, for instance, it terribly suited to standing erect[/i] Works for me. :) [i]Why do you think so many people have back problems?[/i] Define "so many". Further, there are many more possibilities. My dad has two fused vertebre, for one. A simple birth defect, that has nothing to do with genetics. [i]We can observe, and produce, genetic changes in organisms that cause changes in form or behavior...[/i] Yes, but if it can reproduce with other members of its species, it's not evolution because no new species has been created. Futher, if the specimin CAN'T reproduce with others, then it may well be a new species (ignoring the fact that a species has to be a group), but it'll be a short-lived one, by definition. Either way, not evolution. [i]Because these changes happen, it is impossible for evolution not to occur once it all adds up.[/i] You just keep thinking that. It most certainly is possible. We're dealing with biology, not physics. [i]We see fossil animals from periods in which Earth had a differnt environment adapted to that environment... and mysteriously not around today. Why? Because those that didn't adapt died.[/i] Again, natural selection, not evolution. Adaptations to environment WITHIN A SINGLE SPECIES does not constitute evolution. [i] Perhaps teh most important evidence for evolution is the fact that we've seen it happen, in labs and in the wild. Countless plant species have been seen to evolve, mostly due to our own efforts at hybridization.[/i] And you can prove that they're genetically incompatable with their parent species? [i]Dogs were made to evolve through domestication as a descendant of wolves.[/i] ...and dogs can still interbreed with wolves, and are thus still the same species millenia later. Thank you for making my point for me. ;) BTW, that's a good reason why our entire classification system is screwed up. Dogs and wolves are the same species, but are classified as different species. Thus the system is wrong, and should use a term other than species. [i]Science, when presented with a presently unexplained phenomenon, says, "We don't know." Religion, on the other hand, says "God did it."[/i] God created the universe. Therefore, God did EVERYTHING, to some degree. God and science are not incompatable. Heck, the laws of physics REQUIRE God. :D [i]Historically, when religion says that, science finds the real answer a few centuries later...[/i] Or at least make one up. ;) Oh, I checked your links for examples of specitation. One had four. Two were untested, and thus unacceptable. One was tested and resulted in sterile offspring, which proves nothing. Most mules are sterile, but SOME are fertile and can breed with other mules, thus proving that horses and donkeys are the same species. The fourth had no details, simply stating that they couldn't produce offspring, but not saying whether scientific testing was performed to prove this. The other link had too many to list here, and I'm only half-way through it as I type this, but none thus far have mentioned extensive experiments with reproductive compatability. You scientists seem to forget that that's the criterion for determining specitation. Work on that. ;) [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3