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 Ryan McReynolds: [QB] I'm glad to see you didn't have anything to say about the fact that the Bible advocates a flat Earth, geocentrism, and abhorable morality. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [qb]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.[/qb] [/QUOTE] I remember you asserting it, but I don't recall you "establishing" anything. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [qb]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?[/qb] [/QUOTE] There are two convergent arguments we'redealing with here. 1) do embryos have souls, and 2) why do people object to abortion. I will deal with the second issue first. You claimed that opposition to abortion has nothing to do with prenatal souls... so naturally, my response was showing that the argument against abortion has everything to do with souls, because without souls there isn't a problem. As to the question of the presence of a soul, the same criteria apply as establishing a soul in an adult. Pick an emotion, plop somebody into a scanner, and you'll see all sorts of brain activity corresponding to that emotion. There isn't a [i]need[/i] to have a soul to explain any aspect of human behavior. If you suggest that there is such a thing, you need to provide evidence that it exists... because there is no reason to assume it does. Sure, scientists are only scratching the surface with regard to how the brain works. Scientists, unlike religion, doesn't claim to have all the answers yet. But we're learning. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [qb]B) Someone doesn't have to actively desire to prevent something to count it as being against their will.[/qb] [/QUOTE] Then what is the definition of one's will? As I understand the word, somebody's will is their wish or desire. My will is that I continue to live because I have a brain to do said willing. If a embryo is incapable of thought, then it by definition can have no desire or interests. [QUOTE] [qb]No, it has everything to do with the fact that they're living human beings.[/qb] [/QUOTE] By what standard? If they can't think, then the only thing that makes them human is their DNA. They [i]are[/i], genetically, human. But so are each of the skin cells falling off your body as we speak. So are every hair. So is semen, so is the uterine lining expelled in menstruation. So is cancer. So are toenail clippings. What is inherently wrong with killing human tissue on the basis of it having of human DNA? You do it every day. The only difference with embryos is that they might become a bona fide human [i]being[/i] one day. Then again, they might not. They might be subject to natural abortion, diplomatically called "miscarriage." They might strangle on their own umbilical cord. They might grow up to be serial killers. We just don't know. At the time of the abortion though, they aren't [i]anything[/i] yet. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [qb]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.[/qb] [/QUOTE] Here's the problem: if I give you Species A (say, an ape) and Species B (homo sapiens), you ask for the missing link. So I give you Species AA (homo habilis). But then you ask for one in between A and AA. So I give you Species AAA (homo erectus). Then you want one between A and AAA. So I give you Species AAAA... and so on. At what point does the transitional form become good enough? Because it will eventually go down through a billion [i]A[/i]s all the way to the difference between one individual and the next. Maybe "Ro'tok" had bigger teeth than his son "Chigal," and that, finally, is the last link in the evolutionary chain. That's what I meant by [i]all[/i] fossils being transitional. It's gotten to the point where many paleontologists favor abandoning the whole genus-species arrangement in favor of a system similar to software. So you might have [i]Tyrannosaurus[/i] 1.0, then [i]Tyrannosaurus[/i] 2.0. When a new skeleton is discovered, it might be [i]Tyrannosaurus[/i] 1.5, or 1.5.6, or wherever it fits. The progression is [i]that clear[/i]. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [qb]Like...?[/qb] [/QUOTE] How are <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html">these</a>? Several hundred transitional fossils for your perusal. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [qb]Yes, and it's a hoax. Only two of the six specimines have feather imprints,[/qb] [/QUOTE] Not surprising, since many legitimate fossil [i]birds[/i] don't even preserve well enough to see feathers. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [qb]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.[/qb] [/QUOTE] Rather than answer myself, I will refer you to a detailed analysis of the fossils <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html">here</a>. Just to be clear, I post these links simply because the authors explain things far better than I could, and also provide extensive bibliographies of references in journals. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [qb]Which proves nothing.[/qb] [/QUOTE] You said there was no [i]evidence[/i] for evolution; furthermore, I never claimed it was proven. Genetic similarity is a prediction made by the theory of evolution. Theories are tested by checking the accuracy of the predictions they make. Therefore, genetic similarity is evidence for evolution. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [qb]And why would that be? I've heard this before, and I'd really love to know what it has to do with evolution.[/qb] [/QUOTE] You ignorance doesn't affect the veracity of the statement. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [qb]WHY, praytell, would a horse embryo evolve to look like an amphibian for a point in its development?[/qb] [/QUOTE] Because evolution is the result of modification. A small mutation in an animal isn't going to change the entire development of the animal, but only the part that was mutated. So you end up with embryos developing in the same manner as before, with changes building up sequentially. So fish go through the fish stage and stop. Amphibians go through the fish stage and then the amphibian stage. Reptiles go through the fish, amphibian, and reptile stages. And mammals go through all these and [i]then[/i] add hair and other mammalian characteristics. The question is, if God created animals in their present form, then why does a horse look like a fish for a point in its development? If it was never a fish in the past, why waste a few cell divisions making gills only to destroy them? Evolution accounts for "mistakes" and "glitches" and "inefficiency." A perfect God with perfect creation does not. Also, if the cross-species features aren't the result of evolution, why do we only see primitive characteristics in early stages of advanced creatures. You never see hair on a fish fetus, but you do see gills on a mammal fetus. Why? because the mammal is descended from the fish, but not the other way around. [QUOTE]Omega: [qb]Again, natural selection, not evolution.[/qb] [/QUOTE] Given that natural selection is the process by which evolution occurs, I fail to see the distinction. If there were once a few types of marsupials in a few roles, and now there are many types of marsupials in many roles, then where didn't evolution occur? Animals changed over time to adapt to new environments. That's evolution. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [qb]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.[/qb] [/QUOTE] Unless, of course, it was a genetic mutation that caused the fused vertabrae in the first place. Here's a better example of poor engineering: balls. Sperm has to be generated at a lower temperature than the body, so we've got our precious testicles dangling freely outside, where they can be damaged. Our only natural method of reproduction depends on the most easily damaged parts of our bodies. But with evolution as the explanation, it's not hard to imagine an unfortunate scenario in which a combination of selected mutations arrived at the "scrotal compromise." If God did it, he's either woefully incompetent or has a sick sense of humor. :D [QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [qb]You just keep thinking that. It most certainly is possible. We're dealing with biology, not physics.[/qb] [/QUOTE] Let me see... you accept "natural selection," which I assume you use for so-called "micro-evolution." Populations can change, but they can't change into new species. Am I right? Well, seriously, what do you think happens with those changes? If you've got a few million environmental changes spread out over a few million years, explain how it is that they are not cumulative. Does God come in at some point and say, "Okay, you've naturally selected yourself almost to the point of being a new species, but I can't let you continue?" [QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [qb]And you can prove that they're genetically incompatable with their parent species?[/qb] [/QUOTE] Of course I can't; I'm neither a botanist nor a geneticist. :D [QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [qb]...and dogs can still interbreed with wolves, and are thus still the same species millenia later. Thank you for making my point for me.[/qb] [/QUOTE] You know, while I discuss the term "species" both above and below this, it is also important to note that it often refers to any non-breeding population, [i]regardless[/i] of genetic compatability. There are many cases where two official species [i]can[/i] breed but don't; this only proves that the lines are blurry... and that is the unfair standard posed by creationism. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [qb]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.[/qb] [/QUOTE] I agree, and so do many scientists, as seen above. The problem is that creationist arguments [i]require[/i] the inadequate word "species," so as to limit response. Because speciation often takes millions of years, creationist can ignore the "small steps" like the domestication of animals and adaption of moths simply because enough time has not passed for the changes to accumulate into true speciation. Of course, if you are a young-Earth creationist, then the "fact" that there hasn't been enough time for anything to evolve would explain it... but if that's the case, there are far biger issues to discuss. :) [QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [qb]God created the universe.[/qb] [/QUOTE] An unsupported assertion, and a classic example of a place where only scientists are honest and say "we don't know yet." [QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [qb]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] Although I'm not a scientist, I take that as a compliment. To paraphrase, "You creationists seem to forget that we scientists created that definition." New species don't arise directly out of old ones, they are blended together. But we're covering old ground at this point. I can't help but notice that you don't address what is by far the most obvious support for evolution: the fact that it's predictions about the fossil record are true. Every species in the record has a specific point below which it is never found. There are no mammals in the Precambrian Era. If every animal existed in its present form from the beginning, why is this? Why can you look down through the rocks and see everything in the first few layers, then flowers disappear, then birds disappear, then mammals disappear, then reptiles disappear, then amphibians disappear, then fish disappear, then everything else disappears, and finally there are no fossils at all? If you accept that animals appeared at different times (I'm not sure if you're a young or old-Earth creationist), then the end result is God placing animals down [i]exactly[/i] when evolution predicts they should appear. How can you distinguish between God's placment and evolution, since either one disagrees with the Biblical story. It's as if God is saying, "Yeah, evolution is a joke but I'm gonna do what I can to convince you otherwise." [/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