quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
Take the flat-earth-is-the-center-of-the-universe bit. It's not ANYWHERE in scripture, stated or implied[...] (emphasis added)

---

Daniel 4:11 -- "The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth." You can't see anything from all points on a sphere. Furthermore, a sphere doesn't have "ends."

Isaiah 11:12 -- "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." Only a flat Earth can have corners. This is also mentioned in Ezekiel 7:2 and Revelation 7:1.

Isaiah 24:1 -- "[...]the earth is turned upside down to scatter its inhabitants." Unless Earth is flat and has gravity extending in only one direction, turning it upside down wouldn't change things much.

Matthew 4:5-8 -- "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world[...]" Again, the devil taketh him to a place that can only exist on a flat Earth.

Sounds like the Bible is implying a flat Earth to me! And let's recall thhe geocentrism that the Church got pissed at Galileo for disputing...

Psalm 104:5 -- "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 have nearly identical wording.

And if we're just going for Biblical absurdity when it comes to science, let's not forget all of the four-legged insects and cud-chewing rabbits and bats that are birds instead of mammals in Leviticus.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
Religion also plays a role in keeping kids from having sex before they're ready. Religion plays a role in keeping people from every kind of immorality.

---

No, religion plays a role in dictating morality. And even then, it does a half-assed job. The ten commandments has four purely god-related commandments, and yet it says nothing about rape! The only thing the Bible really does say about rape is in Deuteronomy: you should kill the victim if she doesn't scream loud enough... and if she's a virgin, you should buy her from her father for fifty sheckles when you're done. Oh, and if she's married, both you and the victim should be killed.

But those are Old Testament rules, surely they don't apply now! "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." -- Matthew 5:18-19. Oh, I guess they should.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
Religion plays a role in keeping some people SANE (like, say, me). Sure, the CONCEPT has lead to bad things occasionally, but that doesn't necessarily mean you need to eliminate the concept all together. First you need further analysis to figure out if there's some aspect of the concept that's the problem.

---

There is: God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
Well, stem-cell research requires the termination of a living fetus, at least beyond what's been authorized already, so that's included under "abortion". As for abortion, it has nothing to do with a soul, any more than laws against murder do. It's the termination of a human being against their will, who threatens no one.

---

How, without a soul, does a six-week embryo even have a will? The vast, vast number of abortions occur before brain activity has even begun in the brain. The argument against abortion has everything to do with the idea that a non-thinking, non-feeling ball of cells has a soul. Without a soul, abortion is little different from any other surgical procedure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
Everyone agrees that such a thing is wrong, but they make an exception for abortion for some inscrutable reason.

---

That reason is quite simple: without an intangible soul, an embryo isn't anything more than a collection of cells until its brain starts functioning. It's only wrong to kill an actual person; even then, God seems to condone it for a large variety of circumstances. Remember the bears he sent to tear apart a couple dozen children because they made fun of Elijah's baldness? Good thing God's a mystery and beyond human comprehension, or that would look really bad...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
Or maybe it's because there's no evidence [for evolution].

---

Oh boy.

There is the fossil record, showing a clear progression through time. No "later" species is ever encountered lower than an "earlier" species. There are countless transitional fossils, showing intermediary forms between two distinct species. In fact, nearly every fossil is transitionary due to the rareness of fossilization and the never-ending pace of evolution itself. I think everyone is familiar with the archaeopteryx, but there are more relevant and clear progressions for other divergences, such as the rise of reptiles and mammals from amphibians. There is the genetic similarity of all forms of life. All mammals, for instance, share a certain portion of the DNA... the portion that is left over from earlier stages of life. There is the presence of non-functional genetic material in humans that has been observed to be functional in earlier primate and mammal species. A good example is the production of vitamin C. Other mammals can do it themselves, and we can't, but the remnants of the genes are still found in our DNA. Along a similar vein, there are vestigal structures, remnants from previous stages of evolution that have now become useless. For example, our stumpy vestigal tail and our appendix. 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. 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. Furthermore, the fossil record shows this proccess. We have countless examples of species being imperfectly adapted to their roles, and using parts that originally served one function for a completely new function. The human spine, for instance, it terribly suited to standing erect, because it was adapted from the quadrapedal spine of our ancestors. Why do you think so many people have back problems? We can observe, and produce, genetic changes in organisms that cause changes in form or behavior... and we have observed natural causes generating similar changes. Because these changes happen, it is impossible for evolution not to occur once it all adds up. 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. 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. Dogs were made to evolve through domestication as a descendant of wolves. Two new species of rat evolved during the middle ages. Furthermore, there have been hundreds of observed speciations of insects, not to mention rarer cases of birds, mammals, and other animals. See here and here.

The preceding list is elaborated on, in significant detail, here. For more "everyday biologist" discoveries that support evoltuion click here. I also recommend this site for more discussion.

quote:

---

Origianlly posted by Omega:
No. It can't. You can create most amino acids, but you can't even create a single protein, much less anything that could possibly be considered to be alive.

---

Evolution has nothing to do with the initial development of life. You're talking about ambiogenesis, a completely seperate issue

Science, when presented with a presently unexplained phenomenon, says, "We don't know." Religion, on the other hand, says "God did it." Historically, when religion says that, science finds the real answer a few centuries later...

[ December 02, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]

quote:

---

Appeal to authority. Invalid argument.

---

Or, more appropiately rephrased:

Appeal to god. Invalid argument.

quote:

---

Because of their religion.

---

Well, gee, you don't say? And yet!, there are *gasp* non-religious folks who have managed to:

-Make their children learn and appreciate the norms & values of society...
-Set moral standards for their offspring...
-Sexually educate their kids (giving them the freedom of deciding for themself wether they are 'ready')...

*...all by themselves*

Imagine that!

quote:

---

But narrowing the definition of human life runs the risk of dehumanizing people.

---

Oh yes, we absolutely risk dehumanizing *Asians* when we stop to view *a small group of non-specialized cells* as 'human life'. And I've got news for you: stem-cell research doesn't depend solely on 'the termination of fetii'.

quote:

---

how much of your anual salary goes to charity? Got a percentage? 'Cause I can guarentee that mine's higher. I give a relatively large portion of my money to charity, and I serve my community in every way possible, ALL because of my religion. Oh, and I'm also a far more pleasant person.

---

... with a far larger ego.

Ryan: There is: God.

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.

How, without a soul, does a six-week embryo even have a will?

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.

The argument against abortion has everything to do with the idea that a non-thinking, non-feeling ball of cells has a soul.

No, it has everything to do with the fact that they're living human beings.

There is the fossil record, showing a clear progression through time.

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.

There are countless transitional fossils, showing intermediary forms between two distinct species.

Like...?

I think everyone is familiar with the archaeopteryx

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.

There is the genetic similarity of all forms of life.

Which proves nothing.

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.

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?

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.

Again, natural selection, not evolution.

The human spine, for instance, it terribly suited to standing erect

Works for me.

Why do you think so many people have back problems?

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.

We can observe, and produce, genetic changes in organisms that cause changes in form or behavior...

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.

Because these changes happen, it is impossible for evolution not to occur once it all adds up.

You just keep thinking that. It most certainly is possible. We're dealing with biology, not physics.

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.

Again, natural selection, not evolution. Adaptations to environment WITHIN A SINGLE SPECIES does not constitute evolution.

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.

And you can prove that they're genetically incompatable with their parent species?

Dogs were made to evolve through domestication as a descendant of wolves.

...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.

Science, when presented with a presently unexplained phenomenon, says, "We don't know." Religion, on the other hand, says "God did it."

God created the universe. Therefore, God did EVERYTHING, to some degree. God and science are not incompatable. Heck, the laws of physics REQUIRE God.

Historically, when religion says that, science finds the real answer a few centuries later...

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
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 remember you asserting it, but I don't recall you "establishing" anything.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
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?

---

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 need 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:
B) Someone doesn't have to actively desire to prevent something to count it as being against their will.

---

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:

---

No, it has everything to do with the fact that they're living human beings.

---

By what standard? If they can't think, then the only thing that makes them human is their DNA. They are, 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 being 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 anything yet.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
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.

---

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 As 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 all 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 Tyrannosaurus 1.0, then Tyrannosaurus 2.0. When a new skeleton is discovered, it might be Tyrannosaurus 1.5, or 1.5.6, or wherever it fits. The progression is that clear.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
Like...?

---

How are these? Several hundred transitional fossils for your perusal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
Yes, and it's a hoax. Only two of the six specimines have feather imprints,

---

Not surprising, since many legitimate fossil birds don't even preserve well enough to see feathers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
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.

---

Rather than answer myself, I will refer you to a detailed analysis of the fossils here. 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:
Which proves nothing.

---

You said there was no evidence 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:
And why would that be? I've heard this before, and I'd really love to know what it has to do with evolution.

---

You ignorance doesn't affect the veracity of the statement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
WHY, praytell, would a horse embryo evolve to look like an amphibian for a point in its development?

---

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 then 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:
Again, natural selection, not evolution.

---

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:
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.

---

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
You just keep thinking that. It most certainly is possible. We're dealing with biology, not physics.

---

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:
And you can prove that they're genetically incompatable with their parent species?

---

Of course I can't; I'm neither a botanist nor a geneticist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
...and dogs can still interbreed with wolves, and are thus still the same species millenia later. Thank you for making my point for me.

---

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, regardless of genetic compatability. There are many cases where two official species can 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:
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 agree, and so do many scientists, as seen above. The problem is that creationist arguments require 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:
God created the universe.

---

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:
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.

---

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 exactly 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."

[ December 02, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]

Y'know what's interesting? The more things are scientifically explained, the smaller role a god plays in any of it.

Thousands of years ago, lightning was spontaneous flashes of light that came out of the sky for no reason and killed stuff. What could cause that? Must be a god.

Oh, wait, we just figured out that it's electricity. So it isn't a godly light after all. But where did the electricity come from? That must be where the god comes in.

But what's this? It's actually caused by a negative charge on the Earth and a positive charge in the atmosphere, resulting in electrons flowing upward? So now where's the god? Must be the one who invented electrons, or something.

Or how about tides? Water goes up, water goes down. Water goes up, water goes down. Must be gods. Oh, it's the moon? Well, gods put the moon there. Oh, it broke off of the Earth during an asteroid impact? Well, gods threw the asteroid at us. Asteroids are perfectly normal in the solar system? Well, gods made the solar system. It was formed out of coalescing dust in a swirling accretion disc after the collapse of a nebula? Um... Gods did that.

it's like the people who steadfastly believe the earth is flat. you say "well, what about pictures from space that show the earth is clearly a speroid (lets forget simpler ways to prove the earth is a spheroid for a minute) and the flat earthers come up with wild conspiracy theories about how space travel is a hoax [since it disagrees with their dogma]. personally, i see little difference between creationists and flat earthers, or between creationists and alien abductee conspiracy theorists, for that matter. you'll never prove anything to a person who doesn't want to know the truth (and i'm not insinuating that what i believe is the truth,mind you), even if they outwardly seem logical. you know the fanatic when they create farfetched reasons for inconsistancy instead of exploring the reasons why the inconsistancies exist.

flame away, i'll just treat your arguments against my beliefs how you treat mine: i'll ignore them or dismiss them out of hand, since they don't fit with my fundamental and irrevocable beliefs

--jacob

[ December 02, 2001: Message edited by: EdipisReks ]

quote:

---

you know the fanatic when they create farfetched reasons for inconsistancy instead of exploring the reasons why the inconsistancies exist.

---

We decorate our home for Christmas and there's no religious belief behind it. We just celebrate Christmas as a non-religious holiday. I know of other people who do the same. Furthermore, when I was younger, we also celebrated Hannukeh (sp?) b/c my father's family was Jewish (read, his family, not neccesarily him).

re: TNG Hindu references

"We decorate our home for Christmas and there's no religious belief behind it."