First Human Cloned - What do you think?
- Thread starter Lynx
- Start date
TC
SubCrid
The use of the word 'law' for some historic theories is misleading, at best. Physical 'laws' are, by current nomenclature, theories. They're only referred to as laws for historic reasons. Also, general theories could quite easily be always true... It's just that proving them to be so is usually practically impossible.
He thought it was an interesting thing to ponder, so he pursued it, studied it, and published a book on the subject. I'm not sure how that has anything to do with the validity of something... If you don't think something's interesting, why would you study it? Anyway, it's not like the currently accepted theories reguarding evolution are the same as Darwin's. They've evolved over the years. Darwin didn't even have the concepts of genetic inheritence available to him that were later observed by Mendel.
Yeah, that's a great way to convince people you're right.
I may be somewhat biased, as it mirrors my own thoughts, but I think this was rather well put.
(Of course, this doesn't mean I agree with some of the other points you've made, but I might get to those later
)Hrm... if you actually believe that nobody accepts evolution because that's what many people believe you are probably rather mistaken. Do you really think a large number of people have gone off and examined evidence for themselves? I've looked at the subject at various times and I've only taken cursory looks at a very few second hand examples of evidence. I have to assume that since many people more knowledgeable than I in the subject, following methods that I understand to be at least somewhat reliable, agree that it is the best theory currently available it is at least somewhat valid. I've thought about it quite a bit more than many other people, who will just assume it's correct because they were told so in school and other people they know think it's right.
And, since you seem to be a proponent of science, I will point out that it's rather unscientific to say one should necessarily accept theories as stated. Theories need to be questioned so they can be further refined (or, in some cases, shown to be incorrect in some fundamental way, though I doubt this is the case with evolution). People would have said that things like Newton's Laws of Motion are illogical to question, look at all the proof, but Einstein showed that they break down in various situations (and Einstein's theories have also been further refined).
The following has absolutely nothing to do with the content of your edited post, as I have no idea what was in it, it has to do with the rules of this Chat Zone, which you will observe. If you do not, you will be asked to leave.
As Quarto is a moderator in this forum, his reading of the rules is to be considered correct unless someone with greater authority says otherwise. Since his reading is automatically correct, it is obviously not lunacy. If you have a problem with the way he's interpreted the rules then you're free to appeal to the whole of the Chat Zone administration at chatzone@wcnews.com . The quality, or lack thereof, of moderation is not to be discussed on the Chat Zone itself.
I don't think you understand what logic actually is. Nearly anything can be logically shown, assuming one uses the correct premises as the basis of the chain of logic. It's rather easy to show that creation is logical when your premises is that God exists and the Bible is God's word.
It obviously can be argued with, as I just did. I'm also obviously not justifying my own beliefs, as the beliefs of creationists are not my beliefs.
There never was a requirement for a diety, though. Evolution doesn't answer all the questions in the universe, there will always be questions which science will not yet be able to provide satisfactory theories for which a God appears to be the only possible solution to some. Where the everything originally came from, I suspect, will always be one of these.
Hrm... I'm unsure how joining a discussion on a board meant for discussion is somehow a bad thing for me to do... How is what I did, in responding to a post, butting in, but you joining the thread quite a ways into it, not butting in?
My post consisted of the following:
[*}Questioning how saying 'fox one' and the like after making a point ridicules the position of another person- Clairifying that I didn't think anyone was forcing an opinion on anyone else, and it was unfair to state that
- Explaining why I'd provided a summary of the concepts of natural selection and evolution in my previous post
- Questioning your use of the word 'Scientific', the use of which had been an important part of the point you'd been trying to make
- Explaining why Preacher had probably not responded to your first post
- Questioning you calling Preacher an extremist
- Explaining that I had in fact understood what you meant to say when you said "blind faith", and explaining my previous response to it.
I did question your use of language in various places, but that's a somewhat important part of discussion. It's important to question language, although not be pedantic about it, so you can clearly understand what a person is saying.
As opposed to this post, which completely ignores nearly everything I said. Good job.
That is, of course, entirely up to you. However, I must take offense with the implication that I'm somehow being childish. I never at any point implied that your arguments were wrong because of the way you used language.
Thank you for all your kindness in allowing me to keep my personal beliefs... Without your consent I'd be required to throw them out the window and take on the beliefs of... let's say... WildWeasel. Then where would we be? I'm not quite sure what you meant to say by opening this paragraph like that, but it came across to me as holier-than-thou, patronizing, arrogant tripe.
I find it amusing that you somehow have insight into my relations with the outside world. How do you know that I need to 'grow up' from this one post. I have no problem with you disagreeing with what I said, but the fact that you effectively call me childish twice in your post makes me question how mature you can possibly be be.
cff
Kilk'dymga'qith laq Ik'vikvi
I dunno. My grandmother was from Romania and a hero he aint had been for her. It was more kinda the lines I said, a especially brutal tyrant. I think he wasn't very kind to the own people either...
Now that would be an interesting prove. I could offer a classic that proves that god cannot be almighty in fact it shows that nothing can be almighty, but denial of his existance... Hmmm...
I don't recall that hell was mentioned in the bible?
Not that I believe that there is a hell. There are some very interesting philosophical discussions about the essence of hell. Some very good movies as well. Have a look at "What Dreams May Come" for a "definition of hell".
Basically: Hell is what you create for yourself
Well for one, the premises are the problem. You know the theory of the real numbers? Now while mathematics can prove everything here originating from 10 axioms or so, they actually do _NOT_ claim that these numbers represent our real world numbers.
Because that one cannot be proven.
Also note that "Nearly anything can be logically shown" is about as wrong as it can be. It can be shown that for all, but the most simple situations automatic prove cannot be done. You cannot even predict if something can be logical derived or not. As natural and powerful logic seems to be it got serious limits.
TC
SubCrid
I'll have to conceed that, as it was a really really stupid thing to say. I have very little beyond a passing knowledge of logic and I should still know better than to say that. My brain was thinking in the context of arguments one would have in the Chat Zone, as opposed to Turing's halting problem and things of that sort. My brain also skipped over things like self-contradictory statements.
I had also been thinking of situations where you work from premises, valid or not, to form whatever conclusion you wish, which is a stupid way to try and argue.
t.c.cgi
Vice Admiral
Okay, well since Napoleon isn't the only one who thinks Creationism cannot possibly be scientific, go back to my last post and look up everything I listed for him. There are in fact bright scholars reasearching Creationism, and are using the scientific process just the same. Anyone who thinks Creationism has no scientific backing has *really* had their heads burried in the ground.
And as far as the Bible being in code so the Romans didn't burn it, thats hogwash. Jesus spoke in peribles, and the psalms may be metaphorical, but the majority of it is literal. If you don't believe it, just say so, don't use ignorant theories.
And as far as the Bible being in code so the Romans didn't burn it, thats hogwash. Jesus spoke in peribles, and the psalms may be metaphorical, but the majority of it is literal. If you don't believe it, just say so, don't use ignorant theories.
Preacher
Swabbie
Banned
--The first Isaiah passage you cite is Isaiah's prophecy concerning Babylon's coming destruction, both in the short-term sense (when the Medo-Persians conquered them) and the longer term sense in the End Times. The second passage is similar, only it is more focused on Babylon's End Times destruction. Neither of these have anything to do with Israel being told by God to do this stuff to other people. The Israelis weren't ordered to do this by God, they were simply told what some OTHER nation was going to do to Israel's oppressors in times future. And although the "victims" in the passages above were nonbelievers, these 'niceties' (as you called them) weren't visited upon them because of their unbelief. They were to be a judgment of God upon Babylon for the extreme cruelty they showed Israel during/after the conquest & deportation of Israel.
--Doesn't 'nullify' it; rather, it constitutes a hole, through which leaks the credibility of a theory.
--Sure, it happens. But last time I was in a morgue, I distinctly recall it as having an air supply, unlike a sealed cave. As such, even if Lazarus was alive when they put him in, he wouldn't have stayed that way for long - certainly not 4 days...
--It would be rather unlikely that one would be a sympathizer, but strap yourself in and check this out: There was more than one soldier, there was a detachment of soldiers. And, even IF the whole lot were sympathizers, surely they were also realists: Fact is, the penalty for a Roman soldier abandoning his post/being guilty of dereliction of duty, was death. You'd have to have the entire detachment of soldiers be hard-core believers for a scenario like that to have unfolded. Merely being a "sympathizer" wouldn't quite cut it...
--Your ignorance is showing. There was a couple of TV shows I've seen over the years ("In Search Of", "Nova", shows like that--wish I could remember the exact names) wherein it was illustrated just how huge a cargo capacity Noah's ark actually had, as per the original specs given him by God. Further, what you call "tar" the Bible refers to as "pitch". It is simply a plant resin from trees (basically, sap), and thus is not a petroleum derivative at all. From all the trees that had to be felled to contruct the ark, Noah had an abundant supply of it, and had 100 years and 7 other people to help him gather/apply it. Finally, even your own own precious theory of evolution would allow for there being a lesser diversity of animal life (fewer species, and thus fewer animals that needed boarding in the ark) than exists now. As such, the ark being a suitable vessel to do the prescribed job is quite a bit more likely than you are obviously willing to admit.
--Um, nowhere does it say Adam was "randomly" created out of dust. It was rather deliberate and purposeful, as I recall.Your point about genetic inbreeding problems, while well-intentioned, falls flat. The very fact that the God doesn't prohibit interfamilial marriages until somewhere after Genesis should give you a clue here. Must be there wasn't a problem with the concept until quite a few generations after the Creation. I'll avoid the moral reasons here and just address the scientific. It is entirely reasonable to me that a freshly created prototype species (man) would likely be genetically "perfect". As such, what we call inbreeding would have no adverse genetic consequences. Somewhere along the line, some genetic degradation/corruption crept in (that's where the moral part comes in), and it no longer was feasible to allow marriage within the closer degrees of kinship, thus God prohibiting same thereafter.
--Well, one recent example would be the estuary ("bone box") recently found in Israel inscripted "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus". Evidence of the existence/death of the apostle James, Jesus' half-brother. Now all three of those names were common names in that day, but to have those particular three there, in the correct familial relationship, is extraordinary, Further, it was only common to refer to a man by his father. To include a reference, in that setting, to one's brother, would only have been done if the brother was someone of great prominence. That would only fit the biblical characters. Also, research over the last several years concerning seismic & volcanic activity in that region of the world "back then" has led to plausible scientific explanations as to how Sodom and Gomorrah may have been destroyed (volcanic ash), and how the walls of Jericho may've fallen (a quake). Both of these are events thought impossible/too incredible to believe by most skeptics/hard scientists up till these facts were brought to light by research. Now all of a sudden, you have scientists saying "Gee, now the Jericho walls thing and Sodom and Gomorrah don't seem so farfetched AFTER all (meanwhile, God's in heaven saying "Duh!").
--As your own ignorance has already been pointed out voluminously by others herein, I'll not waste any further bandwidth belaboring the point.
I realize that's correct, but still the vast majority of it that you see here in the US is by those groups. I have even done something similar to that myself on one occasion at my former church. The bottom line though, is this: Whether or not you like it or think it should be allowed, all you need do is just not answer the door. Quite simple. I mean, all sorts of people send us junk mail, and yet few of us rail to the Post Office about it; we simply toss it in the trash/recycling bin. Problem solved. All I'm saying is that you might want to look at "door to door" evangelizing/proselytizing the same way: It's not your cup of tea, so just don't drink it..
Preacher
Swabbie
Banned
[character-limit thing again...]
--And, the Bible was not written in code. The OT was written primarily in Hebrew, and the NT was primarily written in Aramaic and Greek.
--True, dat: Faith isn't logic. Logic says, don't believe anything you can't see or prove, that can't be "programmed, categorized, or easily referenced" (as Mulder once said). Yet, you can't see love. You can't prove trust. You can't categorize joy. These things all defy scientific "proof", yet we know they exist, and we know it in large part because we have experienced them. They are entirely reasonable, sensible, and rational, and one is no less a logical being for saying/believing that they exist . After shaking my head at this passage of yours, I guess all I can do is to quote Shakespeare: "there are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy"
--As cited elsewhere, there is PLENTY of room for some biblical passages/books to be parables, allegories, etc. Any Christian who has studied the Bible knows this. Fact is, the Bible is composed of a surprising array of different literary forms: Poetry, history, biography, allegory, etc. This doesn't make its central truths one whit less valid. It's all about the context. For example, if you thought Christ's advice to "if your eye offends you, pluck it out" was to be taken literally, doesn't it follow that a substantial chunk of churchgoers would be blind?...Pshaw; Christ was speaking in hyperbole so as to illustrate his point: If you have a problem with lust, you'd best get it under control, or it will eventually control you and possibly lead to damnation. The fact that there actually are some people walking around who dogmatically believe everything is to be taken literally is to their own shame. That ain't "the real deal"...
--I also was raised a Catholic, but what TWO different creation stories are you referrin' to?... Unless you can cite the passages referred to and prove them, your argument that it shouldn't be accepted (presumably because the two stories conflict at some point?...) falls flat.
--And, the Bible was not written in code. The OT was written primarily in Hebrew, and the NT was primarily written in Aramaic and Greek.
Well, let's see: King David was a shepard, Moses became a shepard later in life, a couple of the minor prophets were shepards also. As to slaves, Daniel became one (well, sorta) after the Babylonian exile. I can't think of any others offhand. The really neat thing, though, is that a significant number of the biblical writers were fairly ordinary men, or even "lowlifes" (read: slaves & shepards), and yet the book they wrote has changed the world! (see Acts 4:13-20)
The word "Hell" occurs numerous times in the Bible, mostly (if not entirely) in the New Testament. You are correct in saying that hell is what you create for yourself. From the Christian view, hell (at its most basic) is the place reserved for those who refused to acknowledge and worship Christ while they had the chance here on earth. Whether it is a physical place or not is irrelevant; the point is, hell is eternal separation from God (read Luke 16:27-31 for an illustration of this). Since nearly every human has the ability to make this choice (the few exceptions being things like a child that dies in infancy, for example, or a person born w/ profound mental retardation who can't comprehend), it all comes down to which way you choose.
--No, the world would not necessarily listen to it, no matter how well-documented. The problem with Creationism (as has been pointed out elsewhere here) is that it, by definition, involves admitting there is a Creator: God. When you admit that God IS, you leave yourself open to having to be accountable to Him for your actions, and few people are courageous enough to sail into those waters. This fact, more than any other, makes it fairly certain that (as you put it) "it has never happened, and i seriously doubt it ever will.". On that much, at least we agree....
--True, dat: Faith isn't logic. Logic says, don't believe anything you can't see or prove, that can't be "programmed, categorized, or easily referenced" (as Mulder once said). Yet, you can't see love. You can't prove trust. You can't categorize joy. These things all defy scientific "proof", yet we know they exist, and we know it in large part because we have experienced them. They are entirely reasonable, sensible, and rational, and one is no less a logical being for saying/believing that they exist . After shaking my head at this passage of yours, I guess all I can do is to quote Shakespeare: "there are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy"
--As cited elsewhere, there is PLENTY of room for some biblical passages/books to be parables, allegories, etc. Any Christian who has studied the Bible knows this. Fact is, the Bible is composed of a surprising array of different literary forms: Poetry, history, biography, allegory, etc. This doesn't make its central truths one whit less valid. It's all about the context. For example, if you thought Christ's advice to "if your eye offends you, pluck it out" was to be taken literally, doesn't it follow that a substantial chunk of churchgoers would be blind?...Pshaw; Christ was speaking in hyperbole so as to illustrate his point: If you have a problem with lust, you'd best get it under control, or it will eventually control you and possibly lead to damnation. The fact that there actually are some people walking around who dogmatically believe everything is to be taken literally is to their own shame. That ain't "the real deal"...
LeHah
212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
I think he's refering to "The Bible Code", in which people put the Bible through a computer and got all sorts of nonsense bullshit and thought it was some secret message.
My ass. Everyone knows you need the Super Secret Catholic Decoder Ring to do that kinda stuff with.
Originally posted by Quarto
Over the past decade or so, weather patterns around the world have been changing wildly. These changes - most likely caused by global warming - include, surprise surprise, unprecedented floods. Central Europe has endured a flood almost every year for the past seven or eight years, which is more than unusual. And what we're going through is barely noticeable compared to what would have happened at the end of the ice age.
As for lacking the ability to record information - the ability to record information is convenient, certainly, but not the least bit necessary to preserve information. In fact, for most of human history, information usually wasn't recorded - even as late as the middle ages, only a select few could read and write. That's why you had bards, who would learn their tales by heart and eventually pass them on to others. Some of the greatest "literary" works, like the Iliad and the Oddyssey were transmitted purely orally for many generations before they were written down.
Fact means exactly the same thing in ordinary language as it does in science - a fact is a fact, pure and simple.
I never said there have been any fossils that conflict with evolution. However, when people like you try to present the current theory about how the human species evolved as truth rather than a theory (and a rather weak one - human evolution, not evolution in general, that is), this can only hurt the argument in support of evolution.
What you've shown is that you ignore anything that doesn't suit your world view. That's fanaticism. I don't claim that you're a fanatic - but you sure as hell do act like one.
You're ignoring the point. Their argument is that if you assume that God exists (in the same way that, when trying to prove any scientific theory, you first assume that it is correct and then back it up with facts), then everything on Earth and in the universe is evidence in support of God's existence.
Tell you what, let's try this another way. You've challenged them to disprove evolution. Well, here's a challenge for you - I want to see you disprove the existence of God. If you can achieve that, then, and only then, will you be able to claim that their argument is based only the writings of a few slaves and sheep herders. Until then, all you're doing is basing your argument on the "fact" that they're wrong - and it's impossible to prove someone is wrong based on them being wrong
I really couldn't care less. I'm the moderator, and you're out of line. Nobody says you have to believe in God or that they have to believe in the evolution. But you have no right to insult their beliefs, just like they have no right to insult yours. The next time you cross that line, I won't bother editing your post - I'll simply delete it.
The effects due to human actions change the rate at which normal world events happen. The ice age ending didnt happen in a matter of yeras, it took at least several centuries. Oral traditions can work, but we are talking to a period where languages werent clearly developed and most people were only concerned with day to day matters of life or deaht, not long term climate actions.
Stephen Jay Gould disagrees, within his essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory" he states that a fact in the scientific meaning means something that is so well documented and evidenced that it would be silly not to accept it (paraphrased but rather close to what he actually wrote). I am using his definition of fact here.
I do not present it as fact, i present it as the best knowledge at this time, any presentation as if it is immutable goes against my entire freaking argument throughout this convo, making it that any reading into it as if i am presenting it as an immutable fact is comming straight from you and not the text. but good try.
I have never refused to accept any info, i mearly wont listen to info that has been shown to be ludicris by people who know what they are talking about and from all info i have discovered. In other words, i accept that which can be verrified and shown to have a high probability of truth.
Ok points, quick one that box, there are 20 recorded men in jeruselim during that general time period who had fathers named joseph and brothers named jesus and who were named james, absolutely no reason to assume that it is yours and not someone elses.
So now not only did a person live for over a hundred years before medicine was invented, but also diversity was increased in only 4000 years. Im sorry but the amount of animals and plants needed to have undergone speciation during this time period is ludicrisly large given such a tiny amount of time.
Also they would have had to carry food for millions upon millions of species of animals for years. first off they would need enough to last till the water went away, then they would need even more because all the plants would have died. And how do South american animals get there from Armenia? how do polynesian ones? how bout micronesian animals?
The maximum lenght for a wooden ship given the best technology known today is somewhere around 350 feet, this is because after that point they are simply too leaky and take on too much water. THe clipper ships were about as long as wooded ships can get.
Within that size there is no way the sheer number of animals that had to be stored could be.
Q: Dude the fact is that creationism ISnt a likely or probable hypothesis, all the evidence that has been found to date has opposed it, evolution is as well demonstrated as gravity and the fact that the earth is an oblate spheroid, should we be going around giving serious credence to people who believe in levitation and that the earth is flat?
The part of the bible with different stories is Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Genesis 1 says humans were the last creations, Genesis 2 says adam was made first then all the other animals were made to keep him company. They are directly in opposition. The common christian fundamentalist tactic is to claimn that the Second creation story is the tale of creation only in the garden of eden, but this is being pulled right from midair best as i can determine, that there is no textural support of all creatures being recreated in eden right after the rest of the world. Just 2 differnet world wide creation stories.
Another thing all, The first books were NOT writen by Moses, it has been found that Genesis, Exodus, and i think deuteronomy (not sure of the last one) have four unique authors spred around then, like Genesis 1 is of one author and genesis 2 is of another, this is determined by analysing the writing style the diction and syntax.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Ah, yes... right... and the reason why unusually devastating, unseasonal floods and storms would not be matters of life and death is because...? Besides, the transmission of oral traditions was a matter of life and death anyway.
Anyway, look around the world - even cultures with the most primitive languages have oral traditions. And in many such cultures, language has hardly evolved at all in the past ten thousand years - or even forty thousand years, here in Australia.
He's right. But this is not the case with the theory of evolution. It's quite possible to demonstrate the effects of evolution - but nobody has done it yet. We're still going on faith - scientists show us ancient, fossilised bones, and they say that these are probably related to man. Now, I happen to agree with them, but nonetheless they have no proof of this relationship. It's not genetics, it's faith
.Heh. Your argument, last I checked, was that evolution is true, and creation is false. Indeed, you have just tried to explain why you believe that evolution is fact. And now you tell me that when I see you claiming evolution is an unmoveable fact, I'm just imagining it?
And yet, you refuse to explain why their claims are ludicrous. Nobody has ever proven that God doesn't exist. Therefore, it is your claim that God could not have created the Earth that is ludicrous.