|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 9:16 am
Eltanin Sadachbia divineseraph It is as close a theory as we can get. Therefore, it is as close to truth as we can get. But it isn't proven fact, so it should not be taught as proven truth, just the theory it is. divineseraph Not at all, and as mentioned, that's not how it works. Learn how it works. I seemed to have proven more of my argument than you have. All you continue to say is that you believe this and you refuse to believe that. To prove your point, you claim gravity is an unproven theory, but it has been proven through math and physics. I know a bit what I'm talking about, and you try to turn your ignorance of what I'm talking about into me not proving my points. Again, I am not trying to argue you into not believing evolution. You go right ahead. I will continue to look into theories of how we got here, and I will believe God had a hand in it. I know that there is such thing as evolution with-in species, but I can't believe, and it has not been proven that one species completely evolves into another species. divineseraph I'm not sure if chromosomes are the only factor in determining whether or not a species can mate. It is not. As I already tried to explain to you, functional and neutral differences are key on whether a species is compatible to mate. A gene can have the same number of chromosomes, but there are not enough functional differences, nothing happens. divineseraph Are you using macro to mean large scale, or to mean small scale? And a functional difference is a functional difference. Flight and non-flight is a functional difference, but a rather important one. For an example, see ants, particularly during breeding. You were right that I had micro and macro backwards. Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools. Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations. Thank you for your correction. It has been 10 years since I debated evolution, and I suppose the one letter difference got jumbled. divineseraph Wait, we're one chromosome pair off from chimps, and 98% close otherwise, and that's not some sort of relation? Your example with horses shows the exact reason why- They're only one chromosome off, but still came, according to you, from a similar line at least. I'm not suggesting that we evolved from chimps, but that we had a common ancestor. Yeah, I was hoping you would jump on that one. The human gene is one pair off from chimps. That is 2 chromosomes. So, humans have 23 pair. Chimps have 24 pair. You know what else has 24 pair? Potatoes, Tobacco, and Deer mice, and Hares. Sable Antelopes and Reeve's Muntjacks have 23 pair. Does that mean there is definite proof that we are genetically evolved from those species? The point is there are no functional differences, they are neutral differences. divineseraph That's my point exactly. If the fossil records for both rats and dogs are 10 million years old and this new "link" is 2 million years old, there's a problem. It would never be accepted. I still don't know what point you are trying to make. If there are only a couple of fossils left of rats and dogs, and they find an animal that looks to them a bit of both (now I used an exaggerated example, but it is just and example), then they are going to try to fit it in somewhere, if they are using the same methods as we do today. divineseraph Even then, if we did not come from a single celled organism that changed to multiple celled organisms and so forth, where did life as we know it come from? How did unique animal life suddenly pop into existence, magically in order on a timescale, from hundreds of millions of years ago from simple bacteria to fish to dinosaurs to mammals to us? What is your reasoning, and your source? What is the evidence you can use to support this idea? Have any new creatures spawned recently? Do you have any scientific records or objective analysis to base this on? I would be so bold as to suggest that it is better to accept something with evidence than something without, when given the option. This is where personal belief comes in. There is more proof in my eyes that life was a very sudden thing. Even if we did evolve from an amoeba, where did the amoeba come from? Already I have said that I can not give you proof that we were Created, but you have failed to site proof that we evolved from germs. I already accept the proven evidence of evolution within species, but I cannot accept the digression all the way back to single-cells. I have read papers about core samples, and layer samples, about the very sudden appearance of life in those samples. I am not going through my library to find those books and papers, and I am not going to hunt them down and type them out. I am not going to quote from internet sites. If you were truly interested in examining more than just the possibility of evolution, you may do so yourself. divineseraph What is it you're talking about, with quoting theory compared to myth? Basically, I was trying to point out the absurdity of people spending time on telling other people the are wrong when neither side has been proven. I don't say you are wrong, all I say is that I don't believe what you do. divineseraph That's exactly what I'm saying! If gravity is good enough for you, when it is done mostly with math and assumption, why isn't evolution, when it is supported just as well, if not more, by objective analysis and observations that can easily be done? Gravity is not an assumption anymore, it is a predictable and calculable science. Evolution within a species is proven beyond a doubt, but there is absolutely no conclusive evidence that we evolved from bacteria. In fact, objective analysis shows how unlikely it is that we have evolved from bacteria. When a bacteria splits, it becomes another single celled organism, it doesn't become a binary-celled organism. Even with mutation, that bacteria wouldn't live long enough to propagate an entire new race of binary-celled organisms. divineseraph I'm driving home two points here right now- Firstly, that a theory, even if incomplete, is acceptable as fact if there is good enough evidence. The evidence is not good enough for millions of people, that in and of itself is enough for me feel justified in being skeptical about it. divineseraph Secondly, it is very, very hard to actually GET this evidence. When you say that there isn't enough for evolution, just take a look at gravity. You trust those numbers? You accept something you can't even see for yourself, but have trouble accepting what is an assumption of what occurs after eons of biological mutation? Since it is so hard to get evidence, then I feel you are justified in accepting it if you like, as I can not offer conclusive evidence that evolution is wrong. divineseraph So I want you to propose an experiment that would prove that gravity is based on mass. Please, let's see it. Or, tell me what would convince you that evolution exists. Actually, let's do both. How about this, since there is mathematical, scientific proof already that establishes gravity as an absolute, it would be more fair if you took time out of your day to disprove it. If I saw true indisputable evidence that we did evolve from amoebas, then I would believe it, but then the next question would come. "Where did the amoebas come from?" Then I would need conclusive proof that they came from where you said they came from. I am not here to tell you that you believe wrongly, I would like to see you accept the fact that not everyone needs to believe the same things you do. Again, and neither is gravity, so it should be taught as the theory it is. That's not the point. I believe in gravity. I am making a comparison. If you can say that the mountains of physical and logical evidence are insufficient for evolution, why can't I make the same argument for gravity, which doesn't have the benefit of physical evidence? It's not that one species just evolves into another- It changes to a degree that makes it something else over a very long period of time. How are you not getting this? Those small changes add up. You went for the definition argument and skipped the more important one. Differences that are only different by 2%. And what is the difference in the other organisms mentioned? I'd say a combination of 98% compatability AND proximal chromosomes is pretty good evidence- Especially when, according to your self, only one of those is required for some sort of biological link in microevolution. Yes, methods like carbon dating or whatever the process is called when they use the depth in which the fossil was found. And when they see that the fossil is newer than the thing is looks like it might have been an ancestor to, they will have to conclude that it likely came from them rather than the other way around. Seriously, how are you not getting this? Abiogenesis. Look it up. Frankly, I don't like the idea myself, but I feel that God is capable of doing it- After all, our bodies are just elemental and physical. And no, you can not cite personal belief. My personal belief is that... let's go with unicorns. Magic unicorns shot rainbows into the world ten million years ago and created all life on earth. You don't see their fossils because when they die, they turn into rainbow dust. My point is, we have very clear evidence that life went from bacteria to invertibrates to aquatic vertibrates to land based vertibrates to reptiles to mammals. Unless God sat there watching this for a few million years at a time before getting bored and wiping out the old species to suddenly pop new ones into existence, only to stop doing so once we came around, it's not plausible. At least, not the way you describe it. That is my proof- simple reasoning. If single celled organisms were the first around, and lifeforms change over time, we can easily conclude that these single celled organisms changed, slightly, to what we see today. Given, of course, that they didn't just turn into fish- They turned into other forms of single celled organism, and then something I would assume to be like a jelly, a colony of individual single cells, andm oving forward from there. You keep going to bacteria. The proof is in the logic. Also, the timeline that clearly shows the progression of life. Also, colonial single-celled organisms. the same was said about gravity. In fact, I'll say that again right now. That's why I want you to try and prove it. That's logically invalid- Appeal to Authority. I don't care about the numbers, they can be faked (amirite?) It establishes gravity, but it could be any other force NOT dependent on mass. If you drop a pencil it falls. Who says it's gravity doing it? If a creature mutates slightly lover long periods of time, it changes. Who says it will be evolution eventually, after millions of years of this? Again, see abiogenesis. Self replicating proteins.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 9:25 am
rmcdra Aakosir Um... That seems very hypocritical. How so? One can have either a heterosexual or homosexual attraction without acting on it right?
Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 1:01 pm
Aakosir But how is a human not going to act upon their sexual urges/desires? Unless they are a monk or nun, then I could understand, but if they are an ordianry citizen I do not understand how this will work. It seems hypocritical to me. Like "You can be gay, but you can't have gay sex" The person who said that goes home and has sex. O.o Um...?
Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Basically if you Catholic and you aren't married you aren't supposed to be having sex. If you are having trouble with preventing yourself from acting on sexual urges outside of marriage, you are supposed to be seeking guidance and support from your priests and Church. Also priests within Western Catholicism are required to be celibate so they should be able to help those outside of marriage to stay celibate. I understand why they see it as such since they believe that sex has to allow for procreation. I see what you are getting at but I don't see it has hypocritical since what they are expecting of homosexuals is no different from any person that is unmarried, a life of chasity. I'm not Catholic and probably not the best at defending this view though since I don't see homosexuality as intrinsically disordered nor can I accept it as such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 7:45 pm
@divineseraph
Yeah, I know about primordial soup, and here you go quoting theories to prove theories.
I already told you I know how evolution is theorized to work. I get it. I also see its potential flaws. Evolution is not logical to me.
I could sooner believe that everything just was and always has been, before I could believe every species in the whole wide world that is, has been, ever was, and ever will be evolved from one little bacteria. I don't think 600 billion years is long enough for another reason.
Just bite it and accept my logic differs from yours.
Gravity is proven. It is fact. It is beyond theory, and I until you can prove otherwise, your argument holds no water. Why in the hell should I even try to prove something to you when you already refuse to acknowledge the evidence that proves it as a fact and a law. You will just refuse to acknowledge the evidence as proof. The LAW of gravity is a law for a reason, it has become more than a theory.
I get what you are saying. I understand and have learned it all in school, and researched much of it myself. I am skeptical about anything I believe, and do not believe we evolved from single-celled organisms.
You do not even try to understand where I am coming from. You just use every ounce of strength to argue.
I don't cite personal belief as evidence. I do not cite personal belief to try and sway you from your own.
Mathematics is used to prove logic. Mathematics proves gravity. The numbers and formulas to calculate gravity are out there for anyone to check. Didn't you take physics in school? I had to when I went, and I learned how to work them out, I didn't fake the numbers, and I could put the figures to work. GOD! Do they teach you anything in school these days?!
If you don't care about numbers, or mathematics, or physics, or anything else that proves the Science you hold so dear, you are more fanatical than the most zealous religious nut, and it is a waste of my time to even debate with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 8:28 pm
rmcdra Aakosir But how is a human not going to act upon their sexual urges/desires? Unless they are a monk or nun, then I could understand, but if they are an ordianry citizen I do not understand how this will work. It seems hypocritical to me. Like "You can be gay, but you can't have gay sex" The person who said that goes home and has sex. O.o Um...?
Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Basically if you Catholic and you aren't married you aren't supposed to be having sex. If you are having trouble with preventing yourself from acting on sexual urges outside of marriage, you are supposed to be seeking guidance and support from your priests and Church. Also priests within Western Catholicism are required to be celibate so they should be able to help those outside of marriage to stay celibate. I understand why they see it as such since they believe that sex has to allow for procreation. I see what you are getting at but I don't see it has hypocritical since what they are expecting of homosexuals is no different from any person that is unmarried, a life of chasity. I'm not Catholic and probably not the best at defending this view though since I don't see homosexuality as intrinsically disordered nor can I accept it as such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 8:53 pm
Eltanin Sadachbia @divineseraph Yeah, I know about primordial soup, and here you go quoting theories to prove theories. I already told you I know how evolution is theorized to work. I get it. I also see its potential flaws. Evolution is not logical to me. I could sooner believe that everything just was and always has been, before I could believe every species in the whole wide world that is, has been, ever was, and ever will be evolved from one little bacteria. I don't think 600 billion years is long enough for another reason. Just bite it and accept my logic differs from yours. Gravity is proven. It is fact. It is beyond theory, and I until you can prove otherwise, your argument holds no water. Why in the hell should I even try to prove something to you when you already refuse to acknowledge the evidence that proves it as a fact and a law. You will just refuse to acknowledge the evidence as proof. The LAW of gravity is a law for a reason, it has become more than a theory. I get what you are saying. I understand and have learned it all in school, and researched much of it myself. I am skeptical about anything I believe, and do not believe we evolved from single-celled organisms. You do not even try to understand where I am coming from. You just use every ounce of strength to argue. I don't cite personal belief as evidence. I do not cite personal belief to try and sway you from your own. Mathematics is used to prove logic. Mathematics proves gravity. The numbers and formulas to calculate gravity are out there for anyone to check. Didn't you take physics in school? I had to when I went, and I learned how to work them out, I didn't fake the numbers, and I could put the figures to work. GOD! Do they teach you anything in school these days?! If you don't care about numbers, or mathematics, or physics, or anything else that proves the Science you hold so dear, you are more fanatical than the most zealous religious nut, and it is a waste of my time to even debate with you. That's how it works. Theories often support each other. Even gravity, again, is a theory based on a theory based on a theory. And this theory isn't exactly a theory on it's own, it's designed to explain how a single celled organism can be created- It's designed to explain how evolution could have started. Basically, in the gravity example, it would be like the theory of black holes, which explain oddities we see in gravitation where there is extreme, light-bending alterations in spacetime. It's a possible solution to the "how is this possible" of gravity. Abiogensis is a solution to the "how is this possible" for evolution. Why not? At what point do you get choked up? I understand that you disagree with macro evolution, but does it not seem plausible that these small changes over LONG periods of time could end up changing a creature so much that it is no longer it's ancestor? Something to consider about simpler life forms, like bacteria, is that they reproduce and die very quickly. So it would take a lot less time to see significant change in a single celled organism. That's actually why we see diseases evolving and adapting to our medicines. Meaning, the first few million years would result in massive changes, many thousands of times faster than what we see in mammals and fish and other complex creatures. Not while you're attempting to decry practical fact. The sky is blue because it is the reflection of the water. Different logic, my analysis must be valid. No, it is not. Do you know gravitational theory? again, if it's so proven, demonstrate it in a way that I can see. My pencil is not drawn into orbit around my bed- The bed has significantly more mass. Prove that mass causes gravity. A Law of physics is not a law as you know it- It's basically the same thing as a theory- It's something that we can witness over and over again. The trouble is the cause- Is it the mass? Is it the volume? The energy? Electromagnetic attraction? Rotation and centrifugal force? What I am trying to get you to do is prove that MASS is the active agent here. When you consider it this way, it is much harder to do. I want to prove the difficulty in actually pinning down a scientific theory, so that you will understand WHY evolution is valid, reasonable, and most likely true. Irrelevant. Do me some math, then. Prove to me that it is the mass of the planet. I'm not asking for a thesis, all I want is proof that MASS is the defining cause of gravitational pull. Don't give me theories- If you will not accept theories, I will not accept theories. I want concrete evidence that mass drives gravity. By the way, I would like to add that I believe in gravitational theory and really enjoy the ideas in it. I am not doing this because I truly don't believe, but to show you my perspective of the argument. I can see your frustration, and that's roughly how I feel. By asking you to prove gravity, I am essentially asking for what you are asking. I am asking for the solution to a very simple, very realistic theory, when actually getting concrete evidence is very, very difficult. In the case of evolution, we would need JUST the right fossil records- We are dealing with organisms that have been dead for millions of years. What we do have is a concrete theory based on the evidence that creatures change over time. In the case of gravity, the difficulty comes from proving that mass is the actual driving force- Because it would be very difficult to make something massive enough to attract matter away from the earth while on earth, and simply observing things drop does not necessarily prove that it is the mass of the earth the objects are attracted to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 9:11 pm
Aakosir I totally forgot about the "not having sex until you're married" bit. So yea, now it makes sense. And homosexuals are not really allowed to be married, unless they go to the few states that allow it. XD True you can get legally married but it wouldn't be recognized by a Catholic Church as being religiously married.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
