Creation over Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

Doges

Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
544
jabulani said:
Well let us try to answer this.

1. If it were merely a matter of beliefs, I would agree. Unfortunately the "believers" move from beliefs to reality and attack human scientific knowledge, alleging their beliefs to be "real" and "true", and some human science to be twaddle. This move into the realm of the physical world opens their beliefs up to attack, just as they attack scientific theory.
I did not attack human scientific knowledge (Is there any other kind of scientific kowledge?). I also think it is safe to say I know more about evolution, and the genetic mechanisms of evolution than you do. I have no problem with evolution, in fact, I have seen evolution at work while observing fungi and bacteria. Does that mean I must believe that science (Although I myself is a scientist) has all the answers? Remember, a while ago it was believed (by scientists) that the earth is flat.


jabulani said:
2. The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster is quite relevant to the debate, as has been explained in words of half-syllables for the benefit of the "believers". Ridicule, hyperbole and parody are quite valid means of expression and debate. Do you not look at the cartoons drawn by, e.g. Zapiro? Is Zapiro "childish" and does he contribute nothing to the debate? I think not.
True, and I'm sorry if I offended any Great Flying Spaghetti Monsterians out there. I love Zapiro's cartoons, but I always thought he drew caricatures of real people? O yes, and thanks for the "half-syllables" as a believer I really have problems understanding complex stuff. So please explain to me what you mean with "half-syllables", I know monosyllables like hat, sit etc as I use them quite often (Seeing that I am intelectually challenged because I am a believer). But it seems to me half-syllables will make even less sense to someone as stupid as me? :confused:

jabulani said:
3. Fundamental to this thread, on the one hand, is creationism based in religion. If you believe that there is no knowable god, and that human belief in fictitious gods is bad for the human race, you get to attack the beliefs of others. If you don't like this type of heat, stay away from this fire.
There is a difference between debating the existance, non-existance of G-d, and ridiculing someone because he believes in G-d. I know it is the newest fad to be an Atheist, and it is your choice. You choose not to believe, and I choose to believe. As to your belief that religion is bad for the human race, maybe you can start a new thread on that and we can debate the issue, rather than call each other names?

jabulani said:
4. Many of the posts here are so f**king boring that a bit of the "invention of invisible playmates" goes a long way to lighten things up! Besides, the Spaghetti Monster is quite visible. You can see His Noodliness for yourself together with His Noodly Gospel on the web right here:

http://www.venganza.org/images/bookad1.jpg
And the earth is flat, it's true. I read it on internet!


jabulani said:
5. The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. Even Google says so:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="creator+of+the+universe"&btnG=Google+Search
You are wrong, the aliens did it..... ;)
 

Doges

Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
544
icyrus said:
What would a religious person accept as proof that g-d doesn't exist? If science where to prove the TOE correct would that be enough? There will always be unanswered questions so there will always be people who choose to use religion as the answer to them.
Why do you think the TOE disprove the existance of G-d? It is possible to acknowledge the mechanisms of evolution as a way new species evolves and to believe in G-d! I have no problem with that?

icyrus said:
The whole debate as to which is more likely/correct is pointless. The only debate should be whether creationism is taught in school. My opinion is that if it is to be taught, it should be taught in a religion class along with the stories from all other religions but never in a science or biology class.
And I agree with you on this point! The Bible is not a handbook on natural history...
 

jabulani

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
1,189
Doges said:
I did not attack human scientific knowledge (Is there any other kind of scientific kowledge?). I also think it is safe to say I know more about evolution, and the genetic mechanisms of evolution than you do. I have no problem with evolution, in fact, I have seen evolution at work while observing fungi and bacteria. Does that mean I must believe that science (Although I myself is a scientist) has all the answers? Remember, a while ago it was believed (by scientists) that the earth is flat.

True, and I'm sorry if I offended any Great Flying Spaghetti Monsterians out there.
Nice ones Doges!. To be honest your posts are a breath of fresh air around this thread, and I find them interesting and well-reasoned. My points were made about some of the others posting here, and about the tripe they insist on writing. You will also note that I too have been punting the fallibility of science.

Minor points of clarification ( no offence intended ):

- "Great Flying Spaghetti Monsterians" - "Pastafarians" if you would - shorter to type you see!

- The fact that the earth is flat is in no way inconsistent with the Gospel according to His Noodliness.

So have a free fettucine on me - piece....er peace brother!
:D
 

pupa

Banned
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
3,891
jabulani said:
4. Many of the posts here are so f**king boring that a bit of the "invention of invisible playmates" goes a long way to lighten things up!
So, Amen! to you too! :D
Hi Jabu I am back! from Ngodwana! Ramen helped me save the day. Have not slept for 31 Hrs. You and your Ramen helped a lot I must say in all honesty.
I use to swear when a Zealot held up the traffic (got a few more fines to worry about I think, Mayne Ramen will help) anyway now I don't I just shout "JABU"!. Isn't it great!. the second thing was that I now understand what a Zealot means due to your antics, I never new before I thought it a swear word of a kind!. Anyway I found it is a person that is Zealous on behalf of his God, for his God! That is a great honour and made me work hard during the night to resolve the breakdown! Isn't it wonderful that in your mocking you can still help others. Must be the hand of God.
rAmen!

PS I forgot to ask! if this is so boring why answer or read them, write and essay and read it loud to yourself maybe then it would make sense to you as the childish crap you posted is only a joke to you! to spice up your dreary life.

Anyway I am off, lots of reporting to do and do not have time to read mindless C@rp!
 
Last edited:

SteveV

Active Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
95
Evolution of the eye

Doges asked for an explanation of eye evolution:

"So explain to me how a structure like an eye would evolve. You would start with say a few cells that are photo-responsive. Can sense say light and dark. How do you get from that, to a human eye? Do you think the intermediary steps will be beneficial to the organism in which a mutation to his photoreceptive cells occurred?"
Honestly, Doges, I remember reading about the explanation of how an eye could evolve years and years ago.

Here's a quick summary

Evolution of the Eye:

When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?

If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?

Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.

Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
 

jabulani

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
1,189
pupa said:
I just shout "JABU"!. Isn't it great!.
Sure is my brother! As Pastafarians we are bound to be the "Waitrons of Life", so I am glad to be of service!
:p
 

Prometheus

Banned
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
4,252
That still doesn't explain how all these mutations could occur in such a short time (evolutionary perspective) when the few mutations for single celled organisms occured over a much longer period. Suggests that things didn't always happen at the same pace, with some steps possibly being skipped altogether.
 

jabulani

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
1,189
WretchedToadlll said:
what an excellent thread but nonetheless, if it werent for Jabu an Pip and a few others i wouldve been bogged down and nodded off way back...
Keeps the smiles coming.....
Thanks for the support Mr Toad! Sometimes hard going through the flames, but the path of righteousness is not always easy.
;)
 

pupa

Banned
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
3,891
jabulani said:
Originally Posted by WretchedToadlll
what an excellent thread but nonetheless, if it werent for Jabu an Pip and a few others i wouldve been bogged down and nodded off way back...
Keeps the smiles coming.....

Thanks for the support Mr Toad! Sometimes hard going through the flames, but the path of righteousness is not always easy.
;)
:p Yeah many persons is like "keffer brakies" like to hang around only when there is a dispute, argument or fight just to pitch in and make a noise inbetween or take a bite at the same and make a run for it!
 

Prometheus

Banned
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
4,252
Revisiting global warming

Highflyer_GP said:
by the way, 1 degree celsius is the difference between 99 and 100, 1 and 0. the difference between water boiling or not, and the difference between water freezing or not. there's no way anybody can tell me that 1 degree celsius is not such a big deal
That's oversimplifying the issue. The difference between water freezing or not is actually 80 degrees. To melt one gram of ice at 0 degrees one has to add 80 calories, the same amount needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water to 80 degrees. And doesn't the ozone layer stop mainly uv-radiation, it's the ir-radiation that causes heat.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntq-tname-latent%252Dheat-fts_start-
 
Last edited:

Prometheus

Banned
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
4,252
pupa said:
:p Yeah many persons is like "keffer brakies" like to hang around only when there is a dispute, argument or fight just to pitch in and make a noise inbetween or take a bite at the same and make a run for it!
Very well put Pupa. And you know what they say: "Blaffende honde byt nie"
 

ajak

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
4,228
Prometheus said:
Very well put Pupa. And you know what they say: "Blaffende honde byt nie"
Jy sal suprise wees,hierrie hond het miskien plastiek,maar hy byt nog die k@k uit n steak uit.:D :D
 

pupa

Banned
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
3,891
jabulani said:
Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain old boy!

Methinks pip was referring to this bit ( kinda hard to deny, I am sure you will agree ):


Tell us more about these "keffers" please. Who or what may they be? God's creatures perhaps???
:p
To translate to direct English. Kef is "woof" or bark and "brakkie" is doggie

Thus if I say keffer brakkie it refers to ""woof woof doggies"" or bark bark doggy's. The rest was in english so I am sure that can be grasped. The story goes about the small noissy doggies that will join a fight with no real power or might but they bark , bite and run, even howling when they do so and just turn around and come back. That is what it is all about.

If someone tels you he got some dogs and it is small terriers or pavement pedigree of evolution origin then we would comment and say he has kefferjies referring to small noisy cowardly fighting dogs!

Goodness me what a bunch of paranoids. I removed it last night but let me rather rejuvenate my Signature!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top