Member List
Calendar
F.A.Q.
Search
Log Out
Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000  
 

Go Back   Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 » Other Boards » Discussion

Discussion This is for discussion about current events (news), issues, politics, and any other topics of serious discussion. For more casual talk, go to the Other Chat board. Proper sentences, spelling, and grammar is especially strict in this board.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #151  
Old 10-12-2008, 06:16 AM
zachattack's Avatar
zachattack Offline
Elite Trainer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: fewaf
Posts: 656
Send a message via AIM to zachattack Send a message via MSN to zachattack
Default Re: Question to christians

Quote:
Originally Posted by invalid View Post
I don't believe in evolution, so there for he is saying I'm ignorant, granted he did not say which form of evolution, but it is presumed that he is not talking about micro.

and which "fact" am I ignoring? Maybe I just miss read a post, or didn't see it. Either way please let me know.
Ever stop to think that after a long time, all those micro evolutions adds up to macroevolution?
Because it pretty much does.
__________________

==
==
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 10-12-2008, 06:29 AM
invalid's Avatar
invalid Offline
Amateur Trainer
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Kansas
Posts: 81
Send a message via Yahoo to invalid
Default Re: Question to christians

Quote:
Originally Posted by zachattack View Post
Ever stop to think that after a long time, all those micro evolutions adds up to macroevolution?
Because it pretty much does.
No, how do you see that?

Please point out one instance where a species has endured so much micro that it came out a completely different spices, because that is what macro is.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 10-12-2008, 06:34 AM
zachattack's Avatar
zachattack Offline
Elite Trainer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: fewaf
Posts: 656
Send a message via AIM to zachattack Send a message via MSN to zachattack
Default Re: Question to christians

Quote:
Originally Posted by invalid View Post
No, how do you see that?

Please point out one instance where a species has endured so much micro that it came out a completely different spices, because that is what macro is.
I thought I already posted it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUvLR2yyWuE
As you watch the video, it does not seem like major changes.
But if you look at the beginning then immediately go to the end, it's a major change.
__________________

==
==
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 10-12-2008, 09:14 AM
Stormdancer94's Avatar
Stormdancer94 Offline
Elite Trainer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: You want to know... Why?
Posts: 782
Send a message via AIM to Stormdancer94 Send a message via MSN to Stormdancer94
Default Re: Question to christians

Quote:
Originally Posted by invalid View Post
Exactly what I was referring too.

I believe time was invented by man as a means of measurement. (like the foot). In a way, you can't prove or disprove the existence of time.

hrm, yes, you're right and wrong at the same time, which is interesting and brings up another topic, what is the definition of time?

Technically, it's a measurement of... Time... But it's also a thing within itself, but we don't know if it's a physical element that we could/can tame yet.


Onto the topic;

In the Bible, if God is outside of Time and Space, yet he manages to create a realm within that atmosphere, how does he do it? Is there some kind of rational definition? Or just, He Did It.
__________________
Those who fear evil are its greatest followers.

The Brood is growing!
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 10-12-2008, 09:34 AM
zachattack's Avatar
zachattack Offline
Elite Trainer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: fewaf
Posts: 656
Send a message via AIM to zachattack Send a message via MSN to zachattack
Default Re: Question to christians

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormdancer94 View Post
hrm, yes, you're right and wrong at the same time, which is interesting and brings up another topic, what is the definition of time?

Technically, it's a measurement of... Time... But it's also a thing within itself, but we don't know if it's a physical element that we could/can tame yet.


Onto the topic;

In the Bible, if God is outside of Time and Space, yet he manages to create a realm within that atmosphere, how does he do it? Is there some kind of rational definition? Or just, He Did It.
My "He did it" or "it's better not to question things" sensor is going off.
__________________

==
==
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 10-12-2008, 01:24 PM
MaskedJackal's Avatar
MaskedJackal Offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,625
Send a message via AIM to MaskedJackal Send a message via MSN to MaskedJackal
Default Re: Question to christians

Pardon me, but I thought America was a free country, and we didn't have to believe in evolution.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 10-12-2008, 03:34 PM
Lord Celebi's Avatar
Lord Celebi Offline
Zhu-Quiao
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 13,317
Send a message via AIM to Lord Celebi Send a message via Skype™ to Lord Celebi
Default Re: Question to christians

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wunschkind View Post
Pardon me, but I thought America was a free country, and we didn't have to believe in evolution.
You don't have to believe in gravity too. ;)
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 10-12-2008, 04:11 PM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: Question to christians

Quote:
Originally Posted by invalid View Post
Sorry and my bad,

From the laws of physics one can show that the moon should be receding from the earth. From the same laws one can show that the moon would have never survived a nearness to the earth of less than 11,500 miles. That distance is known as the Roche limit. The tidal forces of the earth on a satellite of the moon's dimensions would break up the satellite into something like the rings of Saturn. Hence the receding moon was never that close to the earth.

The present speed of recession of the moon is known. If one multiplies this recession speed by the presumed evolutionary age, the moon would be much farther away from the earth than it is, even if it had started from the earth. It could not have been receding for anything like the age demanded by the doctrine of evolution. There is as yet no tenable alternative explanation that will yield an evolutionary age of 4 billion years or more for the moon. Here is as simple a proof as science can provide that the moon is not as old as claimed.

Read it for your self
I can do that too. :3
Counter argument
Counter-counter argument

Do take both with a grain of salt, though. The counter argument does speak in a dismissing tone at times, while the counter-counter argument both ignores paleontological evidence AND dismisses the counter argument (and in fact all of biology while he's at it). The problem with the counter argument is that there are no specifics that allow for a full understanding of all of the factors involved that can lead us to a conclusion of an older earth from the moon recession ideas (you'd probably be getting PhD if you do understand by now), though the paleontological evidence is strong. The counter-counter argument's problem is essentially the same as the original article, and is dismissive against all other points argued by the counter argument by attacking just 1 point in the counter argument.

I do find that in the original article, he created a linear extrapolation of the current rate of movement. That in itself is a fallacy, since extrapolations are not accurate. This is why when we do standard curves, we make sure that the we make the curve large enough to include our predicted data points, so we don't have to extrapolate. Any statistician can tell you that extrapolation is a bad idea. It needs not be a scientist. In this case, the article fails to address everything that can affect the speed of recession, such as tectonics, liquid body, how the effects of the magnetic field works, etc. Another thing is that he did not mention what the speed of recession IS. He simply states that the speed of recession is too fast with Roche's limit in mind. I can't help but be skeptical about this.

The problem here is that one of the two counter arguments has updated published material in reputable journals as reference, while the other refers to the same journal that is known to not have been peer reviewed for flaws such as linear extrapolation. You can believe either one you want, of course, but it's pretty obvious the credibility of a scientific community is much higher than the credibility of the scientific creationist community.

Even if we don't take that into account, at the current moment, it would be foolish to take either by granted, considering that both arguments are flawed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by invalid View Post
I watched video two as you requested, but I only watched it for a couple of minutes, I got the idea.

First thing, the rate of light year has to be constant for all time for those galaxies to be that far away. (assumption # 1)

Light has been slowing down. Measured speed of light with year:
In 1738: 303,320 km/second
In 1861: 300,050 km/second
In 1877: 299,921 km/second
In 2004: 299,792 km/second (accepted constant)

So that means that using light to measure distance is inaccurate.
Article
And the differences in light estimates are from the differences in technology, no? It would seem to me that the speed of light is still currently well within the error rating of the first estimate, despite what the article claims.

If the speed of light is faster in the past, then it's pretty obvious that the universe is older than our current estimates. We can all agree that the current estimate of light is the 2004 estimate. Take any object over an arbitrarily large distance. If you assume that light indeed slows down, then that means light traveled more distance in the past than now, meaning that the other object is actually further away, which of course means that the universe is therefore older than our current estimate. That in itself is counterproductive to your argument.

N.B. Yhis is just the horizon problem, which has been solved long ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by invalid View Post
You mis understood me, or I didn't word it right. Microevoluation is real, it is the minor changes in animals, such as big dogs, and little dogs. Macroevoluation is big changes, such as an entire animal spices growing a new limb (never seen before.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by invalid View Post
No, how do you see that?

Please point out one instance where a species has endured so much micro that it came out a completely different spices, because that is what macro is.
Yeah "macroevolution" has been observed when we artificially stimulated natural selection. I've addressed the observation in the past, the actual happening of speciation.

As for growing extra limbs and all that: you do know that an extra limb won't confer to a selective advantage when talking about natrual selection, right? Why the heck would there be an evolution of an extra limb in the first place? Besides that point, it is already known that mutations in developmental genes (even small mutations) can have large consequences. For example, sickle cell anemia, which is a large deformation of the red blood cell, is caused ironically by a single point mutation. That's 1 nucleotide out of our billions. It does confer to increased resistance to plasmodium, and does have its selective advantages in places like Africa. Here, it persists in the African American population because there is no selective disadvantage for carriers, so therefore the mutation persists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by invalid View Post
He said, and I quote

I don't believe in evolution, so there for he is saying I'm ignorant, granted he did not say which form of evolution, but it is presumed that he is not talking about micro.

and which "fact" am I ignoring? Maybe I just miss read a post, or didn't see it. Either way please let me know.
You only ignored the fact that speciation has been observed, that's all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wunschkind View Post
Pardon me, but I thought America was a free country, and we didn't have to believe in accept evolution.
You don't have to, but that also means that you don't believe in medicine either.

Last edited by Kenny_C.002; 10-13-2008 at 09:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 10-12-2008, 08:34 PM
Demon_Shiron's Avatar
Demon_Shiron Offline
Elite Trainer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Deadzone
Posts: 512
Send a message via AIM to Demon_Shiron
Default Re: Question to christians

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranma View Post
Some lines in the bible can be interpreted as banning homosexuals. And since its the book of god, it means that what god thinks. =/
Ok, but I thought god loved everybody? And if everything is what god made it, then why did he supposedly make homosexuals then? Why would someone make something they hate?
__________________


I Am Everything You Ever Were Afraid Of

My Friend Code: 2922-3457-5225
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 10-12-2008, 08:39 PM
zachattack's Avatar
zachattack Offline
Elite Trainer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: fewaf
Posts: 656
Send a message via AIM to zachattack Send a message via MSN to zachattack
Default Re: Question to christians

Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon_Shiron View Post
Ok, but I thought god loved everybody? And if everything is what god made it, then why did he supposedly make homosexuals then? Why would someone make something they hate?
He loves em, he just barrs them from normal society.
__________________

==
==
Reply With Quote
  #161  
Old 10-12-2008, 10:48 PM
Ranma's Avatar
Ranma Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 3,196
Send a message via AIM to Ranma Send a message via MSN to Ranma Send a message via Yahoo to Ranma
Default Re: Question to christians

Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon_Shiron View Post
Ok, but I thought god loved everybody? And if everything is what god made it, then why did he supposedly make homosexuals then? Why would someone make something they hate?
But that only applys to those who think homosexuality is genetic. And most christians believe it is a choice.

Also, hate the sin, not the sinner.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 10-12-2008, 11:34 PM
invalid's Avatar
invalid Offline
Amateur Trainer
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Kansas
Posts: 81
Send a message via Yahoo to invalid
Default Re: Question to christians

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
And the differences in light estimates are from the differences in technology, no? It would seem to me that the speed of light is still currently well within the error rating of the first estimate, despite what the article claims.

If the speed of light is faster in the past, then it's pretty obvious that the universe is older than our current estimates. We can all agree that the current estimate of light is the 2004 estimate. Take any object over an arbitrarily large distance. If you assume that light indeed slows down, then that means light traveled more distance in the past than now, meaning that the other object is actually further away, which of course means that the universe is therefore older than our current estimate. That in itself is counterproductive to your argument.

N.B. Yhis is just the horizon problem, which has been solved long ago.
Yes, if light traveled faster in the past that means that it covered more distance, meaning that the solar system is younger than expected.

Example say you travel 60 miles @ 60mph, it would take you one hour.

Now let's say that you travel at 120mph for 15 minutes and then slowed down to 60, it would 45 minutes to travel the 60 miles. (during the first 15 min, you would have travel 30 miles, leaving 30 miles to be traveled at normal speed. when you travel at 60mph, it is estimated that one miles goes by every 60 seconds. )


Quote:

Yeah "macroevolution" has been observed when we artificially stimulated natural selection. I've addressed the observation in the past, the actual happening of speciation.
A dog can not produce a non dog, and the same with a cat. Never in the history of man has someone seen a dog produce a cat. Animals only have babies if they mate with their own kind.

Quote:
As for growing extra limbs and all that: you do know that an extra limb won't confer to a selective advantage when talking about natrual selection, right? Why the heck would there be an evolution of an extra limb in the first place? Besides that point, it is already known that mutations in developmental genes (even small mutations) can have large consequences.
Usually death, right?



Quote:

You only ignored the fact that speciation has been observed, that's all.
What do you mean specitation?

Quote:

You don't have to, but that also means that you don't believe in medicine either.
How?

Do you mean the medicine that have more side effects than benefits?

----------

Why don't we agree to disagree? I don't fell like getting in another debate, and this thread is not about evolution, or the age of the earth. It is about whether god existed, and I believe that a decent answer can be found on page 2.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 10-12-2008, 11:43 PM
Dr Robotnik's Avatar
Dr Robotnik Offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: A boot
Posts: 9,070
Default Re: Question to christians

My friend, your question brings one thought into my mind.

PARADOX PARADOX PARADOX PARADOX PARADOX
__________________
<Image made by Neo>
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 10-13-2008, 02:37 AM
MaskedJackal's Avatar
MaskedJackal Offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,625
Send a message via AIM to MaskedJackal Send a message via MSN to MaskedJackal
Default Re: Question to christians

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Celebi View Post
You don't have to believe in gravity too. ;)
You're right. I don't have to (I do though, don't worry).

So Kenny, what you're saying is that since I don't believe in evolution, I don't believe in medicine either, amirite? Makes absolutely no sense to me, but that's how it is with most things liberals say. ;)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 10-13-2008, 02:47 AM
Lord Celebi's Avatar
Lord Celebi Offline
Zhu-Quiao
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 13,317
Send a message via AIM to Lord Celebi Send a message via Skype™ to Lord Celebi
Default Re: Question to christians

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranma View Post
But that only applys to those who think homosexuality is genetic. And most christians believe it is a choice.

Also, hate the sin, not the sinner.
Evidence points to homosexuality being genetic. You really think people wake up one morning and say "I think I'll be gay today?" Why would people choose to be hated, like the homosexuals are? Its genetic, or at least, so psychological that it can not be changed.

If someone is gay, its because they were born that way. Now, why would god create gay people if he didn't like them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by invalid View Post
Why don't we agree to disagree? I don't fell like getting in another debate, and this thread is not about evolution, or the age of the earth. It is about whether god existed, and I believe that a decent answer can be found on page 2.
This is essentially how these religious debates work. You start with one vaguely religious question, and then you're off debating five different hot button issues at once.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wunschkind View Post
You're right. I don't have to (I do though, don't worry).
But if you don't, you're thought of as crazy. That's pretty much the same with evolution. However, I don't necessarily believe in evolution, so don't take it as I'm saying I am, I just think its the best explanation for how we got here.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Design: AlienSector.com